Drizzt
Member
Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
February 15, 2003, Saturday, Metro Edition
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 22A
LENGTH: 549 words
HEADLINE: Hidden guns;
The status quo is best policy
BODY:
It is called the Minnesota Personal Protection Act, but there are serious questions about whether it's appropriately named. Once again state lawmakers are taking up the annual, divisive debate over procedures for allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns.
This time the pro-gun lobby may have the votes to pass more relaxed rules; still, Minnesota's status quo is the superior policy. Packing a pistol at the store or in the car is a serious matter _ one that demands more, not less, scrutiny of permit applicants. That is one of many reasons the bill introduced this week should not pass. Current law requires citizens to apply to their local police agency for a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Applicants must prove they need a weapon because a job or personal situation puts them in peril. The proposed House bill, and a similar one in the Senate, would remove local law enforcement discretion and presume that applicants who meet the bill's requirements must receive a permit. The measure also calls for a background check, firearms training for applicants and a $40 fee to cover costs. Illegal immigrants and people with histories of mental illness or violent crime would not be granted permits.
As lawmakers consider the bill, they should remember a University of Minnesota poll that found a majority of Minnesotans (65 percent overall, and 68 percent outstate) believe that a person should demonstrate a special need to carry a firearm.
Legislators should also heed the opinions of state law enforcement associations that overwhelming oppose putting more weapons into breast pockets and purses. They know that more out-of-sight guns will make their jobs more difficult and dangerous. And they fear that the proposal would make Minnesota one of the most lenient handgun states in the nation.
During this round of debate legislators will no doubt be showered with studies that claim more guns equal more safety. They'll hear about counties where crime dropped dramatically after passage of concealed carry laws. Yet often the cited areas are rural and relatively isolated from urban crime. If anything, that makes the case for regional differences in gun regulations, not a blanket, statewide change in current law.
For every piece of pro-gun research there is convincing data on the other side. A recent Brookings Institution study, for example, found that concealed carry laws do not reduce crime and may even increase it. And when average citizens regularly have guns in pockets or purses, the weapons are much more likely to be used against their owners than to defend them. Another danger: Otherwise law-abiding people may become "emboldened to do bad things, some of them violent" in the heat of the moment, according the Brookings study.
In Minnesota in 2001, just over 11,000 gun permits were issued and 827 were denied (mostly in the metro area), according to the Department of Safety. That number of pistol packers could skyrocket if the proposed legislation passes. Is that truly what people want and need in this state to feel safe?
Along with the majority of Minnesotans, we think not. That's why citizens should call their legislators and encourage them to defeat this so-called "protection" act.
February 15, 2003, Saturday, Metro Edition
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 22A
LENGTH: 549 words
HEADLINE: Hidden guns;
The status quo is best policy
BODY:
It is called the Minnesota Personal Protection Act, but there are serious questions about whether it's appropriately named. Once again state lawmakers are taking up the annual, divisive debate over procedures for allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns.
This time the pro-gun lobby may have the votes to pass more relaxed rules; still, Minnesota's status quo is the superior policy. Packing a pistol at the store or in the car is a serious matter _ one that demands more, not less, scrutiny of permit applicants. That is one of many reasons the bill introduced this week should not pass. Current law requires citizens to apply to their local police agency for a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Applicants must prove they need a weapon because a job or personal situation puts them in peril. The proposed House bill, and a similar one in the Senate, would remove local law enforcement discretion and presume that applicants who meet the bill's requirements must receive a permit. The measure also calls for a background check, firearms training for applicants and a $40 fee to cover costs. Illegal immigrants and people with histories of mental illness or violent crime would not be granted permits.
As lawmakers consider the bill, they should remember a University of Minnesota poll that found a majority of Minnesotans (65 percent overall, and 68 percent outstate) believe that a person should demonstrate a special need to carry a firearm.
Legislators should also heed the opinions of state law enforcement associations that overwhelming oppose putting more weapons into breast pockets and purses. They know that more out-of-sight guns will make their jobs more difficult and dangerous. And they fear that the proposal would make Minnesota one of the most lenient handgun states in the nation.
During this round of debate legislators will no doubt be showered with studies that claim more guns equal more safety. They'll hear about counties where crime dropped dramatically after passage of concealed carry laws. Yet often the cited areas are rural and relatively isolated from urban crime. If anything, that makes the case for regional differences in gun regulations, not a blanket, statewide change in current law.
For every piece of pro-gun research there is convincing data on the other side. A recent Brookings Institution study, for example, found that concealed carry laws do not reduce crime and may even increase it. And when average citizens regularly have guns in pockets or purses, the weapons are much more likely to be used against their owners than to defend them. Another danger: Otherwise law-abiding people may become "emboldened to do bad things, some of them violent" in the heat of the moment, according the Brookings study.
In Minnesota in 2001, just over 11,000 gun permits were issued and 827 were denied (mostly in the metro area), according to the Department of Safety. That number of pistol packers could skyrocket if the proposed legislation passes. Is that truly what people want and need in this state to feel safe?
Along with the majority of Minnesotans, we think not. That's why citizens should call their legislators and encourage them to defeat this so-called "protection" act.
