Reinforce Conceal - I'm a

Reinforce Conceal - I'm a former McGovern liberal. I used to favor (pro forma) a sweeping civilian gun ban. That was, obviously, a long time ago. But I can sympathize with some of the concerns of some of those who are active against the Minnesota Personal Protection Act.

To a point.

Repeal Conceal is the site that's distributing the "Repeal Conceal Carry" bumper stickers that are popping up on Volvos all over Mac-Groveland and Highland Park. The site is run by Christopher Farley (although WHOIS isn't officially listing the site's owners or anything beyond the fact that local provider Visi.com hosts it), a Grand Avenue businessman whose store I've patronized before, and most likely will again.

The site reads like this:

Almost immediately after its passage in the Minnesota Senate, Governor Tim Pawlenty inked his name on the Concealed Carry bill.

This law permits almost anyone, including non-Minnesotans, to carry a concealed loaded handgun almost anywhere in the state.

That's always the scare line that opponents start with; "Anyone". They never add the part about "...who passes a background check, has no criminal record, and has passed a training course". It's a crucial omission - which is why it's so consistently omitted!

Concealed-carry laws have been passed in 34 other states, but Minnesota's flavor of concealed-carry is particularly extreme. Here are some provisions:

"Not so", I told Farley. "We're about in the middle of the pack, actually". He raised an interesting point in response.

We've all heard the objections on the part of some business owners and churches to the signs that must be posted to warn gun owners that the premises are off-limits. Farley notes that in many other "shall-issue" states, the signage requirements are a lot less onerous; Farley noted Minnesota's font, size and wording requirements, as well as the requirement that each sign include the business name, calling it an imposition on property rights.

And he probably has a point. Now comes the chicken-vs.-egg question: had the Metro DFLers that opposed the bill (in minority for the last three sessions) done the honest thing, and admitted the votes were there to pass the bill into law absent their backroom machinations, and had they worked to bring their constituents concerns to the process rather than scaremongering and trying to terrorize the state into opposing the bill (with a notable lack of success, as it turns out), would things have turned out different? Remember - one of the biggest impetuses to passing the bill, immediately and as it was at the end of April, was the sure knowledge that had the Metro DFLers in the Senate managed to get the bill into conference committee one more time, it would have killed the bill for the whole session, even though the votes were there to pass the MPPA on a floor vote from day one!. By choosing the "Death or Glory" approach, the Metro DFL got "death" (by their alarmist standards, anyway), and we got a law that, strong as it is, could have been better.

So - are the signage restrictions onerous? Perhaps, albeit less so than many other burdens businesses are required to carry (ADA jumps to mind). The metro opposition has itself partially to blame for this.

Although it's good to see the Metro DFL finally developing an interest in property rights!

Onward through the website:

* Guns are allowed in parks.
* Guns are allowed in city hall meetings.
* Non residents can carry concealed guns.

Again, after they pass exactly the same criteria that Minnesotans pass (or if they have a permit from a state whose law is similar to ours).

* Sheriffs may not deny an permit to somebody who has been acquitted of a crime. (This and the above provision mean that someone like O.J. Simpson could come to Minnesota and carry a concealed gun.)

This part troubles me. First, it's untrue: if OJ came to Minnesota and applied for a permit, a call back to the LA County Sheriff would note (for those who've been under a rock) that he'd lost a wrongful death suit, and that he's got a record of erratic behavior. He'd probably get denied, for cause.

Second: It's irrelevant in the real world; anyone, convicted of a crime or not, who is likely to be a problem in the first place is probably carrying a gun anyway, without the nicety of a permit.

* Guns are allowed at the State Fairgrounds.

In discussing this with Mr. Farley, I found myself in one of those situations where you just realize you're approaching an issue from two very, very different sides.

Farley makes a point I've heard many, many others make; that he can't imagine why a responsible gun owner would carry at the fairgrounds. He has a point; shooting in self-defense at a crowded place like the Fair would be a very dicey proposition, legally and technically. And it makes perfect sense...

...if you assume the goal of the MPPA is to kill criminals. But it's not. It's to deter crime. So while I doubt that I'd even carry a pistol at the fairgrounds or in any other large crowd (I doubt I'd be able to use it effectively and safely), I don't necessarily want our city's gang-bangers and thugs to know that I can't. You know the ones that I'm talking about - the ones that have been shooting each other at the Mall of America, despite the fact that the Mall has forbade guns on premises since the day its doors opened.

I'd like to give them the burden of the uncertainty, even if I'm nowhere near my pistol.

* Businesses can not prohibit guns on their private property unless they post signs at each entranceway and verbally notify each customer.

And if Wes Skoglund and Ellen Anderson were less concerned with fearmongering alarmism, this could have been easily fixed. As, no doubt, it eventually will be.

Don't get me wrong - I was into property rights before it was all the rage (just like I was a libertarian before John Ashcroft); if someone can suggest a way to protect property rights that doesn't make permit-holders into unwitting criminals, I'm all for it.

Suggestions, please!

An official legislative estimate states that this law will increase the number of people licensed to pack heat on Minnesota streets by 750%, from 12,000 now to 90,000. Needless to say, gun sales are going to go through the roof. Some portion of those guns will be stolen, and get into the hands of criminals.

In most shall-issue states, only about 1% of those elegible generally apply for permits.

Which dodges the point; if you gave EVERY Minnesotan with a clean criminal record and no chemical or psychological impairment a permit to carry, crime would at worst stay the same. That's not hyperbolic; that's the system they have in Vermont, and which Minnesota had until 1974.

Here's the most important part of this equation: Most Minnesotans feel that this law will make Minnesota a more dangerous place!

And if the Star Tribune, WCCO, MPR and Wes Skoglund were telling them every session that the world was flat, they'd probably say that, too. Facts bear out neither hypothesis...

This law needs to be repealed, and it can be repealed!

But I doubt that it will be - opposition to the law is pretty much a metro thing. And as we've noted in this space before, that ain't what it used to be.

This law circumvented most normal procedures in the legislature. It was tacked on to an unrelated bill. It didn't go through the normal committee process.

It went through committees exhaustively and repeatedly over the course of seven years.

It didn't have very much public debate.

The history of the MPPA is currently in the works. We'll be linking to it when it's written. I contributed a bit to it, and reading the outline, it's amazing just how much debate has gone into this law in the past seven years.

And if you read the story, you see compromise. Lots of compromises, from the beginning of the process up to nearly the day the law was passed. Compromise, that is, on the side of the bill's proponents. The opponents - Wes Skoglund, Matt Entenza, Ellen Anderson, the Strib Editorial Board - bent not a whit, keeping up their campaign of slander and vituperation even past the bitter end.

And the kicker is, I don't honestly think that the majority of Minnesotans, even opponents (for whatever reason) of the MPPA either buy into the infantile scare-mongering or the lying and exaggeration that's passing for so much of the discourse from the left on this issue. As I see it, the bulk of it comes down to a couple of simple issues (the signs being a big one) and a little bit of time for most Minnesotans to see that their law-abiding neighbors aren't the boogiemen that Ellen Anderson seems to think they are.

There are an awful lot of facts to digest when it comes to this issue. Unfortunately, if your sources are the Violence Policy Center, the Brady Campaign or Citizens for a Safer Minnesota, you won't be getting many of them.

Posted by Mitch at June 18, 2003 08:03 AM