Concealed Logic, Part XXV -

Concealed Logic, Part XXV - I don't, as a rule, turn to Laura Billings for reasoned, rational commentary on the issues.

Her Thursday column in the Pioneer Press, on last week's passage of the Minnesota Personal Protection Act, did nothing to change that.

It seems fitting that today's National Day of Prayer comes just as Minnesotans must cope with the newly passed concealed carry handgun law.

Lord, protect us from half-cocked legislation like this.

Unmentioned: that 34 other states are "coping" just fine.

After all, say supporters, this law is not about putting an estimated 70,000 more handguns on the streets of Minnesota, and shoring up a declining market for handguns.

Handgun sales have been booming since 9/11.

It's not about repaying the National Rifle Association, which has been awfully generous to so many of our elected officials.

The National Rifle Association was on the sidelines on the concealed carry issue.

It's not even about pandering to those Second Amendment ideologues who think the Constitution guarantees them the right to pack heat at Gopher games and city council meetings.

So unlike those "First Amendment Ideologues" who think that "free speech" is about being able to speak freely.

Up to this point in the editorial, Billings was trumpeting her ignorance. Here, she turns into Miles Davis:

No, no, our new concealed carry law is all about being "consistent" with the way gun permits are issued in Minnesota. It's about creating a "uniform policy," in the words of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who complained on his radio show recently that the old law was "highly subjective,'' forcing many decent citizens to leave their sheriff's office with an empty holster.

This, despite the fact that a Bureau of Criminal Apprehension survey found that 93 percent of permit applicants got one in 2002.

Ms. Billings, please picture this scenario.

Say that in Minneapolis, hypothetically, a rape victim receives instant care; is referred immediately and without fuss to a crisis counselor who works with police to gather the evidence in a sensitive yet efficient manner, to ensure the victim's dignity and catch the perp. In the meantime, in Winona, let's say hypothetically a rape victim is forced to wait in a holding cell, while allegations that she was wearing a miniskirt are sorted out.

Or how about this: In Bemidji, domestic abuse victims' complaints are dealt with immediately and fairly, while in Farmington, only victims who are friends with the DA can expect their complaints to be addressed.

Would Laura Billings tolerate either of these situations?

Yet a rape or domestic violence victim who decides she wants to carry a handgun to protect herself (or himself) and the family is routinely rejected in the Metro area (unless she's a crony of the police chief), while outstate the permits are fairly uniformly granted.

See the inconsistency?

Given our leaders' new obsession with uniformity and consistency, one can't help wondering why they're not equally interested in making sure that Minnesotans also pay a uniform and consistent percentage of their income in state and local taxes.

Because paying taxes and defending ones' life are vastly different things?

But what is it they say about consistency? It's the hobgoblin of small-caliber minds?

Well, now that we've joined the 34 other states that have had this sort of legislation ramrodded through their legislatures by NRA lobbyists, the organizations and officials forced to deal with the law's implications can't help noticing it has some rather unnerving holes in it.

We'll take a journey through the peculiar hole in reality that Ms. Billings is describing.

But first - "Ramrodded through legislatures?" As if the 35 legislatures that have adopted these laws don't have any minds of their own?

Is that Ms. Billings' position? If they're that stupid, why are they voting on taxes, either?

For instance, the law has no requirement for state residency, meaning we are now poised to become the drive-through gun retailer to the upper Midwest, since neighboring states Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa have much more sensible laws. Is this really the way we want to shore up our economy?

It's about here that you realize that it's not a fair argument.

Leave aside that any out-of-state applicants would have to meet exactly the same criteria as Minnesota residents. Once they've done that, they go back to Illinois or Wisconsin or Iowa...

...and the permit is no good! That's right, they could drive to Minnesota, spend $100 on the application and more than that on training, and get their permit, and then drive home to a state that doesn't recognize the permit at all, and where using it would be illegal!

Ms. Billings; I realize that you have to fill a certain number of column inches per month. But do try to think about these things before writing, OK?

Mental health "issues" could disqualify an applicant from receiving a concealed carry permit, but after the implementation of much stricter medical privacy rules last month, will sheriffs really have all the information they need to assess which applicants can be a risk to themselves or others?

Er...yes?

Guns won't be allowed at the state Capitol, thus providing some protection to the legislators who passed the law. But guns can't be barred from city halls, the State Fairgrounds, or convention centers.

And thanks to the new law, the University of Minnesota Gophers sports teams could be under fire in whole new ways. Unlike private pro teams that can bar gun holders at the door, or high schools that can ban guns from prep sports events, it seems the university can only prohibit students and staff from carrying guns on its property. It would have no authority over spectators, or even fans from rival schools. Imagine how much fun next year's Frozen Four riot could be.

Here's a question I ask all concealed carry opponents:

Sure, shootings happen at city halls and at arenas and at state fairs around the country. But legal permit-holders carry out almost none of them.

Unlike Ms. Billings' paranoid fantasies, that is in fact reality in all 34 "shall issue" states.

It seems odd that legislators so concerned with "uniform policy" didn't offer the Senate the chance to amend some of these inconsistencies.

That's because those behind the bill knew that, in a Metrocrat-controlled Senate, "conference committee" is the same as "death" for any conservative bill. When you have the votes, there is no reason to play the game by the opposition's rules.

Unfortunately, this sort of ideologically driven legislation is entirely consistent with the new sheriffs at the Capitol, who are determined to shoot holes through the sensible policies that once made our little home on the prairie an oasis of safety and sanity.

Ms. Billings: I once taught a rape victim how to shoot (my main lesson - get a real teacher). She could not get a carry permit, even though her attacker was never caught.

Tell her how "safe" and "sane" our policy is.

Er...was.

Lord, have mercy...

...on Ms. Billings' editor.

Again, I know that I have readers in the Pioneer Press building - I see the entries on my hit logs. Please pass the word to Ms. Billings - I reiterate my challenge to debate the actual issue with her, in any forum of her choosing.

Posted by Mitch at May 5, 2003 10:17 AM