Minnesota

Do Minnesotans really want more pistols in purses, firearms in front pockets? Do thousands more guns on the streets and in glove compartments truly make us feel safer? As local surveys confirm, we think not. And though a law to loosen handgun permit rules appears headed for passage on Monday, one outside opportunity remains to stop or amend it.

The last thing in the world I want to do is shoot somebody. The consequences would be terrible. Not the consequences to the one who's been shot, the consequences to me. I speak as a graduate of a concealed-carry certification course, one of the hoops through which I must jump to get a permit to carry a gun in Minnesota. (If I jump through a few more, I might get my permit in late July or early August. So much for the notion that Minnesota sheriff's departments will be tossing fistfuls of permits at applicants like tickertape in a New York City parade.)

People licensed to carry handguns in Michigan, Louisiana and Wyoming can carry their weapons in Minnesota, but other states' permits won't be honored, Public Safety Commissioner Rich Stanek has ruled. The ruling is part of the implementation of Minnesota's new handgun law, which makes it easier for Minnesotans to get permits to carry handguns in public.

"There haven?t been a lot of firearms here in the past," she said, "and I?m not worried that this law has brought any more to campus. The signs are to make sure we?re in compliance."

Dean of Students Greg Kneser is not worried about an increase in guns on campus either.

"I don?t anticipate problems," he said. "There wasn?t a great problem before. I?m more concerned with the perception people have about what St. Olaf is doing about this."

This is a perfect demonstration of the idiocy involved in the debate on concealed-carry from those not directly involved. There hasn't been a firearm problem at this college in the past, they aren't worried about an increase... so why ban concealed-carry? For a public relations stunt, of course.

I wonder how their public relations stunt will hold up if someone is raped or killed on campus because they could not carry a defensive firearm?

During the last legislative session, before Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed the gun bill into law, the debate had advocates like John Caile predicting the community would be safer with more law-abiding citizens carrying guns. Certainly, he said, the notion of an armed public would scare off the bad guys. Opponents feared more gun violence. Public safety officials say there's no evidence to support either side.

"It's way too early to tell that. And there's no empirical evidence to indicate either way," said Kevin Smith, spokesman for the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.

Nevertheless, several lawmakers are introducing legislation to reverse the law, and activists like Kate Havelin, with the Twin Cities Million Mom March, hopes that her message now will echo into the future.

"We think that having more guns on our streets, at our places of worship, at the mall, will not be made safer with people with handguns. It's a way to put all of us at greater risk," Havelin said.

9 months after the law, with no measurable effect on safety, and the anti-gun lobbists are still trying to claim "greater risk".

Civil rights supporters will rally on the steps of the Minnesota State Capitol on April 28 at noon to celebrate the one-year anniversary of the Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act, better known as the "MCPPA."

The rally, sponsored by Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA) and its Concealed Carry Reform Now (CCRN) division, will feature speeches from Rep. Lynda Boudreau (R-Faribault) and Sen. Pat Pariseau (R-Farmington), authors of the House and Senate versions of the bill that became law one year ago.

The law, which Governor Tim Pawlenty signed on April 28, 2003, removed arbitrary approval or denial of pistol carry permits by law enforcement officials, instead requiring Minnesota county sheriffs to issue permits to competent, law-abiding adults upon successful completion of a training course and background check.

Although opponents predicted that passage would lead to widespread violence and bloodshed, there hasn't been a single case reported of a permit holder misusing a gun in public.

This strikes me as a really, really good idea. One of the image problems that gun owners have, especially when defending their rights for concealed carry and similar issues, is low public visibility of "good" gun owners. Crimes with guns get on the news all the time; law-abiding gun owners just don't get noticed, except sometimes as hunters, or when the news media finds the least-educated and least-articulate gun owner they can to put on the news as an "alternative viewpoint".

Just getting out in a group and saying, in effect, "We are gun owners. We're here, and we're not causing any problems. Sometimes we're even carrying concealed in public, and we're not causing any problems then either." It doesn't seem like much, but it can be a potent reminder.

The religous institutions? motion for summary judgment asserts that the Conceal & Carry Law was passed as part of a bill that includes more than one subject, in violation of the Minnesota Constitution. The Minnesota House of Representatives improperly attached the Conceal & Carry Law to a Department of Natural Resources bill already passed unanimously by the Minnesota Senate, says the motion.

?Our motion papers contend that the Minnesota House hijacked a non-controversial bill and used it as an unlawful vehicle for conceal-and-carry,? said David Lillehaug, one of the attorneys for the religious institutions. ?If the motion is granted, the Conceal & Carry Law will be null and void.?

The motion also alleges that the Conceal & Carry Law?s provisions regarding parking areas and tenant spaces are unconstitutional. The Law prevents owners of parking areas and tenant spaces from banning gun-carriers. The motion contends that this violates the rights of private property owners under both the Minnesota and the United States Constitutions.

I think this can be best classed as a technicality, and even if the suit succeeds, the legislature will likely return to the issue in short order to correct the problem. However, anyone living in Minnesota should be paying attention for opportunities to speak out on this issue; the fight isn't over yet.

A Ramsey County District judge shot down Minnesota's permit-to-carry gun law Tuesday, saying that the way it was enacted in 2003 violated the state Constitution and the state's tradition of clean government.

Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch said that the ruling by Judge John Finley nullifies the law that made it easier for citizens to pack heat.

But he said it doesn't invalidate the more than 25,000 permits issued since the process became less discretionary.

Hatch said he will immediately appeal Finley's decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court. For now, Hatch said, the state reverts to the old system where local sheriffs have discretion to issue permits to carry firearms. While it is commonly referred to as a conceal-and-carry law, the statute does not require the permit holder to conceal his or her weapon.

Let's not get excited, folks. This is a technicality. It'll get reversed in higher courts or the legislature will re-pass the law without any other attachments. The decision is available, if you are interested.

Powerline has a warning about vote fraud in Minnesota.

Normally, I try to focus my activism opportunities on fundamental rights issues or legislation: the right to free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. But I'm making an exception for this case. Captain's Quarters is making the case for impeaching a judge who awarded custody of a 9-year-old girl to a convicted child rapist who was not related to him, along with the man's two daughters.

See the extended entry for the suggested letter and email addresses, or just read the whole thing.

To the honorable Senator Mike McGinn and Representative Tim Wilkin,

As one of your constituents, I must express to you my profound disappointment and dismay with the performance of Judge Joseph T. Carter in Dakota County. In a decision earlier this year, Judge Carter granted custody of three little girls to Justin Paul Farnsworth, who lived with the girls' mother. At the time, both Judge Carter and the court-appointed investigator, David Jaehne, knew that Farnsworth was a registered sex offender who had raped a 13-year-old girl ten years earlier. Despite this information, Judge Carter granted custody to Farnsworth of not only the youngest two, who are his daughters, but also the oldest, a 9-year-old unrelated to Farnworth at all.

As almost anyone but a family court judge could have guessed, Farnsworth repeatedly raped and abused the 9-year-old for months until she was rescued by a neighbor.

Judge Carter failed to follow Minnesota state law requiring judges to appoint a guardian ad litem for the children during the custody process. The abandonment of the children by the mother and the sex-offender status of the petitioner should have demonstrated an obvious need for an advocate to speak on behalf of the three girls. His failure to follow the law as well as to apply any standard of common sense disqualifies him for the bench, in my view, if not from the Bar altogether.

Any man with a shred of honor would resign his post under these circumstances. If Judge Carter does not act with honor, I urge you to initiate impeachment proceedings against Judge Joseph T. Carter. We must not wait until he allows more children to be raped and abused before removing him from his office.

Thank you for your attention to this serious matter.

This letter should be sent to rep.tim.wilkin@house.mn and sen.mike.mcginn@senate.mn.

... but it has some onerous compromises:

But backers say the law actually makes the state a safer place by raising the minimum age of gun owners from 18 to 21, and by making all applicants go through the safety training.

Of course, even those compromises to appease anti-gun forces aren't enough; they intend to fight this bill in court.  They succeeded in getting the first version struck down due to a ban on multiple-subject legislation in the state constitution (eg, a technicality); this time they plan to use religion as a front:

Groups that fought the law in 2003 and filed the lawsuit that brought it down have promised to keep fighting in court. They say the bill still contains a number of provisions that are vulnerable to legal challenge, including not doing enough to ensure rights for churches that want to bar guns from their property.

Amazing, isn't it, how eager Democrats can be to defend religions as soon as doing so falls in line with one of their pet tyrranies?  The fact is, the forces of gun control are incapable of dealing in good faith.  They will push as hard as they can to get as many negative provisions into a good carry law as they can, and then they will fight to strike it down in court regardless.  There are many issues on which reasonable men may differ, yet find sufficient common ground in good faith to live with one another.  The gun bigots are no longer reasonable men.

To understand just how unreasonable, I did a little looking around.  If you want to find out what the law really says in Minnesota on concealed-carry, there's an official resource on the issue.  It links to a page with the state forms for concealed carry applications (presently down to modify the forms), and that page has a report on the 2003 law for the period it was in effect.  That report has a table compiled from reports by the 87 county sheriffs, describing the actions taken regarding concealed-carry permits.

Issued	15,677
Denied	139
Suspended	2
Revoked	8
Cancelled	10
Emergency/Expired	31
On-Hold	6

Get that?  Out of almost 16,000 permits issued, 10 were suspended or revoked.  In those 10 revocations, there were no actual violent crimes -- the revocations were for actions that are legitimate warnings signs of potential violence, but there's no indication here that actual violence was committed.  It's probably possible to quibble over details on that, of course, but the fact is, Minnesota did not see a wave of violence as a result of this law.. and the law has extensive compromises to appease the anti-gun forces... and the gun bigots still want it struck down. 

Oh, and the church provisions?  Churches are no different than any other private building; they must either post a sign or personally inform visitors that firearms are prohibited on the premises.  That doesn't seem so onerous to me.  Why single them out?  Simple: to make a political point. 

Minnesota counties and businesses are scrambling to learn their rights and modify policies following the enactment last week of the law that lets most residents get permits to carry concealed handguns. Ramsey County is one of several planning to ban guns on its property. County Board Chair Jim McDonough said the ordinance would make it a misdemeanor to carry a gun into county buildings, parks, beaches, ice arenas and libraries. McDonough said the county must protect the safety of its employees.

Now, how exactly would a legally-carried concealed firearm in any way threaten the safety of the employees? Certainly, a criminal with a firearm could be a threat -- but criminals can't get concealed-carry licenses and certainly aren't going to be deterred by adding a misdemeanor crime on top of the multiple felonies they would charged with for actually shooting someone.

Gun rights advocates today told Ramsey County commissioners to expect a legal challenge to their proposal banning guns from county parks, offices and other facilities. "This body has no legal authority to enact the proposed ordinance," St. Paul attorney David Feinwauks told the commissioners "It's doomed to lose, and as a taxpayer, I object to this political stunt."

The hullabaloo that the new Minnesota Personal Protection Act has caused is just the beginning. The law is riddled with contradictions and infringements on rights that may take years to sort out. Indeed, wags have begun to call the law the "Full Employment for Lawyers Act of 2003."

There's some shocking misinformation in here. I'm not surprised that this paper is nicknamed the "Star and Sickle" by local residents.

The law declares that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers the right of individuals to bear arms -- something to which the U.S. Supreme Court has never agreed. And, curiously, in pursuit of a radical assertion of that "right," the folks behind this new Minnesota law trample on other rights.

Perhaps the editorial board failed to read Us v Miller, which stated just that -- an individual right.

Take private property rights, for example. That's something most supporters of gun rights typically feel passionate about. But this gun law prohibits the owners of a rental property, for example, from denying tenants and guests the right to carry pistols. The tenant's statutory gun right trumps the owner's constitutional property rights.

Believe it or not, this is perfectly proper. A tenant receives many legal protections against abuse by his landlord, and even if that were not the case, the tenant's right to his own private property and his Constitutional right to keep and bear arms both weight against the landlord's limited property rights.

Then there are churches, which have a passel of problems with this new law. Churches are sanctuaries, places of worship, employers and, often, landlords. Many church leaders and members believe as a matter of faith that guns have no place in a church, and they also don't want signs plastered on their doors banning guns. As Bishop James Jelinek of the Episcopal Church observed, "The front door of an Episcopal Church has special meaning. Many front doors are painted red, a color which invokes the blood of Christ and signals a 'sanctuary.'

It's simple. If you want to prohibit guns on your property, you must inform people that guns are prohibited on your property. You can do that individually, on a case-by-case basis, or just post a sign. In order to reduce misunderstandings, the sign requires certain wording and so forth. It's not that great a burden. If you don't want to post the sign, then don't -- I predict you won't have problems with permit holders either way.

It took the longest debate in memory on the floor of the Minnesota Senate, but a bill to make permits to carry handguns in public available to more people gained final legislative approval Monday and was signed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty. It is to go into effect in 30 days. Eventually, according to an official legislative estimate, it could increase the number of people licensed to tote guns on Minnesota streets from fewer than 12,000 now to about 90,000.

So, Karin Winegar is baffled about concealed carry (Commentary, April 18). She can't see how anyone in Minnesota "can show a well-substantiated need to carry a gun."

With the passage of the Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act (MPPA) of 2003, and its signature into law by Gov. Tim Pawlenty, there are going to be some changes in Minnesota. But relax: The sky isn't falling. It isn't going to fall. You won't even see the changes.

The buzz at the grocery store, the health club and the restaurants in my suburban area is how in less than one month it will be much easier for thousands of Minnesotans to carry a concealed handgun. Parents, business owners, city and county elected officials and neighbors have asked me time and time again over the past few weeks why do we need a law to have more guns in Minnesota? My answer is that we don't need this law, and that's why I have authored a bill to repeal it.

The buzz at the grocery store, the health club and the restaurants in my suburban area is how in less than one month it will be much easier for thousands of Minnesotans to carry a concealed handgun. Parents, business owners, city and county elected officials and neighbors have asked me time and time again over the past few weeks why do we need a law to have more guns in Minnesota? My answer is that we don't need this law, and that's why I have authored a bill to repeal it.

Why do the people of Minnesota need a concealed-carry law? Because they have the right to self-defense, just like everyone else, and the right to self-defense requires that it be legal to own and to carry the means to self-defense. Not just for Hollywood stars with full-time bodyguards, but for ordinary people with ordinary concerns. People who want to defend themselves and their familes against criminal attack.

A few short hours after it passed the Legislature, Gov. Tim Pawlenty quickly signed conceal and carry gun legislation into law. With this stroke of a pen our governor changed the complexion of Minnesota. The real question is how this bill will affect our daily lives.

Answer: it won't. The average citizen won't notice any difference. The police might note a downtime in crime. This isn't just speculation; many other states have shall-issue concealed-carry legislation and NONE of them have turned into anything resembling a wild-west boom town. Instead, they go on with business as usual.

According to the law, concealed, loaded handguns can now be brought to the Minnesota State Fair, the Mall of America, the Metrodome, Target Center, the Xcel Energy Center, parks, movie theaters, bars, restaurants and courthouses across the state. The answer is it will directly affect us, and that is worrisome.

How will firearms in any of those places affect you, if those firearms are concealed and not used in a criminal act? They won't, of course -- unless they happen to save your life from some other criminal. The people who get firearms permits are law-abiding citizens, not only as much as but by all accounts even more so. In many cases they are more law-abiding than the police themselves.

Rather than requiring that persons show they need a gun for their occupation or for personal safety, as in current law, the new law allows adults to carry a gun unless they are convicted felons, committed for mental illness, on the state gang member data base and/or if they pose a risk to themselves or the public. Legislative staff estimate that as many as 50,000 additional guns could hit the streets by the end of this year, and 20,000 each year thereafter.

That's 50,000 people who will not become victims of violent crime, and 50,000 people who may be available to assist others in need of defence against violent crime. It's also a drop in the bucket compared to the population of the state.

The workplaces of most Minnesotans will be open season for gun-toters. To prevent guns in their workplace, a business will be required by law to post a sign: "[Name of the business] bans guns on these premises." Do our governor and the lawmakers who support concealed handguns feel safer surrounded by handguns in malls, parks, sports arenas, movie theaters and other places where Minnesota families relax or work?

Would those people feel safer surrounded by police with handguns in those same places? It's no different.

Another issue is that according to the new law it is legal for a person to bring a concealed handgun into a bar, but it is illegal to keep it in one's possession if that person becomes intoxicated. We have a big problem with drunk driving in Minnesota because too many people get behind the wheel when they are in no condition to drive. Are people really going to "conceal responsibly" and hand in their guns once they realize they've had one too many? That just doesn't seem likely. What does seem possible is that the average bar fight will lead to more than a black eye if bars are packed with people carrying loaded weapons.

In the real world, we call these "scare tactics", and we don't bother to argue with them; we just point out that in the real world, it hasn't happened. Check the 33+ states with shall-issue concealed carry laws. Count the number of bar fights started by concealed carry permit holders after they got drunk while armed, and that ended in the other party being shot. If you're lucky, you'll find one or two -- maybe. But you'll find a lot more of those by people without permits.

With thousands of additional guns being carried around, misplacing them becomes a serious issue. A lot of us carry cell phones around with us these days; who hasn't temporarily misplaced or lost their cellphone before? It's a hassle for sure but, at worst, losing a cell phone means paying to replace it. A lost handgun could have drastic, deadly consequences.

Doesn't the number of handguns carried around continually by the police present a similar risk of misplacement? Doesn't that worry you? Why not?

Rep. Lynda Boudreau of Faribault, the Republican author of the law in the House, said she plans to keep her gun in her purse at all times. As a mom, I can't tell you how many times I've asked one of my kids to grab something for me from my purse. Mothers do that all the time. I wonder if Boudreau would ask one of her kids to grab something out of her purse knowing that her gun is in there.

I imagine that depends on her kids. If you have responsible, trustworthy kids, you make sure that they know how to behave with and around firearms. If you have dangerous, irresponsible kids, you keep your firearm under your personal control at all times. This is nothing more than scaremongering; those kids are already living in a home with a firearm.

Any way you look at it, this law is bad news, and recent polls suggest that the people of Minnesota agree with that assessment. In a recent Star Tribune poll, only 17 percent said they will feel safer with this law. The only organized groups to officially support the law are the Republican Party and the National Rifle Association. On the other side of the issue are dozens of law enforcement organizations, community groups, religious communities and the majority of the Democratic Party.

That's 1 in 5 people who will feel safer.Are you saying those people don't have a right to self-defense? In case you haven't noticed, we don't legislate away rights based on feelings.

In many cases, people who will now receive a permit to carry a concealed handgun are folks who have been denied them by their local law enforcement authorities in the past. I trust the ability of our local police and sheriff's offices to be making these decisions, and I don't see how the supporters of this legislation can justify taking this away from local law enforcement.

In other states, the usual criteria for the trusted local police and sheriff's offices in making these decisions consists of:

• Did you contribute to my reelection campaign?
• If not, will you?

That criteria leaves out ordinary people. And it's the ordinary people who are most in need of a defense against violence. There's a saying: "God made man; Samuel Colt made men equal."

If our effort does not succeed this year, we plan to come back and fight it every time a Minnesotan is killed by one of the handguns this law put on the streets. If necessary, we will come back again and again and as long as it takes to rid Minnesota of this law.

Every single time a Minnesotan is killed by one of these handguns, hm? Judging by the other states with similar laws, we won't be seeing you again for quite some time.

The Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act of 2003, also called the conceal-and-carry law, widens the right to carry guns. Some readers are wondering what the law might mean to them. Here are some questions and answers about the new law, which becomes effective May 28.

City officials from throughout the state gathered Friday to swap ideas about how to handle a new law regulating handgun use in Minnesota. "It's a very thorny issue," Tom Grundhoefer, general counsel for the League of Minnesota Cities, said at the group's annual meeting. "Your constituency is going to be divided on this." The law, which takes away most discretion for issuing hangun permits, also takes away most discretion cities have over whether handguns may be carried on their property.

Why is it that this particular concern always seems to raise it's ugly head? It's a simple equation: criminals don't obey laws and don't get concealed carry permits. People who get concealed carry permits don't shoot other people in a fit of pique. This has been the universal experience of US states implementing shall-issue concealed carry. Why do these irrational fears keep coming back?

If one were to accept that there will be mass bedlam in Minnesota because of this new law, we would also have to accept as fact that 34 other state governments that have shall-issue conceal-carry statutes are casting a blind eye to a major public safety concern. Does that make sense? Would 34 other states really look the other way while the public safety was being endangered the way the fearmongers predict? Of course not.

On May 28, Minnesota becomes the 35th state with a 'shall-issue conceal-carry' law. All of the other 34 states have seen violent crime rates drop after adoption of 'shall issue' laws. There is no demonstrable reason why Minnesota should stray from these nationwide numbers. BUT ... according to the Nordic tundra's religious left, and amply supported by the Minne-soviet Star & Sickle (Minneapolis Star Tribune), the resultant increase in 'conceal-carry' permit holders will see gun-toting parishioners terrorize their churches, as well as the Metrodome, Mall of America, U. of Minnesota, Minnesota State Fair and just about every other public venue!

Employers in Minnesota are evaluating how they will comply with a new conceal-and-carry law that would give more gun owners rights to possess firearms in public with a permit, the Minneapolis-St. Paul Business Journal reports. The state law is effective May 28.

The frenzied rhetoric over the "conceal-carry" law presented in the articles and letters on your editorial pages is unfounded. I've been a Minneapolis resident for the past 18 years. The conceal-carry law no more frightens me than choosing paper or plastic at the grocery store.

Joel Rosenberg has detailed on a biased news account of a tragic death, and how you can demand that the whole story be told.