The Conceal and Carry Bill - Essay Example

The “Conceal and Carry” Bill passed in Minnesota in 2003 represents a significant change to previous concealed weapons laws, as it changed key wording that pertained to the requirements for licensing. This essay will look at the 2003 Minnesota bill and its after-effects by highlighting the arguments that were discussed by both advocates and opponents to the law. The arguments will be viewed in the context of the seven years following the law change to see if the fears or predictions of either group have been well founded. The constitutional issues will be weighed in context with the current public environment and crime statutes. Statistics related to crime, hand gun related crime, and attempts to circumvent the law will be balanced to determine if the law has had an effect positive or negative on the state following passage. In the final view, it will be clear that the changes in legislation that make it easier for a person to receive a license to carry a concealed firearm are beneficial in: 1. Promoting equality in licensing standards. 2. Simplifying the measure for common, law-abiding citizens. 3. Making the gun license no different than a driver’s license in standards. To review the legal background relative to the case: “In Minnesota, a person may not carry a pistol in a public place unless they are in possession of a permit to carry. Exceptions to the permit requirement include law enforcement officers and other defined instances (Minnesota Statutes, section 624.714). In 2003, the movement to change the permit application process from may issue (discretionary) to shall issue succeeded with the passage of Laws of Minnesota 2003, Chapter 28, Article 2. The shall issue application process limits the local law enforcement discretion provision and requires the granting of permits to all applicants who meet minimum requirements. Efforts to change Minnesota from a may issue to a shall issue state took place over several years.” (Minnesota Legislative Reference Library, 2009) It is important to recognize that there are two main issues in this case. The first is the constitutional debate over the validity of requiring permits for carrying concealed weapons. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear firearms, so it is questionable under what authority government can take away that right by requiring concealed weapons permits. The legal basis for the argument is as Justice Harlan writes in Terry vs. Ohio, namely that “concealed weapons create an immediate and severe danger to the public.” (Cornell, 2010) This is debatable under the traditional response that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. For example, are non-concealed weapons, openly worn or brandished, less dangerous than concealed weapons? Concealed weapons are only dangerous if the person holding them chooses to use them or wields them unsafely. It is the intent and actual use of the weapons that is dangerous and no part of the law can address that motive for it is based in a broader social concern rooted in the causes of economic crime and of human nature in crimes of passion. On this basis, one would expect concealed weapons bans to have little effect on the actual crime rate, for if criminal are intent in purpose, they are not likely to be concerned with the concealed weapons ban. On the other hand, if there are less guns in a local environment, the more chance is that they will be used violently, or passionately, or ignorantly. Hohn Lott of the University of Chicago Law School has found through research precisely the opposite – that every time guns are banned, gun violence increases. “After the ban went into effect in both cities, murder rates rose dramatically. After the Supreme Court threw out DC’s ban and gunlock laws in 2008, the District’s murder rates plunged by 25 percent in 2009. Indeed, my research in the just released third edition of More Guns, Less Crime shows that every place in the world that we have crime data for has seen murder rates climb when guns were banned.” (Hinyub, 2010) Yet, rather address the root causes of violence, passion, or ignorance, society chooses to focus on concealed weapons bans that only lead to harassment. This is where the 2003 Minnesota law is important, for it reduces the harassment that “regular” citizens have to endure when they apply for a concealed weapon permit. In changing the requirements of the law from allowing the police to issue concealed weapons permits at their discretion to requiring the police to impartially issue permits to anyone who applied and met the minimum requirements, the harassment level on normal citizens was reduced. As it is unlikely that anyone with overt criminal intent would register with the police for a permit, the ones who do register are more likely to be law abiding. As such, the argument is given, they should not have to suffer harassment in licensing. Constitutionalists see this as an example of being consistent with the Second Amendment, as permits are being issued equally to all who apply like a driver’s license. In summary, where the ban on concealed weapons is constitutionally questionable, and based on a tenet - “concealed weapons create an immediate and severe danger to the public” – that is not demonstrated by fact. Proof that this basis is incorrect can be seen through the fact that “conceal and carry” laws have not led to an increase in murder rates, but precisely the opposite – with murder rates nationally down 7.5% last year. (Smith, 2010) Thus, there are other factors behind murder and violent crime that have nothing to do with concealed weapons themselves but with the mind of the person who carries and uses them. What the Minnesota “conceal and carry” law of 2003 is change the wording to make the state a “shall issue” state, meaning nearly anyone who can drive that has not been convicted of a previous felony can receive a license to carry a concealed weapon in a public place at any time. The author believes that this is consistent with the 2nd Amendment in practice in a modern society and also that the less harassment required for law abiding citizens to bear arms is for the better. With this, in order to truly tackle the problems of crime in America, the root causes of social problems should be addressed, but not in a manner that blames lawful gun owners with its cause and limits their rights unjustly through permits and bans on the carrying of concealed weapons. “Forty states, comprising the majority of the American population, are right-to-carry states. Statistics show that in these states the crime rate fell (or did not rise) after the right-to-carry law became active (as of July, 2006). Nine states deny or restrict the right to carry. Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started in 1988.” (Concealed Campus, 2010) The problem with violent crime has not been proven to be related to the number of licensed gun holders carrying concealed weapons Laws like Minnesota’s 2003 “conceal and carry” bill can actually help reduce crime rates by encouraging their lawful and responsible use as tools for self-protection. The Second Amendment is an important right recognized in the Bill of Rights and modern concealed weapons bans violate this where “conceal and carry” laws actually make it practical and no more difficult than receiving a license for driving. For these reasons, the “conceal and carry” legislation in Minnesota has been a success thus far. Sources Cited: deFiebre, Conrad (2003). Conceal-carry becomes law. Star Tribune. Date accessed Dec. 10th, 2010: http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/concealcarry.htm Harlan, J. (1968) Terry v. Ohio. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Date accessed Dec. 10th, 2010: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZC.html MLRD (2009). Resources on Minnesota Issues Firearm Carry Laws. Minnesota Legislative Reference Library. Date accessed Dec. 10th, 2010: http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/firearmcarry.asp Hinyub, Chris (2010). MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME. CAIVN. Date accessed Dec. 10th, 2010: http://caivn.org/article/2010/06/12/more-guns-less-crime Smith, Guy (2010). Gun Facts Version 5.0. Gun Facts Info. Date accessed Dec. 10th, 2010: http://www.concealedcampus.org/pdf/ccw_gun_facts.pdf Read More