Beware the Unintended Consequences II (Conceal & Carry)

checksandbalances.com ^ | 5/28/03 | Checks and Blances

[jdege]

bewaree the Unintended Consequences II (Conceal & Carry)

Written on: 5/28/03

It is interesting to see the Governor's Chief of Staff Charlie Weaver, a former Anoka County Prosecutor come out and telegraph the movement by Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) on the Conceal & Carry legislation he recently signed into law. As the public has learned more about the change there has been a natural backlash. The Special Session creates an opportunity to address the problems with the law, which goes into effect today.

While it is reasonable for a person or a business to protect their property, when the law allows the right of an individual entering that business to have more rights than the owner it seems backwards. In an attempt to smooth the edges of the most liberal gun legislation ever passed in the United States the Administration sees the need for an adjustment. Perhaps this is just an attempt to prevent the courts from finding the legislation unconstitutional, but it shows how ramroding legislation through the process is a poor way to govern.

The fact that this issue needs to be revisited shows how its initial passage was a rash act and signing it so rapidly was equally so. It was a purely partisan attempt to steamroll the Majority in the Senate and even though the Governor received a flawed bill and he signed it.

This creates an opportunity for the Senate Majority to embarrass both the Governor and Members of the House and the Minority Members of the Senate. When the bill was forced onto the agenda in the Senate there was little the DFL Majority could do to prevent the bill from passage. They held back on a stack of amendments at the Secretary's desk knowing full well the item had momentum.

The floor discussion by the Senate authors will now be available for full debate and now Sen. Mike McGinn (R-38, Eagan) will be able to correct his inadvertent pressing of the wrong button during final passage as his office stated. This debate may provide good fodder.

[Travis McGee]

Great! Perfect!

[Travis McGee]

Homosexuality, tattoos and relligion are choices, unlike race. (Your arguement.)

So can the business owner put up a sign excluding them?

[wolfdaddie]

Just like the Boy Scouts are free to not associate with homosexuals. Tell that to the United Way and some other socialist state legislators.

regs,

[JRandomFreeper]

The United Way is a private organization that can be boycotted. Socialist legislators are a different matter. Let us not confuse the two. One group needs a rope.

/john

[Clinging Bitterly]

>> The state has pressured cops into getting permits.

Don't think that's necessarily bad. It's pretty much a free ride for them anyway, and some in the US Congress think they (and in some cases only they) oughta have conceal carry in every state with no permit needed.

But as long as we are required to apply for and buy a permit to carry, I have absolutely no problem with that being a requirement for everybody, with all of the usual disqualifying factors as well. Might well have prevented that murder/suicide involving the Tacoma police chief a few weeks ago. No, probably not. He coulda got a gun the way other criminals do. All those restrictions and hurdles only affect those of us who wish to remain law abiding.

Bloat & cache, thankfully, remains legal here.

Dave in Eugene

[ModernDayCato]

Sorry, but I disagree. All I had to do was take a stupid class (which was actually waived for me), and I get my permit forever.

My friends in law enforcement have to qualify on the range every three to six months. They are eminently more qualified, and their badge and cop card (cops have to fulfill certain continuing ed requirements and they get a card) are more than enough to qualify them to carry.

I know many cops who have carried regularly in other states, and even those who were (and still are) encouraged to carry on the commuter train service into New York city, which is unbelieveably illegal.

Come to think of it, the Metro North Police are a branch of the NY State Police who have jurisdiction on Metro North property in Connecticut. I wonder if they have carry permits. Postal inspectors? FBI agents in-state? Secret Service? ATF? All of the other alphabet soup agencies?

[George Smiley]

My friends in law enforcement have to qualify on the range every three to six months. They are eminently more qualified, and their badge and cop card (cops have to fulfill certain continuing ed requirements and they get a card) are more than enough to qualify them to carry.

Surely you jest.

How many rounds were fired at Diallo without any hits?

And what about that SWAT team (aren't they supposed to be the *most* highly qualified?) that fired over three hundred rounds in a standoff situation, again with no hits?

I burn more rounds at the range every month than most cops do in a year.

And if you want to get practical experience in self-defense situations, I'd suggest that you check out the International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA).

They have rankings, competitions, and training your muscle memory in stressful situations could very likely make the difference between survival and non-survival in a self-defense situation.

[ModernDayCato]

Nope...while you may CHOOSE to qualify, they have to. I would hardly hold up the NYPD as an example of anything (sorry NYPD). That's the only point I was making.

[supercat]

And what about that SWAT team (aren't they supposed to be the *most* highly qualified?) that fired over three hundred rounds in a standoff situation, again with no hits?

Wasn't there a massive gunfight a couple years or so ago between a SWAT team and a guy whose guns were all locked up in a safe? I recall the SWAT team suffered one or two friendly-fire casualties in that one.

[Clinging Bitterly]

>> Sorry, but I disagree. All I had to do was take a stupid class (which was actually waived for me), and I get my permit forever.

The situation is different here. There aren't any "forever" permits except for cops, who don't really have to demonstrate anything other than having been employed as a cop. We regular subjects have to take a class (I have taken a qualified class and there isn't much to it, like you say), and have to pay money to the government for the original and renewal every five years. That is the very defenition of infringement of a right.

Maybe I shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth, we have the shall issue status and few restrictions on places one may carry, but we are talking about something that is a right and to have any fees and restrictions at all placed on it implies something that is offensive to me. Haven't been to the Cato site lately but I bet they think so too.

Dave in Eugene

[ModernDayCato]

I guess the point that I was making is that our BS class (I didn't even have to take one) is much less strict than what cops have to do to keep being cops.

5 years? Mine's good for 10.

[Clinging Bitterly]

> ...what cops have to do to keep being cops...

...depends entirely on the locale. There are departments that will hire anybody who can fill up a hat.

[ModernDayCato]

Maybe in Oregon, but here in Connecticut there are standards set by the state that every cop has to pass to get the card.

[Clinging Bitterly]

>> ...in Connecticut there are standards set by the state that every cop has to pass to get the card.

We have a state certification system and a good academy that serves the entire state, but AFAIK, each local department can set it's own standards. The City of Eugene (not that large a city, actually) has it's own training system and doesn't require the entire academy package. Thing is, all Oregon police officers are entitled to the state's package of special rights regardless of their specific qualifications.

Now I don't have a problem with local control whereby individual cites can set employment standards based on their needs, but the state conceal carry system assumes a "quality" is inherent in every cop employed or ever employed in the state that isn't necessarily there. Therefore, as long as you and I have to "apply" for permits I think they should too.

My major issue, though, is that anyone at all need "apply" for a permit. We are moving forward now, we've added more states to the "shall issue" fold this legislative cycle, and I think we're over 2/3 of them now. Next step, maybe, should be to push for Vermont style carry laws state by state. Something close to that came up in the Oregon legislature last session. Didn't get out of committee, but it wasn't because of any major opposition, just a time constraint. The jist of it was that no conceal carry permit would be needed for anyone who had ever purchased a firearm from a FFL and had therefore already been through a criminal history check. There certainly isn't a need for multiple agencies to be doing this, and Oregon's proposed law recognized that (and also, appearently, that the "gun safety" course requirement is a joke - and, here's the biggie - that there is no need for the state to maintain a database of those qualified to carry concealed).

Dave in Eugene

[Clinging Bitterly]

>> Connecticut

< off_topic_comment > CT, huh?. The US CongressCritter in my district, a Peter Defazio, is originally from there. Any chance you guys might want to take him back? < /off_topic_comment >

Dave in Eugene

[teeman8r]

i concur also as a libertarian, heck, if business owners wish to discriminate it is their right, but tell shoppers up front they are not welcomed so they can go elsewhere....

i bet the free market will determine quickly where the business is best and the robbers frequent the rest...

jmt, teeman

[ezo4]

I was talking with a girl from MN today and she was going on and on about this stuff back in her home state. She said she would never move back there because people carried guns and it was unsafe.

(shes a liberal in case you haven't all ready figured it out, shes not to bright - attractive but not bright)

So after about 20-30 minutes hearing this stuff she was spewing about how safe it is here in Seattle because people don't carry sidearms. I got up and showed her my ccp

You should have seen her face, it was classic!