Frequently Asked Questions

I am afraid for my children. What should I do if I have a gun in my house?

This is a great question. First of all, treat every gun as if it is loaded. There are no jokes when it comes to kids and guns. One of the best programs to teach kids about gun safety, and what to do if they see a gun, is the Eddie Eagle program by the NRA. For more information, click here. As a general rule, follow what Eddie tells the kids:

If you see a gun:

STOP!
Don't Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.

What does non-discretionary shall issue mean?

Non-discretionary shall issue means that if a person meets the criteria set forth in the law. Being over 21, having passed a competency training course, being a law-abiding citizen, for example, the authorizing agency shall be required to issue a permit to carry. Currently, police chiefs are the authorizing agent and may issue or not issue for whatever reason or lack of reason they desire. Some will issue based on the criteria above, others have a no-issue under any circumstance policy. In some cases, law-abiding citizens have had to sue their local police chief to be issued a permit to carry. We believe, that competent, law-abiding citizens of legal age should be issued a permit to carry because they are competent, law-abiding citizens, and because this will have a deterring effect on crime.

How many other states have this kind of law and how long have they had it?

Thirty-one states currently have non-discretionary shall issue laws. Some states, such as Vermont, have never adopted any law requiring permits. Other states mandate that responsible (otherwise able to possess firearms), competent (possessing basic skills to safely use a firearm) adult (above high school age) persons are entitled to be issued a permit to carry upon application without discretionary rejection. This is up dramatically from nine states prior to 1986. These states contain a majority of the US population. The states with non-discretionary shall issue laws are:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida , Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas , Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming By the way, as more states adopt non-discretionary shall issue laws where to you think criminals or going to move to?

Have there been any problems in states with shall-issue concealed carry laws?

Benefits strongly outweigh any problems.

In the state of Washington, a state with demographics virtually identical to Minnesota, 36 years of experience with "non-discretionary shall issue" laws and NO problems prove that the crime deterring benefits of these laws unequivocally outweigh any concerns. That is a fact!

Accidental shootings in states with "non-discretionary shall issue" laws in 1992 were 36% less in states with "non-discretionary shall issue" laws than other states. A majority of states (31) had 36% fewer accidental deaths than the remaining 19 states. The total number of accidental deaths in 1992 was 1409. A detailed study of all counties indicates that in counties with populations over 100,000 (27 accidental handgun deaths occurred in counties with shall Issue laws) a net increase in accidental deaths due to handguns was 6 tenths of one percent. If "non-discretionary shall issue" laws where implemented nationally the result would be about 9 more accidental handgun deaths per year vs. a net reduction of totals deaths between 1,561 and 1767.

The most comprehensive and carefully done examination of successful defensive gun uses by civilians determined that there were in excess of 2.5 million DGU s each year, with 400,000 incidents in which the victim believed that using the gun (almost always by brandishing) almost certainly saved an innocent life. In Florida , between Oct. 1987 and April 1994 only 18 crimes were committed by permitees out of 221,443 permit holders. Multnomah County, Oregon, has issued 11,140 permits between 1990 and 1994 and experienced 5 permit holders involved in shootings, 3 were deemed justified by Grand Juries, one was an accidental rifle firing while being unloaded, and one was an assault. In Texas by the end of 1996 82,000 permits had been issued and only one permitted fatal shooting had occurred. The shooting was deemed justified.

Each year some permits are revoked for various reasons. The number is extremely small. Nevertheless, any weighing of the benefits over problems will demonstrate that problems are minimal in comparison to stopping 80,000 to several million crimes per year.

Doesn't Minnesota already allow Concealed Carry?

Minnesota is one of 14 states that provide local discretion on whether to issue permits. Local police chiefs can do whatever they want. Permits can be issued to a 21 year old who is required to carry due to employment. Yet, a retired FBI agent can be refused. If you live in a rural county, a mailed application will likely be processed and a permit issued. If you live in the greater metropolitan area, you will face (a) flat out refusals to give you the state application form, (b) processing delays far beyond that authorized by law, (c) extra-statutory, local requirements such as personal interviews, and (4) a wide-spread policy of refusing all non-security guard applications. The wide disparity in policy and practice is a concern, especially when, the Lott Study shows that crime is reduced in urban areas at a significantly higher rate than in rural areas when a "non-discretionary shall issue" policy exists.

What s wrong with Minnesota s present concealed carry laws?

Permits are issued or denied arbitrarily, largely based upon where an applicant resides, and/or with little consideration of reason or purpose for which the permit is desired. Secondly, a bias exists that law-abiding citizens have no right to protect themselves against violent crime outside of their home or business. How often are you home in these busy times we live in? The net effect of this bias is to regulate the law-abiding citizen into victimhood. So much so, that police advise law-abiding citizens to assist criminals in making them a victim. Law enforcement admonishes us, not to resist in the face of a criminal attack.

Interestingly, those involved in defense training for women instruct women under attack to resist with a vengeance. Screaming and violent resistance will thwart most attackers. These attacks are about power, and the more powerful the victim is the more likely the victim is to win. Self-defense instructors have data supporting this position. The women who have resisted have saved themselves from a lifetime of psychological trauma. The firearm is the single most effective tool for self defense -- especially for women ('the great equalizer')/ Prohibiting concealed carry is, in effect, a deeply violent form of discrimination against women.

What are you proposing to change in the law?

The change is actually minor. We are recommending that the law be amended to requiring the issuing of a concealed carry permit, valid for five (5) years, to applicants who are of legal age (21), show provide evidence of basic ability to safely use a firearm, and who are able to lawfully possess a firearm (i.e. have passed a background check showing they have a clean criminal and mental health record).

Why would anyone want to carry a concealed weapon?

Most people don't. In fact, in the thirty-one states currently having "non-discretionary shall issue" laws less than 5% of the population apply for and receive permits. These permit holders have business, or personal reasons for carrying a concealed weapon. Maybe they have been threaten, maybe they have been victims. For some, it provides valued peace of mind. In the course of business they may transport items of significant value or travel in high crime areas.

Reason aside, the small number of concealed weapon permit holders and the inability of criminal attackers to know who may be caring provides the rest of the community with a strong deterrent to crime.

Won't everyone start shooting each other?

You have a license to drive a car don't you? Do you go out and run people over? Of course not. We have many hunters in the state. When they receive their hunting license, do they go shoot the first animal they see? No. Likewise, the studies and data show that states with a "non-discretionary shall issue" law do not experience an increase in handgun crimes. And it makes sense. Law-abiding citizens are not the problem. They are not the people to worry about. Men and women issued permits are responsible, competent adults. They are the kind of folks who remain stopped at a lonely stoplight at 3am because they are habitually law-abiding. Washington state s 36-year experience proves this. We are so conditioned at hearing about criminals shooting at victims that we lose the ability to differentiate how law-abiding citizens act. Two studies, One including all 3054 counties across the country demonstrate that in "non-discretionary shall issue" states crime drops. Law-abiding citizens do not shoot at one another and incidents of crime go down.

I hear that crime has gone down in states with "non-discretionary shall issue" laws. Is this true?

The Crime, Deterrence, and Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Study (August 1996) written by two professors from the University of Chicago, (not exactly a hotbed of conservatism), and Independence Institute's: "Shall Issue ": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws Study (Oct. 1994) both conclude that violent crimes against people drop when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons. The Chicago Study, commonly called the Lott Study after one of its authors, is an in-depth academic paper surveying all 3054 counties across the county regarding this issue. The Lott Study concludes that in "non-discretionary shall issue" states over the study period of 15 years; Murders fell by 8.5 percent, rapes and aggravated assaults by 5 and 7 percent respectively. Over a five year period, the drop in crime rates increase. In other words, crime drops slowly but noticeably just after "non-discretionary shall issue" laws are enacted and drops increase in rate as the number of permits issued reaches 5% of the population. The numbers above represent the averages over the entire period.

The drops in these crimes not only translated in fewer deaths, injuries and trauma but also hard cold cash savings. Fewer dollars spent in the criminal justice arena, prisons, medical costs and all other associated areas of expense.

The studies also indicated that there was no apparent increase in accidental deaths.

The most dramatic effects are noticed in urban areas and in crimes against women. Two reasons are cited for this. Rural areas tend to have fewer crimes to begin with, tend to have higher gun ownership rates to begin with, and have tended to allow concealed carry under discretionary issue laws at a higher rate. Urban areas have tended to have strict or non-issue conceal carry policies, have higher rates of violent crime and higher percentages of female victims. Providing law-abiding urban citizens concealed carry permits, providing them to women in particular, provides, what convicted criminals attest too, a good deal of deterrence.

Me? I just hunt, I have a .22 revolver somewhere, but I'll probably never carry. Why should I support this?

Two reasons.

1. The data gathered over the past 15 years demonstrates that "non-discretionary shall issue" laws do not increase the number of accidental deaths in states where enacted. Supporting this reform is not going to make you less safe.

2. The data also shows that the entire community benefits from a meaningful deterrent embodied in the notion that a criminal experiences a perceived increased probability that he will suffer some consequence from committing a crime. That benefits you, your family, your friends everyone.

And you do not have to carry a handgun.

A third reason is cost savings, as crime goes down it cost the community, and the state, less. Those funds can go towards better policing, better education, better recreation or back in your pocket. When you consider the cost of investigating, apprehending, prosecuting, incarcerating a criminal every crime that is deterred saves the state a lot of money.

WWW.MYGUN.COM
1935 West County Road B2 Suite 101
Roseville, MN 55113
Phone: 651.628.4000 Fax: 651.628.4004