Times writers group: State gun report may miss target
March 24, 2008

Another round was chambered in the gun-control debate last week, as the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments relating to the highly restrictive gun laws of Washington, D.C. The ruling in this Second Amendment case will have a lasting impact on gun ownership rights.

On the home front, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension just released its 2007 Permit to Carry Report. More than 50,000 Minnesotans, about 1 percent of our state population, are now legally permitted to carry firearms in public.

The Minnesota Personal Protection Act passed in April 2003. It was struck down for procedural reasons in 2004 and finally re-enacted in May 2005. With it, Minnesota became a "shall issue" state rather than a "may issue," joining a majority of other states.

Before the PPA, each local sheriff exercised near total control over gun permits. Applicants were required to prove a valid need in order to obtain a permit. The PPA changed that by requiring that permits be issued to any qualified applicant. To qualify, an applicant must attend a class and also demonstrate the ability to properly handle and shoot a handgun. The sheriff then processes the application and performs the required background checks. If everything is in order the permit must be issued.

The PPA requires that the state yearly report, in some detail, the number of permits issued, denied, suspended and revoked, and the reasons for doing so. The report also recites every violation of the law, any law, by every permit holder.

Is this report helpful in shedding any light on the gun-control debate? Perhaps the single biggest omission in the report is the absence of any crime rate data, except crimes by permit holders. To get that, we must look outside the report to the Uniform Crime Reports. In doing so, we learn that ardent anti-gun groups' predictions of doom and gloom and increased violence have not materialized after the PPA.

In addition, by examining other data, we know that strict gun-control laws do not correlate to less violent crime or even to less gun crime. Washington, D.C., is the best example. It has some of the highest crime rates in the nation and the most restrictive gun laws. The validity of those laws awaits the high court's ruling.

In his book, "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws," author John R. Lott, Jr. makes the compelling yet controversial argument that restricting ownership actually increases crime, while reducing restrictions leads to less crime. This book has been fiercely attacked by gun-control advocates and just as forcefully defended by Lott.

Perhaps the most troubling and misleading part of the Permit to Carry Report deals with the purported crime of people who hold permits. The report must include: "The number of convictions and types of crimes committed since the previous submission, and in total, by individuals with permits including data as to whether a firearm carried solely by virtue of a permit was actually used in furtherance of the crime."

Gun-control groups will say "See, these permit holders shouldn't be trusted to carry a gun because they break the law." If a holder commits any crime, big or small, it will appear on the report, including traffic offenses, drunken driving, etc. The report lists 121 crimes by permit holders. (Remember, we have more than 50,000 holders in Minnesota.) In only seven of these crimes a firearm was reportedly used "in the furtherance of the crime."

So how is the report misleading? A holder with a DWI would also be charged with carrying under the influence, and would appear in two or more categories.

Parts of the report simply don't make sense. There were six reported crimes of carrying under the influence, yet a pistol was used "in the furtherance of" only two of those crimes. How do you carry under the influence without a pistol? Likewise, how do you use a pistol "in the furtherance of" a DWI. Do you hold your drink with it?

St. Cloud has a population of about 50,000. We could generate similar numbers and crime in one or two busy weekends. Do we catalog and report crime by law enforcement officers? How would that would compare? No offense to my friends in law enforcement, the majority of whom are law-abiding and responsible, as are the majority of permit holders.

Just as the report catalogs and reports every possible misdeed of permit holders, it also under-reports proper usage. Since the PPA was enacted, they have not reported a single incident in the section "Number of lawful and justifiable use of firearms by permit holders." But virtually all permit holders do this daily by being law-abiding and responsible.

Much may be made of this state report when it hits the news, but the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, when it arrives, will impact our rights for generations.