Top

news

Stories

 

Settled dust reveals concealed carry stalemate

Five years after the shootout over the law, it turns out neither side was right

A thin, goateed man inserts a magazine into the butt of his handgun and releases the slide, loading the first round into the firing chamber. Holding the pistol solidly with both hands, his feet a shoulder's width apart, he raises the barrel and squeezes the trigger. Pop, pop, pop. The shots echo loudly in the bunker-like shooting range even with ear-protecting muffs, but the shooter isn't bothered by the noise.

He takes his time, breathes between shots, and focuses on the front sight of his gun, letting the back sight and his target blur in his vision. His bullets punch a tight pattern of 10-millimeter holes in the cardboard-backed silhouette 15 feet in front of him before burying themselves in a shredded rubber backstop 75 feet downrange. The ejected brass cartridge cases ping onto the concrete floor.

The shooter is Ted Sirek, one of 14 men and women taking a class that's required by Minnesota law before they can be legally authorized to carry a pistol in public. Sirek says he hopes he never has to fire his Heckler and Koch USP Compact handgun at anyone, but would to protect his family.

"If that situation arose, God forbid, I would try to defend them as much as was practically possible," he says with determination.

The course is taught by Joel Rosenberg, a firearms instructor with a long history of pistol-carry activism. He suggests that after five years, mild-mannered Minnesotans have finally learned that a gun tucked into a waistband isn't the sign of a blood-hungry nutcase.

"It's like the gay couple that moves in down the block," he says. "At first some people get upset, but after a while it's just like, 'Yeah, that's just Joe and Todd.'"

Five years ago, if Sirek had wanted to carry a pistol, he would have had to convince his local sheriff that he had good reason to do so. But in 2003, Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed the Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act, commonly mislabeled the "concealed carry" law (the MCPPA allows a permit holder to wear a pistol in public either openly or concealed).

The bill's passage came with a firestorm of protest and debate. Opponents feared the effects of an increasingly armed populace. Then-state Sen. Dean Johnson said, "This state will forever be changed, and not for the positive."

His colleague, then-state Sen. Wes Skoglund, was more emphatic in his protest, wearing a bulletproof vest on the floor of the Senate and boldly declaring, "People are going to die because of this bill. This bill is going to make Minnesota a far more dangerous place to live."

Joe Olson, a Hamline law professor and one of the bill's authors, argued that the law would have the opposite effect. "Good people are going to be safer," he said at the time.

He also predicted that pistol carriers would be well behaved with their firearms. "When all this smoke blows away, this will be seen as a very good law and there will be no problems with the permit holders," he said at the time.

Within a month of the bill's passage, more than 4,000 people had applied for permits. Since most permit holders choose to conceal their sidearms, the most visible evidence of the law's passage were the gun-ban signs that started popping up in store windows.

Five years later, over 50,000 Minnesotans have pistol permits. And as it turns out, predictions on both sides of the debate were inaccurate.

The drop in violent crime touted by MCPPA proponents hasn't manifested; instead, violent crime is up 4.41 percent over the five years since the law passed, and there have been no reported instances of permit holders stopping an assault with gunshots.

Permit holders haven't been the angels that Olson predicted, either. Since 2003, 65 permits have been revoked or suspended because a judge determined that the holders were a danger to themselves or others. In 2005, Timothy Engle, a permitted pistol carrier and a security guard, was convicted on a felony count of reckless discharge of a firearm after a shooting that left a teenage thief paralyzed. Damian Eric Petersen pleaded guilty to the same charge after shooting up his brother's car during an argument in 2003. In 2005, Zachary Ourada shot a bouncer at Nye's Polonaise Room in Minneapolis and pled guilty to second-degree homicide. More recently, Martin Treptow allegedly shot and injured an undercover cop during a misunderstanding over a traffic stop.

But these extreme cases are relatively few. The predictions that the average Minnesotan would face significantly increased risk at the hands of permitted pistol carriers, or that many permit holders would use their guns to solve personal conflicts, haven't come to pass.

Heather Martens, president of Citizens for a Safer Minnesota, argues that there's another metric to assess the effects of the MCPPA: money. She points to 13 counties that report deficits from the bureaucratic process of granting permits to citizens, which involves performing an extensive background check on the applicant. "There's no evidence of improved public safety," she says. "Our public safety dollars could be better spent."

But despite the fact that a few counties are losing money under the MCPPA, in 2007, 85 percent of counties reported profiting from the permitting process; statewide, the new law actually added $159,605 to county sheriffs' departments last year.

1 | 2 | Next Page >>
 
  • gyrfalcon 12/09/2010 6:47:00 PM

    "Permit holders haven't been the angels that Olson predicted, either. Since 2003, 65 permits have been revoked or suspended because a judge determined that the holders were a danger to themselves or others." So 0.13% of all permit holders have got in trouble over a 5 year period.... WOW!!! That means that 99.87% of permit holders are angles, and the writer of this tripe is biased. I wonder what percentage of law enforcement has trouble with the law over a 5 year period?

  • Gary 09/01/2010 1:02:00 AM

    Ward, the reason the distinction 10mm is incorrect when referring to a .40 is there is an actual caliber of 10mm. It's a much more powerful round than the .40.

  • Ward Rubrecht 04/22/2009 11:39:00 PM

    Tom: The pistol in question was .40 caliber, the bullet of which is 10.16mm in diameter. I felt that since I was speaking of the holes made, and not of the bullets (which would require a more precise measurement as a descriptor of the gun's technical specifications) that rounding down would be appropriate in order to not muddle up the paragraph with unnecessary decimal places. Thanks for your feedback, Ward

  • jim 11/23/2008 2:00:00 PM

    A couple thoughts here. First, in regards to the "gay couple moving in down the street" comment. Maybe some of you don't remember the fear that uneducated citizens had of gays when AIDS started hitting the scene. There was a lot of irrational fear back then, just like people had/have about the permit to carry issue. Although it wasn't the best analogy to use. Second: StevenMN, by your logic cops should stop carrying firearms. Most cops don't use their guns in the line of duty, so let's just get rid of em huh? I haven't been in a car accident, why should I wear my seatbelt? That logic makes no sense. As far as guns imparting a false sense of security, I strongly disagree. I would agree with you that the probability of needing to use it is low. But, like the good boy scout I wasn't, this come to mind "be prepared." Third: Crime statistics: Since they lump in gang violence in with everything else, the stats are skewed and shouldn't be used for analysis in this situation. And on a common sense vein....I fully support people carrying. I'd bet that if 20% of the metro population carried the crime rate would plummet. After all, criminals are chumps and want easy targets. The more people carrying, the less easy targets.

  • Archie Anderson 11/20/2008 11:48:00 AM

    If 55,000 Minnesota citizens were not armed the crime rate would be much higher, Marauders and criminal minded felons now have to consider if the victim is armed or not and just might give the criminal some of his own medicine, Absoutely no reports of CC citizens abusing the right or breaking the law.. Good job citizens, Maybe the Government can start to trust the citizens with even more constitutional freedoms

  • Tom Bartel 11/20/2008 9:33:00 AM

    HK doesn't make a 10mm pistol.

  • Al 11/12/2008 11:14:00 AM

    The facts you have on the Treptow case are completely wrong and seem like an attempt to spin the story. You should do the real story behind Treptow, a man who was trying to protect his family from a cop on a power-trip. It seems as if you let your personal views get in the way of the facts, great journalism!

  • bobby b 11/11/2008 7:25:00 AM

    The Question: "I�m sorry, but how does a same-sex couple moving into the neighborhood pose the same risk as someone carrying a loaded, concealed deadly weapon?" The Answer: In both cases, you risk appearing foolish and bigoted if you fail to confront your own inaccurate prejudices. Worse, you may deprive yourself of the acquaintance of some good people. Finally, my grandma probably wouldn't have let any of those three people into her home. Ever. Her loss.

  • StevenMN 11/07/2008 10:56:00 PM

    This thread seems to have died a long time ago but I'll still add my 2 cents. The article and these comments seem to validate that carrying a gun hasn't had much impact one way or another. However what surprises me is the main reason most people carry a gun is because it makes them FEEL safer. Its a false sense of security and expensive to boot. There's not much evidence that a gun is going to protect you except in the most unlikely and imaginary circumstances. I suppose if you always walked around with your gun drawn most folks would avoid you.

  • Joel Rosenberg 10/23/2008 8:37:00 PM

    Ed from DC has it right. Actually, Janna, both permit holders and gay neighbors pose very little risk to their neighbors. (And, by the way, some of those gay neighbors are permit holders. While I don't discriminate, I did end up doing a lesbians-only permit class, some years ago; the women were the only ones to sign up that weekend.) But the permit holder poses less risk, statistically; he or she has passed a criminal background check, after all, and has managed to stay out of trouble for upwards of 21 years. That's not required for Bob and Ted or Carol and Alice to buy the house next door (although they probably have, too). Which isn't to suggest that folks should start worrying about their gay neighbors; they shouldn't. Whether or not it's something that people should have to get used to, it's something that they have gotten used to; there's been no movement to repeal the carry law, and that's because, by and large, very few people worry about their lawfully-armed neighbors. We've more than 56,000 permit holders in the state at the moment, which means that when you drive or bus to and from work, or go to the mall or store to shop, the odds are pretty huge that you'll be passing by somebody lawfully carrying a "loaded, concealed deadly weapon" . . . . . . and nothing bad will happen next time, just like it didn't happen yesterday. Honest.

  • Ed 10/23/2008 4:05:00 AM

    I�m sorry, but how does a same-sex couple moving into the neighborhood pose the same risk as someone carrying a loaded, concealed deadly weapon? Comment by Janna from Minneapolis on Oct 17th, 2008, 12:31 pm The fact is, neither situation poses any risk at all to you or anyone else on the block. The point being made was that both fears, one of the gay couple, the other of the gun, are irrational fears, neither one based on any factual evidence to the contrary at all.

  • Janna 10/17/2008 10:31:00 PM

    In trying to make his case for having the right to carry a concealed weapon, Mr. Rosenberg insinuates that it�s just something people have to get used to. He uses the example of a �gay couple that moves in down the block� and while people might get upset about it at first, it�s just something they get used to. I�m sorry, but how does a same-sex couple moving into the neighborhood pose the same risk as someone carrying a loaded, concealed deadly weapon?

  • Matt Rothchild 10/13/2008 2:37:00 AM

    This comment is in letter to the editor form, if I could only find a way to send it in to City Pages... �To the Editor� Your recent article about the Minnesota Personal Protection Act (MPPA) was surprisingly even-handed considering where it was published. A number of things jumped out at me in the reading of the article. First, I noted the hilarious irony of how prominent legislative opponents of the law were introduced as �former-state Senator So-and-so�. Perhaps their silly fear-mongering had fallen victim to an experiment with liberty, the result of which was finding that we really never had anything to fear, as your article�s tagline said. In addition to that, should we have listened to the pragmatists on the side of MPPA who spoke nothing of liberty and emphasized pragmatic reasons for its passage that, as your tagline so deftly implied, was just as invalid as the silly fear-mongering? The point I�d like to drive home is both sides were always wrong and the correct position opposes both. How often do we (erroneously) believe that government reigning in our clearly-defined liberties will make us safer? Is safe slavery preferable to �dangerous� liberty? How often do we support something not out of principle but because its proponents tell us that it �just makes good sense�? Truth is we shouldn�t even need special permission from the state to carry a firearm; the U.S. Constitution already permits it�no �ifs�, �ands�, or �buts�. Besides, if we did away with the silly laws altogether, 13 counties wouldn�t be running the deficits referenced in the story. My last point deals with the Martin Treptow incident. Treptow shot an undercover Robbinsdale police officer who, while acting alone in Coon Rapids, threatened with a firearm Treptow and his family who were with him. It would have been nice to see the story�s author call it like it was: not a �misunderstanding during a traffic stop�, but a rogue, out-of-control cop who got in WAY over his head. Anyway, the current law is sufficient for Minnesota given its current culture. In the future, perhaps when the minds of Minnesotans are well-girded for the duties of liberty and citizenship, the permit requirements may be swept off the books forever.

  • Joel Rosenberg 10/10/2008 7:29:00 PM

    To be fair, Rubrecht didn't say that there have been no assaults stopped by permit holders. "...there have been no reported instances of permit holders stopping an assault with gunshots." (My emphasis.) Which is, as far as I know, the Treptow case aside (and that's going to trial in January) is true. The vast majority of defensive gun uses don't involve gunshots; see Gary Kleck's work. The first well-documented defensive gun use by a permit holder after the carry law passes took place in Eden Prairie, in April of 2004, and it was pretty typical, as such things go -- the young man who was being choked by his attacker pulled out his handgun, and the attacker backed off. (The victim then did the right things -- he drove off as quickly as possible, so his attacker couldn't resume the attack, then called 911 on his cell phone, to report the attack. But I digress.) Much better -- for literally everybody involved -- than if he'd shot his attacker. Stepping back, I think that was part of the confusion on the part of folks like Nora and Wesley and Heather; for whatever reason, they failed to understand that the tens of thousands of decent, law-abiding Minnesotans with carry permits, even if they have to take out a gun in self-defense, don't want to act as "judge, jury, and executioner." (Look at the Reporter's Notes; Wesley's still fixating on the fictional Matt Dillon.) And they -- we: 56,000 or so of us now, and more by the end of the year -- still don't, for all the obvious reasons, and maybe some others.

  • fsilber 10/10/2008 8:07:00 AM

    Are you certain no robbers have been stopped by permit-holders in Minnesota? Are you sure the rate at which middle-aged middle-class citizens get mugged has not gone down? The rate of violent crime in general -- which includes gang warfare -- is hardly the relevant statistic.

  • jack burton 10/09/2008 7:46:00 AM

    An Open Letter to Those Who Wonder Why Citizens Would Want to Carry Guns in Public http://hubpages.com/hub/An-Open-Letter-to-Those-Who-Wonder-Why-Citizens-Would-Want-to-Carry-Gun-in-Public

  • Concerned Citizen 10/08/2008 10:15:00 PM

    Ease up on Treptow. There was no "misunderstanding," and there was certainly nothing even remotely resembling a "traffic stop." The undercover cop apparently had a bad case of road rage and decided that he could use his authority to take it out on Treptow.

  • Joel Rosenberg 10/08/2008 3:10:00 AM

    A good article, I think. But a few quibbles. Many advocates -- including me -- predicted that, when controlling for other factors, there'd be a small but real drop in violent crime in response to the carry law, just as there has been in other states. And I think we'll be shown to be right, in the long run. But it takes time to see that, and any number of other factors can disguise that; a troubled economy, in the short run, is going to have a lot more violent crime downside than any carry law can compensate for. I wish it were otherwise, but as we're seeing just today, it's tough to fix a troubled economy; the carry permit program makes a profit for the state, in permit fees alone. And, no, nobody promised that all permit holders would be angels, merely that, on balance, we'd be far more law-abiding than typical Minnesotans -- which is demonstrably true, as the article shows. And, right now, more than 55,000 Minnesotans -- about 1% of the population -- can and often do routinely carry handguns for their own protection, going about their lives, and staying out of trouble. You pass them on the street every day, whether you're out for a walk, biking, or driving your car . . . . . . and the odds are you don't worry about them. Nor should you. Heck, even Heather doesn't worry about them anymore. Demonstrably. A couple of years back, Andrew Rothman, one of the local activists and trainers, debated Heather at the U. The subject of the debate was whether or not the University should change its policy that forbids students and employees with carry permits from carrying on campus. (Interestingly, the U neither can nor does prohibit visitors with permits from carrying there; the law doesn't allow them to.) Now, Heather � as devoted an antigun activist as the other side has left � knew that she was going to a public debate, at which there would be quite a few permit holders attending, many of them routinely carrying. But she went anyway. I guess it could be argued � save for one thing -- that she felt that her activism was important enough to take the risk of being in a room with dozens of people carrying, as they say, "loaded, concealed handguns", which the panicky folks have assured us is a very dangerous thing to do. I guess she could congratulate herself on that courage, taking those risks. Except for the one thing that makes it clear that even Heather doesn't think there really were any risks in arguing with and among dozens of armed permit holders . . . one thing that makes it clear that even Heather knows that being around armed permit holders isn't risky at all: . . . she brought not only her husband, but her three-year-old daughter. Cute kid. I'm certainly critical of Heather, but she's not an irresponsible mother � if she really believed that there was any danger from the permit holders, she would, of course, have left her child at home. We've come a long way, when even Heather gets it. And we'll come just a little farther, when she and the rest of the small coterie of hysterics, admits it. Others have. Former State Senator Dean Johnson, -- who you noted, correctly, opposed the bill in 2003, voted for its repassage in 2005. And he wasn't the only DFL politician to do just that.

 

Most Popular Stories

Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy