Posted 3/15/01 Concealed carry law: Hotheads and petty criminals will do exactly what they want anyway By T.W. Budig ECM capitol reporter Concealed carry law was a major story at the Capitol last week, with both those in favor and opposed to revamping state concealed weapon law making free use of the speculative. At the center of debate is the notion that state concealed weapon law is capricious ñ someone can readily get a permit to tote a sidearm in one jurisdiction while someone else elsewhere canít. Instead of process, the whole thing is subjective and thatís wrong, advocates of change argue. A satellite issue is the idea that having more liberal concealed carry law markedly lowers crime. Since no one knows whoís packing, criminals get the jitters. Concealed carry advocates have exhaustive studies to back claims of crime reduction. During a House hearing last week, a Texas lawmaker, whose parents were murdered by a gunman in a restaurant massacre in Killeen, Texas, in 1991, spoke movingly of the frustration she felt crouching behind a table with her parents, knowing she had a gun in her car but couldnít reach it. Texas law, she said, did not permit concealed carry at that time. It was compelling testimony, but thereís something faintly chicken and eggish in the reasoning. Stepping away from the emotions for a moment, the fact remains that no one knows what would have happened had she had a handgun in her purse that awful day. Itís possible that stricter gun laws might have prevented the massacre in the first place ñ we donít know. And we donít know whether better mental health programs might have prevented the killer from randomly shooting the innocent. But a simple solution has been proposed. In fairness, a main argument opponents to changing state concealed carry law were using ñ the idea that virtually anyone, including hotheads and petty criminals ñ could be able to legally pack a gun under the proposed legislation seems a stretcher. Hotheads and petty criminals are not likely to lose sleep over some legal nicety. Theyíre likely to do exactly what they want anyway. A host of Minnesota law enforcement associations have come out against the proposed legislation. So what to make of all this? Well, if concealed carry law can reduce crime ñ and it might ñ then itís safe to say one means of reducing crime has been identified. This is to be weighed against other options, such as more police, better schools, and a vague realization that weaning children on violence tends to have later consequences. Admittedly, these are fuzzy abstractions and lack the immediacy of a holster under the arm. As for the concealed carry legislation as the statehouse, itís highly unlikely the bill will get through the Senate. The legislation has failed before and probably will again. But like the poor, two overriding constants seem to be with us always. That is the seductiveness of violence and the marketability of fear. ©Post Review