The Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence (MPPGV) was created in October 1995 in response to the growing national and state concern about the prevalence and serious impact of gun violence. The MPPGV brings together the professional communities of law, medicine, and public health in collaborative interprofessional planning, and policy formation and implementation to promote the reduction and prevention of gun violence in Michigan.
Throughout 1996 and early 1997 the MPPGV studied the parameters of gun violence in Michigan and in the nation, reviewed a broad variety of strategies with promise for the reduction of gun violence, and developed comprehensive policy recommendations for Michigan. The results of that effort were subsequently published in the "MPPGV Gun Violence Prevention Policy Recommendations Report, 1997". It is the ongoing mission of the MPPGV to continuously educate its members, policy makers, and the general public about the incidence of gun violence, the impact of gun violence on the lives of individuals and on our society as a whole, and the efficacy and/or wisdom of current and emerging polices and prevention strategies that affect gun violence prevention.
"Shall issue", the topic of this paper, is an emerging policy direction variously promoted as a violence/crime prevention strategy or as a gun rights issue. "Shall issue" is the term currently applied to describe proposed changes in laws or policies that regulate the issuing of concealed carry permits that allow the holder of the permit to carry a concealed pistol. "Shall issue" changes seek to narrow or eliminate the discretion of the local board in the issuing of permits and eliminate the requirement that an applicant demonstrate a special need to carry a concealed weapon. Various forms of "shall issue" laws have been adopted by other states and are currently under consideration in Michigan and elsewhere.
Over the last four years in Michigan "shall issue" has been a continuing topic of wide-ranging discussion among proponents, opponents, and objective students. Discussion has generated many important questions that should be considered when evaluating this policy in terms of its implications for the health and public safety of Michigan citizens. In developing this report, the MPPGV has considered those questions and other questions and information that we believe are important to include. All discussion points found in this paper fall roughly into three areas: individual freedom, public safety and health, and consideration of the character of the society we hope to build together.
The protection of individual autonomy is, or should be, an important consideration whenever laws are enacted. The freedom to live one's life with only the amount of governmental intervention necessary to enable us to live in safety with each other is a bedrock American value. The ownership and use of firearms by the general public are seen by many as safeguards of that freedom and as important for personal protection. And so, many questions having to do with individual rights and freedoms, autonomy, and protection are to be expected in any public discussion of "shall issue".
..reasonable regulation
Michigan Appellate rulings have consistently held that the Michigan constitutionally given right to bear arms is not an unrestricted right, but is subject to reasonable regulation for purposes of protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public. And indeed, the failure to regulate the ownership and use of firearms would have very serious public health, safety and economic implications. In recognition of this, Michigan currently responsibly regulates firearms use through the designation of hunting seasons, defining the types of weapons that may be used in certain areas, prohibiting firing of weapons from a vehicle, and other regulations designed to ensure the safety of both the firearm user and the general public, protect the environment, and/or protect game stock. Michigan has additionally exercised its responsibility to protect the general public through laws limiting the carrying of concealed handguns since 1929. It is particularly important to regulate the carrying of hidden or concealed pistols because they are concealed and not readily apparent to those persons with whom the concealed gun carrier comes in contact. The purpose of "Shall issue" is to change current law regulating when, where, and by whom pistols may be carried concealed.
.. fairness to others
Currently in Michigan, citizens who qualify to own a gun have the right to carry that gun openly where others can easily see that the carrying citizen is armed. But, that same citizen must have a permit to carry the gun concealed or hidden from view. "Shall issue" does not seek to change who can own a firearm or who can carry it. "Shall issue" seeks to expand the number of people permitted to carry a firearm concealed. The requirement that a gun carrier without a permit carry the gun so that it is visible to others allows others to know that a gun is a part of the social or business interaction in progress. When a gun must be worn visibly, others can readily see whether or not a gun is being brought into their home by a neighbor, the plumber, the furniture delivery person, or the carpet cleaners. They can readily tell if the clerk at the gas station or grocery store, the school teacher, their minister, the real estate agent or others with whom they interact every day are carrying guns. They can make that knowledge part of the quick "risk/benefit" analysis we each do quickly in our heads throughout the day in a variety of circumstances.
Although this right exists, we virtually never see anyone carrying a gun openly in our state unless for hunting or when engaged in a criminal act. One possible reason is that it is physically inconvenient to carry a handgun openly. You have to strap it and unstrap it to change from wearing it over your coat when you are wearing a coat and over your clothes when you remove the coat. You have to lock it in the trunk of your car every time you get in your car. Another possible reason is the concern that our friends and neighbors and co-workers may not be comfortable with knowing they are living or socializing or working with someone who is at that moment carrying a gun and with the broader range of possible outcomes the presence of the firearm represents.
Concealed guns eliminate the inconveniences associated with carrying a gun visibly. They also eliminate the discomfort others may feel by depriving them of the knowledge that the gun is there, and, inadvertently narrowing the information base on which they make safety decisions for themselves and perhaps for their children and other friends and family members.
..defense against criminals and training requirements
Proponents of "shall issue" argue that it doesn't make sense that criminals can have concealed guns and law-abiding citizens can't, despite the fact that criminals face a five-year felony conviction for carrying a firearm during the commission of a crime. They feel that law-abiding citizens deserve the opportunity to protect themselves from criminals and point out that police assistance is available primarily after the fact. Both proponents and opponents of "shall issue" additionally advocate for important training requirements for concealed carry permit holders to ensure that the permit holder understands the requirements of gun safety and the laws governing the use of lethal force.
However, opponents of "shall issue" point out that citizens could be in greater jeopardy with a concealed handgun than they would be without one. Police officers receive hundreds of hours of training on the proper use of handguns and, equally important, in the complex process involved in deciding to utilize fatal force. Yet, a recent FBI study of 51 incidents where 54 police officers were murdered revealed that 85% of the officers killed did not have time to fire their service weapon and 20% were killed with their own firearms. The 12 hours of training recommended for permit holders is important. But it is unlikely to adequately prepare the permit holder to make the critical decisions necessary for his or her own safety under the unexpected and highly stressful conditions encountered during the commission of a crime. In considering policy changes, it is important to ensure that the proposed remedy doesn't create more danger than the initial problem.
..fairness in issuing permits
Perceived fairness is an important issue to citizens advocating "shall issue". Many feel that county gun boards issue permits on an elitist basis and look to "shall issue" as a means of eliminating subjectivity in the permits approval process. Yet, when the Michigan State Police conducted a review of 14 of Michigan's 83 counties they found that in 1994 9,757 permits were approved out of the 10,920 applications received for an approval rate of almost 90%. Denials were based on a lack of demonstrated need or a failure to meet some other criteria. It is apparent that current gun boards are discharging their duties in a very responsible manner. What appears to be subjectivity in decision making to some, may seem to others to be a reasonable application of community standards which can be expected to vary from one part of the state to another. The local control component of current law is very consistent with the philosophy of local control that has been the hallmark of Michigan government in recent years.
..summary
Concealed carry permits issued on the basis of need provide an important balance between the needs of those who are in special circumstances of danger while minimizing unfairness and risk to the public at large.
As traditional as the high value Americans place on individual freedoms is our commitment to the concept that one person's right to swing his fist ends where the other person's nose begins. Gun policy has important public health and safety implications for all Michigan citizens regardless of whether they choose as individuals to own or carry a firearm. It is important to weigh those implications in the balance as we make gun policy decisions. Nationally and in our state, deaths from guns are at epidemic levels. In Michigan, approximately 1,200 people die from gunshot wounds each year. About 45% half of those deaths are attributable to suicide, less than 5% to accidents, while the other half are homicides. The Center for Disease control estimates that by the year 2003, deaths from guns nationally will occur at a higher rate than deaths from automobile accidents. Projections are that Michigan will reach that point even sooner.
..impact of armed citizens on crime
Some supporters of "shall issue" have asserted that criminals will be deterred from crime knowing that any citizen they encounter may be armed. While it is difficult to know whether any criminals will be deterred from crime realizing that any citizen over the age of 21 may be armed, other outcomes are possible. Criminals who currently do not carry firearms may feel the need to be armed just because their intended victims are more likely to be armed as well. In any armed conflict historically, an increase in the firepower available on one side tends to encourage an increase in firepower by the opposition.
The probability that criminals will react to increased firepower by escalating their own capacity is supported unintentionally by John R. Lott, Jr. of the University of Chicago Law School. In a letter he wrote to the editor of the Wall Street Journal (printed 3/27/98), Mr. Lott stated, "Twenty five or more years ago in Israel, terrorists would pull out machine guns in malls and fire away at civilians. However, with expanded concealed-handgun use by Israeli citizens, terrorists soon found the ordinary people around them pulling pistols on them. Suffice it to say, terrorists in Israel no longer engage in such public shootings - they have switched to bombing." Mr. Lott makes it clear in his letter that he feels this is an argument in favor of "shall issue". We do not.
..increasing the danger in our streets
Solid research indicates guns in homes are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill an intruder, according to the peer reviewed research of Arthur Kellerman, M.D., P.P.H., School of Public Health, Emory University. Guns in homes are near-to-hand solutions when teenagers or the elderly are depressed and considering suicide or when spouse abusers become violent and on other occasions when tempers run high and judgement is temporarily suspended. In 1/3 of homes with handguns, the guns are loaded and not locked up, adding to the likelihood of misuse or accidental death or injury. Similarly, increasing the number of guns on the streets may make our streets more dangerous for all, not simply more dangerous for those who choose to carry a concealed weapon.
..zero tolerance for alcohol: an important step forward
Zero tolerance for combining alcohol use with concealed carry is plain good common sense. Alcohol and guns don't mix for the same reasons that alcohol and driving don't mix: alcohol impairs judgement and slows reflexes. The combination of alcohol and guns was responsible for the shoot out between 5 concealed carry permit holders in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1997. Unfortunately, sanctions for alcohol use while carrying come after the fact, when death or injury may already have occurred.
..county board discretionary powers serve an important need
Since "shall issue" laws were first proposed in Michigan in 1995, the framers of the bills have given serious and productive thought to how to craft the law to prevent those whom we cannot reasonably expect to carry a concealed weapon responsibly from obtaining a permit. Therefore, current proposals prohibit anyone convicted of a felony from ever obtaining a permit, and provides for an 8-year moratorium for anyone convicted of a violent misdemeanor.
It is harder to craft language that would prevent someone of chronically poor judgement from obtaining a permit, however. Similarly, people who have committed crimes without being convicted can not be screened out. People with mental illness are prohibited from having a permit under the proposed law, but there is no means by which the gun board can verify a diagnosis of mental illness. Nor are there prohibitions against people with physical incapacities such as poor vision or degenerative diseases that may seriously interfere with the permit holder's ability to safely operate a firearm. Persons judged unable to drive because of physical or mental incapacity may still be able to obtain a permit to concealed carry.
Poll after poll from 1994 to 1998 indicate that Michigan voters consistently support issuing permits only after a determination of special need. This guards against concealed carry by persons who are at no special risk but want to carry a gun because it makes them feel powerful and important, or persons who simply feel more effectively aggressive with firepower available. While we know that the proposed law provides that misuse of a firearm by a permit holder is cause for revocation of the permit, the revocation occurs after the misuse, which may have included the death or injury of another. Additionally, revocation of the permit will be dependent on someone having observed the misuse and reporting it.
Additional danger to the general public occurs through the careless carrying of a gun. In Indianapolis, Indiana recently, 2 participants at a convention of public health professionals were shot and injured by a concealed weapons permit holder when his gun fell from his pocket and discharged in a restaurant. And, in the recent past in Michigan, the pistol of a permit holding State Representative fell from his pocket onto the floor of the House of Representatives, but fortunately, did not discharge. The safe carrying of a concealed weapon demands a level of constant vigilance for safety that many otherwise responsible individuals are unwilling or unable to maintain.
As cited above, local gun boards, with their discretionary powers allowing them to adhere to local standards, have worked well for the health and safety of Michigan citizens. Local gun board discretionary power cannot guarantee that only responsible persons will be issued permits. It cannot guarantee every person with a legitimate need will be able to obtain a permit. Nor can it guarantee that every person without a legitamite need will be denied a permit. However, absent persuasive evidence that another system will be better, it makes sense to continue the discretionary powers of local boards.
..credible evidence about the effects of concealed carry not yet available
While some preliminary indicators are available, this issue is clouded by claims made in a research paper by Mustard and Lott, University of Chicago, that Florida's "shall issue" laws were responsible for a significant drop in crime in Florida. (One of the authors of this study is the same John R. Lott, Jr. whose letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal was cited in this paper above.) However, the Mustard and Lott conclusions are suspect for several reasons. First, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health thoroughly reviewed the study and concluded that the research methods were significantly flawed in several major areas. Second, the faculty position occupied by Mr. Lott was funded by the Olin Foundation, which in turn is funded by Olin Corporation, which in turn owns Winchester Corporation and other munitions related enterprises. Lastly, Florida, like many states in our nation, has implemented a broad variety of strategies to diminish gun violence, any or several of which may have been contributors to the drop in violent crime.
Texas Department of Public Health Statistics for 1996, the first full year "shall issue" had effect in Texas, indicate that the rate of crime committed by concealed carry permit holders has significantly increased. Additional information from a January 1995 study by McDowall, Loftin and Wiersman who compared the effects on homicide of easing of concealed carry laws in Florida, Mississippi and Oregon indicates that expanded concealed carry may have significant detrimental impacts in urban areas, but a lesser impact in rural areas - an important argument in favor of local board discretion.
..summary
Gun Violence is of epidemic proportions in our society. Measures that increase the risk to the citizens of Michigan go beyond a reasonable balance of public health and safety with individual rights. "Shall issue" increases the risk for Michigan citizens.
Crafting the Character of our American Society
While the primary intention of "shall issue" is to allow those who wish to carry a concealed gun to do so without a demonstration of need, a perhaps unintentional but very real secondary message is to encourage the members of our society to arm themselves against one another. Adults arming themselves against each other cannot effectively teach themselves or children to value or develop non-violent problem-resolution skills. It is not an accident that children 11 or 12 years old or younger are shooting their parents, schoolmates, neighbors and themselves with increasing frequency. Our children live in a violent society created by adults. If adults react to the violence in society by increasing their personal firepower, that is the lesson our children will learn, regardless of any other teaching to the contrary.
We cannot create a safe society by the wholesale arming of ourselves against one another. An armed society is not a polite society, but a society ruled by might and fear rather than by law and respect for each other.
The Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence believes that "shall issue" is not sound policy for Michigan. The MPPGV has come to that conclusion based on 1.) An examination of the history of gun violence in our state and in our nation as reflected in our Policy Report 1997, 2.) The recommendations of important professional groups whose members cope with the tragic results of gun violence as they work in their professions of law, law enforcement, medicine and public health daily, 3.) Our concern that the current experiments with "shall issue" in other states are too recent to provide solid findings about whether this strategy results in enhanced public safety, 4.) Our knowledge that gun violence is currently at epidemic proportions in our state and our nation, 5.) Our review of the components of "shall issue" and the likelihood that implementation of "shall issue" will tip the always-precarious balance between individual rights and the public good, to the detriment of the health and safety of Michigan citizens, 6.) And our conviction that we cannot create a safe society by arming our citizens against one another.
Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence
Return to Current Issues
PO Box 14307
Lansing, MI 48901-4307
(517) 321-0195
4/98