Let's make sure gun owners are packing judgment as well as heat

By John Robinson

As a moderate liberal who has not voted for a Republican since Arne Carlson ran for governor, it might seem contrary to stereotype that I own several handguns. Nonetheless, I do.

I enjoy target shooting. I appreciate refining a skill. The "bang" appeals to the little boy in me, and it is, oddly enough, relaxing. Handguns themselves have an aesthetic quality; they are often pieces of art to be appreciated.

As a progressive, I wrestle with the competing aspects of being in favor of gun ownership among private citizens and finding fault with the argument that I have a Second Amendment right to own guns. So far as I know, I am not a member of an organized militia tasked to defend the state, yet I legally own several pistols.

To learn more about my hobby, I recently completed the Multi-State Concealed Carry Course required to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm in Minnesota. I would like to stress that I am not so paranoid that I think I need to carry a gun. I was just interested in taking the course. The class troubled me in three ways, and I think legislation could correct the deficiencies:

There was no test of knowledge. The basic laws allowing the concealed carry of a firearm were discussed. There was some discussion in class as to what a permit to carry meant, what it allowed, and what such a permit did not allow. However, there was no test to determine whether the class participants actually absorbed the information.

The firearm proficiency test (actual shooting test) was ridiculously easy. Put simply, I would have to have been experiencing a seizure of some sort to fail. Of greater concern was that the test centered only on whether the student could hit the target. In my opinion, the examination should also have a decisionmaking component to test the student's ability to quickly determine whether the shot should be taken at all. There should be some confidence that the student will exercise reasonable discrimination. All we applicants proved was that we could blow a hole through someone, not that we, in a moment of stress, would know whether we should.

My certificate states that I was tested by a "Certified NRA Instructor." My instructor introduced himself as a "life member" of the National Rifle Association. My personal observation is that "life members" seem to think everyone should own a gun. In my opinion, the instructor should be a government official (sheriff's deputy, police officer, etc.) acting as a representative of the government, and the instructor should not be the applicant's friend. He or she should be a skeptic to whom one must convincingly demonstrate an ability and reasonable disposition to carry a firearm. The instructor should not be inclined to make the class so absurdly simple that obtaining the certificate is a given.

I got the impression, both at the class and through subsequent discussion, that the providers of the tests submit basic lesson plans to the state for approval. It would appear that, so long as the defined lesson plan generally provides the information required by statute, the nature and general tone of each individual class can vary. Having taken the class only once, I cannot speak to courses conducted by different institutions; other classes may be much more stringent.

But the class I took should be much more difficult. The law should require a uniform curriculum and strenuous examination of applicants before they pass the class. This is important because, as the law is currently written, anyone who passes the class must be granted a carry permit if he or she is not a convicted felon, has not been officially determined to be mentally ill, or does not have some other past pattern of behavior that obviously renders the applicant unfit.

Cognitive ability and disposition? They would not seem to be factors. They should be.

----

John Robinson is a paralegal working in St. Paul. His guns are all securely locked in a safe.

Gallery

Fullscreen SlideshowPrevious Slide

1 of 1

Next Slide