Two bills introduced in the Senate and House early spring 1999 legislative session that would have relaxed Michigan Carrying Concealed Weapons (CCW) laws were dropped from the agenda until at least fall session and possibly until next year. To inform policy makers that access to guns and gun violence prevention are issues we are monitoring, advocates of public health must keep the pressure on.
What is CCW Legislation?
The proposed House bill called for a change in local gun board policy, which would require the board to grant a concealed weapons permit to any applicant who was not mentally ill or convicted of a violent or federal crime. Under current law, permits are reserved for someone who might, for example, be transporting large sums of money from their place of business to the bank. Applicants are now required to reasonably demonstrate their need for a weapon. Under the proposed bill, as long as an applicant meets the criminal and mental requirements, the local gun board shall issue them a gun permit, making guns accessible to anyone who may want to have one handy. The bill would also change license restrictions, making it possible to carry a gun anywhere, including work, the grocery store, or movie theaters.
The Senate version of the Carrying Concealed Weapons legislation aims for the same relaxation of permit requirements and restrictions as the House bill. But instead of forcing the new laws on local gun boards, the bill would give the power to issue permits directly to the state, eliminating local gun boards completely.
Why is CCW Legislation a Public Health Concern?
Carrying Concealed Weapons legislation is a concern because it ignores the public health threat superimposed by relaxed gun laws. 36,000 people have died this year from fire arms. Ingham Community Health Centers reported that despite the huge social costs of the murders, suicides, and accidents that have been caused by fire arms, there has been no concerted effort to stop this public health threat in the way that Polio was battled at the height of its epidemic in the 1950's where only a comparatively smaller number (3,500) had died.
Public health advocates, as well as a wide majority of the public (70 percent of Michigan voters), have opposed this legislation for three major reasons. First, according to the Lansing State Journal, State police estimate that if the proposed legislation is passed, the number of concealed weapons permits could rise by 18,000 to 200,000 . This would come at a time when, according to the American College of Physicians, fire arm deaths in the U.S. have risen by 60 percent, from 23, 875 to 39, 720 since 1968. In addition, fire arms are the leading cause of death for teenagers and having a fire arm in the home is expected to increase the risk of both homicide and suicide dramatically in the household. According to the 1999 Kids Count Data Book, the number of teen homicides in the US has increased from 1,602 to 2,924 since 1985. According to the Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.
In addition to an increase in concealed weapons permits, citizens and maternal and child health advocates oppose the legislation because relaxed permit regulations will dangerously expand the places in which a person can carry a weapon. Under the proposed bills that would make it legal to carry a concealed weapon in virtually every public place--including parks, stores, and churches-- the presence of guns in public places could potentially skyrocket. Some proponents of the legislation argue that ìan armed society is a polite society but according to studies done in places like Texas, where similar shall clauses were implemented, weapon related arrests went up, not down. Overall, research has shown that states issuing a shall clause saw firearm homicides increase by 4.5 per 10,000 people. Not surprisingly, a study from the University of Wisconsin shows that 14% of criminally motivated gun deaths are actually a result of disagreements between persons that escalate to the point where a gun is used if it is there.
Public health advocates are concerned that if the Senate version was ever passed and local gun boards were eliminated completely, rural and urban differences could not be addressed by a state-run permit bureau. Centralization makes it more difficult to gauge the effects of a law that may play out very differently from one community to the next, especially in rural and urban areas.
What Happened?
The legislation was postponed due to a number of political and social factors including the recent Columbine, Colorado High School shootings, and the threat of a 2000 ballot for weapons permits during an election year. Also very important to the fight against Concealed Weapons legislation was the advocacy and community work of groups promoting public health throughout the state and the perseverance of individual citizens who contacted their legislators opposing this legislation.
What can YOU do?
Despite the postponement, however, it is extremely important to keep vigilant! Don't let your lawmakers ignore the public health concern of homicide, suicide, and accident caused by fire arms. Thank your legislators over the summer for halting Carrying Concealed Weapons legislation and remind them that you do not want the bills to be picked up again in the fall.
Actions Alerts
