Push for more background checks stalls; 99 percent of gun applications approved last year

By Aaron Rupar Fri., Mar. 1 2013 at 2:07 PM

Categories: Guns

The number of Minnesotans with gun permits jumped dramatically last year.

On the same day that Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk, D-Cook, said it'll be "tough to get the votes" to pass a bill expanding background checks for prospective gun owners, data released by the state shows that just about every gun permit application filed last year was approved.

SEE ALSO:
-- Minnesota gun permit holders: Five justifiable firearm uses, 124 crimes on record since 2003
-- More Minnesotans were killed in fist fights than by rifles in 2011

In 2012, 31,657 permits applications were received by county sheriffs, and 31,492 were approved. That's good for a 99 percent approval rate, which is pretty scary when you consider that a homicidal manic like Christian Oberender wasn't red-flagged when he applied for a permit.

The number of permit applications approved last year surged about 50 percent from 2011 -- from 20,772 to 31,657 in 2012. Of course, not all of Minnesota's 125,339 permit holders necessarily own guns.

During a news conference earlier today, Bakk said combined opposition from Republicans and conservative Democrats will almost certainly kill any effort to expand the scope of required background checks this legislative session.

We Recommend

digitalprotocol topcommenter

no way that 99% ought to have been approved. FED oversight is like a monkey taking care of a baby...nonsense

senatortombstone

1 Like

This is good news. People have a right to self-defense and there is nothing better to that end than a gun. Even if a few permit holders end up committing a crime with their guns, it does not justify preventing anyone else from getting a permit. Why are some people more scared of law-abiding citizens owning guns than they are of criminals?

webcelt topcommenter

@senatortombstone Because we can't tell the difference until they shoot somebody. Strict background checks are something every responsible gun owner should support. Only criminals benefit from loose standards.

MotherJones

@webcelt No, because criminals do not attain guns legally. How would have stricter background checks prevented the Newtown shootings? Being that Lanza stole the guns from his mother who legally purchased the weapons, a stricter background check on her (presumably she had no criminal history nor mental health issues) would not have prevented that tragedy. For example, I do not own any guns, and have a clean criminal background and no mental health issues. However, my mother suffers from depression. While she does not live me nor has she ever demonstrated any violent behavior, what were to happen if I were to purchase a firearm and let's say, she went off the deep end and stole my gun and went on a shooting rampage. How would stricter background checks on me prevent that from happening? It wouldn't.

TheConservativeJerk topcommenter

@webcelt @MotherJones

Really webcelt???

"What you said about criminals do not get guns legally is just wrong"

Really??? You’re gonna take a less than 5% statistic and use it for an example.

How about Chicago or DC?No one can "legally" possess hand guns in those places. But yet they have managed to make the news worldwide for the amount of hand gun related crime.

Hmmm....where logic and emotion clash...

webcelt topcommenter

@MotherJones @webcelt It's not all gun massacres. There are plenty of people killed in routine crime too, partly because guns are so easy to get. What you said about criminals do not get guns legally is just wrong. Yes, they do. Not always, but sometimes. Let's at least make it harder, and if someone goes around the background check system, we won't have to wait for them to kill somebody before doing something.

You know what would stop your mother's hypothetical rampage? If you aren't foolish enough to keep a gun where she can get it. So don't go buying the firearm in the first place, and be glad that once we have a decent background check, she won't be able to get it for herself.