[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Page 11356]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          ``SHALL ISSUE'' LAWS

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss concealed weapons 
laws. Currently, in Michigan, if a person wants to obtain a permit for 
a concealed weapon, he or she must apply at the local county gun board. 
Each one of these gun boards is made up of three members: the local 
sheriff, county prosecutor and a designee of the state police. The gun 
boards base their decisions on a person's demonstrated need for a gun, 
and that person's criminal record, if any, and on local conditions.
  Local decisionmaking makes sense. Local law enforcement officials 
know the local environment, local citizens, and can best assess the 
local impact of increasing the numbers of weapons carried in public. 
Last night, the Michigan State Senate passed a bill that, if signed 
into law, would take discretion away from local gun boards and put more 
weapons on our streets and in public places. In my view, eliminating 
the authority of local gun boards would be detrimental to public safety 
in Michigan and take us in the opposite direction than we are heading 
in Congress. More important than my opinions are the views of the law 
enforcement community in Michigan. Every major law enforcement agency 
in the state of Michigan including the State Police, Michigan 
Association of Chiefs of Police, Michigan Prosecuting Attorneys 
Association, Michigan Municipal League as well as many other 
organizations such as the Michigan Municipal League have made 
statements opposing this bill.
  One of the bills that is now before a conference committee of the 
Michigan Legislature is referred to as a ``shall issue'' bill. The NRA 
has been lobbying Michigan legislators to support a ``shall issue'' 
policy. The legislation is called ``shall issue'' because it mandates 
that if a person passes an FBI Federal background check, the gun board 
``shall issue'' him a permit to carry a concealed weapon, without 
requiring a show of need or the condition of other local circumstances.
  This legislation goes in the wrong direction. It would increase the 
danger of gun violence in our communities. I have seen no evidence, 
that people who have a legitimate need to carry a gun for protection 
are being denied the ability to do so. The numbers demonstrate that the 
overwhelming majority of requests for concealed weapons permits are 
approved. It's important for public safety that local gun boards 
continue to make such judgments.
  Here in Congress, we are working hard to reduce the easy availability 
of lethal weapons to people who should not have them. I do not want to 
see my State go in the other direction by passing a law that encourages 
the spread of concealed weapons in public places.
  Michigan has not been the only state targeted for these NRA-backed 
concealed weapons bills. Yet, despite the best efforts of the NRA, the 
``shall issue'' policy has been rejected by a bipartisan group of 
legislators in more than 10 States. That's because of the power of 
people in those States who united to demand action. Voters in the State 
of Missouri recently defeated a ``shall issue'' proposal much like the 
one in the Michigan Legislature. Missourians voted to keep in place 
prudent regulations for carrying concealed weapons--regulations that 
were first enacted in reaction to the days of Jesse James and the 
outlaw gangs.
  I believe the majority of Michigan's citizens feel the same way.

                          ____________________