I don't like being checked up on by Big Brother. That's exactly what's been happening to me lately, so I thought I'd return the favor.
Big Brother, in my opinion, is most likely a man named Scott Wiggins, a person who works in Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty's office. If my hunch is wrong, then it's probably someone reading my blog at Mr. Wiggins's request.
Why does a highly-placed functionary in the governor's office care one bit about what a goofy blogger such as myself has to say? Read on, it'll be quite clear in a minute.
A few months back, a number of pro-handgun carry activists here in Minnesota tried, with partial success, to hold Governor Tim Pawlenty's office to a promise that his people had made to them during last fall's campaign, a promise to prompt the Minnesota Department of Public Safety to do their legally-mandated job of yearly reviewing handgun carry statutes in other states, in order to facilitate reciprocity agreements. This process had apparently been done only once, and poorly at that.
While this group of individuals was working hard in an attempt to get some action, I decided to write an article detailing the entire situation from the beginning, in the hopes that a little public heat would be helpful. My research for the article indicated that Scott Wiggins was the nexus of incompetence who was preventing a satisfactory resolution to the situation. I contacted Mr. Wiggins, who immediately referred me to the Communications Office, who never returned my request for information. That very afternoon, someone from state.mn.us spent over 40 minutes on my blog, trying to get a handle on exactly who I was. The same people have checked back in repeatedly, the most recent time on Wednesday, May 30.
My article was completed and submitted to several news organizations, but was not accepted for sale or publication. Since someone seems to be quite anxious to know whether or not it's going to be coming out, why don't we just end the suspense and post it right here?
Just so we're crystal clear on certain points:
I like Governor Pawlenty, both personally and professionally. I voted for him twice, and contributed financially to both campaigns. I think he's doing stellar work holding the dike against the DFL party, which is trying to tax us into oblivion while simultaneously making us into the perfect little Nanny State.
That being said, when I started this blog, I pledged to hold government officials accountable, no matter their party affiliation, and I intend to honor that pledge.
Big Brother, in my opinion, is most likely a man named Scott Wiggins, a person who works in Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty's office. If my hunch is wrong, then it's probably someone reading my blog at Mr. Wiggins's request.
Why does a highly-placed functionary in the governor's office care one bit about what a goofy blogger such as myself has to say? Read on, it'll be quite clear in a minute.
A few months back, a number of pro-handgun carry activists here in Minnesota tried, with partial success, to hold Governor Tim Pawlenty's office to a promise that his people had made to them during last fall's campaign, a promise to prompt the Minnesota Department of Public Safety to do their legally-mandated job of yearly reviewing handgun carry statutes in other states, in order to facilitate reciprocity agreements. This process had apparently been done only once, and poorly at that.
While this group of individuals was working hard in an attempt to get some action, I decided to write an article detailing the entire situation from the beginning, in the hopes that a little public heat would be helpful. My research for the article indicated that Scott Wiggins was the nexus of incompetence who was preventing a satisfactory resolution to the situation. I contacted Mr. Wiggins, who immediately referred me to the Communications Office, who never returned my request for information. That very afternoon, someone from state.mn.us spent over 40 minutes on my blog, trying to get a handle on exactly who I was. The same people have checked back in repeatedly, the most recent time on Wednesday, May 30.
My article was completed and submitted to several news organizations, but was not accepted for sale or publication. Since someone seems to be quite anxious to know whether or not it's going to be coming out, why don't we just end the suspense and post it right here?
Just so we're crystal clear on certain points:
I like Governor Pawlenty, both personally and professionally. I voted for him twice, and contributed financially to both campaigns. I think he's doing stellar work holding the dike against the DFL party, which is trying to tax us into oblivion while simultaneously making us into the perfect little Nanny State.
That being said, when I started this blog, I pledged to hold government officials accountable, no matter their party affiliation, and I intend to honor that pledge.
Here, then, is the entire, original article that I submitted for publication. Anyone may reprint or quote from it freely, with the condition that I am given credit at this website. Share it with friends!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2007 Douglas J. Hester
On November 7, 2006, Republican politicians in Minnesota were dealt a severe blow by their supporters, many of whom either sat at home or voted for other candidates. When the dust settled, Governor Tim Pawlenty was the only statewide Republican left standing. He won reelection by a margin of only about 1%, thanks in large part to endorsements from such groups as GOCRA, the Gun Owners’ Civil Rights Alliance, which had publicly supported him and which had loudly encouraged gun owners to vote.
Since Pawlenty won by about 22,000 votes, and there are approximately 40,000 handgun permit holders in the state, this was no small thing. After the election, however, Pawlenty quickly adopted a more conciliatory attitude toward some issues, such as universal health care and public stadium funding, for example. Some Republican groups, as well as other non-partisan advocacy organizations such as GOCRA, have accused him of inaction, or worse yet, changing his position on various issues in order to make himself more attractive to the political center for a possible Vice Presidential run in 2008. Here is the story of how one of his most loyal support groups were made promises that were not kept, even as they worked to deliver votes for the governor.
Last October, the various polls had all of the Democrats in statewide races showing big leads, with the exception of the race for governor, which was generally acknowledged as being too close to call, or even showing a slight lead for the governor’s rival, then-Attorney General Mike Hatch. When GOCRA complained at the time about an issue with the Department of Public Safety’s enforcement of a portion of Minnesota’s permit to carry law, the governor’s office agreed to have a meeting with them, in order to find a solution.
The Minnesota Personal Protection Act of 2003, more commonly known as the concealed-carry law (incorrectly, as there is no requirement for the permit holder to conceal their firearm), contained a provision for offering reciprocity to other states, so that their citizens holding carry permits could do so while visiting the state, with the caveat that they had to follow the laws of Minnesota, not their home state. This provision was put into the law for three main reasons: 1.) To fulfill the preamble to the bill, which states that “The legislature of the state of Minnesota recognizes and declares that the second amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms”. The backers of the bill were sincere in their belief that the right to self-defense is a true human rights issue, and that a firearm is the most useful tool available for that purpose. 2.) To allow people who possess permits in their home state the opportunity for self-protection while visiting here. 3.) To allow Minnesota residents the chance to carry in other states, some of which only offer permit reciprocity to states that offer it to them first.
The procedure for determining which states’ carry permit criteria met the standard for being offered reciprocity was simple and clearly stated in the law. Here’s the exact text of the relevant part of the statute [emphasis added]:
“The commissioner (Commissioner of Public Safety) must annually establish and publish a list of other states that have laws governing the issuance of permits to carry weapons that are not substantially similar to this section. The list must be available on the Internet. A person holding a carry permit from a state not on the list may use the license or permit in this state subject to the rights, privileges, and requirements of this section.”
In other words, the commissioner was directed to do an annual review of each state’s carry permit laws, and was required to generate a list of states whose laws were not “substantially similar” to Minnesota’s. The carry permits from all other states were then to be considered valid in Minnesota, again subject to the laws here regarding where one could carry, etc. “Substantially similar” was the bar chosen, as it is the least restrictive of the commonly used comparison terms used in determining if laws in different states are reasonably alike, in issues such as child support, for example. This was done to ensure that as many states as possible would qualify for reciprocity.
Rich Stanek, who was the Commissioner of Public Safety at the time of the law’s passage, and apparently not a fan of the new law, decided to interpret “substantially similar” in a strikingly different manner than the other 200 or so times the term is used in Minnesota’s statutes.
Minnesota requirements for a permit are basically that one be 21 or older, complete a training class, and pass a background check. Instead of deciding that a state’s having an age limit, a training requirement, and a background check of their own was similarity enough, Stanek on his own applied a far stronger standard of “meets or exceeds Minnesota’s requirements”, and apparently compared the actual amount of hours of training, who was allowed to perform the training and what type of training it was, and how the background checks were performed, in an apparent effort to exclude as many states from reciprocity as possible. In addition, Stanek also insisted that any states included in the reciprocity list must have a computer database able to be accessed at any time by Minnesota officers, even though there was no provision for any such requirement in the law. Because of this, only 4 states out of a total of 25 eligible at the time were given reciprocity. When Stanek published the list of states that weren’t eligible, he also published the 4 that were given reciprocity on a separate list, again something that the law did not provide for.
After Stanek resigned as Commissioner of Public Safety over the controversy regarding his use of the word “nigger” while a member of the Minneapolis Police Department, he was replaced by Michael Campion, again a career law enforcement officer. Campion saw fit to keep Stanek’s narrow definition in place, and no additional states were added in subsequent yearly reviews. In fact, it’s unclear whether any further reviews were done at all.
By the fall of 2006, GOCRA and other pro-carry groups were upset that the annual review and subsequent establishment of reciprocity were not being done according to the letter or the spirit of the law, and they were starting to complain to the Pawlenty administration. Pawlenty’s people, perhaps sensing that they needed every vote and endorsement that they could get, decided to offer a fix to the reciprocity problem, probably in order to keep the support of GOCRA and the pro-carry community through the general election.
Numerous telephone conversations were carried on between GOCRA officers and Pawlenty's senior staff discussing the specific terms of the Minnesota statute, the misapplication of it by the two DPS Commissioners, the exact coverage of other states' laws, and how to resolve the legal and policy dispute.
Finally, in mid-October 2006, a meeting was held in the meeting room right outside the Governor's personal office. The meeting was called by Chuck Noerenberg, at the time the governor’s top legislative aide for justice matters. Present at the meeting along with Noerenberg was Joe Olson, the president of GOCRA who had a large role in drafting the carry law; and Tim Grant, another high ranking GOCRA member. Shortly after the discussion commenced, they were joined by David Gaither, who was then Pawlenty’s chief of staff, and a man understood to be able to speak "for the Governor." At the meeting, a “handshake deal” was made, in that GOCRA was promised that action would be taken immediately after the election to begin rectifying the reciprocity problem, and that a more thorough review of other states’ requirements would be done right after the New Year. Olson recalls that Gaither told him that “You can trust us on this, we’ll keep our word”, and “This will be taken care of”. Olson and Grant figured that the problem was as good as solved, since the top two men in the governor’s office had made them a promise, and as that is the currency of politics, it was good enough for them.
After Pawlenty won reelection, GOCRA and others sat and waited for the promised updates to the reciprocity list. Nothing happened, despite several reminders to the governor’s office of their responsibilities in this matter. In December, the office was shaken up. Noerenberg was switched over to being Pawlenty’s meth czar, and David Gaither left for private employment. Noerenberg was replaced by Scott Wiggins, a DPS employee, and Gaither was replaced by Matt Kramer. Olson maintains that the non-action was not the fault of Noerenberg, who he says was a “straight shooter” with a stellar reputation for following up on promises. Olson thinks that the order to not take any action on this matter must have come from higher up, as Noerenberg had always been true to his word in the past.
Finally, on March 19, Joe Olson and John Caile of GOCRA, along with Joel Rosenberg, a local firearms instructor and 2nd Amendment activist, were summoned to a meeting with Commissioner Campion and Joe Newton from the Department of Public Safety, as well as Scott Wiggins, the top legislative assistant to Pawlenty, and apparently the man to whom the job of reviewing the reciprocity list was given. Campion announced at the beginning of the meeting that after extensive research, as well as “discussions with the governor” over the issue, the department was ready to add some additional states to the reciprocity list. To that end, Wiggins, who is not an attorney, announced that during his review he had interpreted “substantially similar” to mean that the other states had to conform to a list of five requirements, but did not wish to discuss his application of that list to the various states. When asked what criteria he had used to establish that the list of requirements he had come up with equated to “substantially similar”, Wiggins replied “because that’s the way I interpret the law”. When Wiggins was further pressed if he had researched the term “substantially similar” in the other 196 places it is used in the Minnesota statutes, in order to see how it was used in those instances, he repeatedly admitted that “I haven’t reviewed any of them” and that he was using the term as he understood it. He then informed the activists that he had managed to come up with another 11 states out of the 24 that were currently eligible to be added that he felt met his “substantially similar” bar, and that he would be adding to the list shortly, when he got around to it. Wiggins, as well as the governor’s communications office, did not respond to repeated requests for an interview for this story.
After Joel Rosenberg published the details of this second meeting in the forum of his website at twincitiescarry.com, many permit holders angry at the cavalier attitude shown by the governor’s office started calling and emailing Wiggins’ office. After this extra pressure started being applied, the additional eleven states that Wiggins had deemed worthy of reciprocity were finally added to the list on Thursday, March 22.
Many permit holders were angry and mystified at how it had taken so much time and agitation for the governor’s office to finally order the Commissioner to take action on this issue. Others wondered why a legislative aide in the governor’s office who was not a lawyer was the person assigned to perform a review of the legal codes of multiple states, and not someone with a legal background. The speculation seemed to coalesce around the theory that Pawlenty, with potential national office aspirations, was reluctant to have his office do anything that liberal advocacy groups such as Citizens for a Safer Minnesota and the Brady Campaign could use to make outlandish claims such as one about Pawlenty “putting thousands of additional guns on the street”, and possibly damage his attraction to bigger urban centers, which are more traditionally resistant to residents having carry permits.
The example given may be a little complex, but it is a clear indication of how a promise was made to an organization friendly to the governor -- not for a favor (GOCRA had already endorsed Governor Pawlenty), but merely to enforce the law as it was written, something that cost no money and would not have taken much time to accomplish at all -- and how that promise was broken, presumably for the sake of politics.
Gun owners and permit holders owe a huge debt of gratitude to Governor Pawlenty for signing the carry law twice, once in 2003 and again in 2005 after it had to be re-passed due to a court’s overturning the 2003 law on a technicality. That being said, it is still the responsibility of the governor’s office to ensure that the Department of Public Safety applies the law concerning reciprocity in a fair and consistent manner. In addition to angering his most loyal supporters, this incident also shows that Pawlenty’s office cannot be trusted to hold up their end of a bargain, which in the end is all the credibility a politician has at his disposal.
Full disclosure: The author is a carry permit holder who voted for Pawlenty twice, as well as contributed financially to his campaigns.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2007 Douglas J. Hester
On November 7, 2006, Republican politicians in Minnesota were dealt a severe blow by their supporters, many of whom either sat at home or voted for other candidates. When the dust settled, Governor Tim Pawlenty was the only statewide Republican left standing. He won reelection by a margin of only about 1%, thanks in large part to endorsements from such groups as GOCRA, the Gun Owners’ Civil Rights Alliance, which had publicly supported him and which had loudly encouraged gun owners to vote.
Since Pawlenty won by about 22,000 votes, and there are approximately 40,000 handgun permit holders in the state, this was no small thing. After the election, however, Pawlenty quickly adopted a more conciliatory attitude toward some issues, such as universal health care and public stadium funding, for example. Some Republican groups, as well as other non-partisan advocacy organizations such as GOCRA, have accused him of inaction, or worse yet, changing his position on various issues in order to make himself more attractive to the political center for a possible Vice Presidential run in 2008. Here is the story of how one of his most loyal support groups were made promises that were not kept, even as they worked to deliver votes for the governor.
Last October, the various polls had all of the Democrats in statewide races showing big leads, with the exception of the race for governor, which was generally acknowledged as being too close to call, or even showing a slight lead for the governor’s rival, then-Attorney General Mike Hatch. When GOCRA complained at the time about an issue with the Department of Public Safety’s enforcement of a portion of Minnesota’s permit to carry law, the governor’s office agreed to have a meeting with them, in order to find a solution.
The Minnesota Personal Protection Act of 2003, more commonly known as the concealed-carry law (incorrectly, as there is no requirement for the permit holder to conceal their firearm), contained a provision for offering reciprocity to other states, so that their citizens holding carry permits could do so while visiting the state, with the caveat that they had to follow the laws of Minnesota, not their home state. This provision was put into the law for three main reasons: 1.) To fulfill the preamble to the bill, which states that “The legislature of the state of Minnesota recognizes and declares that the second amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms”. The backers of the bill were sincere in their belief that the right to self-defense is a true human rights issue, and that a firearm is the most useful tool available for that purpose. 2.) To allow people who possess permits in their home state the opportunity for self-protection while visiting here. 3.) To allow Minnesota residents the chance to carry in other states, some of which only offer permit reciprocity to states that offer it to them first.
The procedure for determining which states’ carry permit criteria met the standard for being offered reciprocity was simple and clearly stated in the law. Here’s the exact text of the relevant part of the statute [emphasis added]:
“The commissioner (Commissioner of Public Safety) must annually establish and publish a list of other states that have laws governing the issuance of permits to carry weapons that are not substantially similar to this section. The list must be available on the Internet. A person holding a carry permit from a state not on the list may use the license or permit in this state subject to the rights, privileges, and requirements of this section.”
In other words, the commissioner was directed to do an annual review of each state’s carry permit laws, and was required to generate a list of states whose laws were not “substantially similar” to Minnesota’s. The carry permits from all other states were then to be considered valid in Minnesota, again subject to the laws here regarding where one could carry, etc. “Substantially similar” was the bar chosen, as it is the least restrictive of the commonly used comparison terms used in determining if laws in different states are reasonably alike, in issues such as child support, for example. This was done to ensure that as many states as possible would qualify for reciprocity.
Rich Stanek, who was the Commissioner of Public Safety at the time of the law’s passage, and apparently not a fan of the new law, decided to interpret “substantially similar” in a strikingly different manner than the other 200 or so times the term is used in Minnesota’s statutes.
Minnesota requirements for a permit are basically that one be 21 or older, complete a training class, and pass a background check. Instead of deciding that a state’s having an age limit, a training requirement, and a background check of their own was similarity enough, Stanek on his own applied a far stronger standard of “meets or exceeds Minnesota’s requirements”, and apparently compared the actual amount of hours of training, who was allowed to perform the training and what type of training it was, and how the background checks were performed, in an apparent effort to exclude as many states from reciprocity as possible. In addition, Stanek also insisted that any states included in the reciprocity list must have a computer database able to be accessed at any time by Minnesota officers, even though there was no provision for any such requirement in the law. Because of this, only 4 states out of a total of 25 eligible at the time were given reciprocity. When Stanek published the list of states that weren’t eligible, he also published the 4 that were given reciprocity on a separate list, again something that the law did not provide for.
After Stanek resigned as Commissioner of Public Safety over the controversy regarding his use of the word “nigger” while a member of the Minneapolis Police Department, he was replaced by Michael Campion, again a career law enforcement officer. Campion saw fit to keep Stanek’s narrow definition in place, and no additional states were added in subsequent yearly reviews. In fact, it’s unclear whether any further reviews were done at all.
By the fall of 2006, GOCRA and other pro-carry groups were upset that the annual review and subsequent establishment of reciprocity were not being done according to the letter or the spirit of the law, and they were starting to complain to the Pawlenty administration. Pawlenty’s people, perhaps sensing that they needed every vote and endorsement that they could get, decided to offer a fix to the reciprocity problem, probably in order to keep the support of GOCRA and the pro-carry community through the general election.
Numerous telephone conversations were carried on between GOCRA officers and Pawlenty's senior staff discussing the specific terms of the Minnesota statute, the misapplication of it by the two DPS Commissioners, the exact coverage of other states' laws, and how to resolve the legal and policy dispute.
Finally, in mid-October 2006, a meeting was held in the meeting room right outside the Governor's personal office. The meeting was called by Chuck Noerenberg, at the time the governor’s top legislative aide for justice matters. Present at the meeting along with Noerenberg was Joe Olson, the president of GOCRA who had a large role in drafting the carry law; and Tim Grant, another high ranking GOCRA member. Shortly after the discussion commenced, they were joined by David Gaither, who was then Pawlenty’s chief of staff, and a man understood to be able to speak "for the Governor." At the meeting, a “handshake deal” was made, in that GOCRA was promised that action would be taken immediately after the election to begin rectifying the reciprocity problem, and that a more thorough review of other states’ requirements would be done right after the New Year. Olson recalls that Gaither told him that “You can trust us on this, we’ll keep our word”, and “This will be taken care of”. Olson and Grant figured that the problem was as good as solved, since the top two men in the governor’s office had made them a promise, and as that is the currency of politics, it was good enough for them.
After Pawlenty won reelection, GOCRA and others sat and waited for the promised updates to the reciprocity list. Nothing happened, despite several reminders to the governor’s office of their responsibilities in this matter. In December, the office was shaken up. Noerenberg was switched over to being Pawlenty’s meth czar, and David Gaither left for private employment. Noerenberg was replaced by Scott Wiggins, a DPS employee, and Gaither was replaced by Matt Kramer. Olson maintains that the non-action was not the fault of Noerenberg, who he says was a “straight shooter” with a stellar reputation for following up on promises. Olson thinks that the order to not take any action on this matter must have come from higher up, as Noerenberg had always been true to his word in the past.
Finally, on March 19, Joe Olson and John Caile of GOCRA, along with Joel Rosenberg, a local firearms instructor and 2nd Amendment activist, were summoned to a meeting with Commissioner Campion and Joe Newton from the Department of Public Safety, as well as Scott Wiggins, the top legislative assistant to Pawlenty, and apparently the man to whom the job of reviewing the reciprocity list was given. Campion announced at the beginning of the meeting that after extensive research, as well as “discussions with the governor” over the issue, the department was ready to add some additional states to the reciprocity list. To that end, Wiggins, who is not an attorney, announced that during his review he had interpreted “substantially similar” to mean that the other states had to conform to a list of five requirements, but did not wish to discuss his application of that list to the various states. When asked what criteria he had used to establish that the list of requirements he had come up with equated to “substantially similar”, Wiggins replied “because that’s the way I interpret the law”. When Wiggins was further pressed if he had researched the term “substantially similar” in the other 196 places it is used in the Minnesota statutes, in order to see how it was used in those instances, he repeatedly admitted that “I haven’t reviewed any of them” and that he was using the term as he understood it. He then informed the activists that he had managed to come up with another 11 states out of the 24 that were currently eligible to be added that he felt met his “substantially similar” bar, and that he would be adding to the list shortly, when he got around to it. Wiggins, as well as the governor’s communications office, did not respond to repeated requests for an interview for this story.
After Joel Rosenberg published the details of this second meeting in the forum of his website at twincitiescarry.com, many permit holders angry at the cavalier attitude shown by the governor’s office started calling and emailing Wiggins’ office. After this extra pressure started being applied, the additional eleven states that Wiggins had deemed worthy of reciprocity were finally added to the list on Thursday, March 22.
Many permit holders were angry and mystified at how it had taken so much time and agitation for the governor’s office to finally order the Commissioner to take action on this issue. Others wondered why a legislative aide in the governor’s office who was not a lawyer was the person assigned to perform a review of the legal codes of multiple states, and not someone with a legal background. The speculation seemed to coalesce around the theory that Pawlenty, with potential national office aspirations, was reluctant to have his office do anything that liberal advocacy groups such as Citizens for a Safer Minnesota and the Brady Campaign could use to make outlandish claims such as one about Pawlenty “putting thousands of additional guns on the street”, and possibly damage his attraction to bigger urban centers, which are more traditionally resistant to residents having carry permits.
The example given may be a little complex, but it is a clear indication of how a promise was made to an organization friendly to the governor -- not for a favor (GOCRA had already endorsed Governor Pawlenty), but merely to enforce the law as it was written, something that cost no money and would not have taken much time to accomplish at all -- and how that promise was broken, presumably for the sake of politics.
Gun owners and permit holders owe a huge debt of gratitude to Governor Pawlenty for signing the carry law twice, once in 2003 and again in 2005 after it had to be re-passed due to a court’s overturning the 2003 law on a technicality. That being said, it is still the responsibility of the governor’s office to ensure that the Department of Public Safety applies the law concerning reciprocity in a fair and consistent manner. In addition to angering his most loyal supporters, this incident also shows that Pawlenty’s office cannot be trusted to hold up their end of a bargain, which in the end is all the credibility a politician has at his disposal.
Full disclosure: The author is a carry permit holder who voted for Pawlenty twice, as well as contributed financially to his campaigns.
Posts
1 comment:
Hi Dougie, I found your blog!
Post a Comment