95-20i
(AMENDED FEBRUARY 22, 1995)
(AMENDED MARCH 1, 1995)
(AMENDED MARCH 8, 1995)
I � �
Council File # 95-20
Ordinance # 95-20
Green Sheet # 29696
ORDINANCE
JNT P4111 _ MINNFSnT�
An ordinance amending Chapter 60 of the Saint
Paul Legislative Code pertaining to Zoning;
adding provisions regulating the location of
firearms dealers.
The Council of the City of Saint Paul Does Ordain:
Section 1
That section 60.206 F of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is
hereby amended so as to add the following definitions thereto:
Firearms dealer. A person who is federally licensed to
sell firearms
r_..... _,� ,�.__,____ ,.. _,.:..
_ _.._____ .. _
'_'".. � r __"..�"'_"'_ ��__"'_-- _"�___".
�
0
Section 2
That section 60.207 G of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is
hereby amended so as to add the following definition thereto:
3�
�
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
9s�a
l.
Gun shop. A qun shop is a business of any size occupied by
a firearms dealer where °-- -a -° - -- }'-�- ' ,.'-:.--
�y and sales of firearms, a�a�
(b) 1200 sauare feet or more o£ £loor
Section 3
That section 60.614 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 60.614. Principal uses permitted subject to special
conditions.
The following additional uses shall be permitted subject to
the conditions hereinafter imposed for each use and subject to
the standards specified for all special condition uses as set
forth in section 64.300(d). All principal uses permitted subject
to special conditions shall be reviewed and approved by the
planning commission.
(1) All uses as permitted and as regulated in the B-3
Business District under principal uses permitted
subject to special conditions.
(2) Airports.
(3)
(4)
Outdoor (drive-in) theaters subject to the following
conditions:
a. The proposed internal design shall receive
approval from the city engineer as to the adequacy
of drainage, lighting and other technical aspects.
b. Outdoor theaters shall abut directly upon a major
thoroughfare, with their points of ingress and
egress available only from said major
thoroughfare.
c. For vehicles waiting or standing to enter the
facility, there shall be provided for off-street
waiting space for no less than fifty (50)
automobiles.
d. The area shall be laid out so as to prevent the
movie screen from being viewed from residential
areas or adjacent major thoroughfares.
All commercial and public radio and television
transmitting antennas, and public utility microwave and
2
�. , p
cellular telephone antennas subject to the following 7S'a•�
conditions:
a. The antennas, transmitting towers or array of
towers shall be located on a continuou5 parcel
having a dimension equal to the height of the
antenna, transmitting tower or array of towers
measured between the base of the antenna or tower
located nearest a property line and said property
line, unless a qualified structural enqineer shall
specify in writing that the collapse of any
antenna or tower will occur within a lesser
distance under all foreseeable circumstances.
b. The proposed installation shall meet all
requirements as outlined under section 62.108,
site plan review.
(5) Commercial, private and public satellite dish
transmitting or receiving antennas in excess o£ three
(3) meters in diameter, subject to the following
conditions:
a. Satellite dish antennas shall be located on zoning
lots of su£ficient size to assure that an
obstruction-free transmit-receive window or
windows can be maintained within the limits of the
property ownership.
b. Except where the antenna is screened by a
structure exceeding the antenna height, landscape
buffering and screening shall be maintained on all
sides of the satellite dish antenna in a manner in
which growth of the landscape elements will not
interfere with the transmit-receive window.
c. The proposed installation shall meet all
requirements as outlined under section 62.108,
site plan review.
(6) Prisons, reformatories and other correctional
institutions which are not community residential
facilities.
(7) Race tracks.
(8) Railroad yards, shops or similar facilities.
(9) Heliports and helistops, public and private, located at
an airport, subject to the following conditions:
a. The heliport and helistop shall be located at
least one thousand (1,000) radial feet from any
residentially used or zoned property, measured in
a straight line from the closest point of the
takeoff and landing area to the property line of
the closest residentially used or zoned property.
7
b. The applicant shall perform a noise analysis to ����
determine whether upon establishment of the
heliport or helistop the Noise Pollution Control
Rules, Chapter 7010, of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, would immediately be violated. If
the analysis shows that the rules would be
violated, the applicant shall take measures to
prevent the potential violation before the
heliport or helistop is established.
c. The heliport or helistop shall be constructed,
operated and maintained in accordance with the
rules and regulations of the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and State of Minnesota.
Documentation that the FAA and state have approved
the heliport or helistop shall be included with
the application.
d. A site plan of the proposed facility and an area
map showing the distance between the proposed
take-off and landing area and the nearest
residential property shall be provided to the
commission.
(lo) Overnight shelters as permitted and regulated in the B-
5 Central Business-Service District.
(11) Municipal and commercial yard waste sites for storage,
transfer or composting of yard waste, subject to the
following conditions:
a. Only yard waste and no other types of solid waste
shall be accepted;
b. The municipal or commercial yard waste site shall
be located no closer than three hundred (300) feet
from any residentially used or zoned property as
measured from the edge of the nearest compost pile
to the nearest residentially used or zoned
property;
c. The municipal or commercial yard waste site shall
be enclosed by fencing or shall limit vehicular or
pedestrian access through the use of berms, trees
or other means. The site may have greenhouses for
composting yard waste;
d. The height of the compost pile sha11 be limited to
no higher than fifteen (15) feet above grade; and
e. The municipal or commercial yard waste site shall
be maintained cleanly including immediate removal
of waste materials deposited on or near the site
which cannot be composted.
(12)
B!
r i, .
�
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
a .
�
13 Accessory buildings, structures and uses, as
defined in section 60.201.
Section 4
9s ��
`Phat this ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty
days from and after its passage, approval and publication.
Pl�il ICNFII
APR ° 11995
Requested by Department of:
d
Adopted by Counc' . ate
Adoption Cer ified by C u
By:
Approved by Mayor: �Date
By:
Form Ap
By:
�
I
ApproYe
Council
by city
for Submission to
By:
By:
. _��� � ��,,� s �' ��� �.'� � .�����
center or bublic specialized recreation facilitv
as identified in the parks and recreation element
of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. The
closest point of the propertv line of the
protected use:
. �"� ��
DEPARRAENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL DATE INITIATED N� 2 9 6 9 6
PED-Planning 8-31-94 GREEN SHEE
CINJTACT PEflSON 8 PHONE INRI INRIAUDATE
�DEPARTMENTDIRECT �CITYCOUNC�I
Soderholm/Bunnell 66575/66585 nssiex i�rnrroaNev �CIT'CLERK
MU5T BE ON CAUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) p017fING� � BUDGET DIRECTOP � FlN. & MGT. SERVICES D�R.
OflDER �Mpypp�ORASSISTAf�iT) � Planninq
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACTION REQUESTED:
Receive and approve Planning Commission adopted Gun Shop Zoning Study which addresses :
concerns about the locations of gun shops in Sairit Paul.
flECAMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) or Reject (R) pER50NAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
A PLANNING COMMISSION _ CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION �- Has this personttirm e�er worked under a conirect for this tlepartment�
CIB COMMITfEE _ YES NO
A STAFF 2. Has this personHirtn aver been a city employee?
— — YES NO
_ DISTaICT CoURT _ 3. DoeS this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current ciry employee?
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNpL OBJECTIVET VES NO
Explaln all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (Who. What. When, Where, Why).
City Council in June 1993 requested that this issue be studied at the same time that it
imposed a moratorium within the City of Saint °aul on the locatior� firearms
businesses within 1,000 feet of a protected use.
��p ��a 1���
.,�.���?>'� wt �°`'� ,
ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: � "'
The report responds to the numerous concerns about the locations of gun shoos in the City.
It recommends that gun shops and shooting aalleries be permitted in the I-1 zoning district
subject to a special condition use permit, with one condition reo,uiring that such uses be
located at least 1,000 feet from residentially zoned orooerty and from orotected uses. The
recommendations would legally non conform most existing gun sho�s in the City.
����� Y �
DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVEO: 5c,} - ��� pq �
Qi � h7JT
None identified for children and neighborhood residents.
���� ��������
New gun shops would be restricted to I-1 zoning districts and to sites located at least
1,000 feet from residentially zoned property and from protected uses.
DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPFOVED:
The City would continue to permit gun shops to locate in comroercial areas close to
residential uses and close to protected uses. The numerous concerns raised about the
locations of gun shops by residents would appear to be ignored by the City.
70TAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION $ COST/pEVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO
FUNDI(dG SOURCE P.CTIVITY NUMBER .
FINANCIAL INFORMATION (EXPLAIN)
C
��t;��v���
FE@ 28 1995
%'f9F\YCI�T�� lil�i 1�i.,i
St. Paul City Counci} and the Mayor
W e lo Bgg lvd.
Room 310 City Hall
St. Paul, MN 55102
Greetings:
521� West NJill Road
Minnetonka, MN 55345
27 February, 1995
I find it perverse that a group of women are tying to shut down a lawful business, a gun
shop, on the grounds that it is near a school. There has been no mention of their
protesting shady businesses in the area nor their protesting against crime and criminals.
qs -a-D
Kids are naturally curious. Far better than outlawing gun stores, a privilege indeed, it
would be to have a gun store near to a schooi, a p{ace where kids could ask questions
about guns and be told: You have to be grownup before you can legally buy a gun,
criminals may not legally own or carry a gun but law abiding citizens may, as a
fundamental American right: Collect guns; Use guns for hunting, target shooting and
competition sport shooting as at clay pigeons; and In Defense of the home against
attackers. There are gun safety training classes for kids, even 4-H and similar real-life
American programs for kids in gun safety and competitive target shooting. Thusly, kids
could learn about and develop a healthy, responsible attitude toward guns including
leaving any stray guns found, alone and calling a policeman in such instances. To equate
gun stores with crime is specious reasoning manifest!
To outlaw gun shops in St. Paul or even the one subject of the protest would be a trauesty
indeed. What right does such a radica(, eatremist group have to deny me or my daughter a
store in which to buy a gun? The seeming agenda is an old song -"Outlaw guns and the
purchase thereof but never, never enforce the laws that allow punishing criminals caught
with the use of guns."
Please, let cleaz-sighted reason and the wishes of mainstream citizenry prevail.
Respectfully submitted,
l3K Kn.�
BK Kroll
.
�-ef s�
�
� ? � ! .
� �' r �a
,`� �
�
;Ji�sk
r;;+i .
. {: ,
ti;�t'.
� tEi; �
�� � `— _
' ��-��:,, , —
�
�
� M
N t/�
O �Il
�
�-I Z
� �
.H
� �
N
� Y
O1 C
� O
3 +�
"'� N
� -� h C
O .-1 C
�+ N •.i
Y h g
e
J
U
Z
0
U
Y
F-
U
J
Q
d
�
cn
�
�
r-I
m
m
m
O
•-i
'--I
N
Y
�
y
�
�
ti
N
O
'-i
m v�
2 u�
� L�"
�� G .
'�i �
U �
� J .�
,.y 'J/
W
M � i
E !�i
o iv
o r- .,.
� U1 �rT
� r�
,
.`
- �5-a°
-, _ `� CITY OF SAINT PAUL
. �, OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
�
ROBERTA MEGARD
Cou¢w7member
February 22, 1995
Roberta Megard
AIVN D. CIESLAK
I.egislative Aide
Proposed amended language for the definitions of Firearms dealer
and Gun Shop in Council file # 95-20:
Section 60.206.F.
Firearms dealer. A person who is federally licensed to sell
firearms. (replace page 1, lines 18-19)
Section 60.207.G
Gun shop. A gun shop is a business of any size occupied by
• a firearms dealer where: (a) a majority of the gross floor area
is devoted to firearms and/or ammunition display and sales; (b)
600 square feet or more of floor area are devoted to firearms
and/or ammunition display and sales; or (c) a majority of the
qross sales of the business is derived from the sale of firearms
and ammunition. (replace page i, lines 36-40)
�
CITY HALL " THIRD FLOOR SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 612/266-8640
s�as
PcinreA on Reepc[ed Pape[
b � . e�
F
� sq�
,a
MICHAEL J. HARR[S
Connc�member
qs—�e�
� � ""'z'
Member
MiKe Harris, Chair
Jerry Blakey
Dino Guerin
Janice Rettman
Dave Thune
Date: February 8, 1995
COMMITTEE REPORT
CITY OPERA7fONS COMMITTEE
1.
2.
3.
Approval of minutes from the December 14, 1994, meeting of the City Operations
Committee meeting.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, 5-0
licenses, to reduce the
outside the downtown
Council 1-ll-95).
Ordinance 95-28 - an Ordinance to limit the number of on-sale intolticating liquor
concentration of liquor licenses, and to limit new licenses
business district to hotels and restaurants (Refened from
LAID OVER TO THE MARCH 8, 1995, MEETING OF TI� CITY OPERATION5
COMMIII`EE
(Referred from Council 1-4-95).
Ordinance 95-20 - an Ordinance amending Chapter 60 of the Izgislative Code
pertaining to Zoning; adding provisions regulating the location of firearms dealers
COMMITI'EE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF A SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE
AND REFERRED TO FULL COLTNCIL, 3-2 (GLTERIN, RETTMAN)
CITY OF SAINT PgUL
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CLTY HALL THIRD FLOOR SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 612/266-8630
s�as
' Pcinced on Recycled Paper
Council File #
Ordinance #
�
Green Sheet # �1qb9to
Presented By
��
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
An ordinance amending Chapter 60 of the Saint
Paul Legislative Code pertainiug to Zoning;
adding provisions regulating the location of
firearms dealers.
The Council of the City of Saint Paul Does Ordain:
Section 1
That Section 60.206.F. of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended so as to add the following
defuutions thereto:
Fireanm. Any wea�on from which is �,ropelled anv missle, proiectile, bullet or other mass tlu'ou�h
a barrel bv means of explosives or eas or air, but excludine antiaue firearm, children's toy, "BB" gun,
scubagun, stud gun, nail eun, or similaz industrial tool or medical instrument.
Fireanns dealer. A nerson who is federallv licensed to sell fireanns and operates a eun shop in
which fireazms are sold from a permanent business location.
Section 2
That Secfion 60.207.G. of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended so as to add the following
definition thereto:
Gun shop. A buildin¢ or nortion of a building occupied bv a firearms dealer which has devoted
some roortion of its floor area to the sale of fireazms and anununition.
�'
Section 2
That Section 60.207.G. of the Saint Pau1 Legislafive Code is hereby amended so as to add the following
definition thereto:
Gun shop. A business of anv size occupied bv a firearms dealer where a majority of the floor area
or dollar volume is devoted to firearms and ammunition displav and sales; or a business of anv size where
fireanns and aumxunifion sales is a section or subpart of a larger store, such as suorting ¢oods and
hardware stores, where the sales azea devoted to firearms and ammunition is squaze feet or more.
ORDINANCE
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
42
43
44
45
46
a�
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
Secrion 3
That Section 60.614 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 60.614. Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions.
� �`
r
The following additional uses shall be permitted subject to the conditions hereinafter imposed for
each use and subject to the standards specified for all special condition uses as set forth in section
64.300(c). All principal uses persnitted subject to special conditions shall be reviewed and approved by the
plamiing commission.
(1) All uses as permitted and as regulated in the B-3 Business District under principal uses
pernutted subject to special conditions.
(2) Airports.
(3) Outdoor (drive-in) theaters subject to the following conditions:
�
(4)
(5)
C7
c.
f�
The proposed internal design shall receive approval from the city engineer as to the
adequacy of drainage, lighring and other technical aspects.
Outdoor theaters shall abut directly upon a major thoroughfare, with their points of
ingress and egress available only from said major thorougbfaze.
For vehicles waiting or standing to enter the facility, there sha11 be provided for off-
street waiting space for no less than fifty (50) automobiles.
The area shall be laid out so as to prevent the movie screen from being viewed from
residential azeas or adjacent major thoroughfares.
Television and radio towers, public utility microwave towers, and public utility television
transmitting towers, subject to the following condi6ons:
a. Said use sha11 be located centrally on a continuous parcel hauing a dimension equal to
the height of the tower measnred from the base of said tower to all points on each
property line.
b. The proposed site shall receive approval from the city engineer as to adequacy of
drainage, lighting, general safety and other technical aspects.
Prisons, reformatories and other conectional institutions which are not community residential
facilities.
(6) Race tracks.
(7) Railroad yards, shops ar snnilaz facilities.
(8) Heliports and helistops, public and private, located at an airport, subject to the following ��'�
conditions:
a. The heliport and helistop shall be located at least one thousand (1,��0) radial feet
from any residentially used or zoned property, measured in a straight line from the
closest point of the takeoff and landing area to the property line of the closest
residentially used or zoned property.
b. The applicant shall perform a noise analysis to determiue whether upon establishment
of the heliport or helistop the Noise Pollution Control Rules, Chapter 7010, of the
Muuiesota Poliurion Control Agency, would immediately be violated. If the analysis
shows that the rules would be violated, the applicant shall take measures to prevent
the potential violation before the heliport or helistop is established.
c. The heliport or helistop shall be constructed, operated and maintained in accordance
with the rules and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and
State of Mimiesota. Documentation that the FAA and state have approved the heliport
or helistop sha11 be included with the application.
d. A site plan of the proposed facility and an area map showing the distance between
the proposed take-off and landing azea and the neazest residential property sha11 be
provided to the commission.
(9) Overnight shelters as permitted and regulated in the B-5 Central Business-Service District.
(10) Municipal and commercial yazd waste sites for storage, iransfer or composting of yard waste,
subject to the following conditions:
a. Only yazd waste and no other types of solid waste shall be accepted;
b. The municipal or commercial yard waste site shall be located no closer than three
hundred (300) feet from any residentially used or zoned property as measured from
the edge of the neazest compost pile to the neazest residentially used or zoned
property;
a The municipal or commercial yard waste site shall be enclosed by fencing or sha11
limit vehiculaz or pedestrian access through the use of berms, trees or other means.
The site may have greenhouses for composting yazd waste;
d. The height of the compost pile shall be limited to no higher than fifteen (15) feet
above grade; and
e. The municipal or commercial yazd waste site shall be maintained cleanly including
immediate removal of waste materials deposited on or neaz the site which cannot be
composted.
�Iy"�.
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
(11)
(12)
Section 4
That this ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its passage, approval
and publica[ion.
. . �-. .. .
�'._ - y._�___ � �-.
� , . , �'���
•�"— �_ " _ �
Form Approved by City Attorney
Adoption Certif by Council Secretary
�
Approved by Mayor: Date
Gun shops and shootin�,galleries subject to the followine conditions:
a. The wn shop or shootina a¢ llerv is located at least one thousand (1.0001
radial feet from anv residentiallv zoned properrv and from anv "protected
use " defined as� A arou� dav care center which has a business sion indicatino
this use• a house of worship• a public librarv• a school (public. parochial or
private elementarv�junior hieh or hi�h schooll: a public reaional park or
parkway�public park public recreation center or public specialized recreation
the closes�oint of the propertv line of the buildine in which the eun shop
is located to the closest point of the prooertv line of the �rotected use•
L:!
Accessory buildings, structures and uses, as defined in Section 60.201.
�
App ve y Mayor for Submissi n to Council
,
��
Adopted by Council: Date
` 6 1Tt Ol
4 �
O M
, � tc .
., m��� o
� w
.,..
Roberta Megard
Counalmember
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Office of the City Council
310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
612f266-8640
DATE: December 28, 1994
TO: Council President David Thune
Councilmembers � r
il �i,��J
FROM: Roberta Megard ��
SUB7ECT: Gun Shop Zaning Ordinance
�� �
Ann D. Cieslak
Legislative Aide
Today I ha�e signed the ordinance unanimously recommended by the Planning
Commission to amend Chapter 60 of the Zoning Code to regulate the location of
firearm dealers and shooting galleries. The ordinance contains two alternative
definitions of a gun shop. I prefer the second definition:
Gun shop. A business of any size occupied by a 5rearms dealer where a majority of
the floor area or dollaz volume is devoted to firearms and ammunition display and
sales; or a business of any size where firearms and ammunition sales is a section or
subpart of a larger store, such as sporting goods and hardware stores, where the sales
area devoted to firearms and ammunition is _ square feet.
I recommend "more than 600" square feet be inserted in the blank.
I believe these alternatives balance the rights and needs of all interests - preserving
the safety of our residents, the ability of legitimate businesses to operate, and hunters
and gun owners to purchase supplies.
The city cleazly has the authority to use zoning regulations in this manner. We do so
for heliports, radio towers, yard waste, drive-in theaters, and drive-through restaurants,
among others. We create a quality of life in our city through zoning regulations.
Certainly, the City Council should add gun shops and shooting galleries to the list.
I will be asldng the Council to refer this ordinance to the CSty Operations Committee
for discussion. I hope you will join me and the Planning Commission in supporting
this ordinance.
,�
.
�
R5 - �a
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Nonn Coleman, Mayor
390 Ciry� Ha(l
IS West Kellogg Boulerard
Saint Pau1. MN 55102
Telephone: 612-266-8510
Facsimile: 612-266-8513
December 28, 1994
Council President David Thune
asid Members of the Saint Paul City Council
Seventh Floor, City Aall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
RE: PROPOSED GUN SHOP ZONING ORDINANCE
Dear Councilmembers:
Enclosed is the Saint Paul Planning Commission's recommendation that gun shops be
prohibited throughout the city, except in a few industrial pockets more than 1,000 feet
away from residential zoning districts or protected land uses such as schools and
houses of worship. A zoning study of this issue was requested by the City Council in
June, 1993. At the same time, the Council imposed a moratorium on the location of
new firearms businesses within 1,000 feet of certain protected land uses.
I share the Planning Commission's anger at the increasing use of guns for criminal
purposes; however, I am not able to reach the conclusion tha[ tough zoning regulations
would be an effective way to address d1e problem. The Commission's report contains
no persuasive statistical evidence that the legal, licensed gun dealers in our city have
been a cause of either violent crime or neighborhood decline.
Legitimate retail businesses deserve fair treatment under the law even if a particular
business becomes controversial. They should be able to operate in retail areas.
Sportspersons and huntezs should be able to continue shopping for guns and
ammunition at sporting goods stores and gun shops in normal commercially-zoned
areas.
To reduce violent crime, the initiatives we are taking in policing, criminal jusuce, and
the Safe Cities Program hold much more promise than punitive zoning for licensed
gun dealers. Therefore, I recommend that you not adopt the gun shop zoning
amendments.
�
t Saint Paul City Councilmembers
December 28, 1994
Page Two
q5-aa
If you have questions about zoning for gun shops, please contact Erich Mische, of my
staff (266-8519), or Larry Soderhotm, of the Pianning and Economic Development
Department (266-6575).
Sincer�ly,
��L ac4�
Norm Coleman
Mayor
NC:jrk
Enclosure
cc: Nancy Anderson, Council Research
Ken Ford, Planning Administrator
Tim Marx, City Attorney
Erich Mische, Mayor's Office
Larry Soderholm, PED
��-�
A. BACKGROUND
_�
D
�
GUN SHOP ZONING STUDY
Children can obtain guns essily from parents or friends. Sone children
have taken guns into St. Paul Schools and into Park buildings. In
studying this matter, the Administrative Law Judge Report identified
numerous neighborhood and societal concerns about gun shops, and the
need to regulate their location.
q5-�b
In late 1993 there were 85 Federal Firearm Dealers in St. Paul, and 31
with a City license. Only 23 of these City-licensed dealers >re located
in a commercial area. Four firearms dealers have a majority of their
floor area devoted to the display and sale of firearms and ammunition.
Several gun dealers reported burglaries between 1990 and 1992.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) currently does an
inadequate job of inspecting Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL's).
Minnesota has over 6,000 FFL's and only 12 BATF inspectors. The
resulting lack of effective enforcement of BATF requirements fails to
adequately deter illegal and/or dangerous activity by firearms dealers.
In 1993, the Minnesota Legislature granted authority to minicipalities
to regulate the location of businesses where firearms are sold by a
firearms dealer.
B. ZONING DISTRICTS
The Zoning Code currently permits gun shops in the B-2 district. Many of
the larger gun dealers are located in the B-3 district. Residents have
raised many objections to the locations of gun shops in the pedestrian-
oriented neighborhood commercial areas.
Gun shops have 1ow customer craffic and their merchandise has more
potential for harm than other types of retail merchandise. A gun shop
location in a B-2 or a B-3 zoning district is likely to be seen by
youths and is generally closer to protected uses than a gun shop in an
I-1 zoning district. In addition, firearms are specifically listed in
the I-1 Appendix of the Zoning Code and the I-1 district permits sma11
arms ammunition when stored for retail use.
C. DISTANCE FROM PROTECTED USES
The St. Paul City Council first established a 1,000 foot distance
requirement from protected uses when they initiated a moratorium for
locating gun shops in the City. Various distance requirements were
examined, The 1,000 foot distance requirement from protected uses was
specifically recommended by several individuals who testified at the
December 13, 1993 Planning Commission public hearing.
DIVISION OF PLANNING •DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • CiTY OF SAINT PAUL
CITY FfALL ANNEX • 25 WEST FOURTH STREET, SA�NT PAUL, MINNESOTA, 55102 • TELEPHONE 612-2C6-b565
R5-aa
Zn addition, the Planning Commission considered a shorter distance from
protected uses but decided that an increased distance was needed to
ensure a reasonabie amount of protection for children, residential
property and protected uszs. The availability of possible sites for
locating a gun shop with a 1,000 foot distance from protected uses is
not substantially different than using a 700 foot distance.
D. ZONING AMENDMENTS
1. Prohibit shooting ranges in St. Paul since they are more suitable for
a suburban/rural environment.
2. Regulate shooting galleries the same way as gun shops.
3. Define firearm to make clear what merchandise is subject to gun shop
zoning.
4. Define firearms dealer to clari£y who may legally sell firearms at a
gun shop.
5. Provide two alternative definitions of gun shop:
One is a basic definition which is inclusive of all buildings or
portions theYeof which devotes a portion of its floor area to the
sale of firearms and ammunition by a firearms dealer.
The alternative definition of gun shop recognizes that several
businesses sell firearms and ammunition as minor parts of a larger
retail enterprise. This definition uses a majority of the floor
area or dollar volume devoted to firearms and ammunition to define
gun shop; it alternatively uses an unspecified number of square
feet devoted to the sales of firearms and ammunition as a portion
of a larger business to de£ine a gun shop.
7. Permit gun shops and shooting galleries in the I-1 zoning district
subject to a special condition use permit. A condition would require
that such uses be located at least 1,000 feet £rom residentially
zoned property and from proCected uses.
0
q5 -�o
ciiy o� sainz paui
planning commission resolution
file number 94-51
��Z� August 26, 1944
GU\ SI-i0= ZO\`i\G STL;D�' RESOLL`TTO\
�VHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Cou, cil by Ordinance No. 93-471 approced an interim
ordinance effective 7une 2S, 199� imoosina a moratorium within the City of Saint Pau1 on the
location of additional firearms business2s within 1,000 feet of a"protec[ed use;' includin� a
school (public. parochial or pri��at: eie�:.e�tary, junior hiah or hioh school); a da}� care cen:e::
house of worship; a public IiUran; a puoiic rzgioaal park or parkv.•ay, pubiic park, or pubt��
recreatian cer.�er pendin� the compi::io : o: s[ueie� of possible ar,iendme,:[� [o �he Ci«'�
regulatory ordinances; and
WfIEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council initiated ihis study of the City's Zoning Ordinance
relatin� to the zonin� classification and districts regarding the promotion, extent and location oi
commercial activities involving the sale oi firearms and requested the Planning Commission to
study the matter and submit its report and recommendations to the Cour.cii; and
`VIiEREAS, the Saint Paul Ciry Council by Ordinance No. 94-893 e:�tended the moratorium
within the City of Sa3nt Paul for a period of one (1) year untIl June 27, 1995, or until the
completion of studies and delbe:atioas oi the Plannin� Commission and City Council and the
enactment of amendments to the City's reguiatory ordinances, if deemed appropriate, whicnever
occurs first; and
WfIEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary
recommendations in the first draft report in meetings on November 22, 1993 and December 6,
1993 and recommended that this report be made available for public review and comment; and
tiVF3EREA5, pursuant to State Statutes proper notice of a public hearing was given in the St.
Paul Legal Ledger on December 7, 1993; and in the Pioneer Press Dispatch on November 22,
1993, November 29, 1993 and December 6, 1994; and
WIIEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357(5), the Plannin; Commission held
a public hearing on the p:oposed amendments at its December 13, 1993 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission considered the testimony given
at the public hearing and reviewed subsequent recommendations in meetings on 7anuary 3, 1994
and 7anuary 31, 1994 and recommended on August 15, 1994 to submit the revised report and its
recommendations to the Planning Commission for their consideration;
-continued-
qy•�o
NOtiV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, ihat the Plannin� Commission recomme�ds
aporoe�al of the Gun Shop Zoning S�ud}' �=�d its re:ronmenda[ions and directs the Planr.i,.,
Administ:a:o: co ion.��rd tl:is stud a.... :his rzsoi�-:ion to the 1�1a�c; and �he Cit}' Cour„u :e.
their revie�� anu ac[ion.
moved by Vaught
seconded by Morton
in favor Unanimous
against
c� y-�a
GUN SHOP ZONING STUDY
Augus[ 1994
Depaitment of Planning and Economic Development
Division of Planning
City of Saint Paul
1100 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
�5-ab
TPBLE OF CONTENTS
A. BACKGROUND AND PliRPOSE ............................................... 1
B. AUTHORITY FOR ZONING REGULATIONS ..................................... 4
C. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING LICENSED FIREARM DEALERS ........................ 5
D. ZONING DISTRICTS, PROTECTED USES AND SHOOTING GALLERIES .............. 8
E. ZONING CODE DEFINITIONS OF GUN SHOP, FIREARM, AND FIREARMS DEALER..., 12
F. ZONING RECOMMENDATION: REGULATING GUN SHOPS .......................... 13
��'� -
GUN SHOP ZONING STUDY
A. BACKGROUI�SD AP3D PURPOSE
In February 1993, a Saint Paul resident applied for a city license to sell
firearms at a shop on North Snelling Avenue. The applicant complied with a11
city requirements and had an application for a Federal Firearms Dealers's
License pending. A large number of neighborhood residents and representatives
of the Hamline Midway Coalition raised many concerns and strenuously objected
to granting the proposed city license. The Saint Paul City Council decided to
take a two-part approach to the issue of where gun shops should be located in
the city. First, it requested that the matter be reviewed by an administrative
law judge to make a recommendation to the city. Second, the City Council
imposed a one-year moratorium on locating a new firearms business within 1,000
feet of schools, churches and similar protected uses pending the completion of
a zoning study. This zoning study began shortly after this decision by the
City Council.
The administrative law judge, in his non-binding recommendation to the City
Council, recommended that this request for a city license to sell firearms be
denied because such an operation would constitute a public nuisance. After
much public discussion, and based partially on the advice of the City
Attozney's Office, the City Council decided to grant the requested license to
sell firearms. Last month, since more time was needed to complete the zoning
study and allow time for public review, the City Council voted to continue the
moratoriwn on the location of new gun shops for another year. Recently,
however, a District Court Judge ruled that the previously granted business
license is invalid, partly based on the interpretation that granting the
license runs counter to the previously passed moratorium. In addition, the
District Court Judge reiterated that the gun shop in question is a public
nuisance as defined by the language in the moratorium.
This report:
addresses the concerns raised regarding gun shop locations;
examines the locations and operations of existing gun dealers;
provides a rationale for regulating the locations of gun shops and
shooting galleries;
defines gun shop, £irearm, and firearms dealer;
makes a recommendation regarding the most reasonable approach for
regulating the locations of gun shops in the city.
There seem to be three primary arguments for regulating gun shops in Saint
Paul based on the Administrative Law Judge (AL.T) report. First, societal
�5��
values involve many concerns about firearms' negative impacts on society in
general. This includes TV violence, media coverage of violence, violence in
video games, the widespread fear of violence, the growing sentiment to ban all
handguns, etc. The xecently passed Brady bill addressed some of these
widespread concerns. The basic issue for government regulation here relates to
the possession and use of guns, particularly handguns and assault weapons,
rather than to the location of gun shops.
Second, the AIJ report mentioned the neighborhood impact of a gun shop. It
emphasized the neigfiborhood concerns with the negative impact of a gun shop on
surrounding property values. Here the pertinent regulatory measure appears to
be the radial distance from residential properties to the proposed gun shop,
much like zoning regulations for adult bookstores.
Third, the ALJ report stressed the widespread concern with how gun shops can
impact a child's familiarity with and interest in guns in general. Here the
pertinent measure appears to be the radial distance from protected uses,
including family housing and places typically frequented by children.
In addition, there are at least three related dimensions or levels of gun shop
regulation that should be considered. First, the numerous and difficult
overall societal concerns, although important, are very difficult to
successfully address in city zoning regulations. This dimension of the overall
problem of the proliferation of and use of weapons in our society is perhaps
best left to national leadership and federal legislative efforts. The second
level of concern, at the regional and community level, is also somewhat broad
and lends itself primarily to state, regional and perhaps city regulations to
restrict the availablity and use of certain types of weapons in the region and
the locations of firearms dealers in various communities. The third level of
concern, at the city and neighborhood level, is less broad and is more
appropriate for the development of effective zoning regulations to help
control the locations of firearms dealers and perhaps the sale of certain
types of firearms. Clearly, Saint Paul has the best opportunity to have a�
localized impact on the locations of gun shops and perhaps on the sale of
certain types of firearms through zoning and possibly other city regulations.
The report of the Administrative Law Judge (AIJ) in reviewing the impact of
the location of a gun shop on the surrounding community pointed out a number
of findings. Several newspaper articles in the metro area over the past few
years have reported burglaries, robberies and murders at various gun shops. A
November 12, 1991 StarTribune article reported that at least 10 gun shops had
been robbed during the previous year in the state, that the stolen guns were
getting into the hands of drug dealers, gangs and youth and these guns were
being used to comm�.t other crimes. Newspapers also mentioned the growing.
demand for weapons by gangs and drug dealers, particularly for pistols,.and
the increasing violence accompanying many robberies.
Saint Paul Police crime statistics show that two gun dealers in Saint Paul
were burglarized in the latter part of 1991. According to Police Dept.
records, one of these, .Toe's Sporting Goods at 935 N. Dale St., lost an
estimated $1,269 in firearms inventory due to a burglary on December 31, 1991.
Additional research in this azea has shown thaC between January 1990 and June
_ 2
- q�j "
1993, 16 Federal Firearms Licensees in St. Paul experienced 40 burglary calls
for Police service and that three FFL's in St. Paul experienced 17 robbery
ca11s for Police service.
Newspapers have reported the presence of guns in area schools, and students
getLing shot in schools in both Saint Paul and Minneapolis. The Saint Pau1
Schools reported that about one-third of the 55 student expulsions since
Sepcember 1991 were for carrying a gun at a school. In addition, Saint Paul
Parks and Recreation has reported that there have been about 34 instances of
youths carrying a gun into a park recreation center between 1988 and 1992.
Testimony at the December 13, 1993 Saint Paul Planning Commission public
hearing on zoning for the location of gun shops pointed out that children can
easily obtain guns from their parents or from friends and that teenagers seek
out guns partially to defend themselves from others. A May 1993 Harvard study,
measuring the experiences, perceptions and apprehensions about guns among
young people in the sixth through the twelfth grades across the country,
pointed out that overwhelming majorities of young people are convinced that
violence is increasing in their neighborhoods and schools. Ten percent of the
students surveyed admitted that they have either shot at someone else and/or
had been shot at during the past year. Another 1993 study on Children and Guns
pointed out that teenagers are more likely than other Americans to be viccims
of a violent crime, even at school.
The ALJ report pointed out that a substantial number of area residents: (1)
abhor the increasing violence in our society and in our community, (2) fear
the encroachment of violence into their neighborhood from other parts of the
area, (3) believe that the increase in guns in our society is an integral part
of that increase in violence, and (4) see gun shops both as a symbol of that
violence and as a source of yet more guns and more violence. The ALT report
noted that many residents feel anxiety about the presence of a gun shop in
their neighborhood because it openly se11s guns and ammunition and because its
presence tends to legitimize guns in the minds of children.
Many individuals feel that the presence o£ a gun shop adjacent to a
residential neighborhood, to a school or to a park will increase the interest
of some children in firearms and lead some to obtain their own guns and
increase the presence of guns at the local schools. Some believe that the
existence of a gun shop in a neighborhood wi11 create increased anxiety in
children and fear for their own safety due to their fear of guns. Some people
believe that a gun shop is a detriment to an area, a sign of neighborhood
deterioration. In addition, the resulting perception that the neighborhood is
less than desirable could lead to diminishing property values and decreased
business for local business establishments.
Several na[ional organizations provide extensive information (though often
conflicting) regarding the impact of firearms on children. The Educational
Fund to End Handgun Violence and the American Academy of Pediatrics estimated
in 1989 that between 13,500 and 22,500 youths are injured each year by
firearms. The National Rif1e Association (NRA) estimate of youth injured by
firearms during this period is between 1,800 and 3,000. The NRA estimates that
600 children die each year from firearm-related homicides, suicides and
7
R5-�
accidents. The National Coalition to Ban Handguns estimates this figure to be
4,500. The National Center For Health Statistics reported 3,392 firearm-
related deaths among children aged 1 to 19 in 1987. The Center to Prevent
Handgun Violence reported that gunshot wounds to childzen age 16 and under
have risen 300� in large urban areas since 1966. The Education Fund to End
Handgun Violence reported that between 1976 and 19&6, youth arrests on weapons
charges increased 298. Finally, the 1991 Final Report of the National
Commission on Children expressed concern about the epidemic of violence
"claiming children and adolescents a[ a rate unprecedented in the nation's
history." It called for "public policies to keep weapons out of the hands of
children and those who would use them to threaten and harm others."
Several communities in the Chicago area have already taken action regarding
the regulation of handguns. In 1981, Morton Grove Village, I11. enacted the
country's first law severely restricting the private ownership of handguns. It
bans both the sale and possession of handguns. Other communities in this area,
including Oak Park, I11. in 1984 and Winnetka, I11. in 1989 also passed laws
banning the possession of handguns. Numerous other communities have passed
city ordinances regulating the locations and the operations of firearms
dealers.
The Saint Paul Pioneer Press recently reported that studies in the health
policy journal Health Affairs estimated that a single crime-related injury
costs an average of $41,000 £or treatment o£ medical and psychological
problems in 1985. The author, Wendy Max, noted that guns caused nearly 268,000
injuries, including 31,556 fatalities, in 1985, and cost society $14.4 billion
in medical costs and lost productivity. Tf these costs are updated to 1990
figures, taking into account inflation, the same number of crime-related
injuries would have cost society $20.4 billion. The author stated that these
estimates are probably underestimated because the nation lacks better data on
violent crime. The study pointed out that gunshat fatalities tend to cost more
than other types of fatal injuries because of the types of injuries and
treatments involved. In addition, the public pays most of the bill because
most gunshot victims, even if they survive, cannot pay for treatments.
The Minnesota Department of Health reported 292 deaths by firearms in 1988.
This comprises slightly less than 18 of the total number o£ fatalities caused
by guns in the United States. Applying this percentage to the estimated
society costs as reported above, just for fatalities, resulted in an estimated
health cost to Minnesotans of $133.4 million in 1985 and $188.7 million in
1990. Thus any reduction in fireazms fatalities and injuries would result in
substantial cost savings to our citizens, particularly in terms of inedical
costs and in productivity losses.
B. AUTAORITY FOR ZONING REGULATIONS
Municipalities in Minnesota do not have authority to deviate from state
regulations on how guns are handled, but municipalities do have authority to
regulate the location of businesses that sell guns. Minnesota Statute
471.633 states:
4
��'�
"The legislature preempts all authority of a home rule charter or
statutory city including a city of the first class, county, town,
municipal corporation, or other governmental subdivision, or any of
their instrumentalities, to regulate firearms, ammunition, or their
respective components to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance
or regulation by them except that: a. a governmental subdivision may
regulate the discharge of firearms; and b. a governmental subdivision
may adopt regulations identical to state law. Local regulation
inconsistent with this section is void."
However, the Minnesota Legislature passed a law (Chapter 326, Article 1,
section 3, Laws of Minnesota for 1993, which amends section 471.635)
authorizing the city to enact zoning regulations governing the location of
businesses where firearms are sold. This enabling legislation states:
"Notwithstanding section 471.633, a governmental subdivision may
regulate by reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and nonarbitrary zoning
ordinances, the location of businesses where firearms are sold by a
firearms dealer. For purposes of this section, a firearms dealer is a
person who is federally licensed to sell firearms and a governmental
subdivision is an entity described in sections 471.633 and 471.634."
This recent change in State law establishes unequivocally the authority of
municipalities to regulate the location of gun shops with zoning ordinances.
C. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING LICENSED FIREARM DEALERS
In February 1993, there were 133 Federal Firearms Licensed IIealers located in
the City of Saint Paul. Of these 92 or 69$ were located in residential zoning
districts and 41 or 318 were located in non-residential zoning districts. The
Office of Licensing, Inspection and Envixonmental Protection (LIEP) notified
by mail the 92 federally licensed dealers located in residential zoning
districts in early 1993 that they legally could not sell firearms in their
homes under existing home occupacion requirements of the Saint Paul Zoning
Code.
According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, as of October 22, 1993
there were 85 Federal Firearms Licensed Dealers in the city, a decrease of 48
dealers or 36� since February 1993. It appears that some of this reduction in
the number of firearms dealers in Saint Paul occurred because some firearms
licenses expired, some licensees decided to not renew their licenses and
several licensees went out of business or relocated out of the city possibly
in response to this regulatory correspondence from LIEP.
A recent report of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) entitled
Operation Snapshot describes the typical characteristics of a federally
licensed firearms dealer based an a statistical sampling of the entire
firearms dealer population. According to this report, a typical federal
firearms dealer is a sole proprietor, is a 45 yeax old male and has held a
5
_ �5'aZ�
federal firearms license for more than seven years.
In addition, 85� of these dealers have other sources of income or employment
other than a firearms business; 74� of dealers conduct the firearms business
in their homes; 18� of dealers are located in commercial premises where other
goods are sold to the public; and 88 of dealers are located at other
commercial premises (such as medical clinics, real estate of£ices, insurance
offices, auto repair shops and beauty shops) not associated with the sale of
firearms to the public.
During the 12 months preceding the inspections of their premises by BATF
staff, 78 of dealers sold two or more handguns to the same person during a 5
day period; 208 of dealers dealt in handguns having retail values of less than
$200; 3� of dealers had disposed of firearms at gun shows; 88 of dealers did
gunsmithing; and 2� of dealers had thefts. Over this same year preceding the
BATF inspections, 55� of dealers had acquired firearms, 548 of dealers sold
firearms, and 418 of dealers maintained an inventory of firearms.
The Operation Snapshot report also indicated that 34� of dealers were found to
have £ederal firearms violations, 48 of dealers could not account for the
disposition of one or more firearms, and 12� of dealers surrendered their
license during the BATF inspection. Finally, even though 358 of dealers are
required to have a state or 1oca1 firesrms license, only 6 out of 10 comply.
The intention o£ the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) is to
inspect a11 federally licensed firearms dealers' premises and records of
firearms transactions once per year. However, since there are over b,000
federally licensed firearms dealers in Minnesota and only 12 BATF inspectors,
the BATF is able to inspect the premises and transactions of these dealers
much less frequently. Indeed, with the number of federally licensed firearms
dealers increasing in the country annually, the BATF is falling further behind
in these inspections. According to BATF, some establishments have never been
inspected.
This inadequate inspection of the premises and records o£ Federal Fireaxms
Licensees points out that the BATF regulations, which are intended to minimize
the dangers involved in and resulting from firearms transactions, are
ineffective. Without adequaCe enfotcement, the BATE requirements such as
verifying the eligibility of purchasers to obtain and possess a firearm, the
recording of all firearms transactions, the reporting o£ multiple handgun
purchases, and the recording of information about purchasers who are not
licensed dealers, cannot be relied upon to identify or deter illegal and/or
dangerous activity.
This is one reason that several communities around the country, such as
Oakland, California and Berkeley, California have decided to assume additional
reponsibilities in regulating federally licensed firearms located within their
communities. Othex communities are concerned that some federally licensed
firearms dealers are actively contributing to and participating in the crime
problems in their communities.
Nationally and statewide there are concerns about the acquisition and illegal
0
_ Q5-�
use of handguns and assault weapons. A 1989 Gallop Poll reported that 72� of
Americans favor legislation banning the manufacture, sale and possession of
semi-automatic assault guns. A December 1988 Minnesota Po11 reported that 838
of Minnesotans favor stricter controls on handgun ownership. Other nation2l
statistics show that criminals use handguns more frequencly than other types
of firearms in the comraission of serious crimes. In 1986, over 8,000 murders
were committed with handguns accounting for over 728 of the murders that year.
In addition, 828 of the police officers killed by handguns in the U. S. in
1986 were murdered by handguns. A recent study of BATF gun trace records
revealed that an assault weapon is 20 times more likely to be used in a crime
than is a conventional weapon. It can be assumed, therefore, that a
significant number of Saint Pau1 citizens would probably support a ban on the
sale of semi-automatic assault weapons and handguns by gun shops in Saint
Paul.
As of November 5, 1993, the Office of Licensing, Inspection and Environmental
Protection reported that there were 31 city-licensed firearms dealers in Saint
Paul. Based on staff field work and other research, it was determined that
most of these firearms dealers are not involved exclusively in the retail
sales of firearms and ammunition. Twenty-thz'ee of the firearms dealers are
located in commercial zoning districts versus only eight in residential zoning
districts. The following list classifies the commercial license holders by
location and type of sales:
Wholesale catalog sales only 2
Manufacturing only - no sales 1
Retail Sales - minor portion 13
Holiday Stores 7
Target Stores 2
K-Mart Store 1
Hardware Store 1
Sporting Goods Store 1
Pawn Shop. 1
Subtotal: 13
Retail Sa1es - major portion 4
Saint Paul Police PisCO1 C1ub 1
Out of business/ moved ?
23
Four licensed firearms dealers in Saint Paul have a majority o£ their gross
floor area devoted to the display and retail sales of firearms and ammunition.
In addition, one firearm retailer experienced three of the six reported
burglaries of firearms retailers in the city. Pertinent data regarding these
five establishments in Saint Paul is provided below:
�
NAME N0. REPORTED
BURGLP.RIES
JAN. 1990 -
DEC. 1992
A1 & Eric's Gun Shop 2
American Sportsman Gun Co. 0
East Side Gun Shop 1
St. Paul Firearms Co. -*
Joe's Sporting Goods 3
ESTIMATED
SQ. FT. FOR
RETAIL SALE
OF GUNS, ETC.
1,200
700
800
600
600
(*not in existence until Fall '93)
q S -��
ZONING
DISTRICT
B-3
B-3
B-3
B-2
B-3
An analysis of proposed regulations fox gun shops in Saint Paul should
consider potential impacts on these establishments.
D. ZONING DISTRICTS, PROTECTED USES AND SHOOTING GALLERIES
Zoning Districts
Presently, the Zoning Code does not specifically mention gun shops but allows
them as permitted uses in the B-2 zoning district. Section 60.532.(2)a. of the
Zoning Code states "any retail business whose psincipal activity is the sale
of inerchandise in an enclosed building." Section 60.531 of the Zoning Code
states that the intent of the B-2 zoning district is to "serve the needs of a
consumer population larger than that served by the "Local Business District,"
and is generally characterized by a cluster of establishments generating large
traffic volumes of vehicular and pedestrian traffic." Given the objections
that many people have to gun shops in the middle of pedestrian-oriented
neighborhood commercial areas, and given also that gun shops are specialized
businesses that most customers do not visit day-to-day or week-to-week, they
do not need to be located in B-2 zoning districts.
Four of the five exis[ing gun dealers listed above are locaced in the B-3
zoning district. Section 60.541 of Lhe Zoning Code states thac the B-3
district "is intended to provide sites for more diversified types of
businesses than those in the B-1 and B-2 Business Districts, and is intended
for location, along major traffic arteries or adjacent to the Couununity
Business Districts While it may be argued that retail firearm sales is a
more diversified type of husiness than the uses typically found in B-2 zoning
districts, the merchandise sold in gun shops creates more potential for harm
than other types of inerchandise sold in retail shops in B-2 or B-3 zones. It
therefore makes sense to consider the I-1 industrial zoning district as an
appropriate district for locating gun shops.
Section 60.611 of the Zoning Code states that the I-1 district "is intended to
primarily accommodate wholesale and warehouse activities, and industrial
E3
_ _ - q5��d
operations whose external, physical effects are restricted to [he area of the
district and in no manner affect the surrounding districts in a detrimencal
way." Section 60.612(21) of the Zoning Code refers to Appendix A which lists
firearms as one of the uses permitted in the I-1 zoning district. In addi�ion,
Section 60.613(1) of the Zoning Code states that "activities involving
storage, utilization or manufacture of materials or products which contain
their own oxidizing agent and which decompose by detonation are not permitted
in the I-1 Industrial District; provided, that small arms ammunition when
stored for retail use shall be permitted."
Staff reviewed the zoning codes for ten cities across the country (Chicago
I11., Omaha Neb., Portland Ore., Dallas Tex., Minneapolis Minn., Grand Rapids
Mich., Rock Island I11., Stamford Conn., Arlington Tex. and Dearborn Mich.)
searching for zoning regulations relating to gun shops or the retail sale of
weapons. None of the zoning codes had a specific definition of gun shop or
firearms dealer. Only two cities, Arlington Tex., and Dearborn Mich. had
specific regulations permitting "retail gun sales."
The Arlington Zoning Code allows "new retail gun sales" as a permitted use
without other restrictions in their LB Local Business Distict. This category
is generally comparable with the B-3 General Business District of the Saint
Paul Zoning Code. The Dearborn Zoning Code permits as a special condition use
in the Light Industrial district and in the Community Business district "gun
sales, ... service, storage, or repair of any firearms, handguns, ... as
partial or sole use of a... structure or building subject to not being
located closer than a 700 foot radius distance" from the nearest residential
zoning district, residential uses, and protected uses. These categories are
generally comparable with the I-1 Industrial DistricC and the B-3 General
Business District of the Saint Paul Zoning Code.
A gun shop located in a B-3, B-4 or B-5 business 2oning district is more
likely to be seen by youth and others than a location in an industrial zoning
district. In addition, a gun shop in one of these business zoning districts
would typically be closer to protected uses and to residential uses than a
location in an industrial district.
Planning staff, therefore, concluded that gun shops should first be permitted
as a special condition use in the I-1 zoning district with appropriate spacing
requirements from residentially zoned districts and from protected uses.
Distance From Protected Uses
The City Council's interim ordinance establishes a 1,000-foot distance
requirement from protected uses. The protected uses are: schools, day care
centers, houses of'worship, libraries, parks, parkways and recreation centers.
These are all public facilities where people congregate, particularly where
children and youth gather. The City Council established this distance
requirement to "protect the public safety and preserve the quality of life" in
Saint Pau1 neighborhoods. The City Council referred to the "risks of danger to
yauth due to robbeties of gun stores and/or the discharge of guns." The City
Council also mentioned the "risks that youth will congregate outside gun
stores and/or be able to gain access to firearms" and the general concerns
0
_ _ �5-ao
about the neighborhood perceptions and the quality of life in the community.
These concerns were clearly summarized in the report of the Administrative Law
Judge referred to earlier. An effective zoning regulation relating to th2
location of gun shops in the city must proEect children, the protected uses
that children typically frequent and nearby residential propercies with &n
appropriate distance requirement from these uses.
Several distance options were considered but two options were more fully
explored for their impacts on protected uses and residents: 700 feet, as used
by the City of Dearborn, Michigan to regulate the location of gun shops and
1,��0 feet as originally incLuded in the interim ordinance. The Dearborn
ordinance distance requirement of 700 feet from residential and protected uses
was designed for a primarily residential community with a lower population
density (3,659 persons per square mile) than Saint Pau1. The higher
population density of Saint Paul (5,157 persons per square mile) tends to
support the need for a greater distance requirement from protected uses in
order to afford a similar amount of protection to children and protected uses
in nearby residential areas. In addition, the ratio of population density of
Saint Paul to Dearborn (1.41) is quite similar to the ratio of 1,000 feet to
700 £eet (1.43).
The Zoning Committee considered requiring shorter distances from protected
uses and from adjacent residential property for locating gun shops but decided
that an increased distance was needed to ensure a reasonable amount of
protection for children, residential property and protected uses. In addition,
at least seven individuals at the December 13, 1993 public hearing on gun
shops recommended a distance of at least 1,000 feet from adjacent residential
uses and protected uses.
The availability of possible sites for the location of gun shops in the I-1
Industrial district does not change dramatically for the distances of 700 feet
and 1,000 feet as shown on the attached maps. Planning staff, [herefore
concluded that gun shops should be located no closer than 1,000 feet from
residentially zoned property and from protected uses.
The staff evaluated the industrial districts in Saint Paul and determined that
the 1,000 foot distance requirement would still a11ow gun shops to locate in
several areas around the city as shown on the industrial zoning map (see
attachment). Industrial areas that would still permit the location of gun
shops include:
1) Portions of the West Side, primarily northwest of the airpoxt,
including much of Riverview Industrial Park.
2) Northeast of the Downtown area along the industrial corridor.
3) A U-shaped area along the industrial corridor from south of the
State Fairgrounds through the Midway Area north of I-94 and
north along the western border of the city.
4) The Red Rock industrial area.
5) An area along the Mississippi River near the Waste Water
Treatment Plant and Pigs Eye Lake.
6) A sma11 area south of Arlington and west of I-35E.
10
_ a 5 -�d
7) A small area northeast of Prior and Charles.
8) A portion of the Ford Plant property.
9) -A small portion of Energy Park directly south of Como Park.
10) A small area near Cocto and Topping.
These proposed requirements, if adopted, would result in many of the federally
licensed firearms dealezs becoming legally non-conforming. This means that a
gun shop which is now located in a business district would be permitted to
continue until it is removed but a new gun shop would not be permitted to
locate in a business zoning district. In addition, a legally non-conforming
gun shop located in a business district would be prevented from expanding at
that location unless they obtained an expansion of a non-conforming use permit
from the Planning Commission. A new gun shop could locate in an I-1 zoning
district with a special condition use permit granted by [he Planning
Commission. One of the conditions of the permit would be that the gun shop
must be located at least 1,000 feet from residentially zoned property and from
any protected use.
The protected uses should be clear and evident. Home day care is often hard to
identify and one might be opened hastily to obstruct the location of a gun
shop. Group day care centers are found in churches, schools (in residential-
zoned areas) or in freestanding buildings. They are usually easy to recognize
and usually have a sign. Therefore, staff recommends that group day care
centers with a sign be considered a protected use for determining eligible
locations for a gun shop.
Another condition of the permit is that the proposed gun shop meet the
required firearms dealers security standards as mandated by State law.
Shooting RanFes and ShootinQ Galleries
Most shooting ranges are located in sparsely developed or undeveloped
suburban/rural locations primarily due to stringent safety requirements, large
setbacks from adjacent uses and large site requirements. Currently, there are
no shooting ranges located in Saint Paul although there are several located in
surrounding communities. This use is r.ot an appropriate use for a developed
area and therefore should be specifically prohibited in the Zoning Code.
Shooting galleries are essentially indoor shooting ranges. A dictionary
defines a shooting gallery as a"covered shooting range equipped with targets
for practice with £irearms." The Zoning Code permits an indoor axchezy range,
a somewhat similar use, in a B-2 zoning district when located at least 100
feet from any fron�, rear or side yard of any residential lot in a residential
distzict with a special condition use permit granted by the Planning
Commission. Since patrons of a shooting gallery would actively use firearms,
this use would likely attract interested youths if located in a commercial
business district. It is presumed that the residents in a neighborhood would
have the same concerns about the negative impacts of a shooting gallery
located in their community as they have about the location of a gun shop.
Therefore, it is recommended that a shooting gallery be permitted as a special
condition use in the I-1 zoning district and be subject to the same spacing
11
i� �°�
requirements as gun shops. �
E. ZONING CODE DEFINITIONS OF GUN SHOP, FIREARM, FIREARMS DEALER
The Zoning Code lacks definitions of gun shop, firearm and firearms dealer.
The following definitions are recommended to be added to the Saint Pau1 Zoning
Code.
The definition of gun shop is needed to appropriately regulate such uses. This
definition is suggested by the Saint Paul City Attorney's Office. "Gun shop
(firearms business)" should be defined as:
"a building or portion of a building occupied by a firearms dealer
which has devoted some portion of its floor area to the sale of firearms
and ammunition."
An alternative definition of gun shop would more clearly recognize that
several businesses sell firearms and ammuni�ion as minor parts of a larger
retail enterprise. This alternative definition could support this by defining
gun shop as:
"a business of any size occupied by a firearms dealer where a majority
of the floor area or dollar volume is devoted to firearms and ammunition
display and sales; or a business of any size where firearms and
ammunition sales is a section or subpart of a larger store, such as
sporting goods and hardware stores, where the sales area devoted to
firearms and ammunition is _ square feet or more."
To make clear what merchandise is subject to gun shop zoning, a dePinition of
"firearm" is recommended as follows:
"any weapon from which is propelled any missile, projectile, bullet ox
other mass through a barrel by means of explosives or gas or air, but
excluding antique firearm, children's toy, 'BB' gun, scuba gun, stud
gun, nail gun, or similar industrial tool or medical instrument."
The definition of a"firearms dealer" is also needed to clarify who may
legally sell firearms at a gun shop. This definition is suggested by the Saint
Paul City Attorney's Office. Firearms dealer should be defined as:
"a person who is federally licensed to sell firearms and operates a gun
shop in which firearms are sold from a permanent business location."
12
a�'
F. ZONING RECOMMENDATION: REGULATING GUN SHOPS
PED staff recommends that the Zoning Code be amended to ir.clude the �
definitions of gun shop, firearm, firearms dealer, assault wzapon and pistol
as stated above. In addition, PED staff recommends that gun shops and shooting
galleries be permitted uses in the I-1 zoning district subject to a special
condition use permit. One of the conditions of the permit should be that gun
shops and shooting galleries are located at least 1,000 feet from
residentially zoned property and from protected uses (as defined below).
PED sta£f recommends that Section 60.614 (11) of Che Zoning Code {relating to
principal uses permitted subject to special conditions in the I-1 zoning
district) be amended to read as follows:
Gun shops, and shooting galleries subject to the following conditions:
a. The gun shop or shooting gallery is located at least one thousand
(1,000) radial feet from any residentially zoned property and from
any "protected use," defined as: A group day caze center which has
a business sign indicating this use; a house of worship; a public
library; a school (pubiic, parochial or private elementary, junior
high or high school); a public regional park or parkway, public
park, public recreation center or public specialized recreation
facility as identified in the parks and recreation element of the
Saint Pau1 Comprehensive P1an. The distance sha11 be measured in a
straight line from the closest point of the property line of the
building in which the gun shop is located to the closest point of
the property line of the protected use;
b. The gun shop meets the required firearms dealers security
standards as mandated by Minnesota Statutes, Section 624.7161.
- 13
_' .' e c�
- _ � j_-- .�<.,,T e'",w � � � .�.\ I \/
, .- / �: - /
2
_�ir��� ^ '' `` � ' lY •,CC ���
' i
� �' �7¢C
� _ - er�
! _ �/�%' - � � `;,�`
-.���_��T�__��__ �__�___�_����__..� s
I a'-".:b' �. . Y S
I `\
\I 1 % \,�
1 4
7
1 _ ' qV �
J v aT��. ��\
� � eanc �
� / _ �
ir =
is �, a �
i a .�x »+ wirs...�ss�
? . . ic s 3
/� � '; z .��" , e., qSMJrr r' �
C� � ��
� ���+,, y � � �"' �eee
� L ,. a �� g
n � $
� i,J � ,-. aaevw
N <R
Q ', _ .:a,�..
- _.I I `' r ��;�s�ir .
. ,�
� ` � i ��' � `. - cxnav
3
♦ �_
� `
� xl ��� vT
� -'------'-'--°'--_" -��..,�_ ��'---
� `1 � etp;3�� i::q �
\ �..
� _� , ; � ¢�' -
� � " s ! �_ rvenm
�; s,
lU �� '�' '
� � " ..
I_ � ' �M+ __ _ e
_'_'j _ __ _ __' ___'_____
^ AMNE Y _ -
J '
N �` - _ :z � _
L �?� j '` -
� t{ . :ni:.-=: � t 3 �c- arvr.wew
1
� V 'I :r x
d � ' 3, �r,, ,
_� ��
; ' ���
� � ��,,;�s
�— � '#'�`""�
N O i �� 3�q^a�
� � 0 O �' y M3Mi i i � v
�� ��� :..
� Z
�. N ,�,_ . �
�.. — =�� `:, ^:
r
:�r a a
°p �
SS � S 5 T
j __._�.z_ � .
�
i
__-a
.mre i
I
1
I
1
1
e I
o�
n
3y
_ � 3e3 S�N
/ I. �# :'i
/
� / I � G �
' � � a ���
i ��, ;� _ �' _ � ,
I � e � �
� �
I
� � =, `"
� ° 3 � s°
w Y
Z � = o�
� z �� �� �
a Q s �_ W o � -`
- ~ � _ _ � S z � �6
(n O - G � 3z � � ji ¢
LL � - -�` _ o � $ S x �
� O � � _ o � �`a� Y
i ~ I • �� � , I " � -
� i 1 �°'
�P
Y� !�
\ P
a
�
1
�
�
I
:I
E1
a�
�
''�,� i `
''?.� R1�ER�i
%$' 114M13d
e� -
y�
x �i
�.i _ _
� �«"�
T
�M laliSS�52�rv
9s- ao
��
�.
�
�
0
�
�
�--�
�
�
�
�
�
b
�
Q�
L!]
�
Q�
�
.ti
Cd
�
�
�
�
a�
�
Y
�
�
�
V
.ti
�
�
� ' ry A
C
`�'S- � O
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
U R B A N P L A N N 1 N G • D E S 1 G N• M A R K E T R E S E A R C X
31 January 1995
Mr. Michael Harris
Councilmember & Chair
City Operations Committee
310-C City Hall
St. Paul, MN 55102
RE:
FII.E NO:
Dear Mr. Harris:
St. Paul Zoning Ordinance - Ordinance 95-20 Gun Shops
123.04
Due to our fum's background and experience in land use pla�u�ing and zoning, plus knowledge
of the firearms industry and operations, we have been asked to provide comment on the
background study and proposed zoning ordinance amendment dealing with the restricted locauon
of gun shops. -
It is evident that the study and pmposed regulations are attempting to pazallei zoning regulations
and approaches which have been applied to adult uselse�ally oriented business activifies. Our
fum has d'uect experience with such matters as well as the regulation of other commerciai uses
which pose community concerns. We therefore believe we have qualiFcations upon which to
base a pmfessional review and comment.
Relative to the St. Paul Department of Plamiing and Economic Development DepaRmenYs Gun
Shop Zoning Study, this effort fails to establish a factuai basis that a problem truly eacists. The
emotionally charged opinions of people who perceive a problem is most certainly not an
objective foundation upon which to enact zoning regulations and restrict pmperty rights.
Moreover, the level of pmbiems identif'ied with gun shops while undoubtedly a concem is
certautly no more and in fact less of a problem than other activities such as convenience stores.
In sum, it is our professional opinion that a factual basis for zoning regulations has not been
established so as to allow a differentiation of gun shops from other parallel activities. There is
most certainly no level of factual documentation that equates gun shops to the adverse secondary
effects of adult uses.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 •(612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
�
Mr. Michael Aarris
31 7anuary 1995
Page Two
The pmblem, if there is one, which the Ciry is confmnting is in our opinion not one of use, but
of operation. As such, business licensing where the background and conduct of the
owner/opentor is the matter which m9ght possibly be of concem and is an element possibly to
be regulated, if local control is in deed needed. In this regard, there are su�cient laws both
federal and state wiuch define legitimate or illegitimate conduct. It is therefore questionable if
the City in addition to these other agencies needs to become involved in regulation. At the very
most, should the Ciry decide to�become involved in policing, it should be within the content of
compliance with established business practice universally applicabie to other commercial ventures
in the City and those requirements equally appliefl to gun dealers by the state and federai
govemment.
As it may be appropriate and as time permits, we will provide testimony on this matter and
respond to other aspects of the pmposed regulation which may so warrant.
We are atso herewith supplying a copy of a letter sent to Mayor Coleman on this matter on 6
September 1994.
Respectfully yours,
NORTHP
/\
David R.
President
pc: Mayor Norm Coleman
�
qs- aa
GUN OV�NERS CIVIL RIGHTS ALLIANCE
P.O. Box 137254, Sairrf ➢a� Mimesota 55113, 672!&36-4465
January 23, 1995
St. Paul City Council
310 City Hall
St. Paul, M23 55102
RE: Proposed "Zone-Out" of Legitimate Firearms Retailers
Proposed Ordinance 95-20
Dear Council Member:
The ProAOSal
Proposed Ordinance 95-20 (Megard) will "zone-out" legitimate
firearms retailers and target ranges from the city of St. Paul by
treating them like strip clubs, adult peep-shows and porno book-
shops. The proposal bans these federally licensed commercial
retailers from 1000 of the business districts in the city by
mandating that these legitimate businesses be located in I-1
Zones more than 1000 feet from any park, school, church, day-care
center, etc. In effect, everywhere except that small, isolated
portion o£ the city set aside for prisons and waste'storage
sites.
This ordinance is part of the on-aoincx battle for the hearts
and minds of America. It is another attempt to treat guns as
evil; legitimate, licensed retailers as evil doers; and law-
abiding gun buyers as perverts. It is vowerful svmbolism to
That message is vital to the anti-firearms movement because it is
a symbolic condemnation of firearms, legitimate firearms owner-
ship, and those who lawfully own and use firearms.
There is �till, simply, no factual basis for this arbitrary,
unreasonable, aad discriminatory ordinance. Without any factual
basis, the ordinance is ineffective as a crime control measure.
That is why Mayor Norm Coleman opposes it.
The So-Called Studv
The Gun Shop Zoning ��Study" is a multi-page diatribe against
firearms ownership filled with anecdotes and emotions, not an
examination of specific zoning-relevant facts concerning the
qs-�-�
�
location of these businesses in this city. The planner's concern
seems to be to prevent Saint Paul residents from thinking that
firearms ownership is legitimate. Zoning cannot be used to pro-
tect uses from ideas -- such as, that private ownership of fire-
arms is time-honored and legitimate right of Americans -- but
that is exactly what this study, and the proposed ordinance,
calls for.
As the "Study" emphatically makes clear, enactment of the
proposal will enshrine in law a"politically correct" belief that
firearms are evil and their sale or ownership is incompatible
with urban living rather than respond to a factual realitv
actually affecting adversely public concerns and calling for a
reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and nonarbitrary exercise of
regulatory authority. What is intended is a form of thought
control designed to eliminate "the legitimacy of firearms sales
in the minds of children." Lawful firearms sales and target
practice are, of course, legitimate under state and federal law!
It ia hard to overstate the lack of factual realitv
uaderlying the "Study" and this proposed ordinance.
The "Study" refers to "feelings, beliefs, and perceptions,"
fears, anxiety, and abhorrence concerning firearms ownership and
sales. Although the staff has had a more than 2 years to collect
it, nowhere in the "Study" is there factual material concerning
the actual situation in St. Paul (police reports, surveys of
customers, observation of youth congregating outside £irearms
retailers, actual numbers of improper sales to minors, if any, or
of burglaries of firearms retailers, if any, or of unlawful
discharge of firearms at a firearms retailers, etc.).
The number of licensed retailers covered by the ordinance is
small, only 23, and real, factual data on these businesses could
have been readily collected but it was not. It would have been
easy to go and observe business operations at K-Mart, Holiday
Stores, Target, Joe's, American Sportsman, etc. Are there any
factual problems, are they different for large retailers vs.
small retailers, does Target have more shoplifting than East Side
Gun Shop, etc.? It is reasonable to suspect that Target and K-
Mart are, in fact, greater attractions for thieves and youth than
St. Paul Firearms or A1 and Eric's, but there has been no effort
to confirm (or deny) the alleged basis for the concerns expressed
by the "Study".
The "Study's" reference to the "smash and grab" robbery
phenomena of 1991 has been addressed by gun shop security
standards set by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety and
enforced by the St. Paul Police Department. In fact, we
understand that there has not been a successful gun shop burglary
or robbery in St. Paul since implementation of the standards.
2
qs- ao
n
The "Study's" reference to youth deaths deals with misuse
not lawful sale of firearms and it grossly overstates the
situation because, according to Minnesota Department of Health
data as reported by the Minnesata Medical Association's Task
Force, less than four children under age 14 die annually in
firearms accidents. Those deaths are a tragedy but not a matter
relevant to legal sales to adults. The "Study's" reference to
BATF's Operation Snapshot is irrelevant because the BATF Report
overwhelmingly covers home occupation dealers and the 1992
Hearings of the Planning Commission determined that no FFL
holder, store-front or in home, was now or ever had been a police
problem in St. Paul (see attached letter, November 13, 1992, from
St. Paul Police Department) and that Report itself does not
support the beliefs underlying this proposal. This fact, no
problems caused by legitimate firearms retailers, was confirmed
for the past dozen years by license bureau personnel at a City
Council subcommittee hearing in 1993. That is the data the staff
should have studied in preparing this proposal. The actual
factual reality establishes that there is no basis for the
proposed restriations oa firearms retailers.
In many ways, St. Paul seems to be conducting its own
version of the "Salem Witch Trials." As the "Study" demonstrates
so well, there is a belief afoot among some in the community,
shared by some elected officials, that certain persons by their
businesses (otherwise legitimate) are the cause of Society's
problems. This belief, although seemingly widespread and
tenaciously held, has little or no basis in factual reality. In
particular, there has been no effort to determine its accuracy
with regard to St. Paul's firearms retailers. The National
Research Council, the research arm of the National Academy of
Sciences, reported in 1992 that there is no authoritative
evidence that "greater gun availability is linked to greater
numbers of violent events."(NY Times, 11-13-92). St. Paul may
have more oeonle, especially gang members and drug dealers,
choosing to engage in illeaal acts which they facilitate by the
misuse of a gun but that has no rational relationship to the
open, legal sale of firearms to legitimate buyers. To change the
metaphor, it is like the situation that existed when it was
widely believed that the world was flat although the factual
reality was always that the earth is round.
Leaitimate Zonina Considerations
The "Study" is correct when it states that the City has the
authority to regulate the location of businesses where firearms
are sold by a federally licensed dealer, but that authority is
n�o�t plenary as aay such zoning ordinance MUST be "reasonable,
nondiscriminatory, and nonarbitrary". Minn. Stat. sec. 471.635.
�
�,s-ao
In reviewing a equal protection challenge to a city zoning
ordinance, the U. S. Supreme Court stated:
... But mere negative attitudes, or fear,
unsubstantiated by factors which are properly
cognizable in a zoning proceeding, are not permissible
bases for treating (firearms retailers7 differently
from [other retailers]. It is plain that the
electorate as a whole,..., could not order city action
violative of the Equal Protection Clause ..., and the
city may not avoid the strictures of that clause by
deferring to the wishes or objections of some fraction
of the body politic. 'Private biases may be outside
the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or
indirectly, give them effect.
473 U. S. 432, 448 (1985).
Zoniag ordiaances canaot be uaed to protect a use from an
idea. Here the idea is that widely held by Minnesotans,
including St. Paul residents --see quote by Rebecca Greenwood in
attached article, that ownership, sales, and lawful use of
firearms is legitimate.
The only police data regarding criminal activity at the
location of any FFL holder in St. Paul (large and diversified,
small and specific, or home occupation) was that supplied to the
Planning Commission by Mr. Feinwachs and that data indicates no
criminal activity related to firearms retailing, ever. Since the
supposed risk of criminal activity is the basis for the ordin-
ance, the atunaing laek of any evidence to that effect should
doom the proposal.
In particular, the proposal is unreasonable, discriminatory,
and arbitrary in, at least, the twentv i20) aspeets aet forth in
Attachment A.
Attached are portions of two Memoranda dealing with the
legal issues raised by the proposed ordinance change. Please
make this letter and its attachments a part of the record of the
public hearing in this matter and transmit it to the City Council
and Mayor if further proceedings are held regarding the proposal.
Conclusion
Anecdotal statements such as "I want to throw up when I
drive by the gun store" may reflect the real emotion of the
speaker but they are hardly the proper basis for a zoning
ordinance. In many ways, much of the testimony before the
Planning Commission seemed directed at a retrial of the Perkins
license matter -- a separate issue already resolved by the City
Council -- not a relevant matter to this proposal. In fact,
0
�
no one from any neighborhood actually containing a storefront
firearms retailer testified in favor of the proposal, certainly
no one testified about any actual problems of any kind at any
such retailer excent persons from the area of Mr. Perkins store.
As the attachment to this letter made clear, many in that area
support Mr. Perkin's store. I work nearby and I patronize his
establishment. And those persons who favored the proposal were
not able to describe any specific actual problem related to that
business other than its mere existence at that location.
Zoning ordinances must be "xeasonable, nondiscriminatory,
and nonarbitrary.'� They are a remedy for actual problems, not a
response to emotions, however genuine, generated by £ears and
symbolism unrelated to the actual business under consideration.
In summary, the proposal is unnecessary, without basis in
factual reality, without any sort of factual study sufficient to
support these restrictions, and in violation of the limitations
placed on the city`s authority by state law in that it is
unreasonable, discriminatory, and arbitrary! It is an attempt
to protect a certain uses from an idea -- that firearms are
legitimate -- and beyond the power of any American governmental
body.
Very ruly you ,
oseph lson
�
" i �S _a-�'
_, IryA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C U R 8 A N V L A N N I N G • D E S I G N� M A R K E T N E S E A R C X
6 September 1994
Mayor Nozman Coleman
390 City Hall �
Saint Paul, MN 55102
RE: St. Pau1 - Gun Shop Zoning
FILE NO: 123.01
Dear Mayor Coleman:
Based upon our firm's experience in land use planning and zoning,
we have been requested to review and comment on the City of Saint
Paul Planning and Economic Development Department's Gun Shop Zoning
Study.
While there are numerous points and a substantial number of
specific details which deserve comment, we will limit this letter
to three primary concerns. In this regard, our first comment
focuses upon one o£ the primary reasons for the proposed limitation
of gun stores to industrial areas. Throughout the text of the
study, residents' "feelings" and "concerns^ are cited as a basis of
the suggested action. Needless to say, such rationale is arbitrary
and capricious. We believe this situation, with one exception, is
symptomatic of the entire document's lack of credible and factual
foundation.
The exception in documented justification for the progosed change
in zoning relates to crimes involving gun store operations. As
recognized by the study report, beCween 1990 and 1993 the Twin
Cities experienced a major rash of gun store robberies. What goes
unacknowledged by the study report, however, are new State Statutes
addressing the storing of firearms during the hours of closure.
The impact of these legislative changes has resulCed in a near
total elimination of the problems which were previously being
encountered. We would also note that changes in federal law
through the "Brady Bill° have altered the criminal justice system's
light handed treatment of gun store crimes. For example, had the
present system been in effect several years ago, the individual
shot during a St. Paul coop store robbery would have likely been in
jail due to his prior involvement in a gun store robbery in Tonka
Bay. Finally, we would note that if robbery and crime are a basis
for isolating gun stores to remote locations, most �ertainly
convenience stores deserve similar and equal treatment. It is
likely that convenience stores are in fact the target of more
frequent and serious crimes than are gun stores. The primary point
to be noted, however, is that new laws have been enacted which
erase the basis upon which the new gun store zoning is recommended.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 •(612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
� �o
Mayor Norman Coleman
6 September 1994
Page Two
A final point is the contention that isolation of gun stores is
necessary due to the fact that the BATF's annual inspection
requirements are not being conducted as specified. This implies an
assumption of guilt on the part of gun dealers which is unfounded.
Moreover, the potential of sporadic and unscheduled inspections
carries with it the same implications of an annual audit.
In summary, we believe the City's current attention to gun stores
to be politically rather than factually and legally motivated. As
such, the City's possible action lacks foundation and is an
infringement upon legitimate commerce and activity and an improper
use of the zoning police power.
Respectfully yours,
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED
David R �,icht, AICP
0
�s-a-o
DEPARTMENT 4F PO410E
CiTY Of SAIhIT PAIJL
lNTtR.OfFlCE COMMUMlCAitON
0
TO:
P'R4t3:
SU&? :
nam�:
Chief Finnep
Sergeant MarK Johnston`��-
FSDERAL FIREAAMS LICLNBED RESIDSNTB
P7ovember 13, 1992
In response to your incluiry about residents of St. Paul who hold
Federal Firearms licenses I obtained the Eollowinq:
CUY'Yentl.y there are 191 Federal FireaYritB Licenses isSUed to
St. Paul residents.
Goirg blok to Juna of 1989 (this is as far back as we can go on
computer at �his point}, there have been 1 burglaries, �
robberies, and� thefts from F.F.L. holders during triis time.
A camputer run �.s currently being done by systems on firearm
related tY,afts, robberies, and burglazies but will.not be available
untfl Monday morning.
MJ:br
0
�ro�tfSvr dIJaY��
� �}' �, � r�.c r. o j., te.. f,, �'t �
T��J iJ a euy� a .
�J 1 / �
I.JL 8u no�S 11 0.�`�-- 4 Cv�+.�N"I[r i0y u
t 1.: e 1� .J
� �<, b •.�7 i a
nw;J��ccr es.;�3 co+�t�,.h��y 9w�s ��1 �� 1
-'+ k.,,,.. � ber� a� i'�:J alf�
�.� {a..i y�ty�l .�- t/
�/ y
' T4t� S vt.s✓ a'+yc�.�- eji� � .�.�ik w: 1�+ .
hfi ✓
Fha a! d�� �rob ��M,� � � �
� �71 u ,
c'� S -�-°
But some Hamline-Midway
residents aren't opposed to having a
sho in their neighborhood.
Rebecca Greenwood. a Universitv oE
mcezn, xeeps a snotgum m �er non
for personai defense. Greenwood
said she isn't distvrbed by the
store's contents.
"Gurts are not the way to
solve problems. All of us
are becoming desensitized
to violence. Having people,
especially children,
see this store every day is
expanding fhe destructive,
violence mentality."
"I don't have problems with gun
shops per se," she said. "I have a
prob(em with ones with poor
security or that don't control to
whom they sell guns."
Three years ago Greenwood was
pushed off a nuu�ing path by two �
men who then held her at knifepoint,
beat her, raped and strangled her
and left her for dead. The experience
made issues which previously had
been only theoretical, very real in
Greenwood's (ife.
"My atritude toward gun control is
comparable to my attitude towazd
abvrtion," she said. "It's a matter of
personal choice. If I choose to carry
- a gun, I don't want that right taken
away from me. �
"I want access to guns for personai
safety, but I want handgvns to be
taken very seriously. Men are
stronger than women. IYs a fact of
life. That there are many violent
men in the world is also a fact of
life."
y
� S _a-�
TIME, PLACE. AND INANNER RE6ULATION
ASSUMING, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, 7HA7 REGllLATORY AUTHORITY HAS
NOT BEEN WITHHELD OR REMOVED, A MUNICIPALITY IS ALLOWED TO
REGULATE� THRaUGH Z�NING� THE TIME PLACE AND MANNER OF THE
CONDUCT OF BUSINESSES AND OTHER ACTIVITIES TO DEAL WITH ADVERSE
SECONDARY IMPACTS THAT ARE WELL DOCUMENTED IN THE SURROUNDING
AREAS. THERE ARE LIMITATIONS, HOWEVER� ON THIS POWER. FIRST
THERE MUST BE A FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE CONCERN: A DOCUMENTED
PROBL'EM THAT IMPACTS LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTERESTS. SECOND,
--�..�.�
��
`
�
�
c�s_ao
� THE RE6l1LATI0NS MUST BE WITHIN THE LEGITIMATE POWER OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO ADDRESS, AHD TNE REGULATION MUST DIRECTLY ADDRESS
THE DOCUMENTED PROBLEM OR LEGI7IMATE CONCERN. �T I�R�D, THE
REGULATION MUST NOT BE A SUBTERFUGE FOR AN ATTACK ON TH
MATTER OR SUPPRESSION OF THE ACTIVITY; RATHER IT MUST BE NARROWLY
DRAFTED TO ADDRESS THE DOCUMENTED PROBLEM. THEN, ANp ONLY THEN,
WILL SUCH A REGULATION BE ALLOWED TO INCIDENTALLY IMPACT ON THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ACTIVITY, AND THEN ONLY AS NECESSARY TO
PURSUE THE LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST IN REMEDYING THE
PROBLEM. FINA�LY� ANY SUCH RE6l1LATI0N MUST BE 'THE LEAST
RESTRICTIVE ALTERNA7IVE AVAILABtE. TO SIMPLIFY THE ANALYSIS; IF
THERE IS A WELL DOCUMENTED PR�B�EM AS A SECONDARY IMPACT TO A
LEGITIMATE ACTIYITY, 60VERNMENT MAY pURSUE ITS I.EGITIMATE
INTERESTS DIRECTLY AND RESPECTFU�LY WITH A SCALPEL. NOT A MEAT
AXE.
THIS ANALYSIS WAS THE CORE OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS CONCERNING
THE SALE OF S£XUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIALS �SOME CALL IT
PORNOGRAPHY) IN Y011NG V. AMERICAN M1NI THEATRES, INC. 42� U.S.
50 (1976) AND IN �ITY OF RENTON �, PIAYTIME THEATR£S� INC., 1�6
$.�T 925 (1986) THOSE ZONIN6 REGUtATIONS> WHICH DISTANCED
OUTLETS FOR SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIALS FROM EACH OTHER AND A4lAY
FROM RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS� WERE BASED ON EXTENSIVE STUDIES
AND DOCUMENTATION OF ADVERSE 5ECONDARY IMPACTS OF THOSE
BUSINESSES CONCERNING THE LOWERING OF PROPERTY VALUES IN THE
IMMEDIA7E SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD; INCREASED INCIDENCE OF
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY, ESPECIALLY SEX
CRIMES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CUSTOMERS CONDUCT OFF PREMISES; AND
ECONOMIC B�IGHT IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY ATTRIBl1TABLE TO THE
PRESENCE Of THE BUSINESS AND ITS EFFECT ON THE "TONE OF
COMMERCE.'� THE RENTON CASE ALLOWED ONE CITY TQ USE STUDIES AND
RESEARCH FROM OTHER, SIMILAR CITIES AND LOCALES IN THE AREA AS A
BASIS FOR THE DOCUMENTATION OF THE "PROBLEM AND THE DEFINITION
OF THE PARAME7ERS OF THE PROBLEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF FRAMING THE
APPROPRIATE, NARROWLY TAILORED PURSUIT OF TNE LEGIT7MpTE
60VERNMENTAL INTEREST.
IN THIS MATTER� THERE IS NO DOCUMENTATION OF A PROBLEM CONCERNIN6
THESE HOME OCCUPATIONS. IN FACT, THE DOCUMENTATION IS OF A
u NON — PROBLEM.'� THE EXPRESSED CONCERNS OF THE PROPONENTS ACTUALLY
CONCERNS A "TERTIARY IMPACT OF 7HE BUSINESS, THAT OF
VICTIMIZATION OF THE HOME OCCUPANT, AND SMACKS OF BLAMIN6 THE
VICTIM fOR THE SPECULATIVE CRIME. THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
IMPACTS OF THE HOME OCCUPATIONS ARE ADDRESSED DIRECTLY IN THE
ORDINANCE�S EXISTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND THEY ARE
CURRENTLY ADDRESSED TO ALl SUCH OCCUPATIONS OBJECTIVELY,
REGARDLESS OF SUBJECT MATTEft OR OTHER CONTENT—BASED
CONSIDERATION. THE PROPOSED 60VERNMENTAL RESPONSE TO THE
NON IS A BAN ACCOMPLISHED BY DEGREES� BASED UPON
DISPROVED ASSUMPTIONS AS TO THE EFFICACY OF SUCH A BAN. IN SUM,
BASED UPON THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE OCCUPATION AND A DOCUMENTED
ABSENCE OF A SECONDARY OR TERTIARY PROBLEM RELATING TO THE
BUSINESS OF SELLING OR REPAIRING FIREARMS, THE AMENDMENT SEEKS
DISPROVEtd SOCIAL GOALS UNRELATED TO THE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS. OF
fiOVERNMENT IN ZONIN6 IH THE MOST OVERBROAD MANNER POSSIBIE. THE
PROPQSED AMENDMENT IS IRRATIONAL.
C�
� ARBITRARY CLASSIFICATION: EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
°�, s _ a-�
ALTN�UGN DEALING IN FIR£ARMS AND 6UNSMITHING HAVE BEEN
TRADITIONAL HOME OCCUPATIONS SINCE S7. PAUL BEGAN ZONING, AND
BEFORE TNEN AS WELL, THE PRQPOSED AMENDMEN7 SEEKS TO CREATE A
LEGISLATIVE CLASSIFICATION PROHIBITING THAT ACTIVITY UNDER THE
ZONING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY. AS HAS SEEN SNOWN ABOVE, THE
CLASSIFICATION SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEMENTED IS NOT RELATED TO AND
DOES N9T Pl1RSUE THE STATED PURPOSES AND FACTORS OF THE ZONING LAW
THAT APPLY TO OTHER HOME OCCUPATIONS, BUS RATHER SEEKS_TO IMPOSE
A RESTRICTION THAT IS OUTSIDE ITS AUTHORITY UNDER STATE LAW. THE
AMENDMENT DOES NOT RA7IONALLY PURSUE ANY aTHER tEGITIMATE
INTEREST OF THE CITY THAT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF ZONING. A
ZONING ORDINANCE THAT DOES NOT RATIONALLY AND DIRECTLY PROMOTE
THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAfETY, MORALS, OR GENERAL WELFARE IS INVALID.
KENR V. ITY OF ROSEVILLE, 426 N.W.ZD 233 iMINNAPP 1988)
PARRANTO ROT ERS V. CITY OF EW BRIGHTON 4ZS N.W.ZD 585
�MINNAPP 19$$)i HONN Y. �ITY OF �bON RAPIDS 313 N.W.2n �#�g
�MINN. 1981).
IN 1973 THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, IN _U_N_� _T�ED ST TES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE V. MORENO, 413 U.S. 528 (1973) HELD
THAT A LEGISLATIVE CLASSIFICATION WHICH WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE
PURPOSES OF THE ACT AND WHICH DID NOT RATIONALLY FUR7HER ANY
OTHER �EGITIMATE GOVERNMENTAL IPdTEREST VIOLATED THE "EQUAI
PROTECTION" COMPONENT OF THE STH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED SfATES
CONSTITUTION AND WAS DISCRIMINATORY. THE CASE INV�IVED THE
PROVISION OF THE FOOD STAMP ACT OF 1964 PROHIBITING f00D STAMPS
TO PERSONS WHO ARE UNRELATED AND LIVING TOGETHER IN A HOUSEHOLD.
STUDYING TNE ACT, THE COURT FOUND THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT TO BE
7HE SAFE6UARDING OF THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF THE NATION'S
POPULATi�N AND THE PROVISION OF A NUl'RITIONALLY ADEQUATE DIET TO
lOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. THE C�URT FOUND THAT THE pftOVISION�S
PURPOSE WAS Tp PREVENT "HIPPIES AND "HIPPIE CaMMUNES'� FROM
PARTICIPATING TN THE PROGRAM� HO�DING THAT CONCERN TO ,HE
IRRELEVANT TO THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT IN PROVIDING A NUTRITIONALLY
ADE�UATE D1ET TO LOW INCOME PERSONS.
° FOR IF TNE CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPTION OF "EOUAL
PROTECTI�N �F TNE �AWS" MEANS ANYTHIPfG, IT MUSS AT THE
VERY LEAST MEAN THAT A BARE C�NGRESSIONAL DESIRE TO
HARM A POLITICALLY UNPOPULAR GROUP CANNOT CQNSTITUTE A
LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST. AS A RESUIT� "IAI
PURPOSE TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HIPPIES CANNOT, AND IN
OF ITSELF AND WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ISOME INDEPENDENT)
CONSIDERATIONS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, JUSTIFY THE 1971
AMENDMENT.
ID., AT 534-535 (EMPHasts IN ORIGINAL). THE �OURT FOUND THE
AMENDMENT TO BE WITHOUT "ANY RATIONAL BASIS." ID.� AT 538.
FURTHER, �USTICE DOU6LAS, CONCURRING, STATED, AT 541
"THE RE�UIREMENT OF EDUAL PRDTECTION DENIES 60VERNMENT
�THE POWER TO LEGIS�ATE THAT DIFFERENT TREA7MENT BE
ACCORDED TO PERSaNS PLACED BY A STATUTE INTO DIFFERENT
CLASSES ON THE BASIS OF CRITERIA WHOLLY UNRE�ATED TO
THE OBJECTIVE�OF THE ENACTMENT."
'�—
�� s-a-�
•' IN 7NIS INSTANCE THE AMEHDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ATTEMPTS
TO CLASSIFY THE HOME OCCUPATION OF FIREARMS SA�ES AND REPAIR ON
THE BASIS OF CRITERIA WHOLLY UNRELATED TO TNE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS SET OUT IN THE ORDINANCE AND TO WHICH A(,L OTNER HOME
OCCUPATIONS ARE SUBJECT. THE IMPETUS FOR THIS EEFaRT APpEpRS
CLEARLY TO BE A DESIRE TO HARM A"POLITICALLY UNPOPULAR GROIlP:"
GUNQWNERS, POTENTIAL 6UNOWNERS� AND THOSE WHO SELL AND SERVICE
FIREARMS.
FINA�LY� APPLYIN6 EflUAt PROTECTION ANALYSIS TD LOCAL ZONING
ISSUES IN CITY DE C EBURNE, TEXAS V. LEBURNE LIVING CENTER 473
U.S 432 (1� THE�ELD THAT REflUIRING A SPECIAL' USE
PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED GROUP H�ME FOR THE MEPITALLY RETARDED
VIOIATED THE E�UAL PROTECTION CLAUSE IN THAT THE REQUIREMENT, IN
THE ABSENCE OF ANY RA7IONAL BASIS IN TNE RECORD FOR BELIEVING
THAT A GROUP HOME WOULD POSE ANY SPECIAL THREAT TO THE CITY�S
LEGITIMATE INTERESTS, APPEARED TO REST ON AN IRRATIONAL PREJUDICE
AGAINST THE MENTpLLY RETARDED. IT NOTED THA7 GROUP HOMES WERE
ALREADY CLOSELY SUPERVISED AND HIGHLY REGULATED BY STATE AND
FEDERAL LAW.
"FIRST, THE COUNCIL WAS CONCERNED WITH THE NEGATIVE
A7TITUDE OF THE MAJORITY OF PROPERTY OWNERS LdCATED
WITHIN ZOO FEET OF THE FEATHERSTON FACIIITY� AS WELI AS
WITH THE FEARS OF ELDERLY RESIDENTS OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT MERE NEGATIVE ATTITUDES, OR FEAR�
UNSUBSTANTIATED BY FAC70RS WHICH ARE PROPERLY
COGNIZABLE IN A ZONING PROCEEDING, ARE NOT PERMISSIHLE
BASES FOR TREATING A HOME FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED
DIFFERENT�Y FROM APARTMENT HOUSES� MULTIPLE DWELLINGS,
AND THE LIKE. IT IS PLAIN THAT THE EIECTORA7E AS A
WHOLE, WHETHER BY REFERENDUM OR OTHERWISE, C9l1LD NO7
ORDER CITY ACTION VIOLATIVE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE ..., AND THE CITY MAY NOT AVOID THE STRICTURES
OF THAT CLAUSE BY DEFERRING 70 THE WISHES OR OBJECTIONS
OF SOME FRACTION OF THE BODY POLITIC. 'PRIVATE BIASES
MAY BE OUTSIDE THE REACH OF THE LAW, BUT 7HE LAW
CANN�T, DIRECTLY OR INDIREC7LY� GIVE THEM EFFECT.�
�CITATION OMMIT7ED.)
In., ar 448.
AS APPLIED TO THE INSTANT AMENDMENT, THE PRINCIPLES AND
APPLICATIDN ARE CLEAR: THAT UNSUBSTANTIATED NEGATIVE ATTITUDES OR
FEAR OF EVEN A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, UNSUBSTANTIATED BY THE
FACTORS REL£VANT TO THE ZONING CONSIDERATIONS SET OUT IN THE
ORDINANCE� ARE NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR THE PROPOSED
DIFFEREN7IAL TREATMENT OF THE HOME OCCUPATIONS INVOLVING
FIREARMS. THE OCCUPATION �F FIREARMS SAL£S IS SUPERVISED AND
HIGHLY RE6Ut,ATED BY BOTH S7ATE AN➢ FEDERAL tAWS. BECAUSE THE
NEGATIVE ATTITUDES AND FEARS PROPOUNDED HERE ARE NOT ONLY
UNSUBSTANTIATED, BUT ALSO REFU7ED, ALL 7HAT REMAINS IS RAW gIq$
AND PREJUDICE. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD GIVE LEGAL EFFECT T�
PRIVATE pREJUDICE� RATHER THAN ALLOWIN6 CHOICE AND OB:IECTIVE
COMPLIANCE WITH PROPER REGULATORY FACTORS, AS IS THE CURRENT
SITUATIDN.
'�
� s - a-�
s
GUN OWNERS CIVIL RIGHTS ALLIANCE
P.O. Box t 37254, Seint Paul, Minnesota SS713, 612/636-4465
"Alas, however well accepted, the conventional
wisdom about guns and violence is mistaken. Guns don't
increase...rates of crime and violence --- but the
proliferation of gun-control laws almost certainly does."
Enclosed is a copy of the lead article from the March 1994 issue of
The Atlantic Monthlv. In The False Promise of Gua Control Daniel
D. Polsby, a professor of 1aw and public policy,at Northwestern
University, applies the analytical tools of economics and social
science to the question of the potential efficacy of gun control
laws and concludes:
"Gun Control laws don't work. What is worse, they act
perversely. While legitimate users of firearms encounter intense
regulation, scrutiny, and bureaucratic control, illicit markets
easily adapt to whatever di�ficulties a free society throws in their
way. Also, efforts to curtail the supply of firearms inflict
collateral damage on freedom and privacy interests that have long
been considered central to American public life."
Some highlights of Polsby's critical analysis are set forth below:
"Rational gun control requires understanding no[ only
the relationship behveen weapons and violence bu[ also
the relationship between Saws and people's Uehavior.
Some things aze very hard to accomplish with laws.
The purpose of a law and its likely effects are not
always the same thing."
"If 5rearms increased violence and crime, programs of
induced scarcity would suppress violence and crime.
But — another anomaly — they don't. Why not? A
theorem, which we could call the fu[ility theorem
expiains why gun-control laws mus[ either be inellectual
or i�t the long term ac[ually provoke more violence and
crime."
"Imposiag higher wsts on wespons ownershtp will, of
course, slow down the weapons trade to some exten[.
But planning to slow it down in such a way as to drive
down crime and viotence, or prevent motivated
purchasers from £mding ample suppGes of guns and
ammunition, is an escape from reality. And like many
another such, it entails a morning after [of mounting
civi! liberties abuses becausejt•*crime an8 violence, will
not go away, because guns and ammunition...do no[
cause it."
"The most important reason for criminal behavior is
this: the income that offenders can earn in the world of
crime, as compared with the world of work, all too
o[ten makes crime appeac to be a better choice. [The}
criminal habita[...will be reoccupied prompUy afte� its
previous occupant is sent away [so long asj the root
causes of crime — bad education and lack of job
opportunities and the disintegration of Yamities [exist].
***The root cause of crime is [hat for certain peoale,
predation is a rational occuoational choice."
"Bu[ firearms are nowhere near tl�e root of the problem
of violence. As long as people come in unlike s'ues,
shapes, ages, and temperaments, as long as they diverge
in their taste for risk and their willingness and capaci[y
to p�ey on ofher people oc to defend themseives from
predation, and above ail as long as some people have
little or nothing to lose by spending their Iives in crime,
dispositions to violence wID persis[."
"This is what makes the case for a righ[ to bear arms....
Il is footish to let anything ride on hopes for effective
gun<ontrot. As long as crune pays as weli as it does,
ave wil! have plenty of it, and honest folk must choose
�ebveen being victims and defending themselves."
�
7
STIFFER JA1L TERMS
WilL MAKE GUNtViEN MORE GUN-SNY
BY GARY 5. BECKER
N(ll"�i, (�CCefl'CIICC
tti�ill. Alake �icidi�icmal
jail timc ni�in�latory
�l)I' CI"Illllll2113 t5•'�lu
ll�t• �l{Ilti, �u I��I:It
fittle <li;i retiun is Irft
t u judbes, juries, ancl
�)1"US�CIIIUi'S
GARY S BECKER, iHE 199Y NOBEI �
fAURE .iE iEACHES Ai THE UNIVERSitt
GF CInCaGO �wD IS A FEl10W OF
it1E MOpVER INSIIiUiION i
un runtrol is a hit;hll� diaisivc issue
Ul:ll EIIlS t•!L{"Ll'SU \Vllu Lclie��e that the
right tn own ��uns fur Icgilimate pw•.
pu,�s is eunsliUUinn.dlg gir.u•antecd ag�iinst
lhosc n•I�u �r�ml tu sh�u•ply nvh�re 16c muulxr
uf ;;uns ia rir�•ul :l�lUtl. Illil !� 45 IN1(II IIC�{P8I1{@
:md pnssiLli• lu �•ut du�vn wi thc �uu� iu tlic
lr.m�4� ot tluu;s cmd �•r'sminals �aiUiatit �•artailing
lhe ri};�hl to o�cn guns (ur a(hcr purpusns.
An ofFeclive y;un-cuntrnl pnfiry masl lcy tu
deter lhe use u( quua to i•ommit crimes and lu
intimidatc �u scliuol and d�c�vhere. '1'he Geest
wap lu du this is fur slales lo impo�e :t slil'fer
pnuishmunt on mis�•rcauts w6o use �;uns for
crimimd euds. A jail senleuce—ur additiun�d
time—s6add 6e added tu t6e usual punish-
ment (nr a rrime if �;uns .ire invulved.
�I( U�e uurmul pimishmi�ut (ur roD6ery is :i
yun� in jail, 1'ur example, lhis sentence mighl
be dunbled. tu hvu ycars. �vhen guns m•e in-
aalvi�J. '1'he punishment fur using guns ruidd
depenJ tm t6e severily o( the rrime, whutlrer
lLe gnn was (ircd, and even on whether it
wxs lil<cly tu be �imd.
hiauy �;un-ronUnl xdv�Kal�� shrinl; from re-
lianre un imprisunment and other punishments
tur the use ut guns tn commit crimes Lerause
t6ihr se�•m I�w indinK•t and unc•u•tain to be eG
f�•rtivo di•lurri•nts. itut <•untiidi�r.iLfu evidenre,
suny��ari�i•d Iry �l:nnes Q. R�ilsnn and Itii•6.u�d
J. L4irrm�stein in ihcir ('rinrc uxd ll�uuuu Nu-
N�re, indi<•utes lhat gre;�ler <•urtainty of .ip-
�n�cd�u�siun ,md c�,nvictiun is an et'Ieriive deter-
rent lu ruhbery .wJ nwsl utlicr si•rious �•rimes.
!'ur tl�is re:isun. 1 have adaix•ate�1 much gresit-
i•r ,ponding un pulirc :uid i•uurls In iucruase
upprehensiuu oC ccin�in.ds .uid es��edite tlieir
cum•i<•tion 1 BlV—Nuv. 'L!II.
GIEAR StGNAI. ' Po inereux lhe cerlainty nE
puni�hmeut fur criminal use o( guns, it m;iy !w
desiruble fur stules lu muadale tl�e exlr.� }ail
senlences, w lhat IitUe discri•tiun is IcCt tu
j«dgc�. .i«rius, and pruseeulurs. A rapidly
grun�in4r num6i•r uf siat��s rcquire :idditional
�mnis6menl, �chen gm�� :u•e :neulv��d. 'Cruc,
som�� Crd�•ral jnd�;ia ha�•c eri�irized t6u ntam
Jalin�; uf si•nteni•es fur federal crimes surh
:u drug s�ilia ur whit� �•ullar rritnc. bul a slale
m�md:�tory trrm seuds a cicar si�;nal abuut
thc risl: ��f using tiuus to perpe4•:rte crimes.
Ii:�rshcr pmii,hwi•nt (ur thnse �vhu usr gnns
tu �•ummit rrimes dues uul pcualire o�ener-
ship ul timis by siioplceepr.rs and uthers whn
are �•ulnera6le t�� eriminal uttacl;s. In Ihe rou-
I'runt:itiun bi�t�veen rriminals aud t6cir prey.
fhi� appruni•h tu �,.un �•unlrul dcula put�•utinl
tar;;els a Lou��r haud.
A honv>' ta� on gun sali•s ur un Ihi� pm�.
chn:e u( ��nitn�mi(iun—:i� prapu,rd rerrnfly by
a�
Sen:uur t)unirl I'. ntuti'nilian lD-N.1.i—d�u•s
n„t u�mi�li the iue ut euns. IL just rais�sihi•
rus[ uf aryuiring �md luadiu�� them. Snch taz-
�5 �v�iu{,! nut only red��re tlie dinn.md fur gnns
hy shopl:eepers .md uthers ��'ho Lu}• them Ir
ga{{y, hnt thev ma1:e it tl�at murh �•he:inrr tu
•irquire thi�w tlleg:dlv. eU�iwu;;h lhc,e taxes
����c no dirorl cft�rt un i•rimivals. �chu bu�.
lheir weapuns un the m�dergruund m:u•kot.
t6ey du h.sae !md indir��e•( elt��ts. '1'axes mal:e
gims .wd ummimitiun more—nut less—ruidii�
a�:iila6le tu crimin:d clemenls IK:c.tusu nwre
�uns anJ ammuniliun �vill be siphuned uf( into
the w�derRruuud econ�imy hy peuple xeking
tu evude the tsxes on leg.�l sules.
LE55 RESISTANCE? EYCn tf 10.Xe5 tll� t increcue
t6c numher uf �;mis in the h.mds uf criminal,.
t6eV �end lo raise the incidenie u( rrime.
(h�erall. i•riminals will expect less armed resis�
tance trom s6upkeepers and humeowners if
laxes reduce purr6.ises o( guns by people tclw
wunL Lo defend themselves.
Sume states require that�:dl ��ve.q�nns be
registcred, anJ Cuny�ress r�cenU}' Passed U�e
Itrady (3ill. �vhich m:mdates a �veek's dclay
before applica[ions to Luy guns can bu �qr
proved. Otficials ezm use the deln}• ta ciwrk
un applieunt's back�;rouud fur rriminal rernrds
uud uther pruLlems. Su�•h pruriaduri•s arr
�vurth�vhile Lee�.mse they may rul duwn uu
impulsive gm� pmrhases l6at lend tu ��i�den��e.
13ut they do IitUe tu kee ��uus uut u( the
hands ot' teena �ers �mc rrmuna s«� �u o x.un
t6eir wea ions unc er�;rumu .�v �ere �uns are
su i to .m •une �v �o can uiV or t iem. 't' �i. ia
ll�e rnnle by �vhirh :icsena s uf aeapnnv hat�i•
fuuud their ��•.�y into iiuier cilic� :md el�c�
�vhere in the tJ. S. (;uns continue W be snuig-
gled nniu t1�e iNt�;a1 niarke� from .�broad. 1'rum
mililarp stuck. and 6•om i�ruul;ed gtm dealers.
In othui• wurds, tlie fatal d'vEficu{t � ai rel,���in �
unlY un re=istratiun .md a� iruva is t mt t il ere
cu�e twu .Ilill<IS� 1Y1i17 S L'I0I � iscrete mart:ets tur
mea iuns. "I� ie eKi[imate markel i:LLers tu pco-
p e a u� want �;u�is fur huutiii�; an<I (or pru1��•-
tion ag.iinst huldups :md 6urgl:u•ies. "1'he ��r:��.
mau•ket c:uers to criminats ���lw �aunt ��-eapuus
tu help lhem ste�d, intimid.Ue. rripe. p:�rtiripat�•
in gang warf:u•e, .mJ sell drugs. Cuuliug-ufl
periods and ollier cuntruls un �un s.des bt.
le�ilimate dealers hxve little e lect ou .ui
m�der rruun� mar et l iat i mures t�em.
"1'6e right approarh tu gun'ronhv ��an Ret
widespre:�d agreement .md �ruuld n�n Li� ,ub-
jcrl tn t6e bitter contruversir.s Ih:�t pL�que
uther ;�ppraar6es tu this issue. 'Phi� une ,np-
ports rrgislratiun :mJ cuuliqq-u(I periuds. Lut
it relics maiiniy un punishing thuau a•Lu u,u
guus tur rrime :md intimidati„n.
1aPU9r�fs5��'rFK �FnunnRrCr; ���•�i
��.nu���i� .il`:.I+�:ttl
[ [eftier t��xes ��•un't
�
BY JAMES QWILSON
one-chird of them handguns. Only about 2 perceat
of che latter are employed co eomfnic crima. It
would uke a Dntonian, and politically impossibiq
confiscacion of legally purchased guns to make
much of a difference in the number used by crimi-
nals. Moreover, only about one-sixth of the hand-
guns used by seriovs criminals are purchased from a
gun shop or pawnshop. Mosc of these handguns are
s[olen, borrowed or obcained through private pur-
chazes that wouldn'c be affetted by gun laws.
Wha� is worse, any successful effort to shrink the
s�ock of legatly purchased�u ns (or of ammunition)
would reduce e tapacicy of w-abidine Deoole co
defend themselves. Gun con[rol advoca�u scoff ac
the imponance of self-defense, but thry are wrong to
do so. Based on a household survey, Gary Kleck, a
criminologist at Florida State Universiry, hu esti-
mated [hat every year, gunt aze used — that is,
displayed or fued —{or defensive pulposes more
chan a million times, not counting their use by the
poYice. If his estimate is cocrect, this means that the
number of people who defend themselves wi[h a gun
exceeds the number of anuu fot violent crimes and
burglaries.
The available evidence supports the claim ihat
self-deiense is a Ieeitimam form of deterrence.
People who repott to che National Cvme Survey
that they defended themselves with a weapon were
less likelv to lose properry in a robbery or be injured
in an assaul< <han those who did noc defend chem-
selves. Scatistics have shown that would-be burg}azs
aze threamned by gun-wielding viaims about as
many eimes a year az chey are arresced (and much
more often ehan chey are sent to prison) and �hat the
chances of a burglar being shot are about the same as
his chances of going to jail. Crimina{s know chese
faccs even if eun concrol adooacu do noT and so are
less likelv to burgle occupied homes in America
[han occupied ona ia Europe, where the residmts
rarely have guns. �
Some gun concrof advocaca may concede these
poinu but rejoin thac �he cos� of self-defense is sdf-
injury: Handgun owners are more likely to shooc
chemselves or thor loved ones tfian a criminal. Noc
quice. Mosc ¢un accidmu involve rifla and shot-
guns, noc handguns. Morewer, the nxe of fauS eun
accidents hu been declinin while the level of un
ownership haz been risin¢. ere aze a gun uoi-
Jama Q. Wilsmi is a profator of publir poliry� at
U,C.LA. Hu most recrnt book is "77x Moral Sense."
dma just az there ue fara! rar accidenq bvt in fewer
rhan 2 percent of the gun fatali�ia wu the victim
someone misnken for an incruder.
Opponents of gun control make a different mis-
take. The Nationai Rifle Association and i[s allies
�ell us �hat "guns don'� kill, people kill" and urge
the Govermnrnc to punish more scnerdq peopfe
who use guns to commit crimes. Locking up crimi-
nals does promct society from fumre crimcs, and
che prospec[ of being locked up may decer criminals.
But our experience with meting ouc tougher sen-
tences is mixed. The tongher the prospeaive sen-
ttnce the less likely ic is to be imposed, or ac least to
be imposed swiftly. If the Legislature adds on �ime
for aimes commicted with a gun, prosecutors of�en
bargain away the add-ons; even when they do not,
the judges in many ssates are reluctanc to impose
add-ons.
Wonq the presence of a gun can conttibute to the
magnixude of che crime even on the pan of those who
woiry about serving a long prison sentence Many
ttuninals cacry guns noc co rob scozes buc co protect
�hemsdvu from other armed criminals. Gang violence
hss become more thmtening to bystanders az gang
members have begun to arm themselves. People may
commi[ crimes, but guns make some aima worsa
Guns ohen convett eponcaneous oucburscs oE anger
inco hul mcouneers. When some people carry chem
on ehe screns, ahers will wanc eo cazry chem �o
protece themselvu, and an urban arms nce wil] be
underway.
� UA GOAL SfiOULD NOT BE 7'HE DI$-
armin¢ of laa-abidinq ntizens. It s ould
be to reduce the number of veop e w o
cam euns unlawfully, especially i�
places — on scmect, in uverns — where the mere
presence of a gun can increue the haurds we ail
face. The mosc effettive way �o reduce illegal gun-
carrying is to mcourage the poSice ro take guns awry
from people who arry them withovt a permit. This
means encounging the police to make street frisks.
The Fourth Amendmmc to [he Cons�imcion bans
"unreasonable searches and seizures." In 1968 �he
$vpreme Coutt decided (Terry v. Ohio) that a frisk
— patting down a person's outer clo�hing — is
proper if the officer has a"reasonable suspicion"
that the person is armed and dangerous. If a pab
down reveals an objea thac might be a guq thc
officer pn emez the suspect's pocket [o remove i�
If [he gun is being carried illegally, che suspect can
be ures�ed.
The reasonable-suspicion ttst is much less strin-
gene than the probable-cause standard the police
must meet in order io makc an arrat. A reasonable
suspicion, hawevcr, u more than just a hunch; it
must be supponed by speci�e facts. The courts have
hcld, not always consistently, thac these fatts in-
clude someone accing in a way chac Iuds an uperi-
enced officer co conclude criminal acciviry may be
afoot; someone fleeing at the apQrmch of an officer,
a person who fiss a drug courier profile; a mocoris�
stopped foz a tnf6c violation who haz a suspicious
buige in his poeket; a suspect identified by a reliable
informant az carrying a gun The Supreme Cova haz
also upheld frisking people on probation or parole.
Some police deputmenu frisk a lot of peoplq but
vsually �he poli« frisk nther few, at least for che
puxpose of dececting il{egal guns. In 1992 the poGce
arresced about 24D,000 people for illegally possessing
oc carrping a wapoa. This is only about one-fourch u
many ss were arresced foz public drunkennas. 1'he
avenge police oEficer wi11 make no weapons artuts
and confisaie no gu»s dnring azry given yar. Mark
Moore, a professor of public poliry at Harnrd Uni-
versiry, found that most weapons arrests were made
becavse a cicizen complained not because the police
were ouc looking for gun:.
22 u euy to sce why. Many citia suffv izom a
shomge of offiars, and even those with ample lam-
enforcemmt persormd worry about having their asa
thrown ou� for constimnoiat ressons or being ac-
cused of police harusmenc Buc [he risk of violating
the Constimcion or rngaging in attval, u opposed ao
perceived, harassmrnt can be substancially reduced.
Fach patrol offica can be given a lisc of people on
probacion or parole who live on that officer's bea�
and be rewarded for making frequent stops to insure
chac they ace noc carrying guns. Officers an be
crained �o recognize ihe kinds of aaions chat the
Coun will accept az providing the "rnsonable suspi-
cion" necessary for a sxop and frisk. Membership in a
gang known for assauln and drug dealing could be
made the basis, by ssamce or Court pcecedenc, for
gvn frisks.
And modern science can be enlisted to hdp. Metal
daeccors a[ airpoza have reduced the number o[
airplane bombings and skyjackings to nwrly zero.
Buc thue deuccors onLp work a very clote range.
What is needed is a device chat wii emble the police
co decect the presence of a large lump of ine�a( in
someone's pocket £rom a distanee of 70 or 15 fett.
Receiving such a signal could supply che officer with
reasonable grovnds for a pit-down. Underemployed
nucleaz physieisu and eleccronics engineers in the
posocotd-war en surdy have the calenu for design-
ing a better gun daeewr.
Evrn if we do all thae things, thae will still be
eomplaina. Innocent people will be scoQped Young
black and Hupanic men will probably be stopped
more oftm than older whi�e Anglo males or women of
any nce. $ut if we are smous about rcducing drivo-by
shoo�ngs, faul gang wars md Ict}ul qwneLs in public
placa, we musc ¢et illeaal ¢uns off �he sneet. \de
cannot do this by mulciplyine the fomu one fil�s ouc
at ¢un shons or by pretending chat guns aze not a
problem uncil a crimirul uses one.■
�� T� CS ��11�/�-�N� �LLUSTRATION er owch Sw�rx �`� v_ �� q�
f,
� S _�o
�%�
Vofume 134
Numberll
December 1, 1997
American Journai of
EPIDEMIOLOGY
Copyright �c• 1gg7 by The Johns Hopkins University
School of Hygiene and Public Health
Sponsored by the Society for Epidemiologic Research
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Homicide and the Prevalence ot Handguns: Canada and the
United States, 1976 to 1980
Brandon S. Centerwall
As compared with Americans, Canadians in the 1970s possessed one tenth as many
handguns per capita. To assess whether this affected the total criminal homicide rate,
the mean annual criminai homicide rates of Canadian provinces were compared with
ihose of adjoining US states for the period of 1976 to 1980. No consistent differences
were observed; crimi�at homicide rates were sometimes higher in the Canadian prov-
ince, and sometimes higher in the adjoining US state. Major differences in the prevalence
of handguns have not resuited in differing total criminal homicide rates in Canadian
provinces and adjoining US states. The simi�ar rates of criminal homicide are�rimarilv
attributable to underiying similar rates of aggravated assault. Am J Epidemiol
7991;134:1245-60.
firearms; homicide; violence
Editor's nore: For a discussro�i q(this pa-
per artd the authnr•'s res��onse. see��n��es 1261
and 12G9. respeciirelr.
The homicide rate in the United States
doubled bet�y�een the 1960s and the 1470s
(t). The increased numbers of handguns
being used in kiilings raised public concern,
leading to the Gun Control Act of 1968 (2).
Recerved tor publica6on June 5. 1989, and m finai torm
February27, 7997
From the Department ot Psychialry and Behaworai
Sciences, University oi Washmgton, SeatOe, WA.
Repnnt requests to Dr. Brandon S Centerwail, 617 33rd
Avenue E, Seatlfe, WA 961 t2.
7he author is indebted to Joanne Lacroix and Dr. Paul
Reed for providing access to unpublished data from the
Nevertheless, there is still debate over
whether a change in the prevalence of hand-
guns would change rates of homicide (2-5).
Sloan et aL (6) recently compared homi-
cide rates for 1980 to 1986 in Seattie, Wash-
ington, and Vancouver, British Columbia,
unde� the assumation that a roughly four-
fold difference in handgun prevalence be-
tween these two otherwise similar cities
should be reflected in their respective hom-
Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics; to J Harper Wilson
and Cindy Brice for providing access to unpublished data
trom ihe US Federal Bureau o1 InvestigaUOn, and fo Dr.
Paul Blackman for providmg access to unpublished data
from the DecisiomMaking Intormation survey.
The data from the DeCSion-Makmg Intormation survey
are now available from the Inter-University Consortium for
Political and Social Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan
1245
1246 Cenierwall
icide rates. The average annual homicide
rate in Seattle ( I 1.3 homicides per 100.000
population) was indeed signi&cantly greater
than that in Vancouver (6.9 per IOOA00
population; relative risk = 1.63; 95 percent
confidence interaal ].38-1.93). The differ-
ence was almost entirely accounted for by a
fivefotd greater firearm homicide rate in Se-
attle.
However, as noted by Blackman et al. (7),
among non-Hispanic whites, who made up
79 and 76 percent of the populations of
Seattle and Vancouver, respectively (6), av-
erage annual homicide rates in the two cities
�rere essentiallv identical: 6.2 vs. 6.4 homi-
cides per t00.000 population (6}. Further-
more, so few blacks and Hispanics resided
in Vancou�•er (6) as virtuallv to nreclude
meaninaful co�par�s�vith the blacks and
Hi'spanics of Seattle. This leads to the ten-
tati��e conclusion that if the homicide data
of Sfoan et al, were subjected to a Mantet-
Haenszel summary odds ratio (8), stratifying
bv race, the differences in homicide rales
between Seattle and Vancouver wouid cease
to he statistically signifcant. This conclusion
is necessarih� tentati��e, since Sloan et al. are
disinclined to calculate a summarv odds ra-
tio stratified by race (Sloan JH, University
of Washington, personal communication,
I 989).
Pending the acailabilih of raw data from
Sloan et al., a broader study was made of
crimina] homicide and the prevalence of
handguns in Canadian provinces and ad-
joining US states, to determine whether ma-
jor difTerences in the prevalence of handguns
are associated with dilTerences in the crimi-
nal homicide rate.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Criminal homicide is a subset of homicide
that excludes legally justifiable homicides
(9). Aggravated assauli is an assault com-
mitted with the intent to cause death or
serious bodily injury (9). US data on crimi-
nal homicidcs and aggravatcd assauhs arc
trom the US Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion. Canadian data are from the Canadian
Centre for Justice Statistics. Both countries
maintain uniform crime-reporting registries
of all homicides and aggravated assaults
knowtt to the police: the two registries use
equivalent definitions of homicide and as-
sault (9-11).
Rates of criminal homicide and aggra-
vated assault are compared by state, prov-
ince, and city for Canada and the United
States for tlie period 1976 to f 980. To con-
trol for variations in rates resulting from
smait numbers, the rates for 1976 to 1980
are averaged and presented as a 5-year mean.
For the period 1976 to 1980, 93 percent of
Canadian ( t 0) and 94 perceat of US firearm
homicides (US Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion, unpublished data) were classified as to
type of firearm used, namely, handgun, ri[le,
or shotgun.
To contro( for the efT'ect of inetropolican
areas uE�on homicide rates, homicide rates
b} state and province are presented both
inciuding and excluding metropolitan areas
ofgreater than 1 million population in 1980.
For Canada, these comprise Montreal, To-
ronta and Vancou��er. For ihe US border
states, these comprise New York Cit}�, Buf-
falo. Detroit, Minneapolis, and Seattle.
National estimates of the US prevalence
of privately owned handguns are from
Wright, Rossi, and Daty (4), based upon a
1478 random national household survey
conducted by Decision-Making Information
(hereafter referred to as the "US survey"}.
National data on tlie prevalence of privately
owned handguns in Canada are from a ran-
dom national household survey conducted
for the Ministry of the Solicitor General in
1976 (12). The US survey data permit an
estimation by state of the prevalence of pri-
vately owned frearms in the United States,
(US survey, unpublished data). To maxi-
mize sampling power, the US survey was
limited to 39 states. The Canadian survey
data permit an estimation by province of
the prevalence of privately owned 6rearms
(( 2). Owing to the sampling frame employed
by the Canadian survey, the Atlantic prov-
inces (Newti�undland. Nova Scotia, Prince
Ed�vard Island, and New Bruns�vick) and
the prairie provinces (Manitvba, Saskatche-
watt, and Alberia) cannot be analyzed indi-
qs-a�
vidually. 7he Yukon and the Northwest Ter-
ritories were not included in the survey.
The 1976 Canadian Gun Ownership and
Use Survey is the only national survey of
the prevalence of privately owned handguns
to t�ave been undertaken in Canada. For this
reason, the comparative analysis of homi-
cide and assault rates in Canada and the
United States is limited to the years 1476 to
1980. For the same reason, although there
are more recent US surveys of handgun
prevalence, the present analysis relies upon
the 1978 survey conducted by Decision-
Making Information.
Data on the prevalence of firearms are
presented both as the number of firearms
per I,000 population and as the number of
firearms per 100 households. Variations in
the aggregation of provinces in tabular pre-
sentations reilect variations in the aggrega-
tion of provinces in the primary sources.
Data on socioeconomic conditions and
racial composition by state and province are
from the 1980 US census of the population
(13, 14) and the 1981 Canadian census of
the population (I5, 16). The indices of so-
cioeconomic status are per capita income
and percentage of households with > 1.0 res-
idents per room, the latter being an index
previously developed for studying homicide
rates in comparable populations oS blacks
and whites in the United States (17).
At the level of states and provinces, all
differences in homicide and assault rates will
be "statistically significant," given the large
populations. For this reason, rates are pre-
sented without confidence intervals.
RESULTS
Populations living in the Canadian prov-
inces and adjoinsng US states share a com-
mon geography, a common climate, and
common primary industries (e.g., farming
and forest products). More quantitatively, in
a comparison of the 1980 US census and
the 1981 Canadian census,the percentage of
tlte population that is white did not differ by
more than seven percentage points between
Canadian provinces aod adjoining US states,
after major metropolitan centers had been
Homicide and the Prevalence of Handguns 1247
excluded (table 1). Similarly. the percentage
of crowded households (i.e., >1.0 residents
per room) did not difTer by more than four
percentage points (tabie 1). With two excep-
tions, Idaho and Alaska, the annua] per cap-
ita income in US states differed from that in
adjoining Canadian provinces by less than
1,000 dollars, when both were expressed in
1980 US dollars (table 1).
In 1978, there were an estimated 35 mil-
lion handguns in private hands in the United
States (4), or approximately 160 handguns
per 1,000 population. In 1976, there were
an estimated 280,Od0 handguns in private
hands in Canada (i2), or approximately 12
handguns per I,000 population. For states
and provinces along the US-Canadian bor-
der, the surveys of handgun pre�alence in
Canada (12) and the United States (US sur-
vey, unpublished data) indicate that, in the
latter half of the 1970s, there were 4 to 10
times as many handguns per 1,000 popula-
tion in the US border states as compared
with handguns in adjoining Canadian prov-
inces, and 3 to 10 times as many handguns
per 100 households (table 2). In contrast,
the prevalence of rilles and shotguns was
approximately equal (table 3).
For the years 1976 to 1980, the mean
annual rates ofcriminal homicide in Canada
ranged from L 1 per 100,000 in Newfound-
land to 16.9 in the Yukon (figure 1) (10). In
the United States, rates ofcriminai l�omicide
ranged from a mean annual rate of 1.2 in
North Dakota to 16.1 in Nevada (9).
Along the US-Canadian border (table 4),
rates of criminal homicide were higher in
the provinces of New Brunswick (2.9) and
Quebec (3.0) than in the adjoining states of
Maine (2.7), New Hampshire (2.6), and Ver-
mont (2.8). Rates of criminal homicide were
higher in the province of Manitoba {3.7)
than in the adjoining states of Minnesota
(2.4) and North Dakota (1.2). Rates of crim-
inal homicide were higher in the Yukon
(16.9) than in the adjoining state of Alaska
(1 L6).
Conversely, rates of criminal homicide
were higher in the states oF Washington
(4.7), Idaho (4.9), and Montana (4.7) than
in the adjoining provinces of British Colum-
1248 Centerwall
TABLE 1. Sociceconomic conditions and recial composition on the US-Canadian border, 6y state and
provf�e*
Canada (1987 census)
Province
New Brunswick
Quebec
(excluding
Montreai)
Ontario
(exduding
Toronto)
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia
(exctuding
Vancouver)
Yukon
%whife % Percapita
(1981) aowdedf income$
(1961) (7980)
99
98
(
95
l9�)
90
92
92
89
(92)
81
United States (1980 census)
State
%white % Percapiq
(1979) crowdedt income#
(1980) (1979)
99 3.1 6.547
99 2.4 7,906
99 2.5 7,012
3.8 6,615 Maine
2.8 8.303 New Harnpshire
(3.0) (7,695) Vemront
1.9 8,838 New York
(1.5) (8,270) (excluding New York
City and Buffalo)
Michigan
(excluding Deuoit)
3.7 7,560 Minnesota
(exctud'mg
Minneapolis)
North Dakota
2.8
2.3
22
(2.4)
6.3
7,952 Montana
9,819 Idaho
9,711 Washington
(9,740) (exduding Seattle)
10,149 Alaska
80
(93)
85
(93)
97
(
96
4.9
(2.4)
3.1
(2.9)
2.3
(2.3)
2.7
8.5t0
(8,754)
8.726
(8.984)
8,457
(8.402)
7,283
94
96
91
(92)
77
3.8 �,479
4.5 7,097
2.9 9,163
(2.9) (8.275)
10.1 1Y,569
" Sources: StaM1Stics Canada. 1987 Census o! Canada� Populafion and 1987 Census o/ Canada: Occupied Private Dwelbngs.
Oitawa: Statistics Canada. 7984 and 1983. respECtiveiy. US Bureau ot the Census. 1960 Census o/ the Popula[ion: Volume 7.
Charactenstics o/ the Population and 1980 Census of Housing: Volume 7 Characteristics o! Housmg Units. Washington, DC: US
GPO, 1981 and 1982. respectively.
t Households with >7 A residents per room. �
$ Expressed in 1980 US ddiars.
bia (3.6), Alberta (3.4), and Saskatchewan
(3.8). Rates of criminal homicide were
higher in the states of New York ( I 13) and
Michigan (10.1) than in the adjoining prov-
ince of Ontario (2.1).
The high rates of homicide in New York
and Michigan represent the one noteworthy
disparity between i1S and Canadian rates of
criminal homicide along the US-Canadian
border (figure 1). However, the criminal
homicide rate of New York State (11.3) was
dominated by that of New York City (22.7)
(9). When New York City was excluded, the
rate of criminal homicide for the rest of the
state of New York was 3.4 per 100,000
population. Likewise, the rate of criminal
homicide in Mic6igan (10. t) was dominated
by that of Detroit (41.9) {9). When Detroit
was excluded, the rate of criminal homicide
for the rest of Michigan was 5.0 per ] 00.000.
When Toronto (1.8) was similarly ercluded
Prom Ontario (2. t), the rate of criminal hom-
icide for the rest of the province of Ontario
was 2.3 per 100,000 population (Canadian
Centre for Justice Statistics, unpublished
data).
During the years 1976 to 198Q there were
43,691 handgun homicides in the United
States (US Federal Bureau of Investigation,
unpublished data), or an annual rate of 2.5
handgun homicides per t0,000 handguns in
the general US population. For the years
t476 to 1980 in Canada, there were 304
handgun homicides (10), or an annua] rate
of 2.2 handgun homicides per t0,000 hand-
guns in the general Canadian population.
These data would suggest that the rate at
which homicides are committed with hand-
�5 -a�
Homicide and the Prevalence of Handguns 1249
TABLE 2. Prevalence of privately owned handguns on the US-Canadian border, by state and province*
Canada (7976) United States (1978)
Handguns per Handguns per
Province 100 1.000 State 100 1.000
ho populat househoids population
Atlantic provincesfi d 12 Maine NA$ NA
Quebec 1 4 New Hampshire NA NA
Vermont§ 14 48
Ontario
4 12
5 15
9 32
New York 12
Michiga� 33
Prairie statesh 36
Idaho NA
Washington 33
45
110
Prairie provincest
British Columbia
125
NA
122
Yuk NA NA Alaska NA NA
" Sources: Stenning PC, Moyer S. Firearms Ownershrp and Use in Canada: A Repon ol Survey Findmgs, 7976 Toronto. Canada�
University ot ToroMO, 1987 1978 Decison-Mak'mg information survey ot US househotds �unpuM�shetl data).
iOwmg ro the sampling frame employed by the Canadian Gun Ownership and Use Survey (7976). the Atlantic provmces
(Newtoundland, Nova SwUa, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick) and the prai�ie provinces (Marutoba, Saskatchewan, and
Alberta) cannot be analyzed mdmdually The Yukon was not included in the survey
$ Not available. To maximize sampling power, the US survey (19781 was limited to 39 ot the US states.
§ A gun collector was excludetl from the Vermont state survey sample as a statisllcal outlier.
p Minnesota, North Dakota, and Montana.
TABLE 3. Prevalence of privateiy owned rifles and shotguns on the US-Canadian border, by state and
province'
PrOVinCe
Atlantic provinces
Quebec
Ontario
Prairie provincest
British Columbia
Canada (1976)
RiOes and shotguns per
700 1.000
households populahon
t 100 ' 275
47 142
56 179
106 336
72 243
United States (t978)
RifleS and Shotguns per
State 100 1,000
households popWaUOn
Maine NA$ NA
New Hampshire NA NA
Vermont§ 79 265
New York 82
Michigan 71
Prairie statesll 96
Idaho NA
Washington 71
297
241
329
NA
262
Y u k ont NA NA Alaska NA NA
' Sources Stenning PC. Moyer S. Frea�ms Ownershrp and Use in Canada. A Report ol Survey Findings. 1976 Toronto, Canada:
University of Twonto, 7981. 7978 Decision-Making Information survey of US households (unpubiished data)
t Owing to [he samphng irame empioyed by [he Canadian Gun Ownership and Use Survey (1976y, the Atlantic provinces
(Newloundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick) and the pra�rie provinces (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and
Aib¢rta) cannot be analyzed intlividuaVly. The Yukon was not inc{uded in tfie survey.
# Not available. To maximize samphng power, the US survey (1978) was limitetl to 39 of the US states.
§ A gun collector was exclutled from the Vermont state survey sample as a statistical outlier.
p Minnesota, North Dako[a, and Montana.
f250 Centerwall
guns is primarily a function of the preva- ofcriminal homicide committed with hand-
lence of handguns in the general population, guns �vere determined for the Canadian
To assess whether this relationship holds provinees and adjoinittg t1S states (iable 5).
true at the level of states and provinces, rates After the major metropolitan centers were
FIGURE 1. Mean annual criminal homicide rates in Canada and the United States, by state and province, 1976 to
1980. (Map outiine used by permission of the American Map Corporation, Maspeth, New York.)
Homicide and the Prevalence of Handguns
TABLE 4. Mean annual rates ot criminal homicide on the US-Canadian border, by state and province,
1976-1980•
Province
Canada
New Brunswick
Quebec
(exGuding Montreai)
Ontario
(excluding Toronto)
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Cofumbia
(excluding Vancouver)
Yukon
Deaths
per
100.000
PoPU�ation
2.9
3.0
(3.3)
United States
DeathS
State ��
tOD,000
population
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
2.7
2.6
2.8
11.3
(3.0)
10.1
(5.0)
2.4
(1.8)
1.2
2.1 New York
(2.3) (exciuding New York
City and Buffalo)
Michigan
(excluding Detroit)
3.� Minnesota
(excfuding
Minneapoiis)
North Dakota
3.8 Montana
3.4 Idaho
3.6 Washington
(4.9) (exciuding Seattle)
76.9 Alaska
4.7
4.9
4.7
(4.3)
11.6
�2s1 �{ s - 2-
• Sources Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Homiade Sfatishcs, f980. Otlawa, Canada� Statistics Canada, 7982. US
Pederai Bureau ot Inves6gation Unilorm Crime Reports Ior the United States. Washington, DC: US GPO, 1976-7980.
exciuded, the handgun homicide rates (table
5) by state aod province were rouQhly pro-
ortional to the prevalence of handguns (ta-
ble 2) by state and province. N�ith the notable
exception of Quebec. Despite having the
lowest reported handgun prevalence of a
Canadian province, Quebec had the highest
handgun homicide rate in Canada. Possible
reasons for this apparent discrepancy will be
presented in the discussion. After major
metropolitan centers and Quebec were ex-
cluded, the annual number of handgun
homicides per 10.000 privately owned hand-
guns exhibited a ranae of 0.7 to 1.7 for
Canadian provinces and 0.5 to 1.5 for US
border states.
To assess whether variations in rates of
criminal homicide by state and province
primarily reflect similar underlying varia-
tions in rates of aggravated assauit, ifie mean
annual aggravated assault rates in Canadian
provinces, 1976 to I980, were compared
with those of ad}ofning US states (table 6).
As with rates of criminal homicide.�o con-
sistent dif£erences were observed. �s of
aggravated assault were sometimes higher in
the Canadian province, sometimes higher in
the ad}oining US state.
If variations in the prevalence of handguns
indeed have no effect upon the total homi-
cide rafe, then the probability of an aggra-
vated assault ending in death and thereby
becoming a homicide-that is, the "case
Catality rate"-will be unrelated to the prev-
alence of handguns. To state the hypothesis
another way, if the case fatality rate for
aggravated assaults is a function of the prev-
alence of handguns, then the case fatality
rate would be systematically higher in US
bordec states than in adjoining Canadian
provinces.
When the number of homicides per l00
aggravated assaults was determined by state
and province (table 7), n�consistent difler-
ences were observed. 01T�US border states,
five had higher case fatality rates than the
f252 Certterwall
TABLE 5. Mean annuai rates of criminal homicide committed witN handguns on the US-Canadian bortler,
by state and province, 1976-1980"
Canada lkiitetl Stares
Provir�cE
Atlantic provinces
(]uebec
(excluding Montreaq
Ontario
(exduding Toronto)
Prairie provinces
British Columbia
(exciutling Vancouver)
Deams
P�
700.000
populatan
0.1
0.5
(0.4)
State
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
02 New York
(0.2) (exduding New Ywk City
and Buffalo)
Michigan
(exciud'mg Detroit)
0.1 Minnesota
(exduding futinneapolis)
North Dakota
Moniana
Deaths
P�
700,000
population
0.7
0.6
0.4
4.6
(0.6)
4.4
tf-�)
0.7
(0.5)
0.4
1.6
0.3 Idaho 1 �8
(0.4) Washington 1.7
(excluding Seattle) (1.5)
Yukon and Northwest Territories 0.3 Alaska 4.7
' Sources: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Homicitle Stahstics, 7980. Ottawa, Canada: StatisC�cs Ganada, 1982. Owing
to small numbers, data on hanUgun homicides, by province, are pubtished in aggregate fortn. US Federai Bureau o( Investigation.
Uni�orm Crime Reports lor the Umted States. Washington, DC: US GPO. 1976-1980.
TABLE 6. Mean annua! retes of aggrevated assault on the US-Canadian border, by state and province,
1976-1980•
Canada
PmvinCe
New Brunswick
Quebec
(excluding Monheaq
Ontario
(ezcluding Toronto)
ManiYOba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia
(excluding Vancouver)
Aggravated assaults
per 1 p0,000
popu�ation
62
75
(701)
135 New York
(737) (exclutling New York City
and Butfalo)
Michigan
(excluding Detroit)
179
Minnesota
(exdutling Minneapolis)
North Dakota
168
162
146
(165)
State
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Montana
Idaho
Washington
(excfuding Seattlej
United States
AggravateA assaults
per 100.000
population
161
83
iti
328
(735)
306
(262)
93
(68)
42
159
194
245
(229)
Yukon 321 Alaska 307
' Sources: Canadian Centre for Justice Sfatistics. Crrme and Trafl�c Enlorcemenf S[atislics. Ottawa. Canada: Statistics Canada.
1976-1980. US Federal Bureau of Invesngation. UnAorm Crime Reports Ior tAe United States. Washington, DC: US GPO. 1976-
1980
Homicide and the Prevalence of Handguns 1253
TABLE 7. Homicides per 700 aggravated assaults on the US-Canadian border, by state and province,
1976-1960*
Canada
Province
New Brunswick
Quebec
(exctuding Montreai)
Homicides per 700
aggravated assaults
4_7
4.0
(3.3)
Ontario
(excluding Toronto)
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia
(excluding Vancouver)
Yukon
1.6
(1.7)
2.1
State
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
United States
Homidtles per 100
aggravated assaults
1.7
3.1
2.5
New York
(excluding New York City
and Buffalo)
Michigan
(excluding Detroiq
Minnesota
(excluding Minneapolis)
North Dakota
2.3 Montana
2.1 Idaho
2.5 Washington
(3.0) (excluding Seattle)
5.3 Alaska
3.4
(22)
3.3
(1.9)
2.6
(2.6)
2.9
3.0
2.5
1.9
(1.9)
3.8
' Sources Canadian Cemre for Justice Statistics. Homic�de Statis@cs, 1980 antl Cnme and Traftic Enforcement Statisiics
Ottawa, Canada: Statishcs Canada, 7982 antl 7976-1980, respecnvely. US Pederal Bureau of Investigation Unilorm Cnme Reports
for the United Stares Washmgton, DC 11S GPO, 1976-1980
adjoining Canadian province, whereas six
had lower case fatality rates (Idaho adjoins
roral Sritish Columbia). This corres o�
w�ll to what would be expected if handaun
pr does noi mfluence case fatalitv
rates in any systematiC manner.
"Fhis interpretation oftabie 7 assumes that
the prevalence of handguns in US states
exce°ds that in adjoining Canadian prov-
inces, even where actual data are not avail-
able (table 2). As it is, wherever handgun
prevalence data are available for both sides
of the US-Canadian border, the prevalence
oPhandguns in the US state is 3 to 10 times
greater than in the adjoining Canadian prov-
ince; that is, the "prevalence ratio" is 3 to
10 (table 2). When data on handgun preva-
lence are not available for states and prov-
inces, this is for reasons independent of the
hypoihesis being tested. Therefore, it is rea-
sonable and ordinarv to assume that the
handgun prevalencc ratio across such parts
of the border are similar to those parts where
the pre�•alence ratio is known. This assump-
tion can be confirmed indirectly by observ-
ine. for examnle. ihat. for thP vears I97(, ��
1980. 41 percent of the homicides in Alaska
were committed with handguns (US Federal
Bureau of lnvestigation, unpubtished data),
whereas only 2 percent of the homicides in
tl�e Yukon and the Northwest Territories
were committed with handguns (t0).
DISCUSSION
In this study, it is observed that adjoining
U3 states and Canadian pro�inces had sim-
ilar rates of criminal homicide (table 4), even
though the prevalence of privately owned
handguns was 3 to 10 times greater in US
border states than in adjoining Canadian
provinces (tabie 2). From this, the plain
conclusion might be that maior differences
in the prevalence of ha_ndauns are n�o„t� asso-
ciated with corresnondin� ditl�ecences in
�rates of criminal homicide, a conclusion
consistent with similar observations made in
comparisons of the white populations of Se-
attfe and Vancouver (6). 8efore proceeding
to such a plain conclusion, however, it is
necessary first to examine the underlying
accmm�ri�ne �f thP an2lvcie
q s -ao
1254 Cenierwall
How accurate is the diagnosis of
homicide?
The study design is invalidated if tlie di-
agnosis ofhomicide is insu�cienily accurate
to permit the conclusion that the homicide
rates of adjoining states and provinces are
indeed similar (table 4). If the diagnosis of
homicide has poorsensitivity and speciGcit�,
rates of criminal homicide in Canada may
actually be substantially ]ower than in the
US border states, despite ihe statistics.
Because of the social and legal repercus-
sions, putative homicides are subjected to
intense scrutiny. Thus, for exampie, autopsy
is pedormed on approximately 90 percent
of US homicide victims ( i, l8). This should
lead to high sensitivity and specificity in the
diagnosis, and indeed, for a random sampie
of 426 US death ceRificates—including 49
homicides—blinded independent review of
ail pertinent medicai and legal records led to
the conclusion that for death certificates car-
rying a diagnosis of homicide, the sensitivity
was 96 percent and the specificity was 49
percent (! 8). 7 represents a degree of
accuracv seldom matched in epidemiologic
research.
Of co�rse, fhe present study of criminal
homicide relies upon police rather than
medical records, since death certificates do
not distinguish betcveen criminal and legally
justifiaUle homicide. To judge the accuracy
of the police records, it is necessary to deter-
mine whether they refer to the same deaths
as do U�e medical records. In a case-by-case
comparison of police and medical examiner
records in seven cities across the United
Staies, Zahn and Riede! (19) found that of
1,332 deaths described as homicide in either
the police or medical examiner records,
1,248 (94 percent) were thus described in
both record systems. With only minor dis-
crepancies. police and medical records are
reporting the same deaths as homicides. It
follows that ihe police records have the same
high level of sensitivity and specificity as the
medical records. Not surprisingly, over time,
enumerations of hornicide in Canadian and
US police records have differed from enu-
merations in death certificates by only about
5 percent (20-23).
It could be argued theoretically that Ca-
nadians are substantially o�erceporting
homicides, thereby explaining away the ap-
parent similarity of US and Canadian hom-
icide rates along the border. However, given
the severe repercussions of a faiseiy positive
declaration of homicide. an assumption of
Canadian overreporting is improbable. The
conclusion is that the similarity of rates of
criminal homicide in US border states and
adjoining Canadian provinces is real and not
the result of statistical artifact.
How accurate are handgun surveys?
It is common knowledge that the preva-
(ence of privately owned handguns is much
higher in the United States than in Canada.
However, this does not preclude the a priori
possibility that the prevalence of handguns
in individua! US states, particularly along
the Canadian border, may be similar ro
those in Canada. If this were so. there would
be no need to look further for an explanation
of the similar homicide rates obsened along
the US-Canadian border. Therefore, the ac-
curacv of the surveys must lre examined in
more detail, to permit assurance that the�
difTerences observed (table 2) are real.
The 1976 Canadian Gun Ownership and
Use Survey w�as a national randomiz.ed
household survey of 30.000 households, de-
signed and conducted by Statistics Canada,
the Canadian equivalent of the US Census
Bureau (12). The 1978 US survey was a
national randomized survey (or, more pre-
cisely, 39 randomized state surveys) of 1,500
households, designed and conducted by De-
cision-Making Information, a private poll-
ing organization (4). Both organizations
used recognized and approved survey meth-
odologies, the details of which are discussed
elsewhere (4, 12). The Canadian survey in-
strument was pretested (12). lt is not known
whether the US survey was pretested, but its
broad findings were virtualty identical with
those of a second US national randomized
household survey of handgun ownership,
also conducted in 1978 but by a different
and independent polling organization (4).
(The second survey conducted by Cam-
bridge Reports, did not obtain data on num-
bers of handguns per household (4), so its
findings were not detailed enough for the
purposes of the present analysis.)
Since the Canadian and US surveys were
designed and conducted independenfly of
one another, there are differences between
the two surveys that could lead to systematic
biases relative to one another. The US sur-
vey consisted of face-to-face interviews.
whereas the Canadian survey was a combi-
nation of face-to-face, telephone, and proxy
interviews. The Canadian survey universe
consisted of all noninstitutionalized resi-
dents aged ?]5 years (12), whereas the US
survey universe consisted of all noninstitu-
tionalized residents aged ? 18 years who
were also registered voters (4).
For the purposes of the present analysis,
the dift'erences in age cutoff are of no im-
portance; the number of handguns possessed
by minors and not also considered the prop-
erty of an adult in the same household must
be negligible. That the US survey was limited
to registered voters raises the possibility of
skewing in various directions for various
reasons. Fortunately, the 1978 Decision-
Making Information survey results are com-
parable to those of the 1978 Cambridge Re-
ports survey, which sampled all adults aged
? 18 years, regardless of voter registration
sta[us. Of the househoid respondents sur-
veyed, 25 percent in the Decision-Making
Information survey reported possessing one
or more handguns, as compared with 24
percent in the Cambridge Reports survey
(4). Thus, the net efTect of limiting the De-
cision-Making information survey to regis-
tered voters appearsto have been negligible.
The size of the Canadian survey sample
precludes the possibility that random arti-
facts would significantly affect the reliability
of findings by province. The smaller US poll
was not immune to random artifact in the
smaller state surveys. In the case of Ver-
mont, a gun collector was excluded from the
state survey sample as a statistica! outlier
(tahie 2).
it has ofien been contended that handgun
surveys are inherently invalid, owing to the
supposediy sensitive nature of the subject,
Homicide and the Prevalence of Handgu�s 1255
but no evidence has ever been put forward
to demo�strate that survey respondents
choose not to answer handgun questions
correctly (for further discussion, see Wright
et al. (4)). In the US survey, as with other
handgun surveys (4), onty 1 percent of re-
spondents refused to answer any questions
regarding gun ownership. This compares fa-
vorably with the 1Q percent refusal rate
typical of survey questions regarding house-
hold income (4). ln a validation study.
Kellermann et ai. (24) demonstrated that.
among registered handgun owners, only one
out oF 35 respondents (3 percent) gave an
apparently untruthful answer to a handgun
survev.
In theory, the 3 to 10 times greater prev-
alence of handguns observed in US border
states as compared with adjoining Canadian
provinces could be a statisticai artifact if, in
responding to the surveys, US citizens had
exaggerated the number of handguns they
reported possessing, or if Canadians had un-
derreported the numberofhandguns in their
possession. As there is no basis for supposing
US residents overreport handgun owner-
ship, the question is whether Canadians are
underreporting. The Canadian survey in-
strument was validated through pretesting
(12), so that would appear not to be an issue,
and the Canadian survey results can be re-
garded as valid, with one possible exception:
Although handgun homicide rates (table 5)
generaliy parallel handgun prevalence (table
2), Quebec had the highest handgun homi-
cide rate in Canada, despite having the low-
est reported prevalence of handguns. It
seems contradictory to assume that the citi-
zens of Quebec have an avid preference for
using handguns as weapons while showing
little interest in possessing them as property.
A more logical explanation may perhaps be
found in the historical circumstances.
In 1969-1970, the Quebec separatist
movement entered into open conFlict with
existing Canadian political institutions, re-
sulting in kidnappings of government offi-
cials and widespread popular unrest and
civil disturbances. In the end, the Canadian
central government in Ottawa forcibty sup-
pressed these separatist aspirations by im-
q s- a�
1256 Centerwatl
posing martial law (accompanied by mass
anests) in Quebec during the October Crisis
of 1970 (25). All of this was recent history
at the time of the 1976 Canadian Gun
Ownership and Use Survey. Under the cir-
cumstances, Quebec citizens may have been
reluctant to give candid responses to a hand-
gun survey originating from the central gov-
ernment in Ottawa. The survey instrument
was indeed pretested and found to be valid,
but the pretesting was conducted in Ontario
(12). Therefore, the actual prevalence of
handguns in Quebec may be substantially
greater than is indicated by the Canadian
survey.
After these considerations have been
taken inio account, then, the handgun sur-
veys by state and province demonstrat�with
adequate reliability and validity that the
prevalence of handguns in US border states
is 3 to 10 times greater than that in adjoining
Canadian provinces. The true variations in
prevalence are undoubtedly somewhat dif-
ferent from ihose conveyed in table 2, but
thethree-to tenfold differencein prevalence
across the border cannot be expiained away
as statistical artifact (with the possible excep-
tion of Quebec vs. Vermont).
Are Canadians more willing to use
handguns?
A handgun homicide requires 1) a dan-
gerously violent incident, 2) possession of a
handgun, and 3) willingness to use the hand-
gua As with cultura] variations in the means
of suicide, it cannot be presumed that Ca-
nadians and Americans ha�e an equai will-
ingness to use handguns in homicides. Thus,
lf Canadians are peculiarly avid to use such
handguns as are available to them or, con-
versely, Americans in US border states are
peculiarly unwilling to use handguns in
homicides, the similarity of homicide rates
observed across the border (table 4) may
simply reflect equivalent rates of handgun
homicides, despite gross difTerences in the
prevalence of handguns (table 2). However,
rates of handgun homieide are not equiva-
lent in Canadian provinces and adjoining
US states (table 5)—again, with the excep-
tion of Quebec.
Are Canadians more prone to violence?
Criminal homicides may be considered a
svbset of aggravated assaults—the letha]
subset. Conversely, aggravated assaults may
be regarded as dangerously violent incidents
that could have ended in homicide, but
didri t. It follows that a society with a high
incidence of assault and a low prevalence of
handguns can have the same homicide rate
as a society with a low incidence of assault
and a high prevalence of handguns, provided
handgun prevalence intluences the probabil-
ity that an assauJt will end in homicide.
Thus, if, as compared with US border states,
Canadian provinces have a lower prevalence
of handguns (which they do) and a higher
incidence of assaults, then the two effects
mav cancel each other out, resulting in Ca-
nadian homicide rates similar to those in
adjoiniog US border states.
However, as with criminal homicides, the
mean annual rate of aggravated assauli in
the Canadian provinces from t976 to 1980
was approximately the same as in the ad-
joining US states (table 6). N,� consistent
ditl'erences were observed. TaTiles 4 and 6
suggest that variations in rates of criminal
homicide along the US-Canadian border pri-
marily retlect similar underlying variations
in rates of aggravated assault. The corre-
spondence is less than perfect, which is to
be expecied; in contrasi to crimina! homi-
cides, only about half of all aggravated as-
saults are reported to the police (26). When
the assumption that handgun prevalence in-
Iluences the probability that an assault will
end in homicide is tested, the number of
homicides per t00 aggravated assaaits does
n� differ consistentty between Canadian
provmces and adjoining US states (tabie 7).
It should be noted that aggravated as-
sault—with or without a lefhal outcome—is
the final common pathway of the multifac-
torial processes leading to dangerous vio-
lence in a society. Therefore, even without
an actual delineation of those processes, two
societies with equal rates of aggravated as-
� - � S -a-�
Nomicide and the Prevalence of Handguns 1257
sault are, by definition, equally prone to
incidents of dangerous violence. Thus, the
populations in the Canadian pro�inces and
adjoining US states are indeed e uail rone
to incidents of dangerous viole ce a le 6).
It may be argued that handgun prevalence
in the general population has no effect upon
homicide rates, because the small subset of
the population that commits homicide will
gain access to handguns regardiess of how
scarce or common they may be in the gen-
eral poQulation. However, if this actually
accounted for the parity of homicide rates
in Canadian provinces and adjoining US
states, there would also be a parity of hand-
gun homicide rates, which is not the case
(tabVe 5�.
Are there confounding variables?
For the anal}�sis as a whole, no attempt
has been made to control for age, sex, race.
or urban status. The underlying assumption
has been that populations living in Canadian
provinces are sutTiciendy similar to popula-
tions living in ad,joining US states that there
is no general need to control for such vari-
ables. If this assumption is incorrect, ho�v-
ever, conirolling for such confounding vari-
ables might increase the relative risk of
homicide in L1S border states—as compared
with adjoining Canadian provinces—lead-
ing to die conclusion that the higher preva-
lence of handguns in US border states is
indeed associated with higher rates of crim-
inal homicide. If, on the other hand, con-
tiolling for such confounding vasiables de-
creases the relative risk, or leaves it un-
changed, then the original conclusion
stands, namely, that major differences in
handgun prevalence are not associated with
differences in rates of criminal homicide.
The most extensive control for confound-
ing variables has been performed by 5loan
et al. (6). For the years 1980 to ] 986, tl�e
mean annual rate of criminal homicide in
the state of Washington w'as 5.0 homicides
per 1OQ000 population (9). In the adjoining
pro��ince of British Columbia, the mean an-
nual rate ofcriminal homicide was 3.8 hom-
icides per 100,000 population (27). Thus,
the relative risk of criminal homicide in
Washington as compared with British Co- -
lumbia was 1.3. After adjusting for age, sex,
race, ethnicity, and urban status—i.e., by
confining the comparison to non-Hispanic
whites living in Seattle and Vancouver—the
relative risk of criminal homicide was 1.0
(6).
In the present analysis, some rough con-
trols can be made for urban status. For
example, there are no major cities in either
the province of New Brunswick or the ad-
joining state of Maine (figure 1). For 1976
to 1986, the mean annual rate of criminal
homicide was 2.7 per 100,000 population in
Maine and 2.9 in New Bruns�vick (table 4),
or a relative risk of 0.9. Again, it was ob-
served that there are no urban populations
in Canada comparable to those of New York
City and Detroit. Therefore, New York City
and Detroit were excluded when the homi-
cide rates for Michigan and New York were
compared with those of Ontario (Toronro
was also excluded from the anatysis). Doing
so reduced the relative risk of criminal hom-
icide from 5.0 to 2A (table 4).
In each instance, then, conlrolling for po-
tential confounding variables actuall}�
strengtliens the original conclusion rather
than weakening it. It is unlikely that the
anaiysis is adversely confounded by demo-
grapliic factors.
Another potential confounding variable is
the prevalence of firearms other than hand-
guns. If there are many more rifles and
shotguns per I,000 population in the Cana-
dian provinces than in adjoining US states,
this may effectively compensate for the rel-
ative dearth oPhandguns in Canada, thereby
leading to a spurious conclusion about hand-
guns and homicide rates. However, the prev-
alence of rifiles and shotguns is similar in
Canadian provinces and adjoining US states
(table 3), so rifles and shotguns are unlikely
to confound the analysis.
Are the findings confounded by underly-
ing differences in culture? As previously
noted, aggravated assau{t is the frna{ com-
mon pathway for alI processes leading to
incidents ofdangerous violence in a society.
Therefore, it can be observed empiricalty
1258 Centerwall
that populations in Canadian provi�ces and
adjoining US states have equivalent pro-
pensities for dangerously violent incidents
(table 6), even if the specific underlying cul-
tural processes dift�er somewhat. Therefore.
confounding by cultural differences is un-
likeiv. In conclusion, the fndings of this
analysis are unlikely to be invalidated by
confounding.
Is there an ecologic failacy?
Let us first review the basics (28). Epide-
miology normally seeks to determine the
association between exposure variables (.r)
and disease outcomes ( r) at the level of the
individual (i). In ecologic analysis, individ-
uals are aggregated into groups w�herein the
association between x and �• is unknown at
the level of the individual. Instead, the unit
of analysis is the group (j), wherein the
independent variable ( t") is the proportion
of exposed subjects (or mean exposure)
within each group and the dependent vari-
able ( 3') is the rate of disease within each
group (29). The ecologic fallacy occurs when
the umvary investigator infers that the unob-
served regression of r„ on .r„ at the indi� iduat
level is the same as the observed regression
of 3; on Y, at the group level, that is
r„I
As is demonstrated by Robinson (30), this is
generally incorrect, often badly so.
As is further demonstrated by Firebaugh
(31), aggregated data analysis avoids the
ecologic fallacy if, and only if, the group
exposure (,t;) has no effect on disease risk
(�•„) at the individaal level, controlling for
the individual's exposure value (x„), where
1',� = Q + �i_x,� + �zX� -f- c
(i = 1,2. . .ri�j = 1,2. . .rn).
However, ascertainment of such a condi-
tion requires knowledge of.r„ and r„ that, if
kno�+�n, would eliminate the perceived need
to u-ork «•iih aggregated data in the first
place. If, however, the group exposure (.t',)
is the same as each individual exposure (_�„).
that is, _r„ = X,, then X, will have no inQe-
pendent effect upon r,,, cotttrolling for .t,,.
In other words, the analysis of grouped data
avoids the ecologic fallacy, provided that
individuals are aggregated into homoge-
neous groups wherein each individual has
the same exposure to the risk factor as does
the group as a whole. For example, the efTi-
cacy of a state's helmet use law in preventing
deaths and head injuries can be studied using
ecologic data because the law not only ap-
plies to the state but eqaally to each individ-
ual within the state; it is not necessary to
conduct househo(d surveys to determine
who is exposed to the law, since we know
that the law applies to everyone.
In Canada, handguns have been strictly
regulated for almost a centary, wiih regisira-
tion of all handguns required by national
law since 1934 (32). There is no such na-
tionai [aw in the United States, atthough
such a law will be necessarv if the United
States is to ever reduce its handgun preva-
lence to Canadian levels (4). For this reason.
as regards exposure to nationa! handgun
control Iaws, comparisons between Canada
and the United States do not entail an ecol-
ogic faltacy becaose each individua!'s expo-
sure to ihe la�i �or its absence) is known
implicitly from w'hat is known about each
countrv as a whote. Thus, we can study the
etfect of national handgun control upon the
prevalence of handguns and, in turn, the
homicide rate. Since the unit of anatysis is
ultimately the individual, the present study
compares (in 1976, the baseline year)
21,445,000 Canadians living in provinces
adjoining the United States (20) and
39,742,000 Americans ►iving in states ad-
joining Canada (1), for a total (n) of
61,187,000.
CONCLUSIONS
After detailed consideration of possible
aliernative explanations, it appears that, for
the data presented in this analysis,the plain
conciusion is fhe correct conclusion: When
Canadian provinces and adjoining US states
are compared, three- to tenfold ditterences
in the prevalence of handguns have r�Lre-
sulted in consistentiv difTerent rates of cnm-
.. qs -�-�
Nomicide and the Prevaience of Handgu�s 1259
inai homicide. In the relative absence of
handguns, angerously violent Canadians
commit their assaults using other means
which are, on the average, as lethal as hand-
guns.
That Canada and the United States have
the sama annual rate of handgun homicides
per 10,000 privately owned handguns might
suggest that reducing the prevalence of
handguns in the United States would lead to
a reduction in the homicide rate. However.
this attractive proposition is true if, and only
if, equalh fethal means are not substituted
for the absent handguns. The mmoleteness
with which Canadians have indeed substi-
tuted such means indicates that the propo-
sition is untenable.
How generalizable are these results? The
transcontinental scope of the analysis indi-
cates that they apply to a substantial array
of geographic and cultural settings—from
Maine to Alaska from New Brunswick to
the 1'ukon (figure I). Although most of the
comparisons lie behveen populations with
comparativeiy to�v homicide rates, the 1�igh-
est homicide rate of any state or province
was in the Yukon (figure 1); however, only
2 percent of the criminal homicides in the
Yukon and Northwest Territories were com-
mitted with handguns (10), as compared
with 4] percent of the criminal homicides
in Alaska (US Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion, unpublished data). Therefore, the find-
ings appear to apply to regions with high
homicide rates as well as to regions wi[h low
homicide rates. Likewise. Sloan et al. (6)
have demonstrated that the findings apply
not only to rural populations, but to appro-
priately matched metropolitan populations
as well.
It has been recently stated by Sproule and
Kennett that, "in a clear demonstration of
the benefits of Canadian gun control," US
homicide rates are much higher than Cana-
dian homicide rates (33, p. 249). However,
their conclusion is based solely upon com-
parisons of the national homicide rates,
without regard to regional variations (tigure
]). The present anatysis makes a more ap-
propriate comparison between Canadian
provinces and adjoining US states.
In its Prornoti�rg Hc�aldr/Prerentnrg Dis-
ense: Ohjec7ires (n" the Natiort, the US Pub-
lic Health Service has recommended thai
the number of handguns in private owner-
ship be reduced by 25 percent. to reduce
homicide rates (34). However, maior diiTer-
ences in handgun prevalence have not re-
sulte m consistenU d�fferent homicide
rates in Canadian provinces and a �ommg
US stales. H omicide rates along the US-
Canadian border (table 4) nrimarilv reflect
underlying rates of aggravated assault itable
6), and Canadians are as assaultive as their
US neighbors. Canadians fullv com�eneate
for the relative dearth of handguns in Can-
ada by eftectively utilizing other means for
killing one another. It can be presumed that
Americans would be no less resourcePul un-
der comparable circumslances. As regards
homicide rates, it can be inferred that maior
efforts to reduce handgun prevalence m the
United States wauld be of doubtful uhlity,
even ifsuccesslul.
REFERENCES
i. National Center (or Health Statistics. Vital statistics
oCthe United States. Hyattsville, MD: US Deparl-
mevt of Health and Human Services, 1960-1980.
2. Bruce-Bngg,s B. The @reat American gun war. The
Public Interest 1976:45:37-62.
3. Cook PJ. The role o( firearms in violent crime: an
interpreti�c reoie« of fhe litcrature. In: Wolfgang
ME. Weiner NA, eds. Criminal violence. Becerly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.. 1982236-91.
4. Wright JD. Rossi PH, Daly K. Under the gun:
w�eapons, crime and violence in America. New
Y'ork, NY': Aldinc Puhlishing Company. 19R3.
5. Kleck G. The relationship between gun ownership
te��els and rates of violence in the United States. In:
Kates D, ed. Firearms and violence: issues of public
policy. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger PublishingCom-
pam'. 1984:99-135.
6. Sloan JH. Kellermann AL, Reay DT, et al. Hand-
gun regulations, crime. assautts. and homicide: a
tale of two cities. N Engl J Med I988;3I9:I256-
62.
7. BlackmanPH,Stolinsky4C,GryderlW.Handgun
regubtions, crime, assautts, and homicide: a tale of
two cities. (Letier). N Engl J Med 1989:320: t214-
16.
R. Armitage P. Serr} G. Statistical melhods in medical
rescarch. ?nd ed. Oxford, England: Blackwcll.
ivx�.
9. US federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform crime
reports for tfie United States. Washington, DC: US
GPO. 1976-1986.
1260 Centerwali
I0. Canadian Centre for Justice Statisdcs. Homicide
statistics, 1980. Ottawa, Canada: Statislics Canada.
1982.
I I. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Crime and
tra�c enforcement statistics. Ottawa, Canada: Sta-
tistics Canada. 1976-1980.
t2. Stenning PC, Moyer S. Firearms ownership and
use in Canada: a report of survey findings, 1976.
Toronto. Canada: University of Toronto. 198 i.
13. US Bureau of the Census. 19R0 census of the
population: Vo(ume L Characteristics of tfie pop-
ulation. �Vashington. DC: US GPO. 1981.
14. US Bureau o(the Census. 1980 census of housing:
Volume 1. Characteristics of housing units. Wash-
ington. DC: US GPO, 1982.
I5. S[atistics Canada. 1981 census of Canada: popula-
tion. Ottawa, Canada; Statistics Canada. 1984.
t6. StatisticsCanada.1981censusofCanada:occupied
pm�ate dwellings. Ottawa. Canada: Statistics Can-
ada. ! 983.
IZ Centenvatl 85. Race, socioeconomic status, and
' domestic homicide. Atlanta. 1971-72. Am J Pabtic
Health 1984;74:813-I5.
IS. Moyer LA, Boy(e CA. Pollock DA. Validii�� of
death ceriificates for injury�-related causes of death.
Am J Epidemiol 1989:130:1024-32.
19. Zahn MA, Riedel M. National versus local data
sources in the study of homicide: do thev agree? In:
Waldo GP, ed. Measurement issues in cnminal
justice, Newburv Park, CA: Sage Publications,
1983:103-20-
20. Leacy FH. ed. Historical statistics of Canada. Znd
ed. Ottawa Canada: Slaiistia Canada. 19A3.
21. Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Vital statistics. Ot-
tawa. Canada: Queen's Printer and Controlter of
Stationerv.i950-1962.
22. W'orld Health Organization. World health statistics
annual. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Orga-
nization, t960-1980.
23. Cantor D, Cohen LE. Comparing measures of
homicide trends: methodological and substanti��e
difl'erences in the Vital Statistics and Uniform
Crime Report lime series (1933-1975). Soc Sci Res
l980;9:721-45.
24. Kellermann AL. Rivara FP, Banton J. e[ al. Vali-
dating sarvey responses to quesiions about gan
ownership among owners of registered handguns.
Am J Epidemiot 1990;l3i:t080�3.
25. Bothwell R. Drummond I, English J. Canada since
1945. Toronto. Canada: University of Toronto
Press. 19R I .
26. National Criminal Justice Information and Statis-
tics Service. Criminal victimization in the Uniled
States. Washington, DC: US GPO. 1976-1980.
27. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Homicide in
Canada, 1986: a s[atistical perspective. Ottawa.
Canada: Statistics Canada. 1987.
28. Center.;�all BS. Exposure to [elevision as a risk
factor for ��iolence. Am J Epidemiol 1989; �29:643-
52.
29. Morgensiem H. Uses of ecologic analysis in epide-
miologic research. Am J Public Health 1982:72:
1336-44.
30. Robinson WS. Eco(ogical correlations and the be-
havior ofindividuals. Am Sociol Rev 1950;15:35I-
7.
3I. Firebaugh G. A rule for inferring individual-le��el
relationships From aggregate data. Am Sociol Rev
197A:43:557-72.
32. Fricdland ML Gun controL• the o�lions. Criminal
Law� Q 1976:1829-71.
33. Sproule CF. Kennett DJ. Killing u-ith guns in the
USA and Canada 1977-1983:furtherevidencefor
the etTec[irertess of gun controL Can J Crimiaol
1989;31:245-51.
34. US Public Health Service. Promoting health/pre-
venting disease: objectives for the nation. R'ashing-
ton, DC: US GPO, t980.
� S _ a �
_' I��°II�� �I��I�II�.
Research Strategic Services
AMERICAN'S PERCEPTIONS ON CRIME, VIOLENCE
AND GUNS
A Summary of National Surveys Conducted
by Luntz Weber Research and Strategic Services
July 16, 1993
1301 Connectiwt Avenue N.W. • Eighth Floor • Washington, DC 2(�36 • Phone (2�2) 828-4720 • Fax (Z�2} 828-449�
� 5 -a�
��� ���„
Luntz Weber Research & Strategic Services is pleased to present the results of
these studies on public attitudes and opinions towards crime, violence, and guns. This
section provides a brief introduction to the specifications involved in the research.
Accurate survey research must be based on a sample truly representative of the
target universe. The results reported in this document are of adults 18 years and older
living within the continental United States.
There are ihree studies reported within this document:
A national survey of 1,000 U.S. adults l8 and older was conducted between March
20 and March 22, 1993. This survey has a.f 3.1% margin of error at the 45 %
confidence level.
A nationai survey of 1,0�0 U.S. adults 18 and older was conducted between 3une 7
and June S, 1993. This survey has a� 3.1 % margin of error at the 95 %
confidence level.
A national survey of 1,009 U.S. adults 18 and older was conducted between June
27 and June 28, 1993. This survey has a� 3.1 % margin of error at the 95 %
confidence level.
Although the most sophisticated survey research procedures have been used to
collect and analyze the information presented here, it must be emphasized that surveys
are not predictions. They are designed to measure public opinion within identifiable
statistical limits of accuracy at specific points in time.
,
,'
'� Overview
Crime is an issue that touches people's fears and concerns. Everyday
Americans are exposed in one way or another to the fear and violence of crime. It is
an issue that concerns evary American no matter of age, education, income, or
household location. Our research has found that Americans hold three underlying
beliefs:
. Crime and violence are deeply rooted socia] problems, with a basis in cultural and
economic factors.
. Guns are not viewed as a cause of crime, nor is gun control viewed as an effective
solution.
• Solutions to crime and violent crime need to focus on the social and economic, not
on a gun ban.
There is also a growing belief that crime and violence in America is influenced
by scenes that appear on te3evision. There is an increasing concern that chi]dren
viewing violence on television are more likely to act in an aggressive manner.
�5-�-�
Sensational media stories and research have begun to influence public
perception. Our research shows that an overwhelming number of Americans agree that
TV networks should be required to rate their programs for violence. In addition, a
sizable number also agree that TV networks shouid be required to run one minute of
public service information about the proper and safe usage of a firearm for every ten
minutes of TV entertainment which shows guns being used in a violent or threatening
manner.
There are those that would like to create the perception that the National Rifle
Association and the constitutional right it protects are playing a role in the rise of crime
across the country. Furthermore, they want the public to believe that violence on TV
is correlated to criminal behavior. Our results show that Americans do not agree with
these two ar,guments and in fact have a favorable opinion of NRA. In addition.
Americans on the whole do not associate the NRA with rising crime rates nor do thev
f�sl that euns are the root cause of violent crime in t e countrv.
n• � •i • � i
This document is a summary of key points contained in three national studies
Luntz Weber has conducted on the issues of crime, violence, and guns, which show the
following:
� s-a�
,
`� • In general, 6% of Americans tend to mention crime as the single most important
probiem the i3nited States today. While this number fluctuates somewhat (+!-
3%), it tells us that the threat of crime and violence is not as pervasive as one
would expect. This does not deny that crime is not a problem or threat, it simpiy
indicates that a majority of Americans hold other issues of higher concern.
• When asked what the root cause of crime is in America, only 4% mention guns,
while 7% specifically cite violence on television. These percentages are dwarfed
by the 37% of the population that mention a loss of values/morals and the break-up
of the family as the single biggest cause of violent crime in America. Further
more, by a margin of more than 4-to-i, Americans say drugs, not guns, are the real
root cause of violent crime.
Overall, Americans feei more preventive programs such as education and drug
prevention are the bes[ means by which to reduce violent crime. Only one in ten
say more gun control laws are the ai:swer.
Americans view additional gun control as only stop-gap prevention. When given a
list of options to reduce violent crime, more gun control laws is seen as the least
effective. Furthermore, Americans want stricter sentences and better enforcement
of criminal penalties, not more gun control.
� .�[�74i � • i
In 3une 1993, LH Associates presented the results of a survey conducted on
crime, violence, guns, and the associated health effects on children. Tt attempted to
demonstrate that guns are a negative force in the lives of children in the home and at
school. The analysis also claims that children are afraid to play outside, attend and
walk to school because of guns.
The Harris poll, however, did not allow for respondents to give open and free
expression. The survey instrument itself was a road map which led respondents down
a path placing them into a unrealistic scenario. In essence respondents were led into a
created situation and not allowed to give their true feelings about real, everyday life.
Our own survey, however, revealed contrary findings:
Americans do not feel that guns are the primary cause of violence and crime. They
in fact feel the person committing the crime is the cause, not the weapon.
• When probed for what they feel is the greatest threat to children, drues is the most
frequently mentioned response - not guns. Guns is only mentioned by 8%.
• Other sociai issues such as drugs, alcohol, and AIDS are perceived to be greater
threats to children than guns. However, in the Harris study, guns were mentioned
as the greatest threat only after respondents were told that guns are a signifzcant
cause of violence and crime.
• The Harris survey claimed that children are less eager to attend school and play
outside because they are afraid of guns. This claim was not based on the opinions
of children, but by interviews conducted only among adults. The results, therefore
concluded that the adulf respondents thought children were afraid to play outside
and go to schooi because of the threat of guns. Our own research again found
contrary results (see attached charts).
('rime and Violence on Television
Faced with growing concern over what children are watching on television and
the potential impact on them, more Americans are calling for some type of rating
system that will allow parents to screen shows and prevent their exposure to children.
Cunently, 88% of Americans agree that "TV networY.s should be required to
rate their programs for violence just like the movies do so parents will be able to
decide what to let their children watch. " Of the 88 %, fully 71 % strongly agree and
17% somewhat agree. Only 11 % say they disagree with this statement.
We find that women, particularly older women, tend to have much stronger
feelings in favor of a ratings-type program than do men. While this is not an
unexpected finding, it confirms that women tend to be more direcfly concerned about
what chiidren watch and how programs influence them. It also begs the question of
who in the household tends to control what programs children watch - the mother or
the father? And if one does more than the other, how should program managers, TV
producers, and station owners use that data to set viewing policy and guidelines?
There is no socio-economio gap on this issue - it cuts across a1S education,
income, and age groups. It is an issue that an overwhelming number of American are
concerned about and want to see action taken..
We also found agreement that Americans believe "TV networks should be
required to run one minute of public service information about the proper and safe
usage of a firearm for every ten minutes of TV entertainment which shows guns being
used in a violent or threatening manner. News and documentaries would be
exempted." Almost six out of ten (57%) agree with this statement, while 39%
disagree.
� s-a�
E
:J
N
proposal more so than men, although more educated Americans (college graduates)
tend disagree.
As indicated in the previous section, older women tend to support such a
Please note that among those who agree with a TV rating system, 60% also
agree that public service information should be run on the safe usage of a firearm for
every ten minutes of TV violence which shows guns being used.
Further research is needed, however, to determine the extent to which
Americans are genuinely concerned about what children are watching on TV and if
those programs are actually having an impact on them. Yet these findings clearly show
that there is current support for a ratings program and some type of public service
information on guns.
fIY,3'�`►� �i. � i• � i � �� •
Contrary to what many inside the Washington Beltway think, more than half of
Americans have a favorable opinion of the National Rifle Association. Only 28% say
they have an unfavorable opinion. Americans do not perceive the NRA as an
organization of gun-totting, bomb-throwing fanatics. In fact, they see the NRA as an
organization which protects Second Amendment rights and carries a voice in
Washington on behalf of its members. Americans also believe that NRA also does
more than just lobbying - it has a direct role in sponsoring the Olympics, competitive
shooting programs, and gun safety courses. Verbatim responses from open-ended
questions show the following:
"They protect the rights of law a6iding citizens."
"The are concemed about gun safety and programs to educate gun owners."
"They support putting criminals behind bars and keeping them their. "
"Trying to make people see that people, not guns, kill."
As mentioned earlier, the NRA 9s not viewed by Americans as being a cause of
�S-a�
violeni crime in the country. Americans also do not agree that guns are the root cause
of violence and that if a gun ban were actually enacted, it would not reduce violent
crime because criminals would continue to find ways to obtain guns.
ydafe, �: White Bear Area
, NcTS NSiOM DFSIGNED iWIH
04 G(A. P^°��e/cvl-Ee-sa</wootletl
I1�fi.900 Call an Terry Jan 653-2y98
������s� 1987 QNE OWNER BEAUiY
jE <BH/3iev walkouFFR IOIC. Ga
-- on Terty Jan 653-2a98
Q510• BURNET�REALTY
ROA�
:51-0023
yE 1 Foresf Lake Area
�s aga OPEN 1•4 9
Gahil� to Slevel 6Br 4F
b)653 waodeG 8rt[ersw
� Go16'" fL 9as FP. C/A
� � '���
��lY�
1 �
2
�, ln.t��n � R'Y� ���7iC�
Pau7, Suburbs
GiNE CITT r S:. Goix iC
acs. an Iakx d sta:S fines:.
Newest 8 Finest ai:o r��er �oes s o. nmi�:zz.
IILLS at Centu�Y d EQ terms 421-t82< Rnx Pocp - -
BAS. own wdh iow
no-6ssz : + ',:' Wisconsin Lake & -- ' ----'"
3BR iran� wtcne�. � F7esort Propedy
� ^ p G pa�k reaCy
�- FOUR SE0.50N5 REALTY
�9e� OF NlSY Y!I$ ' -
� SELLEfl WAYiS OfFEfl! Txo
� SO�C�GUS \'/OOC9C 10I5 0� Buf- __
nea Ca :]5 a Ik. Were
I 518.?00 d � Sts,900-now
???-calf fOr detmis. Fn. avaz:.
AxarC wmmn9 .
N S�ore Tr [o H
�3,=� , a���- a;� ` distribution
OPEN SAi 8
sunrms.
St�O's PPVT 3abr 2ba i
�.wTION fec A9t 633-326i
�mms a� Southen
?��oPM Chisago
�Pm. In
on PAat g�DG LOT 1
31-8]Bi yiew, new adCih�
NES ready (612� 25AE
9 3 5 �� g
� Maplewc
NorM 5t
VANNAH
�O�en
v
<zss+' PREMIFRE
tHE TOWNF
� OF HOLLOWA
� 1.4 last ebance! A fev
. PKWY mwnnomes lelt in
Ezec. �ommunny. Gre
Yambieq QPen tles�gns w
i9s. D�r. cedrn9s. 2 ar 3 0
iwy E. 3 tlbl gar antl morE
low 3100's.
WIN A
TRANSGLOBALI
a bt TO tA5 VEi
PKWY Detai�s. rvles. ent
Ezec. motlel. na o�«has
rambler, OPEN FRI-SUN 12
-eilings. Mon-TLurs 1:30-]:i
9 S to lTT-6945. In Map4
�das. ]t� e Ho
— )]]-6995. �
ORARY GO00 VALUEI
-EqualOpporwmn
ce0in9. Minn 8 iltler
erms 8 �
d if you
394-0698
DON'T NESII
� 9/4 acre. 3s BI
593.900 < ear form
1�
pado�
: beaat
�e me-
Jakota
-t223.
hts,
3 � " " "'
4 'v� �
5 "
0 a r a �
❑ for your information
❑ necessary action
❑ note and file
❑ noie a�d return
KND«S� E9va OGGOnvmry Housny9LI rLVIVIi � Uu� YYY'II�I �",.
e walk.OUtI� �..� ..___v_n�rnnf � ._ - - ..• ..
�1 plea�`ca11 me
p please see me
❑ prepare reply
O recommendation
❑ sign
tlate
�NT
��
�- N K i+uq �\ >. buYS� to Ox
Lll lLLNIJ
I ]6K��MS�s�a
BANKER
1T/SUN 1•3
nb. fam
ext. Eeck. pk
otl. loatletl
�2s.soo. aoaa
)]94214 .
�0�
ew prk 8 city
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY ll. 4995
Newpolt, . WooObury
SL Paul Parfc,
Cottage Grove MOOEL NOME 5119.940
Beaut 3leve Nome
N 12-2 dBR. <BA, new in �35-]93]. a20-5058 agt.
Si5>.900. 9569 19tn St,
Bkr 059-<Da6 ,
:N Y:30-�:30 3BR, 28A. Sli11W9t2l, B3ypOff
:. trees. 398.500. 9380 ���S BlUFFS 7 0
. YAR Bkr 459-90a6 1 xE-
�—� q�re! 104. fabulous moCei b
SAI\T PAUL PIO�EER PRESS 5F `� �, .-,/ �
< «\
Mobile Hanes M1finnesota Lake &
] 1 1 Parks Sifes— Fesori Prope`ty --- --- -
: . d . ..-:
� c�cnn waaars mu -_. „-
3 5. (acing frtv on 32a ac 29 �
3 dxep Ham Lk, rare finC g
only 529.900 h low dn terms --- -' --- "-
avail.
HUGE FqONTAGE-almost 13 5 -
ac mature forest w/over ]CO tt
W. facinq tr[g, on t�e Cea<efui .._,.
CM1ippewa 8: power 8 tlrrve-
wa �n. only 524,900 8 seller
wil�fin. - -"- '
�-eoe-sse-io�s
OPEN l DAYS, 9AM - E??A
HAYWARD YASt04SIN ARfA
FftEE 6FOGHUftE o( nany '
lake F.omes, cabins. vacan:
lake 8 nve� prcoerL?s. Eus- �
ness oppovtun�t�xs S ho�es �n
<M1e area. Toll ir_e
1-B00-a)14055. 804CLR
REALTY, At 2, Box 2Ca1. Hay-
warq WI 5a8a3 _ „
pa a� n. 520K�a35-B6o2 - "
�Minnesota Prop. I
A COLORA00 GEM Lrysxai
blue sk�as over snoM'cacpetl . _ _ - -
Rockies, 41ac grazing tanp. '- -
p s 8 cedars. PeacefuL �
S24K Pam )19-8s6-02t5 tPl ' �
�s reaa rA�-wt wiei�r noo
view of Miss. Piv. Vailey ilSA
sat u0 fa� oeeL Eaale Val:ey -
Realty, 648-68]-410i _ , __ _ _ -.
SE!! IT.
Rely on ClassiLeds pullmg __ _ _
power to get reatlers evvetl '- "-'
uP fobsaleWClassitietl.�l[ n s Ve --.".-`-- '�
the resaurce you ean count
on to sell a mynad ot
memhanaise irems be<ayse
our columns com0el pualif�ed
b�yers to call. . .
� �U ��Z•���� _" _ "
6 _"_
�� i
,PIONEERPRF�S �:._ -
LEGAL'NOTICES
* THINB NEW *'. - fi� ..�.,�a, ., ; `�; i _ . x ._.' $ :, •. >:;<: -
�hc-Hu9a �ente� islantl �NEW LISTINGt -` ��� :.
wltlinatte. i9. toYer. t2t6 AlEemade. 536.900. Dup:� [� 7�T�pp�� �-i ;::'
'tlinin9. 9reat master BR coulC be am91e'tamilY.:3BR; ... `..1 lO1VL'li3�P1�L�M1J�7 � .' '�x ' �< - . -
km closeL Lots of iots zB ��G�RRY [ENTSCM+ ;" ; c:'N:+T _ '_.,... . . . :�^�"�� c��^�:
St14.9�0 oIDersdmm LENTSCHHlT �" � �>'-s:��' x ='n. � :.? '�y� '
i66 R. CamY ]8fi-0666. %:i;c,..'•:.. ��:
dacMa RealtY. Ine ��: HU� fi YA,'C/D SALES 24 � � �QIRE5019 F3!lfiS :�w k��.: �i�y�'`�� _ _
Y �rs/tlaY488-OS61DeLisla &L6Od5.�� . ,
� 'a. 4'w... 'o9�e�.V��N�C I
* losf kmoing * ° ". . � COl1)O . _ �- � �"]ri'AC XOBBY�FARM�`' ;" a � � � .
noE. 2 story 4 Ba, main CBfl 2 Mory new/wfiniS�eQi'C: ,_ 8� �
rt rm. Triple gar. 150's - . 42x60 pole �Itlg,-porses o@; .`� 7L `* -
rte vaalts 6 tlecor! Call Ham0leo. Dakota Centra7 ;"''^^
e one thaPS Eonet Guer- -� ����� R'��� pealty, Herb d23-1223 V�`� � ,_
s too! R. Carey .. � ' NOTICE OF j�
166. �20-8666 � - - : 'pUBLIC HEARING �
Aa<MaY ftealty. Inc. - �SCOIf51t1 LOGS, _ �_ _
�OPEN 12-1 COMO PARK* i �� The Ciry of SL Paul i3 rons�C- �
iplE NEW HOMES. Y or td30 S�elAOn St. iN atry ��� & Fa�s anng O�oposetl ama�amenss �
/Epl gara9es starOng et 3BPS. HtlwE flrs, Blbine. Lots ro me Zoning Cotle regartlmg '
]0 . lot Work your way of �uptlafes! Ca�l -.JO�n whera any .naw gun s�ops
wJl take anYt�m9 in 5y9-6386.' ' -' �,'"����ANDONED- I n�t�ee i Ty�A�wPveofTheoPa[�e .
Call J30•]630 agt '� � � :'. ZQ OQe _'.C- posetl amendmmis �s on itle,
L tst buyar moner ' RESSAURANT BOWLING ' - c/o ta�ry saeemo�m. Piannmg ,` M'
e�i7aa s i�'e�z �zs a ���� "���GOOO iocAnon � onry 6oFAMILY FARM m�nutes �'V�g�on. 1100 City HaH Annex, -
25 W. FouNh Stroet. ana may �;:
CALL LONG )19-2642 � from t�e dties; Beavtiful NW �e viewed fiera on roquest ,
SEIt 1i � WI%<onsm �akesitle builtlm9 T�e Ctly wdl ho10 a Oublic �
aile n sUetl m a torasi wtil� hearing on t�e D�aPOSetl i
�uge Mapies S Oaks CrauElv
1577 FERNWOOD SiREET stantlmg guarE. 535.900 wrtl� amenements on me 22ne aay I
oi Pebruary. t995 n[ 3:30pm
on Classifietl's Oullin9 Taatefvlly ramoEeled 36R/IDa {��p��g ava��able. No blCS to �� �pe titv Coe al Cha E s
r to get reatlers revveE M1ome in PPIME COMO PARK emove! o� iM1e ff�irtl Iloor of Crty �
out wnatever you �ave AREA. Must sea! Open 1:30- � TMOUSAND LAkES REALN qatl/COUrttmase, 15 W. Kel-
la. Ctasm�led It s Me m- 330 PM on 2112/95. LAftPY B-9 DARY 1-800-59]•8339 �099 gptl. At l�e �eann�. t�e '
a you ean eount v� to MP%WELL 591-6009 �
mynaa o� meronantlise , pt/YAY - 39 ACHES 35 m�n E o� Hutl- Crty Counoi wnl nee�„I oe-
�+:x::::a:�:fa ' --- (AIL'�'�111 �� . �oio
;;� q.. BY OWNER :._' -.. : e„n
;rv'r,afaT crea�a a , : : . - . _ -
I
A
HIGHLAND AREA COMMUNITY COUNCIL
�S ��
February 20, 1995
Council President Qave Thune
3rd Floor Gity Naff
15 West Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul MN 55102
Dear Councilmernber Thune,
At our Fel�ruary 9 Community Council Board meeting the following
resolution was passed by the Board.
"That no gun shop be allowed eloser then 1,C100 ft to any residential
area or any proteeted area - protected area as defined in ordinance
#95-20 beginning line 144 thru line 151. The Council also faund the
ardinance too vague in total, but especially the definition of Gun
Shop in both of the section 2's."
The Gun Shop issue was discussed at both the January and February
meetings of the Highland Area Comrrzunity Cauncil.
Sincerely,
Gordon �lendersning
President
ec. City Council.
1978 FORD PARKWAY ST. PAUL MN 298-SI3$
� s -a�o
Attachment A
UNRSASONABLS, DISCRIMINATORY AND ARBITRARY ASPECTS
OF ST. PAIIL'S "ZONE-OIIT" OF
L73GITIMATE FIREARMS BUSINESSES
1. These legitimate businesses are barred from 100% of the
retail space in the city. They are being forced into the least
desirable locations in the city for their legitimate use --
isolated, downtrodden industrial areas.
2. Smaller, product specific retailers are discriminated
against with respect to (a) other retailers both general and
specific (such as knife shops) and (b) larger, more diversified
firearms retailers.
3. There is no factual basis regarding risks of danger due
to robbery or burglary.
4. There is no factual basis regarding congregation of
youth outside of these retailers stores.
5. There is no factual basis regarding illegal access to
firearms by youth through these retailers. Re: handguns,
possession by a person under age 18, with limited exceptions, or
dealer sale to a person under 21 is already a crime. Re: long
guns, dealer sale to a person under age 18 is already a crime.
Theft of a firearm is a twenty-year felony under Minnesota law..
6. There is no factual basis whatsoever regarding target
ranges ("shooting gallery"), although an indoor shooting range is
located in Robbinsdale, a nearby urban area, which could have
been studied.
7. The issue is not whether these businesses "need" to be
located in an I-1 zone or a set distance from other uses but
whether there is a legitimate zoning-related reason for denying
them that business location.
8. Apparently one of the gun shops is located in a B-2
zone, is there any factual basis resulting from that experience
to find a legitimate zoning-related reason why other stores
should not be similarly located?
9. At least one firearms retailed is located within the
distance specified in the ordinance, has that use resulted in a
factual basis for finding a legitimate zoning-related reason why
other stores should not be similarly located.
�
�s-ao
10. What rational basis is there for including paintball
guns in the definition of firearm? Is it to increase the floor
space arguably devoCed to firearms sales? Why does the
definition differ from that in state law?
11. Three out of four gun shops are now located in B-3
zones, where are they located in regard to the distance
requirement and has that use resulted in a factual basis for
finding a legitimate zoning-related reason why other stores
should not be similarly located.
12. What factual basis or studies have been dane to support
the conclusion that stores with any particular square footage of
retail space devoted to sale of firearms and ammunition can be
differentiated from other firearms retailers with more or less
space so devoted? Does K-Mart attract fewer shoplifters or youth
that A1 & Eric's? Is there any factual basis for the definition?
13. What factual basis or studies have been done to support
the conclusion that there exist legitimate zoning-related factors
supporting treatment of firearms retailers differently from other
retailers or that support treatment of target ranges differently
from other sports facilities, such as billiard parlors?
14. This ordinance is similar in structure to that dealing
with pornographic bookstores. What studies have been done to
show that the presence of legal firearms buyers causes an adverse
secondary effect on the business location? What studies have
been done to show that the activities of legal firearms buyers in
a gun store causes an adverse secondary effect on the business
location? What studies have been done to support the conclusion
that specialty stores cause more adverse secondary effects than
larger, more diversified firearms retailers? What studies have
been conducted to show that legal firearms buyers are a cause of
adverse secondary effects on the neighborhood of a business
location? What studies have been done to support the conclusion
that 1000 feet, 500 feet or 100 feet or any other distance, or
any distance at all, relates to the cause oE adverse secondary
effects at the business location? On what basis is the proposal
other than arbitrary?
15. By what authority is symbolism -- opposition to
firearms, opposition to violence, opposition to children learning
of legitimate firearms sales andlor use -- a legitimate zoning-
related factor in the enactment of an ordinance regarding the
location of business premises?
16. By what authority is widespread feelings of
"abhorrence, fear, and anxiety,�� separate from factually
demonstrable adverse secondary effects,. a legitimate zoning-
related factor in the enactment of an ordinance regarding the
r�
°� s_ a�
location of business premises?
17. By what authority is subsequent, distant, independent
criminal activity by a purchaser of a lawful product a legitimate
zoning-related factor in the enactment of an ordinance regarding
the location of business premises?
18. What secondary effects, such as those listed in sec.
60.412(7)h of the St. Paul Zoning Code, are different regarding
"gun shops" when compared to (a) larger, diversified firearms
retailers and (b) other retiailers of diversified and specialty
products in a manner sufficient to justify the proposal, or are
different regarding a"shooting gallery" when compared to other
sports facilities, whether large or small and diversified or not,
in a manner sufficient to justify the proposal??
19. The proposal is not lawful time, place, and manner
regulation.
20. The proposal denies "gun shops" and "shooting
gallery[s]" equal protection of the law.