Received from my NRA newsletter. To view the original article, click here
By John Lott
- FOXNews.com
Gun control laws divert money from law enforcement activities that work. The thousands of hours spent by police to register guns are time that police could have put to solving crimes. That diversion of resources is the real threat to public safety.
On Friday, a federal District Court judge tried to indirectly reinstate the D.C. handgun ban. Judge Ricardo Urbina, a Clinton appointee, wants to make it so difficult for people living in DC to use a handgun defensively that few will get one.
Last September, a Washington Post reporter, Christian Davenport, found out just how difficult it still is to get a handgun in D.C. even after the Supreme Court struck down the city's handgun ban. Excluding the price of the gun, the reporter spent $558.69 in various fees to get through the approval process. But that was only part of the cost. It took him "a total of 15 hours 50 minutes, four trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, two background checks, a set of fingerprints, a five-hour class and a 20-question multiple-choice exam."
So when do these types of regulations constitute just as much of a ban on handguns as an outright ban? A dollar tax solely on newspapers would clearly be struck down as unconstitutional. The power to regulate can destroy both the First and Second Amendments. Despite the costs, about a thousand people may have gotten handgun permits. That is only about 0.2 percent of adults living in D.C. The big change from the 2008 Heller decision might have simply been that D.C. law now requires that gun owners (primarily those owning long guns) only have to store their guns locked and unloaded if minors might have access to them. And it is probably this change that helps explain why D.C.'s murder rate fell by 25 percent the year after the handgun ban was struck down as unconstitutional.
Judge Urbina justifies the regulations using the same reasons that D.C. originally tried to use to justify the ban based on public safety. But for the regulations ruled on by Judge Urbina, the evidence clearly shows that freedom and safety go together. More guns mean less crime. Rules that make it very costly and difficult for people to register handguns for self-defense, disarm law-abiding citizens relative to criminals and make crime more likely. It isn't too surprising that every place in the world where guns have been banned and crime rates are available to study have seen an increase in murder rates.
After the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban and gunlocks in 2008, the D.C. Council enacted strict new handgun laws. On Friday, the judge found D.C.'s new handgun laws constitutional because "the Council provided ample evidence of the ways [the different gun laws] will effectuate the goal of promoting public safety." The problem is that D.C. really didn't provide "evidence," and merely made claims that the gun laws work. The court ruled that those claimed benefits outweighed the constitutional rights lost from the regulations.
Yet, the available evidence contradicts the safety argument.
Gunlocks -- The Supreme Court was right in the Heller decision. It ruled that a locked, unloaded gun "makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional." Empirical work shows that gunlock laws have failed to reduce accidental gun deaths for children. Instead, they have cost innocent lives as law-abiding citizens have become more vulnerable to criminal attack. Just as higher arrest or conviction rates or longer prison sentences can deter criminals, so can more self-defense. Gunlock laws not only embolden criminals to attack people in their homes. These laws also increase the probability that the criminal will be successful.
Limiting the number of bullets that a gun can hold to 10 -- This was one of the restrictions that had been in the Federal Assault Weapons ban that lasted from 1994 to 2004. But despite a large academic literature on Assault Weapon bans, there hasn't been a single refereed study by either criminologists or economists that such laws reduce violent crime.
Handgun registration -- After the decision on Friday, D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson claimed: "Because law-abiding citizens register their guns, it makes it easier for the police to identify and arrest the criminals." Despite the inaccuracies show on television shows, registration doesn’t work to solve crimes. In theory, if a gun is registered and it is left at the scene, it could theoretically be traced back to the owner. But guns from crimes are virtually never left at the scene of the crime. When they are left at the scene, it is primarily in cases where the criminal has been seriously wounded or killed. Then, of course, the weapon is not needed to catch the perpetrator. Moreover, in the few cases guns are left at the scene, they are traced back to somebody else because the criminals never bothered to register their guns.
In spite of the statements in “The Bill of Rights” that "Congress shall make no law" or "shall not be infringed," courts don't view constitutional rights as absolutes. Courts now ask whether the benefits from the law outweigh the constitutional rights lost -- so-called "balancing" tests. With high levels of "scrutiny" usually reserved for “The Bill of Rights,” courts must also find that the laws are "narrowly tailored" to achieve a compelling governmental interest. Public safety is surely an important governmental interest, but the evidence shows that gun control laws either produce no benefit, or actually increase crime rates, nevermind that these laws are the only way to reduce crime. Indeed, every location for which crime data is available has seen an increase in murder rates after gun bans have been imposed. D.C.'s gun laws can't meet these constitutional tests as they don't even reduce crime, let alone meet the other constitutional tests.
What is worse is that these laws divert money from law enforcement activities that work. The thousands of hours spent by police to register guns are time that police could have put to solving crimes. That diversion of resources is the real threat to public safety.
John R. Lott, Jr. is a FOXNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010), the third edition will be published in May."
Showing posts with label NRA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NRA. Show all posts
Friday, April 23, 2010
Missouri, Kansas move to relax concealed-carry rules
Received this note from my NRA newsletter.
For the original posting from the KC Star click here.
Posted on Wed, Mar. 31, 2010
By JASON NOBLE and DAVID KLEPPER
The Kansas City Star
JEFFERSON CITY
It’s been a quiet week in Jefferson City.
Legislators writing laws. Debating the budget.
Training with handguns.
About 16 Missouri lawmakers — along with several legislative staffers and at least one representative’s wife — are taking a firearms-training course sponsored by the bipartisan “Sportsmen’s Caucus” that will qualify them for concealed weapons permits.
Tuesday’s lesson plan? Proper firearm care and cleaning.
“You need to bring your weapon tonight,” read a reminder sent out over the House e-mail system. “No ammo will be needed. Pizza and soda will be served.”
Missouri, like most states, allows people to carry concealed weapons if they pass a training course and register with a law enforcement agency. This week, lawmakers took steps to extend that privilege into the corridors of the Capitol.
On the same day of the lawmakers’ firearms class, the House gave first-round approval to a bill that would expressly allow legislators, their aides and employees to carry concealed weapons in the statehouse.
“If you stay up with your news and what’s going on in the world, you know bad things happen all over the place,” said Rep. Jeanie Riddle, a Mokane Republican who sponsored the amendment that added the Capitol language. “It would be nice for us to not be a statistic.”
State law now bars most people — including state employees — from bringing a deadly weapon into the Capitol. Lawmakers who hold a concealed-carry permit, however, are exempt from the prohibition.
Riddle said it was only fair to extend that privilege to others who work in the building, which no longer has metal detectors but has a Capitol police force.
“My life isn’t any more important than anyone else’s who works here, so to offer them the same opportunity I think is the right thing to do,” Riddle said.
The measure was included in a broader firearms bill that would drop the age limit for a concealed-carry permit from 23 to 21, and expand the “Castle Doctrine” to allow people who rent their homes to use deadly force against intruders.
The bill passed on a 125-19 vote.
But not everyone thinks lawmakers and their staffers should be packing heat in the halls of government.
“I think it’s incredibly shortsighted for so many people who are not even elected by the public to bring guns into the Capitol, (especially) so many people who often are immature and feel very passionate about their positions,” said Rep. Mary Still, a Columbia Democrat who voted against the bill.
But even some opponents of the legislation were not especially concerned with the provisions relating to the Capitol. More troubling, they said, was the proposed lowered age limit for concealed-carry permits.
“I know there are a lot of people that bring weapons into the statehouse. I can’t help that. It’s their right and privilege under the law,” said Rep. Tom McDonald, an Independence Democrat. “But extending that to 21-year-olds and giving kids that age the privilege to carry a gun leads to bigger problems.”
The firearms legislation must still win a second vote in the House before moving to the Senate for further consideration. Yet even if it fails, Missouri’s Capitol is still more welcoming to weapons than Kansas and some other states.
In Kansas, firearms — concealed or otherwise — are not allowed in the statehouse or in most other government buildings. State law does not prohibit the open carrying of firearms, so cities without local bans, such as Topeka, allow citizens to wear holstered firearms in public — though not in the statehouse.
Kansas was one of the last holdouts in the nation on concealed weapons, authorizing licenses in 2006 only after lawmakers overrode a veto by then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.
Now some lawmakers are trying to relax the rules, arguing that worries about concealed weapons have been proven false.
Rep. Forrest Knox, an Altoona Republican, this year pushed through the House a bill that would allow permit holders to take their concealed firearms into any public building, including university campuses and government buildings. The only exception would be buildings with “adequate” security, including metal detectors and armed guards.
Because the Kansas statehouse has only a small security detachment and a single metal detector at one of two public entrances, its security would not qualify as “adequate,” according to bill supporters.
Knox, who does not have a concealed weapons permit, said he was shocked by the lack of statehouse security when he was first elected. He lived in Israel for six years and said too many Americans were naive about the threat of violence.
“The things we hope never happen — a crazy comes with a gun — that’s really the real concern,” Knox said. “Somebody could come into this Capitol and do terrible things.”
Knox said some lawmakers, most of them women, have told him they have carried firearms in the statehouse, despite the prohibition.
Knox’s bill, however, faces a fight. The Senate this year is not likely to even consider the measure. And Sen. Jay Emler, a Lindsborg Republican who is chairman of the Joint Committee on Kansas Security, said he opposed any proposal to bring guns into the Capitol, a building often filled with visiting schoolchildren.
“We don’t need any firearms in the statehouse other than those carried by uniformed law enforcement,” Emler said.
Gov. Mark Parkinson, a Democrat, agreed, saying the idea of concealed weapons on college campuses was particularly worrisome. He said he supported Sebelius’ veto of concealed weapons and that it was a bad idea to relax the rules.
“I understand that people feel they have a right to bear arms and the Constitution verifies that. But there are reasonable limits that we should impose,” Parkinson said.
But Patricia Stoneking, president of the Kansas State Rifle Association, said logic was on the side of those pushing for the changes. The only people who follow concealed-weapon rules are law-abiding citizens, she said.
Every time she visits the statehouse, she said, she locks her concealed weapon in her car, but she does not like it.
“The only people disarming are the good guys,” Stoneking said. “The signs basically say ‘nobody in here has a gun and we have no way to defend ourselves.’ It’s like putting a bull’s-eye on the door.”
But if you are wondering which Missouri lawmakers might be packing heat now or in the future, forget it. Whether a person has a concealed-carry permit is confidential, and revealing a permit holder’s status is a misdemeanor. In fact, supporters of concealed carry often prefer not to publicize their status as permit holders.
When asked if she carried a weapon in the Capitol, or would if she had a permit, Riddle demurred.
“You know, it’s our Second Amendment right,” she said.
Others apparently don’t mind letting it be known they’re armed.
Rep. Curt Dougherty, an Independence Democrat, said he was taking the lawmakers’ training course and would get a permit upon completing the requirements. But the lifetime member of the National Rifle Association said he probably would not carry a gun on a regular basis.
“I always thought since that issue meant something to me, I should probably go out and get the license,” Dougherty said. “But I have no interest, really, in carrying a gun.”
Sponsoring the firearms class in Missouri is the legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus, a group of lawmakers who advocate for hunting, fishing and Second Amendment rights.
“We’ve got Republicans and Democrats,” said Rep. Jason Brown, a Platte City Republican and co-chairman of the caucus. “It’s very bipartisan.”
The course follows hunter-safety classes held earlier this year by the caucus. In coming weeks, the group will sponsor a trapshooting event and a turkey hunt for young hunters, co-sponsored by Gov. Jay Nixon.
The goal of each event is to advocate for activities that are culturally intrinsic to Missouri, caucus members said, but which may not be well understood in all parts of the state or by all lawmakers.
“Every caucus needs to have meaningful activities that meet up with their mission,” said Sen. Wes Shoemyer, a Clarence Democrat. “This is just one of those meaningful activities that meets up with the Sportsmen’s Caucus.”
The class is led by volunteer instructors, organizers said, although participants have been asked to make $50 contributions to the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, a national lobbying group and umbrella organization for state sportsmen’s caucuses.
State law requires eight hours of training to qualify for a concealed-carry permit. In the Kansas City area, those courses typically cost between $50 and $125.
The first class was held two weeks ago in the statehouse, but lessons were moved across town to a trade group’s headquarters when it came time to bring guns to class.
In the class’ final meeting later this month, participants must demonstrate their marksmanship. To pass, they must hit a target with at least 15 of 20 rounds from 7 yards away.
To reach Jason Noble, call 573-634-3565 or send e-mail to jnoble@kcstar.com. To reach David Klepper, call 785-354-1388 or send e-mail to dklepper@kcstar.com.
© 2010 Kansas City Star and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved. http://www.kansascity.com
For the original posting from the KC Star click here.
Posted on Wed, Mar. 31, 2010
By JASON NOBLE and DAVID KLEPPER
The Kansas City Star
JEFFERSON CITY
It’s been a quiet week in Jefferson City.
Legislators writing laws. Debating the budget.
Training with handguns.
About 16 Missouri lawmakers — along with several legislative staffers and at least one representative’s wife — are taking a firearms-training course sponsored by the bipartisan “Sportsmen’s Caucus” that will qualify them for concealed weapons permits.
Tuesday’s lesson plan? Proper firearm care and cleaning.
“You need to bring your weapon tonight,” read a reminder sent out over the House e-mail system. “No ammo will be needed. Pizza and soda will be served.”
Missouri, like most states, allows people to carry concealed weapons if they pass a training course and register with a law enforcement agency. This week, lawmakers took steps to extend that privilege into the corridors of the Capitol.
On the same day of the lawmakers’ firearms class, the House gave first-round approval to a bill that would expressly allow legislators, their aides and employees to carry concealed weapons in the statehouse.
“If you stay up with your news and what’s going on in the world, you know bad things happen all over the place,” said Rep. Jeanie Riddle, a Mokane Republican who sponsored the amendment that added the Capitol language. “It would be nice for us to not be a statistic.”
State law now bars most people — including state employees — from bringing a deadly weapon into the Capitol. Lawmakers who hold a concealed-carry permit, however, are exempt from the prohibition.
Riddle said it was only fair to extend that privilege to others who work in the building, which no longer has metal detectors but has a Capitol police force.
“My life isn’t any more important than anyone else’s who works here, so to offer them the same opportunity I think is the right thing to do,” Riddle said.
The measure was included in a broader firearms bill that would drop the age limit for a concealed-carry permit from 23 to 21, and expand the “Castle Doctrine” to allow people who rent their homes to use deadly force against intruders.
The bill passed on a 125-19 vote.
But not everyone thinks lawmakers and their staffers should be packing heat in the halls of government.
“I think it’s incredibly shortsighted for so many people who are not even elected by the public to bring guns into the Capitol, (especially) so many people who often are immature and feel very passionate about their positions,” said Rep. Mary Still, a Columbia Democrat who voted against the bill.
But even some opponents of the legislation were not especially concerned with the provisions relating to the Capitol. More troubling, they said, was the proposed lowered age limit for concealed-carry permits.
“I know there are a lot of people that bring weapons into the statehouse. I can’t help that. It’s their right and privilege under the law,” said Rep. Tom McDonald, an Independence Democrat. “But extending that to 21-year-olds and giving kids that age the privilege to carry a gun leads to bigger problems.”
The firearms legislation must still win a second vote in the House before moving to the Senate for further consideration. Yet even if it fails, Missouri’s Capitol is still more welcoming to weapons than Kansas and some other states.
In Kansas, firearms — concealed or otherwise — are not allowed in the statehouse or in most other government buildings. State law does not prohibit the open carrying of firearms, so cities without local bans, such as Topeka, allow citizens to wear holstered firearms in public — though not in the statehouse.
Kansas was one of the last holdouts in the nation on concealed weapons, authorizing licenses in 2006 only after lawmakers overrode a veto by then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.
Now some lawmakers are trying to relax the rules, arguing that worries about concealed weapons have been proven false.
Rep. Forrest Knox, an Altoona Republican, this year pushed through the House a bill that would allow permit holders to take their concealed firearms into any public building, including university campuses and government buildings. The only exception would be buildings with “adequate” security, including metal detectors and armed guards.
Because the Kansas statehouse has only a small security detachment and a single metal detector at one of two public entrances, its security would not qualify as “adequate,” according to bill supporters.
Knox, who does not have a concealed weapons permit, said he was shocked by the lack of statehouse security when he was first elected. He lived in Israel for six years and said too many Americans were naive about the threat of violence.
“The things we hope never happen — a crazy comes with a gun — that’s really the real concern,” Knox said. “Somebody could come into this Capitol and do terrible things.”
Knox said some lawmakers, most of them women, have told him they have carried firearms in the statehouse, despite the prohibition.
Knox’s bill, however, faces a fight. The Senate this year is not likely to even consider the measure. And Sen. Jay Emler, a Lindsborg Republican who is chairman of the Joint Committee on Kansas Security, said he opposed any proposal to bring guns into the Capitol, a building often filled with visiting schoolchildren.
“We don’t need any firearms in the statehouse other than those carried by uniformed law enforcement,” Emler said.
Gov. Mark Parkinson, a Democrat, agreed, saying the idea of concealed weapons on college campuses was particularly worrisome. He said he supported Sebelius’ veto of concealed weapons and that it was a bad idea to relax the rules.
“I understand that people feel they have a right to bear arms and the Constitution verifies that. But there are reasonable limits that we should impose,” Parkinson said.
But Patricia Stoneking, president of the Kansas State Rifle Association, said logic was on the side of those pushing for the changes. The only people who follow concealed-weapon rules are law-abiding citizens, she said.
Every time she visits the statehouse, she said, she locks her concealed weapon in her car, but she does not like it.
“The only people disarming are the good guys,” Stoneking said. “The signs basically say ‘nobody in here has a gun and we have no way to defend ourselves.’ It’s like putting a bull’s-eye on the door.”
But if you are wondering which Missouri lawmakers might be packing heat now or in the future, forget it. Whether a person has a concealed-carry permit is confidential, and revealing a permit holder’s status is a misdemeanor. In fact, supporters of concealed carry often prefer not to publicize their status as permit holders.
When asked if she carried a weapon in the Capitol, or would if she had a permit, Riddle demurred.
“You know, it’s our Second Amendment right,” she said.
Others apparently don’t mind letting it be known they’re armed.
Rep. Curt Dougherty, an Independence Democrat, said he was taking the lawmakers’ training course and would get a permit upon completing the requirements. But the lifetime member of the National Rifle Association said he probably would not carry a gun on a regular basis.
“I always thought since that issue meant something to me, I should probably go out and get the license,” Dougherty said. “But I have no interest, really, in carrying a gun.”
Sponsoring the firearms class in Missouri is the legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus, a group of lawmakers who advocate for hunting, fishing and Second Amendment rights.
“We’ve got Republicans and Democrats,” said Rep. Jason Brown, a Platte City Republican and co-chairman of the caucus. “It’s very bipartisan.”
The course follows hunter-safety classes held earlier this year by the caucus. In coming weeks, the group will sponsor a trapshooting event and a turkey hunt for young hunters, co-sponsored by Gov. Jay Nixon.
The goal of each event is to advocate for activities that are culturally intrinsic to Missouri, caucus members said, but which may not be well understood in all parts of the state or by all lawmakers.
“Every caucus needs to have meaningful activities that meet up with their mission,” said Sen. Wes Shoemyer, a Clarence Democrat. “This is just one of those meaningful activities that meets up with the Sportsmen’s Caucus.”
The class is led by volunteer instructors, organizers said, although participants have been asked to make $50 contributions to the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, a national lobbying group and umbrella organization for state sportsmen’s caucuses.
State law requires eight hours of training to qualify for a concealed-carry permit. In the Kansas City area, those courses typically cost between $50 and $125.
The first class was held two weeks ago in the statehouse, but lessons were moved across town to a trade group’s headquarters when it came time to bring guns to class.
In the class’ final meeting later this month, participants must demonstrate their marksmanship. To pass, they must hit a target with at least 15 of 20 rounds from 7 yards away.
To reach Jason Noble, call 573-634-3565 or send e-mail to jnoble@kcstar.com. To reach David Klepper, call 785-354-1388 or send e-mail to dklepper@kcstar.com.
© 2010 Kansas City Star and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved. http://www.kansascity.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)