CHICAGO, Ill., April 10 – Chicago’s murder rate dropped to its lowest level since 1958, following the adoption of a concealed carry gun law by Illinois last year. Chicago had some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, and in 2012, Chicago led the nation in murders. But the courts said the tough gun laws violated the Second Amendment, and Illinois was forced to adopt a law allowing concealed carry. Chicago police began accepting applications in January of this year. Anti-gun critics predicted an increase in crime, murder and mayhem. Now Chicago police are reporting the lowest level of crime and murder in decades.


When Illinois passed the law allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed hangduns, it became the last state in the Union to do so. The Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. Then the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Illinois to repeal its law that prohibited concealed carry and gave the state until July 9, 2013 to replace it.

Anti-gun zealots predicted mayhem, warning that high-crime areas, like Chicago, would only see more violence if residents were allowed to carry guns in public. Governor Quinn called the concealed carry bill “extremely disappointing,” saying it “will lead to tragedy” and that “public safety should never be compromised or negotiated away.” He accused the legislature of “surrender[ing]” to the NRA. But the opposite occurred–instead of crime and murder rising, it has decreased.

Chicago has had a significant problem with murder and gun crime. According to the FBI, the U.S. had a national homicide rate of 4.7 per 100,000 people in 2011. Illinois’ homicide rate in 2011 was 6.4 per 100,000, or 136 percent of the national rate. And though during that time it was illegal to carry them, handguns were involved with the vast majority of murders. In 2012, Chicago led the nation with 506 murders. Gun control, evidently, was not working out very well.

However, in the first three months of 2014, Chicago saw six fewer murders than the same time frame in 2013–a nine percent drop–and 55 fewer murders than 2012, making it the lowest first-quarter murder total since 1958. There were 90 fewer shootings and 119 fewer shooting victims, drops of 26 and 29 percent respectively. Compared to the first quarter of 2012, there have been 222 fewer shootings and 292 fewer shooting victims. Overall crime is down 25 percent from last year.

The drop is consistent with academic research that, contrary to gun bullies’ claims, clearly shows that lawful carry of guns by law-abiding citizens reduces and deters crime. It is more guns that leads to more safety, not the other way around. Though this may seem counterintuitive, the findings are confirmed by multiple academic sources. A CDC study ordered by President Obama found lawful carrying of guns was an important deterrent to crime. The CDC study further states that lawful carrying of guns saves lives, noting, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.” Research by gun crime experts John Lott, Jr. and David Mustard found that “When state concealed handgun laws went into effect… murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by five and seven percent.” They state that “more guns mean less crime.”

A Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy study by professors Don Kates and Gary Mauser of 36 developed nations–virtually all of which have stronger gun control than the United States–concludes that higher gun control is consistently associated with higher levels of violent crime and homicide, and low gun restrictions are associated with lower levels of violent crime and less murder. They note, “Whether viewed as a cause or coincidental, the long-term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlate with stable or declining murder rates” (p.673).

They further state, “Laws whose effect is to reduce gun ownership by law-abiding citizens–the ones who obey gun laws–are futile because these laws do not reduce violence or murder” (p.672). Professors Kates and Mauser state it is a criminologist axiom, verified in virtually every study since at least the 1890s, that average, law-abiding people do not commit murder. Instead, they state that career criminals do: 90 percent of adult murderers have adult criminal records, with multiple prior contacts to the justice system. The same is true with minor offenders. Professors Kates and Mauser state that “there is no reason for laws prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding responsible adults, because such people virtually never murder… disarming them becomes not just unproductive, but counter-productive” (p. 670). Laws intended to prevent crime by keeping all citizens from having guns are useless because crime is committed by criminals with history of doing so. Criminals simply do not obey gun laws, as Chicago demonstrates.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Chicago’s police chief credit the drop with changes in police strategies, and do not support the new concealed carry law. Honest researchers will rightly tell us correlation does not equal causation–something anti-gun zealots only seem to remember when it benefits their agenda to do so. However, while we may not rightly say Chicago’s decrease in crime is solely attributable to concealed carry, we can say that concealed carry has not resulted in the increase of crime that the anti-gun rights lobby wrongly predicted. The decrease in crime observed in Chicago is consistent with - and to be expected considering  - academic research that clearly shows that lawful gun carrying reduces crime.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication April 10, 2014).

Chicago’s murder rate drops to lowest level in decades following new concealed carry gun law

by Matt MacBradaigh | Apr 10, 2014 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

CHICAGO, Ill., April 10 – Chicago’s murder rate dropped to its lowest level since 1958, following the adoption of a concealed carry gun law by Illinois last year. Chicago had some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, and in 2012, Chicago led the nation in murders. But the courts said the tough gun laws violated the Second Amendment, and Illinois was forced to adopt a law allowing concealed carry. Chicago police began accepting applications in January of this year. Anti-gun critics predicted an increase in crime, murder and mayhem. Now Chicago police are reporting the lowest level of crime and murder in decades.

When Illinois passed the law allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed hangduns, it became the last state in the Union to do so. The Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. Then the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Illinois to repeal its law that prohibited concealed carry and gave the state until July 9, 2013 to replace it.

Anti-gun zealots predicted mayhem, warning that high-crime areas, like Chicago, would only see more violence if residents were allowed to carry guns in public. Governor Quinn called the concealed carry bill “extremely disappointing,” saying it “will lead to tragedy” and that “public safety should never be compromised or negotiated away.” He accused the legislature of “surrender[ing]” to the NRA. But the opposite occurred–instead of crime and murder rising, it has decreased.

Chicago has had a significant problem with murder and gun crime. According to the FBI, the U.S. had a national homicide rate of 4.7 per 100,000 people in 2011. Illinois’ homicide rate in 2011 was 6.4 per 100,000, or 136 percent of the national rate. And though during that time it was illegal to carry them, handguns were involved with the vast majority of murders. In 2012, Chicago led the nation with 506 murders. Gun control, evidently, was not working out very well.

However, in the first three months of 2014, Chicago saw six fewer murders than the same time frame in 2013–a nine percent drop–and 55 fewer murders than 2012, making it the lowest first-quarter murder total since 1958. There were 90 fewer shootings and 119 fewer shooting victims, drops of 26 and 29 percent respectively. Compared to the first quarter of 2012, there have been 222 fewer shootings and 292 fewer shooting victims. Overall crime is down 25 percent from last year.

The drop is consistent with academic research that, contrary to gun bullies’ claims, clearly shows that lawful carry of guns by law-abiding citizens reduces and deters crime. It is more guns that leads to more safety, not the other way around. Though this may seem counterintuitive, the findings are confirmed by multiple academic sources. A CDC study ordered by President Obama found lawful carrying of guns was an important deterrent to crime. The CDC study further states that lawful carrying of guns saves lives, noting, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.” Research by gun crime experts John Lott, Jr. and David Mustard found that “When state concealed handgun laws went into effect… murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by five and seven percent.” They state that “more guns mean less crime.”

A Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy study by professors Don Kates and Gary Mauser of 36 developed nations–virtually all of which have stronger gun control than the United States–concludes that higher gun control is consistently associated with higher levels of violent crime and homicide, and low gun restrictions are associated with lower levels of violent crime and less murder. They note, “Whether viewed as a cause or coincidental, the long-term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlate with stable or declining murder rates” (p.673).

They further state, “Laws whose effect is to reduce gun ownership by law-abiding citizens–the ones who obey gun laws–are futile because these laws do not reduce violence or murder” (p.672). Professors Kates and Mauser state it is a criminologist axiom, verified in virtually every study since at least the 1890s, that average, law-abiding people do not commit murder. Instead, they state that career criminals do: 90 percent of adult murderers have adult criminal records, with multiple prior contacts to the justice system. The same is true with minor offenders. Professors Kates and Mauser state that “there is no reason for laws prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding responsible adults, because such people virtually never murder… disarming them becomes not just unproductive, but counter-productive” (p. 670). Laws intended to prevent crime by keeping all citizens from having guns are useless because crime is committed by criminals with history of doing so. Criminals simply do not obey gun laws, as Chicago demonstrates.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Chicago’s police chief credit the drop with changes in police strategies, and do not support the new concealed carry law. Honest researchers will rightly tell us correlation does not equal causation–something anti-gun zealots only seem to remember when it benefits their agenda to do so. However, while we may not rightly say Chicago’s decrease in crime is solely attributable to concealed carry, we can say that concealed carry has not resulted in the increase of crime that the anti-gun rights lobby wrongly predicted. The decrease in crime observed in Chicago is consistent with – and to be expected considering  – academic research that clearly shows that lawful gun carrying reduces crime.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Apr 10, 2014. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Wyoming leads 19 states to challenge New Jersey’s concealed handgun law

CHEYENNE, Wyo. — Wyoming leads 19 states to challenge New Jersey’s concealed handgun law. The Wyoming-led coalition is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to let them submit a brief supporting a New Jersey man’s challenge to that state’s concealed weapons law. Other states joining in the effort are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia. The Wyoming attorney general’s office, acting as lawyer for the states, asked the Supreme Court to grant a hearing to John M. Drake and others who are challenging a recent appeals court ruling.

New Jersey’s law requires its citizens to prove a justifiable need to be granted a concealed weapons license. The state does not accept the desire for self-defense as a justifiable need – there must be a demonstrable “urgent necessity.” New Jersey’s legal code specifies:

In the case of a private citizen shall specify in detail the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun. Where possible the applicant shall corroborate the existence of any specific threats or previous attacks by reference to reports of such incidents to the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

Drake, of Fredon, N.J., is a business owner who owns and services ATMs, requiring him carry large amounts of cash at times. “It seems unreasonable to me to have to wait until you’re beaten up or shot at to get a permit,” Drake said.

The brief from the Wyoming Attorney General’s Office says that Wyoming and the other states are concerned that if the appeals court ruling stands, it could threaten their less-restrictive concealed carry laws. Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead said, “This decision out of New Jersey impacts the right to keep and bear arms outside of the home… If the current decision stands, states providing greater protections than New Jersey under the Second Amendment may be pre-empted by future federal action… so I felt it was necessary to have the attorney general support a petition to the Supreme Court to hear this case.”

If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, it may clear up confusion from contradictory rulings by the appellate circuit courts. Last summer, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Drake’s challenge to the provision in New Jersey law that says people seeking permits to carry a concealed firearm must prove to police that they have a justifiable need.

However, last year the 7th Circuit Court ruled that the Second Amendment does protect the right to carry a weapon outside of the home for self-defense. Justice Robert R. Thomas, who wrote the court’s decisions cites Madigan v. Moore as well as the Supreme Court cases, D.C. v. Heller, which ruled the Second Amendment is an individual right to bear arms and that the core purpose is for self-defense, and McDonald v. Chicago, which held that the Second Amendment applies to states laws via the 14th Amendment. Justice Thomas wrote that “neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limits the Second Amendment’s protections to the home. On the contrary, both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright confirming that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home.”

This year, the 9th Circuit Court struck down California’s concealed-weapons permitting laws, saying the requirement of citizens to show “good cause” before being allowed to obtain a concealed carry permit violated the Second Amendment. The 9th Circuit, like the 7th Circuit ruling, relied on the Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions. The 9th Circuit also cited Muscarello v. United States, (which is also referenced in the Heller decision) for a definition of what it means to “bear arms,” noting “that surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment indicates: wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” The 9th Circuit stated “people are more sensibly said to bear Arms in nondomestic settings.”

This author has argued that, though falling short of explicitly stating the Second Amendment extends outside of the home, based on what the Supreme Court did state in Heller the only rational conclusion one could reach is the Second Amendment does, in fact, extend outside of the home. In Heller, the Court stated several lawful purposes exist for the Second Amendment: self-defense, hunting, militia duty, resisting tyranny from the government, repelling an invasion, and suppressing insurrection. All but self-defense require one to have a firearm outside of the home; while self-defense may be inside or outside of one’s home. If the Supreme Court hears the case, they may clear once and for all what is plainly – though not explicitly – stated in its own previous rulings: that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms outside of the home.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication March 3, 2014).

Ninth Circuit strikes down California law restricting concealed weapons carry in Peruta v San Diego

San Diego, Calif., February 13, 2014 — California must allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms in public, a federal appeals court ruled, striking down the core of the state’s permit system for handguns. In a 2-1 decision issued on February 13th, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled “San Diego County violates the Constitution’s Second Amendment by requiring residents to show ‘good cause’” before being allowed “to obtain a concealed carry permit.”

California has long had some of the nation’s strongest restrictions on gun ownership, and, according to the court, is one of only eight states that allow local governments to deny concealed-weapons permits. State law requires applicants to demonstrate good cause, as well as good moral character, to carry concealed handguns, while leaving the permit process up to each city and county. The court noted that the state did not accept the desire to be able to defend oneself as sufficient to demonstrate “good cause”.

California’s law was challenged by the National Rifle and Pistol Foundation (NRPF) and individuals who challenged the San Diego County system. C.D. Michael, lawyer for the NRPF, said “The right to self-defense doesn’t end at your threshold.”
The court agreed, ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is, in and of itself, a sufficient cause for bearing arms for self-defense both inside and outside of the home. Judge O’Scannlain’s majority opinion emphasized “the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable arm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense.” The courts said the Second Amendment must be read as including “the right to carry weapons outside the home” because “the risk of armed confrontation” is in no way limited to one’s home, citing the examples of “a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site.”

This author previously wrote a two-part series on the Second Amendment extending outside of one’s home based on Supreme Court’s 2008, D.C v Heller ruling. In the ruling, the high court says:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

As previously noted, the Supreme Courts ruling says “for lawful purposes”, plural, and then says “such as self-defense within the home.” This means that self-defense within the home is one of several lawful purposes, not the sole lawful purpose for which the right to keep and bear arms is protected. Further, the Court explicitly mentions several other lawful purposes in Heller, including hunting, resisting tyranny from the government, repelling an invasion, suppressing an insurrection, in addition to self-defense. Hunting, resisting tyranny, repelling an invasion, and suppressing insurrection all require one to be outside of the home. And as is covered in part two of the series, the language used in Heller in no way suggests that self-defense itself would be confined to the home.

The Supreme Court wrote in Heller that people at the time of ratification understood the Second Amendment as protecting “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation” and that “Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repel force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury” (p.21). Further, Heller reaffirms the court’s prior definition of “bear arms” in Muscarello v. United States, that “surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment indicates: wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person” (p.10).

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling is in line with this analysis of what the Supreme Court has already clearly stated in Heller, as well as Muscarello and MacDonald v Chicago. Citing Heller, the Ninth Circuit’s judgment states: “Second Amendment codified a pre-exisiting, individual right to keep and bear arms and that that central component of the right is self-defense” (p.6). The Ninth Circuit further states “…people are more sensibly said to bear Arms in nondomestic settings” (p.16). Citing McDonald v Chicago, the Ninth Circuit notes that: “self-defense, recognized since ancient times as a basic right, is the central component of the Second Amendment… consequently, that right restricted not only the Federal government but under the Fourteeth Amendment, also the states” (p.7). Therefore, California’s law was stricken.

The Ninth Circuit ruling is a departure from other federal appeals courts that have upheld similar laws in New York, New Jersey and Maryland. But the decision concurs with an appellate court that struck down Illinois’ absolute ban on concealed weapons in public. The split among appellate circuits increases the prospect that the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue. If that happens, gun rights activists can expect the Ninth Circuit court’s ruling to be upheld, since it is built upon multiple – and several recent – Supreme Court rulings.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication February 20, 2014).

Guns and Starbucks: Why The Sort-Of Updated Policy Is A Loser

Guns and Starbucks: Starbucks unwillingly finds itself in the midst of the gun control debate, sort-of, kinda changes its corporate mind, and everyone comes out a loser. Why the half-hearted change is a bad idea.

Starbucks unwillingly finds itself in the midst of the gun control debate. Anti-gun groups (like Moms Demand Action (MDA) most recently) have been petitioning Starbucks for years to change their official policy. These anti-gun organizations initially targeted Starbucks for “refusing” to change their policy to suit their demands and hosting “Skip Starbucks” days. In response, gun rights advocates have rallied to Starbucks, sensing – perhaps incorrectly – an ally of sorts for not changing their policy. Gun rights advocates held “Starbucks Appreciation Days” in contrast to ant-gunners boycott days. These have included activists in the open carry movement. Starbucks has now sort-of shifted, however.

CEO Howard Schultz’s recent announcement amounts to a sort-of change. Previously, Starbucks official position is to abide by the laws in each state operate stores – so whether a state allows or prohibits open carry of firearms, Starbucks abides by that. The updated announcement is only arequest: openly carrying guns is not wanted. But here’s where Starbucks wimps out: the letter states it’s not a ban, and they indicate employees (called “partners”) will not ask customers to leave. The company doesn’t want to potentially put partners in harm’s way. A new employee memo states to dial 911 if someone is “disruptive”, but to otherwise serve all customers normally, even if openly carrying a gun. The end result is unclear in terms of policy, while politically they’ve pandered and caved based on bullying, and ultimately Starbucks decision is a mistake. Heres why:

The Political CalculusStarbucks half-hearted change doesn’t really satisfy anyone. MDA is, of course, claiming a victory. They are a very new player as an official organization (but well-funded by old players, and by no means a honest-to-goodness “grassroots” movement). It makes them seem more legitimate if they make it seem they’ve won. But they aren’t getting what they petitioned for. They wanted a complete gun banand they didn’t get it; only a request to not openly carry firearms. The vast majority of gun owners carry concealed via a carry concealed weapons permit (CCW) through their state of residence. Starbucks new memo doesn’t target CCW, and by nature of concealed carrying, it couldn’t feasibly do so. So while MDA members may gloat to themselves the next time they deign to visit Starbucks (presuming they are no longer boycotting), they may well be sitting next to a gun-toting person legally carrying a concealed firearm.

But it is a partial victory, of sorts. MDA bullied Starbucks, including harassing their partners and customers, and sort-of got some of what they wanted. The open carry activists felt they supported a company who they saw as supporting them, and now feel betrayed. But the open carry movement is a relatively small percentage of gun owners, and even those that carry handguns in public. So gun rights activists can also claim partial victory – though pressured, Starbucks still hasn’t actually banned guns.

Why the Policy is a MistakeThere are at least three major reasons why the change is a safety mistake. First, most mass shootings occur in designated “gun-free” zones – or areas where guns are prohibited. This was the case for Virginia Tech, Columbine, the Aurora Colorado movie theater, Sandy Hook elementary, and most recently at the Washington Naval Yard. Consider also that there have already been shootings in other coffee shops, including the murder of four police officers in a Seattle metro area coffee shop. Starbucks may have just inadvertently advertised to future mass shooters that their location is a good choice for unarmed, defenseless victims.

Second, the law-abiding as a rule, are never the problem. So ordinary, non-criminal, law-abiding adults frequenting Starbucks with a handgun are not a safety threat. This is considered an axiom by criminologists as 90% of adult murderers have adult criminal records and multiple previous contacts with the justice system. Professors Kates and Mauser examine cross-nationally among 36 nations including many developed European nations as well as the United States, as well as examining within the United States, state-to-state, county-by-county, and over historical time periods in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy published study “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide.” They conclude that higher gun restrictions are consistently associated with higher levels of violent crime and homicide and low gun restrictions are associated with lower levels of violent crime and less murder, noting “Whether viewed as a cause or coincidental, the long-term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlate with stable or declining murder rates” (p.673). They further state that policy intended to people safe by preventing gun possession is useless because crime is committed by criminals with history of doing so.

Third, “disarming [ordinary, law-abiding responsible adults] becomes not just unproductive, but counter-productive” (p. 670 emphasis added). According to the professors, widespread gun possession in the U.S. actually decreases crime. Therefore, possession of guns at Starbucks may well reduce potential for violent crime there. Adopting a policy that limits the law-abiding from bringing guns into stores won’t improve anyone’s safety, but instead only limits honest people from being able to exercise their natural right to self-defense. This is backed by criminologist research as well as historical, empirical data that shootings tend to occur in areas where guns are prohibited. Having a sign or written policy simply doesn’t prevent a criminal or madman bent on inflicting harm.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication October 3, 2013).

Guns and Starbucks: Everyone Loses… Kind of

by Matt MacBradaigh | Oct 3, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

Guns and Starbucks: Starbucks unwillingly finds itself in the midst of the gun control debate, sort-of, kinda changes its corporate mind, and everyone comes out a loser. Why the half-hearted change is a bad idea.

Starbucks unwillingly finds itself in the midst of the gun control debate. Anti-gun groups – like Moms Demand Action (MDA) most recently – have been petitioning Starbucks for years to change their official policy. These anti-gun organizations initially targeted Starbucks for “refusing” to change their policy to suit their demands and hosting “Skip Starbucks” days. In response, gun rights advocates have rallied to Starbucks, sensing – perhaps incorrectly – an ally of sorts for not changing their policy. Gun rights advocates held “Starbucks Appreciation Days” in contrast to ant-gunners boycott days. These have included activists in the open carry movement. Starbucks has now sort-of shifted, however.

CEO Howard Schultz’s recent announcement amounts to a pretty-please request. Previously, Starbucks official position is to abide by the laws in each state operate stores – so whether a state allows or prohibits open carry of firearms, Starbucks abides by that. The updated announcement is only a request: pretty-please don’t openly carrying guns in our stores. But here’s where Starbucks wimps out: the letter clearly states it’s not a ban. Starbucks  employees (called “partners”) will not even ask customers to leave. The company doesn’t want to potentially put partners in harm’s way. A new employee memo states to dial 911 if someone is “disruptive”, but to otherwise serve all customers normally, even if openly carrying a gun. The end result is no change in terms of official policy.

The political calculus
Moms Demand Action is, of course, claiming a victory. They are a very new player as an official organization (but well-funded by old players, and by no means a honest-to-goodness “grassroots” movement). It makes them seem more legitimate if they make it seem they’ve won. But they patently aren’t getting what they petitioned for. They wanted a complete gun ban – and they didn’t get it; only a request to not openly carry firearms. The vast majority of gun owners carry concealed via a carry concealed weapons permit (CCW) through their state of residence. Starbucks new memo doesn’t target CCW, and by nature of concealed carrying, it couldn’t feasibly do so. So while MDA members may gloat to themselves the next time they deign to visit Starbucks (presuming they are no longer boycotting), they may well be sitting next to a gun-toting person legally carrying a concealed firearm.

But the open carry community didn’t win either. Starbucks did cry uncle because of  MDA’s bully tactics, including harassing Starbucks partners and customers. The open carry activists felt they supported a company who they saw as supporting them, and now feel betrayed. But the open carry movement is a relatively small percentage of gun owners, and even those that carry handguns in public. So everyone kind of loses even though Starbucks still hasn’t actually banned guns.

Why a ban policy is a mistake
There are at least three major reasons why the change is a safety mistake. First, most mass shootings occur in designated “gun-free” zones – or areas where guns are prohibited. This was the case for Virginia Tech, Columbine, the Aurora Colorado movie theater, Sandy Hook elementary, and most recently at the Washington Naval Yard. Consider also that there have already been shootings in other coffee shops, including the murder of four police officers in a Seattle metro area coffee shop. Starbucks may have just inadvertently advertised to future mass shooters that their location is a good choice for unarmed, defenseless victims.

Second, the law-abiding as a rule, are never the problem. So ordinary, non-criminal, law-abiding adults frequenting Starbucks with a handgun are not a safety threat. This is considered an axiom by criminologists as 90% of adult murderers have adult criminal records and multiple previous contacts with the justice system. Professors Kates and Mauser examine cross-nationally among 36 nations including many developed European nations as well as the United States, as well as examining within the United States, state-to-state, county-by-county, and over historical time periods in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policystudy. They conclude that higher gun restrictions are consistently associated with higher levels of violent crime and homicide and low gun restrictions are associated with lower levels of violent crime and less murder, noting “Whether viewed as a cause or coincidental, the long-term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlate with stable or declining murder rates” (p.673). They further state that policy intended to people safe by preventing gun possession is useless because crime is committed by criminals with history of doing so.

Third, “disarming [ordinary, law-abiding responsible adults] becomes not just unproductive, but counter-productive” (p. 670 emphasis added). According to the professors, widespread gun possession in the U.S. actually decreases crime. Therefore, possession of guns at Starbucks may well reduce potential for violent crime there. Adopting a policy that limits the law-abiding from bringing guns into stores won’t improve anyone’s safety, but instead only limits honest people from being able to exercise their natural right to self-defense. This is backed by criminologist research as well as historical, empirical data that shootings tend to occur in areas where guns are prohibited. Having a sign or written policy simply doesn’t prevent a criminal or madman bent on inflicting harm.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Oct 3, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Why New Illinois Concealed Carry Gun Law Increases Public Safety

New Illinois Concealed Carry Gun Law Increases Public Safety. Gun politics as usual, anti-gun politicians like Gov. Pat Quinn say new law endangers public safety. But that is exactly contrary to the academic research on the matter.

When Illinois passed a law to allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns, it became the last state in the union to do so. Illinois previously allowed no handguns outside the home, but the courts ruled this violated the Second Amendment, and gave the state legislature until July 9 to change their law before the old was repealed. In the land that made the phrase “Chicago politics” infamous, the stakes – and grandstanding – were high. A version of the bill was originally sent on to Governor Pat Quinn, who threatened veto and sent the bill back with suggested changes. The changes were all but ignored and the legislature passed the bill (found here) with a two-thirds majority anyway.

Governor Quinn called the vote “extremely disappointing,” saying it “will lead to tragedy” and that “public safety should never be compromised or negotiated away.” He accused the legislature of “surrender[ing] to the National Rifle Association.” But who’s playing politics? Does Gov Quinn have a point, or is he patently wrong? Based on academic research from criminologists, Governor Quinn is wrong. His suppositions of what endangers people run exactly contrary to research. There is no reason to believe that the overridden suggestions or allowing citizens to carry guns threatens public safety; in fact, quite the opposite.

Governor Quinn’s rejected proposals included inserting limits on the ammunition capacity of gun magazines, restoring the right of local governments to enact restrictions and prohibiting firearms in bars or restaurants that sell any alcohol. The law still restricts carrying guns at restaurants or bars that with 50% or higher percentage of sales from alcohol and many public places, including public transit, schools, libraries and parks. Based on the research, the restrictions as they were passed, are what endangers people.

Illinois citizens still must wait an additional 9 months – 6 months for the state to set up to begin receiving applications for permits and another 3 months once they start receiving them – before they can legally carry. But the homicide rate in gun-less Illinois surpasses the national rate. According to the FBI, the U.S. has a national homicide rate of 4.7 per 100,000 people. Illinois has a homicide rate of 6.4 per 100,000 or 136% of the national rate. There were 599 officially FBI-reported homicides and non-negligent manslaughters in the Chicago Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in 2011, with the estimated total coming in at 609. The Chicago MSA makes up the vast majority of murders in the state, but doesn’t account for 100% of them. Firearms and handguns in particular were involved with the vast majority of murders, even though they are illegal. Illinois public safety is already “compromised.”

Which leads us to a basic question: do gun restrictions make the public more safe or less safe? Put another way, does allowing otherwise law-abiding citizens to carry guns jeopardize public safety? Though politicians like Governor Quinn makes politics out of their answers, the academic research is much more straightforward. A 2007 published study in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy by professors Don Kates and Gary Mauser answers emphatically, ‘No, allowing otherwise law-abiding citizens to carry guns does not endanger society.’ They examine cross-nationally among 36 nations including many developed European nations and the United States, as well as examining within the United States, state-to-state, county-by-county, and over historical time periods. They conclude that higher gun control is consistently associated with higher levels of violent crime and homicide and low gun restrictions are associated with lower levels of violent crime and less murder, noting “Whether viewed as a cause or coincidental, the long-term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlate with stable or declining murder rates” (p.673).

They further state: “Laws whose effect is to reduce gun ownership by law-abiding citizens – the ones who obey gun laws – are futile because these laws do not reduce violence or murder” (p.672). The reason is that average, otherwise law-abiding people do not commit murder. Professors Kates and Mauser go as far as to say this is an axiom to criminologists, the culmination of virtually every study since at least the 1890s. Adult murderers have adult criminal records 90% of the time, and usually have multiple contacts with the justice system; and minors typically have significant contact with the system. Even homicides within the home are usually the product of increasingly violent behavior and prior restraining orders and police contacts before a murder occurs. In other words, average people don’t suddenly become homicidal simply because they have a gun. Laws intended to prevent crime by keeping all citizen from having guns are useless because crime is committed by criminals with history of doing so. They state: “In any event, studies analyzing acquaintance homicide suggest there is no reason for law prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding responsible adults, because such people virtually never murder… disarming them becomes not just unproductive, but counter-productive” (p. 670 emphasis added). They also indicate studies in the U.S. indicate substantial evidence that widespread gun possession decreases crime.
If anything, the final provisions that prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying guns on public transit and libraries are likely counter-productive. However, the freedom of Illinois citizens to finally carry guns does not “compromise public safety”, as Governor Quinn suggests; the research shows it increases safety.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication September 12, 2013).

 Part-two in our series on Moms Demand Action (MDA) petition against Starbucks. Moms Demand Actions started a petition against Starbucks guns policy – which is to comply with state law at each location – claiming the policy “endangers” lives. Moms Demand Action are wrong about guns and Starbucks coffee shops.

MDA penned an Op-Ed in CNN claiming Starbucks’ policy to abide by the gun laws of each state where they have stores endangers coffee-goers. In five major ways they prove they are completely wrong on gun control, relying instead on misinformation, half-truths and outright distortions. They over-inflate numbers to attempt to make their case and rely on weak, knee-jerk, emotional appeals. Of course, it’s all for the kids – or so they’d like you to believe. In part one, we looked at their first three arguments and claims and demonstrated their falsehoods. Here in part two, we examine their last two arguments and claims and see how they hold up to research and logic.

4. We Don’t Want a Gun Debate with our Coffee

 

Townhall Editor, Katie Pavlich with I Love Guns & Coffee coin

Moms Demand Action: “Moms don’t want a gun debate with our coffee either. But when children are shot in schools, in movie theaters and even at Fourth of July parades, we can no longer keep the debate in the places where they “belong.” As the debate on guns spreads to town hall meetings nationwide in August, do we really have to have one in Starbucks too?”

Counterpoint:Okay, gun control advocates – then don’t start one. MDA acts like pro gun people initiated & made this an issue, when – once again – the truth is exactly opposite. In their Op-Ed, they note that Pro-Gun supporters hold rallies at Starbucks, and so blame the “debate” on these supporters. The truth is that anti-gun organizations began the debate by targeting Starbucks for “refusing” to change its policy. For instance, the National Gun Victims Action Council (NGAC) states: “Starbucks will be the first economic target for National Gun Victims Action Council because they aggressively support the NRA’s Pro-Gun Agenda” (emphasis mine). The NGAC statement is both preposterous, and an outright lie. Starbucks is not “aggressively” pushing anything for the NRA. Starbucks position is compliance with the law established in each state, nothing more, nothing less. There is no lobbying for any particular policy position to be adopted. But more importantly, this illustrates that anti-gun groups first targeted Starbucks. So, if there is a “debate” at Starbucks locations, it is because aggressively anti-Second Amendment organizations chose to make it an issue. Crying foul after the fact about the debate that they have started is just more inane idiocy.

5. “Starbucks has lost its moral compass”

Moms Demand Action: “Starbucks has lost its moral compass”

Counterpoint: This is meaningless, partisan rhetoric. Starbucks chooses to not take one partisan side’s preference – a preference based on ignorance, illogic, and emotionalism. Average moms and dads who choose to exercise their natural right to self-defense protected in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution recognize that a sign or written policy cannot keep them safe. MDA’s statements referenced movie theater shootings, like Aurora, CO, where a “no guns” sign was posted, and Sandy Hook Elementary, also a so-called “gun-free zone”.Yet both of these places saw some of the most horrific mass shootings in our nations’ history – despite a no guns sign or policy. What possible reason do thinking adults have to believe that if Starbucks adopted a no-guns policy that it would prevent a shooting at a coffee shop? Signs do not stop criminals or the mentally ill. Passing laws doesn’t prevent crime. This doesn’t mean gun rights advocates want to repeal existing laws against homicide – far from it: we want safe neighborhoods for our children just as much as MDA supporters – but passing yet another meaningless law or policy is absurd, foolish, farcical, and ultimately accomplishes nothing.
As I have written many times previously, there are serious solutions that we, as a nation, can pursue if wish to seriously address gun violence. MDA’s petition approximates exactly no serious solution, instead opting for empty emotionalism. We ought to enforce existing laws including prosecuting background check fraud – which the Department of Justice does not do, crack down on illegal trafficking, illegal transfer – which is how 80% of criminals obtain guns, fully fund NICS (the background check system), seriously address America’s drug problem since drug abuse is the single greatest predictor of violence, and address gang violence since gangs – which are heavily involved in the drug trade – account for an average of 48% of violent crime (up to 90% in some jurisdictions) in the U.S., and a serious look at mental illness and psychotropic drugs. These are the real solutions we should be discussing, not silly non sequitur squabbles about where someone doesn’t need a gun in order to do something else.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication August 14, 2013).

Guns and Starbucks: 5 Ways Moms Demand Action Are Wrong on Gun Control, Pt II

by Matt MacBradaigh | Aug 13, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

Part-two in our series on Moms Demand Action (MDA) petition against Starbucks. Moms Demand Actions started a petition against Starbucks guns policy – which is to comply with state law at each location – claiming the policy “endangers” lives. Moms Demand Action are wrong about guns and Starbucks coffee shops.

MDA penned an Op-Ed in CNN claiming Starbucks’ policy to abide by the gun laws of each state where they have stores endangers coffee-goers. In five major ways they prove they are completely wrong on gun control, relying instead on misinformation, half-truths and outright distortions. They over-inflate numbers to attempt to make their case and rely on weak, knee-jerk, emotional appeals. Of course, it’s all for the kids – or so they’d like you to believe. In part one, we looked at their first three arguments and claims and demonstrated their falsehoods. Here in part two, we examine their last two arguments and claims and see how they hold up to research and logic.

4. We Don’t Want a Gun Debate with our Coffee

Moms Demand Action: “Moms don’t want a gun debate with our coffee either. But when children are shot in schools, in movie theaters and even at Fourth of July parades, we can no longer keep the debate in the places where they “belong.” As the debate on guns spreads to town hall meetings nationwide in August, do we really have to have one in Starbucks too?”

Counterpoint:Okay, gun control advocates – then don’t start one. MDA acts like pro gun people initiated & made this an issue, when – once again – the truth is exactly opposite. In their Op-Ed, they note that Pro-Gun supporters hold rallies at Starbucks, and so blame the “debate” on these supporters. The truth is that anti-gun organizations began the debate by targeting Starbucks for “refusing” to change its policy. For instance, the National Gun Victims Action Council (NGAC) states: “Starbucks will be the first economic target for National Gun Victims Action Council because they aggressively support the NRA’s Pro-Gun Agenda” (emphasis mine). The NGAC statement is both preposterous, and an outright lie. Starbucks is not “aggressively” pushing anything for the NRA. Starbucks position is compliance with the law established in each state, nothing more, nothing less. There is no lobbying for any particular policy position to be adopted. But more importantly, this illustrates that anti-gun groups first targeted Starbucks. So, if there is a “debate” at Starbucks locations, it is because aggressively anti-Second Amendment organizations chose to make it an issue. Crying foul after the fact about the debate that they have started is just more inane idiocy.

5. “Starbucks has lost its moral compass”

Moms Demand Action: “Starbucks has lost its moral compass”

Counterpoint: This is meaningless, partisan rhetoric. Starbucks chooses to not take one partisan side’s preference – a preference based on ignorance, illogic, and emotionalism. Average moms and dads who choose to exercise their natural right to self-defense protected in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution recognize that a sign or written policy cannot keep them safe. MDA’s statements referenced movie theater shootings, like Aurora, CO, where a “no guns” sign was posted, and Sandy Hook Elementary, also a so-called “gun-free zone”.Yet both of these places saw some of the most horrific mass shootings in our nations’ history – despite a no guns sign or policy. What possible reason do thinking adults have to believe that if Starbucks adopted a no-guns policy that it would prevent a shooting at a coffee shop? Signs do not stop criminals or the mentally ill. Passing laws doesn’t prevent crime. This doesn’t mean gun rights advocates want to repeal existing laws against homicide – far from it: we want safe neighborhoods for our children just as much as MDA supporters – but passing yet another meaningless law or policy is absurd, foolish, farcical, and ultimately accomplishes nothing.

As I have written many times previously, there are serious solutions that we, as a nation, can pursue if wish to seriously address gun violence. MDA’s petition approximates exactly no serious solution, instead opting for empty emotionalism. We ought to enforce existing laws including prosecuting background check fraud – which the Department of Justice does not do, crack down on illegal trafficking, illegal transfer – which is how 80% of criminals obtain guns, fully fund NICS (the background check system), seriously address America’s drug problem since drug abuse is the single greatest predictor of violence, and address gang violence since gangs – which are heavily involved in the drug trade – account for an average of 48% of violent crime (up to 90% in some jurisdictions) in the U.S., and a serious look at mental illness and psychotropic drugs. These are the real solutions we should be discussing, not silly non sequitur squabbles about where someone doesn’t need a gun in order to do something else.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Aug 14, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.