Ninth Circuit Court’s Peruta decision to make Hawaii a shall-issue concealed carry state

It seems the Ninth Circuit court’s Peruta decision will make Hawaii a shall-issue concealed carry state, as the ramifications of the February Peruta v. San Diego County decision continue to work their way through the lower courts. The District Court in Hawaii had previously rejected Christopher Baker’s complaint against state agencies that denied him a concealed carry license in Baker v. Kealoha. But following the Peruta decision, the Ninth Circuit court ordered the lower court to reexamine the case and hold “further proceedings consistent with Peruta.”

Christopher Baker had filed suit to legally carry, either openly or concealed, firearms in public. The District Court denied him, “concluding in part that Baker was not likely to establish that Hawaii’s restrictions on carrying firearms in public were unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, and therefore, Baker was not likely to succeed.” However, the Ninth Circuit disagreed when they ruled the Second Amendment does confer a right to bear arms outside the home in Peruta, and remanded the case back to the lower court. The Ninth Circuit said:

"we concluded that the Second Amendment provides a responsible, law-abiding citizen with a right to carry an operable handgun outside the home for the purpose of self-defense. In light of our holding in Peruta, the district court made an error of law when it concluded that the Hawaii statutes did not implicate protected Second Amendment activity. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s decision denying Baker’s motion for a preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings consistent with Peruta."

There are still formalities that must occur before Hawaii’s law is removed, but it appears it is only a matter of time before Hawaii will become the latest state to recognize that the Second Amendment allows lawful carry of firearms outside of the home. Court time is not necessarily speedy. As Eugene Volokh, of The Volokh Conspiracy, wrote in the Washington Post:

"[T]he writing is on the wall. Of course, if the Ninth Circuit agrees to rehear Peruta en banc and then reverses it, or if the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Peruta and then reverses it, then the foundation for the Baker decision will be reversed, too. And if the defendants in Baker petition the Ninth Circuit for rehearing or the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari (and get a stay of the Ninth Circuit’s judgment in the meantime), then the Baker decision won’t have to be implemented until all those proceedings are over. So there’s still a ways to go, I suspect, before Hawaii goes “shall-issue,” so that any law-abiding adult can get a license to carry concealed."

However, as Brenner Brief had reported previously, the Ninth Circuit ruled 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.

The Peruta decision is based on several Supreme Court decisions, primarily D.C v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. The Supreme Court ruled in Heller, “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 this author has previously written, the ruling says “for lawful purposes” – plural – “such as self-defense within the home”, meaning self-defense within the home is one of several lawful purposes. The Court explicitly mentions several other lawful purposes in Heller that do not logically restrict the Second Amendment to the home, including hunting, resisting tyranny from government, repelling an invasion, and suppressing an insurrection. Heller also 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.” McDonald held that the Second Amendment rights applied to the states via the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Based on these decisions, the Ninth Circuit found: “people are more sensibly said to ‘bear Arms’ in nondomestic settings… 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 Fourteenth Amendment, also the states.”

If the lower court sends Baker back to the Ninth Circuit, or if it ends up before the Supreme Court, it seems likely either court will rule based on the precedent set in these landmark cases. The lower court may simply reverse its decision based on the Ninth Circuit’s Peruta decision. It seems inevitable though that Hawaii will eventually have to concede the point and rule in favor of allowing lawful carry of firearms in public.

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 16, 2014).

The Second Amendment right extends outside the home. In part one, we examined five lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment as laid out by the supreme Court in the landmark case, D.C. v Heller. Here in part two we take a look at further evidence that demonstrates the right of the people to keep and bear arms extends outside of the home.

In part one, we saw that the Court ruled the D.C. handgun ban violated one of many lawful purposes of the Second Amendment, “such as self-defense within the home” (emphasis added). We see further the Court lists at least five lawful purposes – hunting, militia duty, repelling a foreign invader, suppressing insurrection, and resisting tyranny – that involve or require activity outside of the home. We can conclude from this that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be restricted to simply keeping a gun in the home.

Here in part two, we expand upon the core lawful purpose, which the Court specified in Helleris self-defense: “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” (p.56). If one gets anything from the Heller decision, this must be it. The Court reiterated this finding in McDonald v Chicago in 2010, stating: “Two years ago, in District of Columbia v.Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (Syllabus, p.1).

Self-defense can – and often does – involve a person outside of their home. Skeptics rely onreading into the Courts decision a limitation that the Court itself has not stated, postulating that “self-defense” might mean “self-defense… as long as you’re in your home; but nowhere else” because the Court struck down a law that prohibited guns in the home. But the Court itself did not specify this as the sole legitimate purpose, and this imagined limitation is artificially imposed in the minds of those that wish to limit others right to keep and bear arms protected by the Constitution.

The Court’s ruling in Heller sheds light on this. To recap, the Court thoroughly examines every word of the Second Amendment, defining it in historical context, legal precedent, and explaining how the right to keep and bear arms was viewed from English law to Colonial law, to the formation of the United States, post-ratification of the U.S. Constitution, through the post-Civil War era. It is clear from the historical documentation the people understood the right to keep and bear arms as part of the “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation” and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense” (p.20). “They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury” (p. 21). The Court notes that “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad” (p. 63). This means that understanding how the right to keep and bear arms at the time of ratification is critical to understanding what is protected in the Second Amendment today. There is no logical reason to conclude self-defense is limited solely inside one’s home, or that “self-preservation”, “repelling force with force”, or defending oneself suddenly stops because one is outside of the home.

Relevant to our understanding is the Court’s historical definition of what “keep” and “bear” meant. Keeping arms means to carry or have in one’s possession. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.” (p.9) The Court states: “the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons”” (p.8). “Bear arms” is synonymous with “carry arms”, “possess arms” and “have arms” (p. 14). “At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose — confrontation” (p.10). The Court says through examining historical source material, “In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia” (p.11). In Heller, the Court concurs with its prior definition from Muscarello v. United States, “in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘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).

We can see that within the core lawful purpose of the Second Amendment of self-defense the terminology means to keep arms on one’s person in case of confrontation and the need to defend oneself. To suggest the right to self-preservation or self-defense in the face of confrontation and potential bodily harm is limited solely to the home is absurd. The common person’s understanding of their protected right of self-preservation logically extends outside the home. This is also consistent with the five previously covered lawful protected purposes that involve or require activity outside 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 November 26, 2013).

The Second Amendment Right Extends Outside The Home, Pt 2

by Matt MacBradaigh | Nov 26, 2013 | 2nd Amendment Facts | 2 comments

The Second Amendment right extends outside the home. In part one, we examined five lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment as laid out by the supreme Court in the landmark case, D.C. v Heller. Here in part two we take a look at further evidence that demonstrates the right of the people to keep and bear arms extends outside of the home.

In part one, we saw that the Court ruled the D.C. handgun ban violated one of many lawful purposes – plural – of the Second Amendment, “such as self-defense within the home” (emphasis added). We see further the Court lists at least five lawful purposes – hunting, militia duty, repelling a foreign invader, suppressing insurrection, and resisting tyranny – that involve or require activity outside of the home. We can conclude from this that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be restricted to simply keeping a gun in the home.

Here in part two, we expand upon the core lawful purpose, which the Court specified in Heller is self-defense: “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” (p.56). If one gets anything from the Heller decision, this must be it. The Court reiterated this finding in McDonald v Chicago in 2010, stating: “Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (Syllabus, p.1).

Self-defense can – and often does – involve a person outside of their home. Skeptics rely on reading into the Courts decision a limitation that the Court itself has not stated, postulating that “self-defense” might mean ‘self-defense… as long as you’re in your home; but nowhere else’ because the Court struck down a law that prohibited guns in the home. But the Court itself did not specify guns for self-defense in the home only as the sole legitimate purpose, and this imagined limitation is artificially imposed in the minds of those that wish to limit others right to keep and bear arms protected by the Constitution.

The Court’s ruling in Heller sheds light on this. To recap, the Court thoroughly examines every word of the Second Amendment, defining it in historical context, legal precedent, and explaining how the right to keep and bear arms was viewed from English law to Colonial law, to the formation of the United States, post-ratification of the U.S. Constitution, through the post-Civil War era. It is clear from the historical documentation the people understood the right to keep and bear arms as part of the “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation” and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense” (p.20). “They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury” (p. 21). The Court notes that “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad” (p. 63). This means that understanding how the right to keep and bear arms at the time of ratification is critical to understanding what is protected in the Second Amendment today. There is no logical reason to conclude self-defense is limited solely inside one’s home, or that “self-preservation”, “repelling force with force”, or defending oneself suddenly stops because one is outside of the home.

Relevant to our understanding is the Court’s historical definition of what “keep” and “bear” meant. Keeping arms means to carry or have in one’s possession. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.” (p.9) The Court states: “the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons”” (p.8). “Bear arms” is synonymous with “carry arms”, “possess arms” and “have arms” (p. 14). “At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose — confrontation” (p.10). The Court says through examining historical source material, “In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia” (p.11). In Heller, the Court concurs with its prior definition from Muscarello v. United States, “in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘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).

We can see that within the core lawful purpose of the Second Amendment of self-defense the terminology means to keep arms on one’s person in case of confrontation and the need to defend oneself. To suggest the right to self-preservation or self-defense in the face of confrontation and potential bodily harm is limited solely to the home is absurd. The common person’s understanding of their protected right of self-preservation logically extends outside the home. This is also consistent with the five previously covered lawful protected purposes that involve or require activity outside the home.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Nov 26, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

The Second Amendment right extends outside the home. Some observers speculate that the right to keep and bear arms might mean inside one’s home only. Examination of the landmark Supreme Court case, D.C. v  Heller shows this assumption to be incorrect.

Restricting gun possession outside of the home is clear violation of the Second Amendment and intent of the protected right to keep and bear arms guaranteed in the Constitution at the time of ratification. Constitutional rights are supposed to be understood by common people – not requiring primary education, plus a 4-year college degree, a 3-year law degree and years of professional experience interpreting case-law to understand your pre-existing rights that areprotected by the Constitution. Obtuse lawyers, analysts and so-called ‘pundits’ seem to miss the forest for the trees. There’s a reason for this: they look at what a particular case actually ruled on, and the Supreme Court only ruled on a very specific question – ‘is a law that prohibits gun possession in one’s home constitutional?’. The Supreme Court ruled in D.C. v Heller that it is not constitutional. Ergo, some short-sighted commentators take that to mean that the Court has “been silent” on the question of whether gun possession outside of the home is protected under the Second Amendment.

Not so fast.

The Court provided in-depth reasoning as to why the law was invalid, defining every one of the 27 words that comprise the Second Amendment, explaining the words meaning at the time of ratification, the legal history of the right to keep and bear arm from England to Colonial America, and how it was viewed after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution through the post-Civil War era. From this thorough examination, we can clearly see the absurdity of the supposition that the Second Amendment only means you can keep a gun in your home because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller. At no point in Heller did the Court say the Second Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in the home. Let’s look at what the Court did say:

“Held: 1. 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” (Syllabus, page 1).

Notice it 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.

Though the Court says the Second Amendment is not dependent upon service in a militia or military unit (p.11-12), it is also clear that militia service is a protected lawful purpose. To be clear, this does not mean the National Guard, which didn’t exist as we know it today didn’t until 1903. The Court clearly states in Heller that the militia were (and still are under Federal law) all able-bodied males (p.23). It should be obvious that militia perform its duties outside of the home.

Hunting is a specifically mentioned lawful purpose in Heller: “most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting” (p. 26). Hunting, in virtually all cases, means outside of the home. One could not take seriously the idea that hunting is only lawful inside ones home. There is no suggestion in Heller that the Court implied this, only that D.C.’s unconstitutional law violated one of the Second Amendment’s lawful purposes.

The Court notes an additional three lawful protected purposes in discussing the meaning of the phrase ‘the security of a free state’, repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection and resisting tyranny: “it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections… when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny” (p.24-25). All listed lawfully protected purposes logically must involve citizens outside their home; repelling a foreign invader could not be done solely within one’s home, nor could suppressing an insurrection, or resisting government tyranny.

An objector may reason that these purposes aren’t necessities in the way they may have been at the time ratification. This is irrelevant, as the Court states: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad” (p.63). At the time of adoption, this is how the right was understood and all are lawful purposes regardless of whether future generations would exercise the lawful purpose later. The fact remains they are lawful purposes, require the people to be outside of their homes, and therefore demonstrate the idea that the Second Amendment’s lawfully protects guns outside of the home by necessity.

We see from Heller itself that the Court lists multiple lawful purposes in plurality, not restricting the Second Amendment to a singular lawful purpose. The Court explicitly details at least five purposes that involve or require activity outside of the home. Therefore we can easily conclude the suggestion that the Court has – or could – rule that the only lawful purpose is gun possession for self-defense within a home is absurd, defying logic and reason as well as the explicitly written letter of the ruling.

Be sure to check out part two of this series as we continue to look at why the Second Amendment protects your 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 November 22, 2013).

The Second Amendment Right Extends Outside The Home, Pt 1

by Matt MacBradaigh | Nov 22, 2013 | 2nd Amendment Facts | 5 comments

The Second Amendment right is not limited to one’s home. Some observers speculate that the right to keep and bear arms might mean inside one’s home only. However the landmark Supreme Court case, D.C. v  Heller clearly demonstrates this assumption is incorrect and the Second Amendment extends out of the home.

Restricting gun possession outside of the home is clear violation of the Second Amendment and intent of the protected right to keep and bear arms guaranteed in the Constitution at the time of ratification. Constitutional rights are supposed to be understood by common people – not requiring primary education, plus a 4-year college degree, a 3-year law degree, and years of professional experience interpreting case-law to understand your pre-existing rights that are protected by the Constitution. Obtuse lawyers, analysts and so-called ‘pundits’ seem to miss the forest for the trees. There’s a reason for this: they look at what a particular case actually ruled on, and the Supreme Court only ruled on a very specific question – ‘is a law that prohibits gun possession in one’s home constitutional?’. The Supreme Court ruled in D.C. v Heller that it is not constitutional. Ergo, some short-sighted commentators take that to mean that the Court has “been silent” on the question of whether gun possession outside of the home is protected under the Second Amendment.

Not so fast.

The Court provided in-depth reasoning as to why the law was invalid, defining every one of the 27 words that comprise the Second Amendment, explaining the words meaning at the time of ratification, the legal history of the right to keep and bear arm from England to Colonial America, and how it was viewed after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution through the post-Civil War era. From this thorough examination, we can clearly see the absurdity of the supposition that the Second Amendment only means you can keep a gun in your home because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller. At no point in Heller did the Court say the Second Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in the home. Let’s look at what the Court did say:

“Held: 1. 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” (Syllabus, page 1).

Notice it 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.

Though the Court says the Second Amendment is not dependent upon service in a militia or military unit (p.11-12), it is also clear that militia service is a protected lawful purpose. To be clear, this does not mean the National Guard, which didn’t exist as we know it today didn’t until 1903. The Court clearly states in Heller that the militia were (and still are under Federal law) all able-bodied males (p.23). It should be obvious that militia perform its duties outside of the home.

Hunting is a specifically mentioned lawful purpose in Heller: “most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting” (p. 26). Hunting, in virtually all cases, means outside of the home. One could not take seriously the idea that hunting is only lawful inside ones home. There is no suggestion in Heller that the Court implied this, only that D.C.’s unconstitutional law violated one of the Second Amendment’s lawful purposes.

The Court notes an additional three lawful protected purposes in discussing the meaning of the phrase ‘the security of a free state’, repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection and resisting tyranny: “it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections… when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny” (p.24-25). All listed lawfully protected purposes logically must involve citizens outside their home; repelling a foreign invader could not be done solely within one’s home, nor could suppressing an insurrection, or resisting government tyranny.

An objector may reason that these purposes aren’t necessities in the way they may have been at the time ratification. This is irrelevant, as the Court states: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad” (p.63). At the time of adoption, this is how the right was understood and all are lawful purposes regardless of whether future generations would exercise the lawful purpose later. The fact remains they are lawful purposes, require the people to be outside of their homes, and therefore demonstrate the idea that the Second Amendment’s lawfully protects guns outside of the home by necessity.

We see from Heller itself that the Court lists multiple lawful purposes in plurality, not restricting the Second Amendment to a singular lawful purpose. The Court explicitly details at least five purposes that involve or require activity outside of the home. Therefore we can easily conclude the suggestion that the Court has ruled – or could rule – that the only lawful purpose is gun possession for self-defense within a home, is absurd, defying logic and reason as well as the explicit written letter of the ruling.

Be sure to check out part two of this series as we continue to look at why the Second Amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms outside of the home.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Nov 22, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

The Polls Are In: Gun Control Loses with the American Public

A recent poll shows that the average American rejects the partisan rhetoric calling for more gun control. Rather, the American public falls more in line with academic research, recognizing that superficial legislation cannot curb violent crime, but may in fact make it worse.

An AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll asked Americans to size up how well the government is protecting a variety of rights and freedoms. Interestingly, the poll revealed that Americans believe there has been a dramatic decline in the protections of the Bill of Rights, especially with regard to the Second Amendment. The results were not confined to specific demographics. Instead, the “impression of a declining track record on guns rights turned up everywhere: among Republicans and Democrats, men and women, young and old, city dwellers and those in small towns. ”

Survey findings demonstrate that overall, just 44% of Americans think the federal government is doing a good job of safeguarding the right to keep and bear arms, down from 57% two years earlier. Unsurprisingly, Republicans and independents were far more likely than Democrats to give the government poor marks for protecting gun rights. Among Republicans, the percentage who believe that the government is doing a good job protecting the right to bear arms fell to 36%, down from 51%. However, even among Democrats, the percentage dropped to 56% from 64%. The biggest decline was among independents at just 25% down from 52%.

Of note from the survey, “Americans of all stripes spoke with sorrow about the latest deaths” – but   simply reasoned that tighter laws would not have prevented the tragedies. Some believe tighter gun control laws could make things worse. This is corroborated by government-reported crime statistics, criminologist research and studies of lawful gun use for defensive purposes. Academic research and data in three major areas confirms what the polls reflect, that additional gun control is unnecessary and even counter-productive.

U.S. Homicide, Violent Crime and Gun Murder Is Declining
Murder is near an all-time low in the U.S. Violent crime, including homicides and even gun murder have been steadily declining. Homicides in the U.S. peaked in the early 1990′s when homicides in 1990 to 1994 ranged from 21,000-24,000 annually. In 1993 there were a total of 24,530 homicides (p.137). A majority – 17,075 – of these were Firearms-related (69.6%). The homicide rate was 9.5 per 100,000 people. But homicides dropped homicides dropped to 12,664 in 2011. Again, two-thirds (67.7%) of homicides are Firearm-related, at 8,583. The homicide rate has dropped to 4.7 from 9.5 per 100,000 people. The FBI shows violent crime rates are also drastically declining, dropping from 747.1 in 1993 to 386.3 in 2011. The violent crime rate is now 50.7% of what it was 20 years ago. The homicide rate has declined by 48.7% in that same time period. Firearm homicides have declined by 50.2%. The BJS report “Homicide Trends in the United States” states, “In recent years, all regions have experienced a decline in homicide rates”(p.144, emphasis added)  and “Trends in gun homicides follow patterns similar to those for all homicides” (p. 145). Additional gun control isn’t necessary because murder – even gun murder – is already in decline and reaching record lows.

Lawful Defensive Gun Use
Academic research of lawful gun use for defensive purposes shows that defensive use far outpaces criminal use of firearms. A major reported reason for gun ownership is self-defense. Criminology researchers have found lawful defensive gun use is widespread. Studies with low estimates still show there is more lawful defensive use than there is criminal use. One study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, found annual defensive gun use (DGU) occurs between 256,000-373,000 times per year. Defensive gun use is the lawful use of a firearm to protect oneself in a threatening situation. A Department of Justice study conducted by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig found 1.5 million “genuine” instances of DGU. The seminal Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, found 2.5 million annual instances of DGU.

Most recently, a 2013 study “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence” from the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year,  in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms.”

Criminal use of firearms is reported by the FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics. FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that approximately 9,000 homicides (lethal violent crime) per year that involve firearms. There were a total of  1.2 million non-lethal violent crimes in 2011, but just 10% of  “nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011” involved a firearm, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, making the total of non-lethal violent crimes with guns approximately 120,000 in 2011. Combined with lethal violent crime (homicides), there are just under 130,000 annual criminal uses of guns. Compared to criminal use of guns – both lethal and non-lethal, defensive gun use is far more pervasive.

Criminologist Research Supports Widespread Gun Ownership
Research in the U.S. indicates substantial evidence that widespread gun possession decreases crime, according to criminologists Don Kates and Gary Mauser. Their 2007 published study in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” found gun restrictions have a negative correlation to crime, meaning “where firearms are most dense, violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest” (p.653). They 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. They state: “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).

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, that average, law-abiding citizens virtually do not murder. Adult murderers have adult criminal records 90% of the time, and usually have multiple contacts with the justice system. 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: “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).

Academic research confirms what Americans already believe, that the ‘benefits’ of gun control pale in comparison to the Constitutional rights infringed. Though media reports of shootings are often sensational, homicide and gun murders are nearing an all time low. In addition, criminologists show that widespread gun possession correlates with reduced crime and murder rates, and that guns are most commonly used for lawful defensive purposes. Elected representatives in Congress would do well to listen to the voice of the people, a voice in this case that is backed by a large body of academic research and the government’s own reported crime statistics. Congress needs to abandon bad policy and act to protect law-abiding citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

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 Bell Towers. (Original publication September 26, 2013).

Polls Show Americans Do Not Support Gun Control

by Matt MacBradaigh | Sep 26, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

A recent poll shows that the average American rejects the partisan rhetoric calling for more gun control. Rather, the American public falls more in line with academic research, recognizing that superficial legislation cannot curb violent crime, but may in fact make it worse.

An AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll asked Americans to size up how well the government is protecting a variety of rights and freedoms. Interestingly, the poll revealed that Americans believe there has been a dramatic decline in the protections of the Bill of Rights, especially with regard to the Second Amendment. The results were not confined to specific demographics. Instead, the “impression of a declining track record on guns rights turned up everywhere: among Republicans and Democrats, men and women, young and old, city dwellers and those in small towns. ”

Survey findings demonstrate that overall, just 44% of Americans think the federal government is doing a good job of safeguarding the right to keep and bear arms, down from 57% two years earlier. Unsurprisingly, Republicans and independents were far more likely than Democrats to give the government poor marks for protecting gun rights. Among Republicans, the percentage who believe that the government is doing a good job protecting the right to bear arms fell to 36%, down from 51%. However, even among Democrats, the percentage dropped to 56% from 64%. The biggest decline was among independents at just 25% down from 52%.

Of note from the survey, “Americans of all stripes spoke with sorrow about the latest deaths” – but   simply reasoned that tighter laws would not have prevented the tragedies. Some believe tighter gun control laws could make things worse. This is corroborated by government-reported crime statistics, criminologist research and studies of lawful gun use for defensive purposes. Academic research and data in three major areas confirms what the polls reflect, that additional gun control is unnecessary and even counter-productive.

U.S. Homicide, Violent Crime and Gun Murder Is Declining

Murder is near an all-time low in the U.S. Violent crime, including homicides and even gun murder have been steadily declining. Homicides in the U.S. peaked in the early 1990′s when homicides in 1990 to 1994 ranged from 21,000-24,000 annually. In 1993 there were a total of 24,530 homicides (p.137). A majority – 17,075 – of these were Firearms-related (69.6%). The homicide rate was 9.5 per 100,000 people. But homicides dropped homicides dropped to 12,664 in 2011. Again, two-thirds (67.7%) of homicides are Firearm-related, at 8,583. The homicide rate has dropped to 4.7 from 9.5 per 100,000 people. The FBI shows violent crime rates are also drastically declining, dropping from 747.1 in 1993 to 386.3 in 2011. The violent crime rate is now 50.7% of what it was 20 years ago. The homicide rate has declined by 48.7% in that same time period. Firearm homicides have declined by 50.2%. The BJS report “Homicide Trends in the United States” states, “In recent years, all regions have experienced a decline in homicide rates”(p.144, emphasis added)  and “Trends in gun homicides follow patterns similar to those for all homicides” (p. 145). Additional gun control isn’t necessary because murder – even gun murder – is already in decline and reaching record lows.

Lawful Defensive Gun Use

Academic research of lawful gun use for defensive purposes shows that defensive use far outpaces criminal use of firearms. A major reported reason for gun ownership is self-defense. Criminology researchers have found lawful defensive gun use is widespread. Studies with low estimates still show there is more lawful defensive use than there is criminal use. One study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, found annual defensive gun use (DGU) occurs between 256,000-373,000 times per year. Defensive gun use is the lawful use of a firearm to protect oneself in a threatening situation. A Department of Justice study conducted by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig found 1.5 million “genuine” instances of DGU. The seminal Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, found 2.5 million annual instances of DGU.

Most recently, a 2013 study “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence” from the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year,  in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms.”

Criminal use of firearms is reported by the FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics. FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that approximately 9,000 homicides (lethal violent crime) per year that involve firearms. There were a total of  1.2 million non-lethal violent crimes in 2011, but just 10% of  “nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011” involved a firearm, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, making the total of non-lethal violent crimes with guns approximately 120,000 in 2011. Combined with lethal violent crime (homicides), there are just under 130,000 annual criminal uses of guns. Compared to criminal use of guns – both lethal and non-lethal, defensive gun use is far more pervasive.

Criminologist Research Supports Widespread Gun Ownership

Research in the U.S. indicates substantial evidence that widespread gun possession decreases crime, according to criminologists Don Kates and Gary Mauser. Their 2007 published study in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” found gun restrictions have a negative correlation to crime, meaning “where firearms are most dense, violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest” (p.653). They 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. They state: “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).

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, that average, law-abiding citizens virtually do not murder. Adult murderers have adult criminal records 90% of the time, and usually have multiple contacts with the justice system. 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: “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).

Academic research confirms what Americans already believe, that the ‘benefits’ of gun control pale in comparison to the Constitutional rights infringed. Though media reports of shootings are often sensational, homicide and gun murders are nearing an all time low. In addition, criminologists show that widespread gun possession correlates with reduced crime and murder rates, and that guns are most commonly used for lawful defensive purposes. Elected representatives in Congress would do well to listen to the voice of the people, a voice in this case that is backed by a large body of academic research and the government’s own reported crime statistics. Congress needs to abandon bad policy and act to protect law-abiding citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

This article was originally published on The Bell Towers. Original publish date Sep 26, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Massive media publicity over mass shootings in the last year have brought gun control back to the forefront in the U.S. Banning so-called "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines are all the rage. Calls have been made for an honest national dialogue that puts every option on the table. An honest conversation ought to look at as complete of a picture as possible so we can correctly assess "just how big of an issue is it?"

To adequately evaluate this question, we should examine how many homicides there are in the U.S. overall, compared to homicides from firearms (handguns, rifles, shotguns), compared to homicides from rifles only (in which so-called "assault rifles" would fall), and homicides that occur in mass shootings. We ought to further compare homicides to other causes of death to get a comparative indication of the magnitude of each compared to other public health risks that cause death in the U.S. This will help us understand the relative significance of the issue.

Total U.S. homicides: The total number of homicides in the U.S., reported by the FBI, is about 12,000-13,000 annually. Generally, this has trended downward since the early 1990s and 1980s, which saw several years with homicides ranging from 21,000-24,000 homicides. In 2010, the last year available, the number was 12,996. In 2009, it was 13,752.

Firearm homicides: Out of the total homicides, about 2/3 are committed with firearms, 1/3 from other causes. We'll look at both. In 2010, firearm homicides were 8,775, or 67.5% of all homicides. In 2009, the number was 9,199, or 66.8% of all homicides.

Rifle homicides: The FBI reports the total number of rifle homicides is about 350 annually the last couple of years. This includes bolt-action rifles, as well as semi-automatic rifles and so-called "assault rifles." There is a separate category for shotguns, so they are not included in this number. In 2010, the number of rifle homicides was 358, or 2.75% of all homicides. In 2009, the number was 351, or 2.55% of all homicides.

Mass shooting homicides: Pop-media classification of "mass murder" varies. For instance, CNN's Piers Morgan and The Nation cite shootings in which only 1 or 2 homicides occur. However, the FBI defines mass murder as 4 or more killed.
In 2012, there were either 81 or 88 murdered in mass shootings, depending on your source. Less than 100 no matter, which source, is used. So if we assume high at 100 homicides from mass murder and assume low at 12,000 annual homicides that means that mass murders account for 0.0083 of all homicides, or a fraction of 1%.

Personal weapon homicides: FBI data shows that "personal" weapon homicides, which is defined by hands/feet (beating someone to death) are 7-800 annually. In 2010, it was 745; in 2009, 817. This is more than double all rifle homicides. It is more than 7 or 8 times the number of mass murder homicides.

Compared to other causes of death — public health & safety issues:

Motor vehicle deaths: There are between 32-42,000 deaths from vehicle collisions every year. This dwarfs both homicides firearm homicides easily. When compared just to rifle homicides at ~ 350, motor vehicle deaths is massive & rifle homicides is minuscule.

Unintentional injury deaths: The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported 118,021 accidental deaths in 2009, the last year reported. Compared to this mass murder again appears relatively insignificant in terms of loss of life and public health concern.

Accidental fall deaths: 2009 saw 24,792 accidental fall deaths. This accounts for 247 times the number of mass murder deaths.

Others reported by CDC:
Drug-induced deaths - 39,147
Alcohol-induced deaths - 24,518
Accidental poisoning - 31,758

Choking: There are approximately 4,600 choking deaths every year. That's 46 times the number of mass murder deaths. Children's choking deaths number 1825, or more than 18 times the total number of mass murder deaths.

Bambi: According to the Insurance Journal, 200 people were killed by hitting deer with their cars. That's more than double the number of mass murder deaths.

These cited statistics provide a mountain of data from credible sources that clearly provides a good comparison by which we can evaluate mass murder homicides within a complete picture of U.S. homicides as well as provide a means to compare homicides and mass murder to other causes of death that affect public health and safety concerns.

When you evaluate the broader picture of public health causes of death, and even within homicides as its own category, mass murder looks pretty insignificant.

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 was originally published on PolicyMic. (Original publication: January 12, 2013). 

Mass Shootings Are Responsible For Less than 100 Out of 12,000 Annual Homicides in the U.S.

by Matt MacBradaigh | Jan 12, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 1 comment

Massive media publicity over mass shootings in the last year have brought gun control back to the forefront in the U.S. Banning so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines are all the rage. Calls have been made for an honest national dialogue that puts every option on the table. An honest conversation ought to look at as complete of a picture as possible so we can correctly assess “just how big of an issue is it?”

To adequately evaluate this question, we should examine how many homicides there are in the U.S. overall, compared to homicides from firearms (handguns, rifles, shotguns), compared to homicides from rifles only (in which so-called “assault rifles” would fall), and homicides that occur in mass shootings. We ought to further compare homicides to other causes of death to get a comparative indication of the magnitude of each compared to other public health risks that cause death in the U.S. This will help us understand the relative significance of the issue.

Total U.S. homicides: The total number of homicides in the U.S., reported by the FBI, is about 12,000-13,000 annually. Generally, this has trended downward since the early 1990s and 1980s, which saw several years with homicides ranging from 21,000-24,000 homicides. In 2010, the last year available, the number was 12,996. In 2009, it was 13,752.

Firearm homicides: Out of the total homicides, about 2/3 are committed with firearms, 1/3 from other causes. We’ll look at both. In 2010, firearm homicides were 8,775, or 67.5% of all homicides. In 2009, the number was 9,199, or 66.8% of all homicides.

Rifle homicides: The FBI reports the total number of rifle homicides is about 350 annually the last couple of years. This includes bolt-action rifles, as well as semi-automatic rifles and so-called “assault rifles.” There is a separate category for shotguns, so they are not included in this number. In 2010, the number of rifle homicides was 358, or 2.75% of all homicides. In 2009, the number was 351, or 2.55% of all homicides.

Mass shooting homicides: Pop-media classification of “mass murder” varies. For instance, CNN’s Piers Morgan and The Nation cite shootings in which only 1 or 2 homicides occur. However, the FBI defines mass murder as 4 or more killed.

In 2012, there were either 81 or 88 murdered in mass shootings, depending on your source. Less than 100 no matter, which source, is used. So if we assume high at 100 homicides from mass murder and assume low at 12,000 annual homicides that means that mass murders account for 0.0083 of all homicides, or a fraction of 1%.

Personal weapon homicides: FBI data shows that “personal” weapon homicides, which is defined by hands/feet (beating someone to death) are 7-800 annually. In 2010, it was 745; in 2009, 817. This is more than double all rifle homicides. It is more than 7 or 8 times the number of mass murder homicides.

Compared to other causes of death — public health & safety issues:

Motor vehicle deaths: There are between 32-42,000 deaths from vehicle collisions every year. This dwarfs both homicides firearm homicides easily. When compared just to rifle homicides at ~ 350, motor vehicle deaths is massive & rifle homicides is minuscule.

Unintentional injury deaths: The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported 118,021 accidental deaths in 2009, the last year reported. Compared to this mass murder again appears relatively insignificant in terms of loss of life and public health concern.

Accidental fall deaths: 2009 saw 24,792 accidental fall deaths. This accounts for 247 times the number of mass murder deaths.

Others reported by CDC:

Drug-induced deaths – 39,147
Alcohol-induced deaths – 24,518
Accidental poisoning – 31,758

Choking: There are approximately 4,600 choking deaths every year. That’s 46 times the number of mass murder deaths. Children’s choking deaths number 1825, or more than 18 times the total number of mass murder deaths.

Bambi: According to the Insurance Journal, 200 people were killed by hitting deer with their cars. That’s more than double the number of mass murder deaths.

These cited statistics provide a mountain of data from credible sources that clearly provides a good comparison by which we can evaluate mass murder homicides within a complete picture of U.S. homicides as well as provide a means to compare homicides and mass murder to other causes of death that affect public health and safety concerns.

When you evaluate the broader picture of public health causes of death, and even within homicides as its own category, mass murder looks pretty insignificant.

This article was originally published on PolicyMic.com, now Mic.com. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh. Original publish date Jan 12, 2013.