Why Is the Second Amendment Weaker in New York Than It Is in Texas?

Rudy Giuliani's recent statement about the Second Amendment in New Hampshire, video of which Dave Weigel posted earlier today, is the clearest summary of his position I've heard so far. But I still have a few questions:

Giuliani says the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, but that does not mean all forms of gun control are unconstitutional. Just as some restrictions on speech (a ban on fraudulent advertising, say, or time, place, and manner rules for political rallies) are consistent with the First Amendment, some restrictions on gun possession and/or use are consistent with the Second Amendment. So far, so good. But then Giuliani says that what counts as "reasonable limitations" on Second Amendment rights varies from place to place, depending on local conditions. Presumably he means that a city with a serious homicide problem can more easily justify stringent gun controls than a city with hardly any crime. But the main example he cites is Texas vs. New York state, a comparison where the relevant difference appears to be cultural rather than criminological, since big cities in both states have comparable problems with violent crime. I don't see why the fact that Texans are more inclined to support gun rights than New Yorkers are should make a difference in the constitutional analysis.

And if variations in crime problems are the main justification for variations in gun control across jurisdictions, it's puzzling that Giuliani says he agrees with the U.S. Court of Apeals for the D.C. Circuit that Washington's gun ban violates the Second Amendment. D.C. consistently ranks near the top among cities with the highest homicide rates, and its gun law is only somewhat stricter than New York City's, which Giuliani supports.

Giuliani also seems confused about which aspects of the law the D.C. Circuit ruled unconstitutional. He refers twice to restrictions on "concealed weapons" (i.e., guns carried in public) that were found to be excessive, when the decision actually dealt with the rules that make it legally impossible for the vast majority of residents to keep guns in their homes for self-defense.  

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Let me see if I can clear it up a bit. What Rudy is saying. Is that Texans care more about gun rights than New Yorkers. Furthermore, a lot of New Yorkers not only don't want guns of their own, they'd also like their neighbors not to have guns. Therefore it's appropriate to have restrictions on gun ownership in New York that are inappropriate in Texas. In other words, "Abortions for some. Little American flags for others." And the Constitution? Well that just supports what I've been saying all along.

  • ||

    Sort of a "community standards" doctrine.

    The fact that such a doctrine exists for the First Amendment's protections in certain circumstances seems relevant, although it should be noted that it applies only to certain rare, marginal circumstances.

  • marym||

    The Second Amendment makes reference to standing armies having the right to bear arms, not individuals in the community. It appears the Second Amendment has been misread and very misunderstood. I don't think our Forefathers envisioned the right to bear arms for anyone besides the military.

  • ||

    Let me ask others on the thread: what rights does the 2nd Amendment guarantee? I mean, I think of myself as pretty much an extreme 1st Amendment fellow. It says "make no law" and like Hugo Black I think it means it. But I don't think you have the right to stand at the edge of my yard and shout an anti-Bush diatribe at 1 am. Surely the gov can restrict that. Now as to the 2nd, I grew up with and still possess guns. I think they are part of our culture and that the vast majority of folks who have them do no harm with them and get some peace of mind from having them. And I think the 2nd gives individuals rights. But where can we draw the line? Do I have the right to have a machine gun in my home? To carry a handgun to the hospital? I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, I really would like to hear other ideas. I think there is an individual right, but I don't want my neighbor bringing a bazooka to the school picnic. So how can I fit that together?

  • GILMORE||

    I agree, rudy was evading to some degree. But evading *well* :) An accomplished statesman.

    i think boiling his point down, it's "there will be variations on what states/localities can do can that will fall within limits of the constitution, and we need to live with that"

    it saved him the trouble of saying where he really feels the right balance lies

  • ||

    Do I have the right to have a machine gun in my home?

    Actually, yes, in most places you do. It's called a Class III firearm.

    To carry a handgun to the hospital?

    Why not? I don't see a problem with that.

    But I don't think you have the right to stand at the edge of my yard and shout an anti-Bush diatribe at 1 am. Surely the gov can restrict that.

    Let me explain it this way. Since you can't disturb the peace, I don't think that unreasonable btw, let's restrict your ability to purchase and own a megaphone. Make sense? I would hope not. Just because you own a megaphone doesn't mean you're inclined to make impassioned political speeches at 1am. If so, then we judge and deal with the behavior, not the potential.

    So, with that in mind, how much for "potential abuse" would you infringe upon in the 2nd, and how much for "potential abuse" would you infringe upon for the 1st amendment? Finally, if both are clearly enumerated in the constitution, why would your answers be different?

    If you can honestly say that you'd infringe upon the first simply due to the potential for abuse, then I'd say we're done and we might as well use the Bill of Rights as elaborate toilet paper.

  • ||

    it saved him the trouble of saying where he really feels the right balance lies

    Thus allowing for him to use it as a "tool" to "fix" us at a later date. Much as I'd like a prez with a really screwed up personal life just to eliminate that crap, I don't like his prosecutorial audacity one bit.

  • Gahan||

    "I think there is an individual right, but I don't want my neighbor bringing a bazooka to the school picnic."

    Sounds like more fun than playing with a damn frisbee.

  • ||

    Is an "arm" anything I can carry? Hand grendade? Or just firearm of some sort (that makes sense)? Anybody know of any good legal treatment on this very subject?

  • ||

    Is Juanita now posting as "marym"?

  • ||

    In my experience, Ken, the libertarian response to the bazooka question (other than "bazookas are cool", I mean, the response among people who acknowledge that ordinary citizens should not be allowed to possess HE artillery) is to invoke reasonableness, and accuse you of creating a straw man.

  • ||

    Unfortunately Jacob, Rudy has the law right as it stands today. The 2nd Amdt has not been incorporated under the 14th and therefore is only a constraint on federal gun laws (ha!).

    Also, the Sullivan Law (main NYC gun control) is, facially, not as prohibitive as the DC law is/was. In practice it may be indistinguishable due to police indiscretion in it's application.

  • ||

    Warren,

    Let me take a stab at clearing it up. Rudy said:

    No gun-grabber has fared well in national elections in recent history, but I'm sure as hell not gonna deny my statist impulses on this front. So I'll weasel out of answering the question with this notion of community standards for gun rights.

  • Anonymo the Anonymous||

    Jack:

    Dunno if it's the same person, but a well-known troll on The New Republic's comment pages goes by "MaryM".

  • thoreau||

    In my experience, Ken, the libertarian response to the bazooka question (other than "bazookas are cool", I mean, the response among people who acknowledge that ordinary citizens should not be allowed to possess HE artillery) is to invoke reasonableness, and accuse you of creating a straw man.

    Actually, joe, many people on this forum have offered a somewhat more detailed response than that. I've argued, and I've seen other people argue, for a reasonableness standard based on law enforcement: If the cops are allowed to own and use it, if they deem it necessary for dealing with criminals, then you should also be allowed to own one.

    Given some of the stuff Radley Balko has reported, that amounts to letting civilians own a hell of a lot of cool stuff!

    :)

  • ||

    Other Matt,
    We tried a president with a very screwed-up personal life already. Close, but...well...close and a cigar.

    I think Rudy's just trying to be vague, covering his ass from his past NYC Mayor policies as he swings rightward in preparation for appealing to a national constituency. In other words, he's flip-flopping.

  • ||

    "The Second Amendment makes reference to standing armies having the right to bear arms, not individuals in the community. It appears the Second Amendment has been misread and very misunderstood. I don't think our Forefathers envisioned the right to bear arms for anyone besides the military."

    by marym

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


    You see, the purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to keep the military EQUIPPED, it is to keep the military REGULATED.

    For example, when you think of corporate regulation, do you think of making sure the corporation has the necessary equipment or do you think of putting constraints on a corporation to control its activites? Exactly.

    Its not politically correct these days to speak of this, but the second amendment is not about hunting, its not about sporting, it is about keeping a check on a potentially tyrannical government.

    Lastly, its a familiar refrain to most here, but why does "the people" mean one thing in the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and tenth, but mean something else in the second?

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Why Is the Second Amendment Weaker in New York Than It Is in Texas?

    Everyone knows that everything is bigger in Texas.

  • ||

    About the bazooka at the picnic (and the personal ownership of fighter jets, men-o-war, artillery, and nuclear weapons) The right to bear does not equal the right to brandish, so it depends on your picnic. If the picnic is at a private gunnery range, for a gathering of bazooka enthusiasts, I don't really see the problem. If it's in central park, I don't see how setting up a bazooka in an urban park could be considered anything other than brandishing. For nuclear weapons, practically any ownership is brandishing, considering the potential damage. I don't think there's a strech of private land big enough in the country that you could touch off a nuke without hurting someone else or their property. Of course, I think we should bring back letters of marque, too.
    Now, when we apply it to things like handguns and personal weapons, it's quite a bit simpler, because as long as you're not waving them around or pointing them at people (or making creepy threats), you're good. The same rules should apply in New York as do in Alaska.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Gilmore, it was the 1973 Yom Kippur War, not the 67 six day war. Sorry I didn't get back to that other thread.

  • ||

    Whoever made that marym sockpuppet has some real talent. To be able to hit all of the stupid talking points of the gun prohibitionists and not come off as obvious takes some effort.

    For anyone who was seriously reading it and wanted answers to the points raised, here goes:

    Amendment II declares the same protection for the individual right to keep and bear arms that Amendment I does for the individual rights of religious freedom, speech, press, peaceable assembly, and to petition for redress of grievances. Amendment I uses the phrase "shall make no law", Amendment II uses the phrase "shall not be infringed."

    Amendment II makes reference to the militia, and definitely not to a standing army which was anathema to the Founders. Who are the militia? I'll let Tenche Coxe field that one, "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."-Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

    Amendment II also assumes individual inalienable rights, like the entire Constitution does. Jefferson says it well in the Virginia Constitution: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms"

    There honestly isn't a case to be made for an alternative view of the founders that could be construed to support the prohibitionists case.

  • ||

    P.S. still can't post in Safari. Shame on you Reason, shame.

  • ||

    You see, the purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to keep the military EQUIPPED, it is to keep the military REGULATED.

    Actually, "well regulated" as used in the day is more akin to "well behaved" or "well disciplined". So, it really reads "a well behaved group of gentlemen", as women were not part of the militia unless they really wanted to be as later codified. By the way, the comma was absent also in the original drafts, which eliminates the prepratory phrase crap.

    Its not politically correct these days to speak of this, but the second amendment is not about hunting, its not about sporting, it is about keeping a check on a potentially tyrannical government.

    Actually, that's the current standard of legal thinking.

    Is an "arm" anything I can carry? Hand grendade? Or just firearm of some sort (that makes sense)? Anybody know of any good legal treatment on this very subject?

    The standard used by the Miller case (which is quite misquoted, but I digress) was a "militia weapon". They came up with a sawed off short barrelled shotgun not being a "milita weapon". Actually, what they came up with is "we don't have any data to let us say it is", because the plantiff booked and wasn't there.

    Anyway, along this line of thinking, artillery men were required to have certain articles, but not the cannon. Everyone was required to have a rifle (musket, at the time).

    There are those that argue that a militia would require any weapon that a modern army would. This is perhaps true, but at the time of writing, people weren't expected to have and maintain their own cannon, which were the "nukes" of the day. So, there was some level where individuals weren't expected to keep the weapons, only to be ready to act if called upon.

    Personally with what I've read, anything up to and including fully automatic arms are within that definition. I can't justify it constitutionally as I don't take Rudy's liberties with the written text, but I really don't have a problem with an instant check. I do have a major problem with waiting periods, firearm owner licenses, and other convolutions designed to harass firearm ownership. I have the same objections to such restrictions involving prior restraint in regards to the first amendment.

  • ||

    (still haven't gotten morning coffee yet..sorry if disjointed)

    If it's in central park, I don't see how setting up a bazooka in an urban park could be considered anything other than brandishing.

    Obviously we don't share the same opinion of NYC. However, given that I swore to never go back to that place some 26 years ago simply because it appeared that just about everyone was a flaming asshole, I probably don't have much of a basis for comparison. I'm told it's better now. I'll believe it from afar.

    For nuclear weapons, practically any ownership is brandishing, considering the potential damage. I don't think there's a strech of private land big enough in the country that you could touch off a nuke without hurting someone else or their property.

    Interesting idea. Not sure what that has to do with constitutionality of ownership, but an interesting idea.

    Of course, I think we should bring back letters of marque, too.

    But the reprisal part is so much more fun and profitable. The only problem is the decided lack of colors which start with M. "Black Bart" sounds cool. "Mauve Matt" leaves much to be desired to a guy that does not lean towards the gay eye for the straight guy stuff. "Magenta Matt" isn't much better. Yes, we would definitely require some form of color definition that started with M and sounded relatively cool prior to reinstituting such letters.

  • Paul||

    The Second Amendment makes reference to standing armies having the right to bear arms, not individuals in the community. It appears the Second Amendment has been misread and very

    Wrong.

  • ||

    impossible for the vast majority of residents to keep guns in their homes for self-defense.

    As it should be, when you need self defense you should call the police.

  • ||

    >I don't think our Forefathers envisioned the right to bear arms for anyone besides the military.<


    Wrong, I don't think they envisioned the possibility that anyone would question the right of the INDIVIDUAL to be armed or that it would occur to anyone to prevent that individual right. The western boundaries of the states were still frontiers.

    Right, the 2nd Amendment refers that state can have a militia, or army.

  • ||

    "I think there is an individual right, but I don't want my neighbor bringing a bazooka to the school picnic."


    You say now, but when Godzilla shows up to get your watermelon you'll be glad he did. ;)

  • ||

    "I don't want my neighbor bringing a bazooka to the school picnic."

    I don't care what my neighbor BRINGS to the picnic... I care what my neighbor USES at the picnic.

    Guns don't kill people; people kil.... oh, nevermind.

    CB

  • shecky||

    Let's face it. Federalism sucks.

  • ||

    Although the court has issued contradictory statements on guns in the past, the legal scholarship (e.g., crazed, right-wing fanatic Larry Tribe) tends to acknowledge that the Second Amendment does recognize an individual right to bear arms.

    It's also fairly obvious that the right has limits. For instance, it doesn't mean that you can use guns at will. Or, for that matter, build your own nuclear weapon. Fair enough. But if it's an individual right, then banning the exercise of that right in an entire city is clearly unconstitutional, just like banning speech in the same area would be (I'm talking to you, Rudy). That's not to say that banning guns in, say, a courtroom might not pass muster, of course.

  • ||

    But if it's an individual right, then banning the exercise of that right in an entire city is clearly unconstitutional, just like banning speech in the same area would be (I'm talking to you, Rudy). That's not to say that banning guns in, say, a courtroom might not pass muster, of course.

    Couldn't a community who really wanted a ban get around that by banning guns within a 1000ft zone of key buildings (schools, day care facilities, etc.)?

  • ||

    David,

    It's questions like that that make Constitutional law so much fun. Generally speaking, government actions that limit fundamental rights receive strict scrutiny by the courts. The government action (law or otherwise) must serve a compelling public interest, be narrowly tailored (i.e., not overbroad), and use the least restrictive means to achieve the purpose. Of course, that sort of test is highly subjective, but it does mean that banning say, speech, within 10 miles of the Empire State Building would be difficult.

  • ||

    That's why I chose schools. The compelling interest would be "protecting children from gun violence", and if you define what a school is broadly enough, you'll have a series of overlapping zones to cover the whole town, or least enough of it to make it difficult to drive through with a gun in the car, much like the increased penalty drug free school zones that most commmunities have now.

  • ||

    "The fact that such a doctrine exists for the First Amendment's protections in certain circumstances seems relevant, although it should be noted that it applies only to certain rare, marginal circumstances."

    I wouldn't have a problem with applying the same level of strict scrutiny to restrictions on the 2nd Amendment as are already applied to the 1st.

    Also, the talk of bazookas and nukes, while interesting, goes far beyond the scope of the debate as it exists today.

  • ||

    It's defining things broad enough to result in a practical ban that blows the law. I say that, of course, in the full knowledge that strict gun control laws have been passed and are in force all over the country. Which begs the question of whether guns are a fundamental right for all Americans or just those in the suburbs and rural areas.

  • ||

    "Couldn't a community who really wanted a ban get around that by banning guns within a 1000ft zone of key buildings (schools, day care facilities, etc.)?"

    The answer, I suspect, is "it depends."

    Real life example:
    In 1934, they passed the National Firearms Act, which regulated rifles and shotguns with short barrels, sound suppressors (silencers) and machine guns.

    Instead of enacting an outright ban on these items, they instead instituted a requirement to file your information with the feds and pay a $200 transfer tax.

    Now, a quick Google search for an inflation calculator tells me that $200 in 1934 is the equivalent of $3,084.87 today.

    In essence, the feds didn't ban these guns outright, they simply made the costs to own so prohibitive that no one could buy them.

    It's a historical irony that the rate of inflation has ultimately made some NFA items much more affordable.


    (And yes, I realize I'm leaving out the bit about the 1986 FOPA MG thing.)

  • ||

    Why does the 2nd Amendment protect the right to CONCEAL a weapon? I don't believe it does. You have the right to carry a weapon, you don't have the right to sneak up on me with it.

    I have no problem with anyone carrying a weapon but I don't think that then forces me to have to associate with them or to let them in my home or business and allowing concealed weapons does exactly that.

    We should do away with Concealed Weapons since it's only purpose is to surprise and ambush. Non-criminals have nothing to hide and seeing a weapon is more of a deterrent. Requiring weapons to be carried in plain sight allows me to avoid those people and situations that are threatening. And if I run a business that is a potential target, like a jeweler, don't I have the right to refuse entry to someone I see carrying a weapon? I might lose some business but that's my choice. Maybe not allowing entry to people carrying weapons will save me money on my insurance. Isn't that a basic free choice right that Concealed Weapon laws take away from me?

  • ||

    No one is stopping you from posting signs at your place of business telling concealed carry permit holders that they aren't welcome.

    Of course, you'd simply be doing yourself a disservice by turning away a group of people who are statistically less likely to get in trouble with the law than even the average citizen.

    Also, if someone's carrying a concealed weapon, how do you know? After all, concealed is concealed.

  • ||

    Assuming the the differences between NYC and Texas are purely "cultural," isn't that the type of thing that state's rights assesses? Within the confines of the 2nd Amendment (now that's a whole different debate), isn't it up to the individual states to define "reasonable" restrictions?

  • ||

    mediageek-

    And that's exactly the problem, I don't know who's carrying a concealed weapon and that's what bothers me. Carry it in plain sight and I can assess if you are a threat. If I'm a cab driver and I see someone stagger out of a bar carrying a gun, doesn't my right to life allow me to choose not to have an armed person sitting behind me? Or for that matter, if I'm the bar owner, not allow armed people to drink in my business?

    Why should you have the right to take away my right to make decisions about my own safety by concealing that you are carrying a weapon?

    What does the right to bear arms have to do with the right to ambush me?

  • ||

    We should do away with Concealed Weapons since it's only purpose is to surprise and ambush.

    Absolutely, and that is supported by the incredible multitude of examples where conceal-carry permit holders have committed crimes by ambushing people. Last time I check there were a whole...uh, zero examples to choose from.

  • ||

    NtS-

    If the weapon is being carrying concealed by a citizen with no ill intent, how is it conceivably a threat to you?

  • ||

    Rimfax,

    Every fight, argument, road rage, domestic dispute where guns are used are an ambush where the person shot didn't have full information about the threat facing them.

    Many of these are by legal gun owners. Just looking at your co-workers, during the 13-year period from 1992 to 2004, an average of 807 workplace homicides occurred annually in the United States, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

    So do you really think that average of 807 annual workplace homicides were committed all by people openly carrying their weapon or primarily by people who concealed that they were carrying it into work?

  • ||

    No doubt someone who comes into the office with the intention to murder other people would abide by a law stating that concealed carry is completely illegal.


    Of those 807 workplace homicides, how many were committed by people who possessed concealed weapons permits?

  • ||

    How the hell do I know your intent? In fact by concealing the weapon, aren't you implying a nefarious motive? If not, why aren't you content to openly wear a holster?

    The only advantage concealing a weapon allows is that you can approach someone without their being aware that you are a threat to them. I don't believe you have a Constitutional right to do that.

  • ||

    Care to answer the questions I posed in my last post?

  • ||

    I have no idea, but since we're talking about crimes committed by fellow workers, not robberies by criminals, I'd say a fair percentage are by licensed gun owners, wouldn't you?

    Care to answer why you feel it's necessary to conceal from the people around you that you are carrying a weapon? Why is it important that you hide a potential threat to them? And don't you think they have the right to know about potential threats?

  • dhex||

    "In fact by concealing the weapon, aren't you implying a nefarious motive?"

    not at all, actually.

    consider it this way, beyond a question of pique or whimsy (which is how many people choose to frame this issue of deciding to bear arms in public in some manner, for reasons obscure to my eyes) is not the carrying of a weapon a form of self-defense? of course. but we don't live in islands, but rather in communities, some of which are highly mobile. so in any given state and at any given time only a small percentage of people are going to be legally armed. concealed weapons laws make the question of who is and who isn't armed far less obvious, thus increasing the worry for someone of genuine nefarious intent that any given person is going to be armed.

    the incredibly low levels of crimes committed by licensed concealed carriers is pretty obvious chalked up to two things - they're on record as having a weapon and already in the system AND they're citizens who have chosen to take on an additional legal and social burden as aboveground as possible.

  • dhex||

    "And don't you think they have the right to know about potential threats?"

    are you in favor of scarlet lettering? let's say of convicted violent felons or the mentally ill.

    don't you think we have the right to know about potential threats?

  • ||

    "I have no idea, but since we're talking about crimes committed by fellow workers, not robberies by criminals, I'd say a fair percentage are by licensed gun owners, wouldn't you?"

    No, I wouldn't, because if I did, it would be nothing more than idle speculation.

    "Care to answer why you feel it's necessary to conceal from the people around you that you are carrying a weapon?"

    Because it's none of your business, and if someone has ill intentions, they would carry concealed in violation of law anyway.

    "Why is it important that you hide a potential threat to them?"

    How does carrying a concealed weapon represent a potential threat to you? The question is fallacious.

    "And don't you think they have the right to know about potential threats?"

    Again, the question is fallacious. A person going about their daily business, armed, is not a threat to anyone who's doing the same.


    Question:
    Let's pretend for a moment you get your wish. Concealed carry is completely outlawed, and open carry rules the land.

    What sort of punishment should the justice system hand down to someone who carries concealed, but is otherwise law-abiding?

    What about in winter months? Would the wearing of a heavy coat over a weapon during a snowstorm constitute a violation of this law?

  • b-psycho||

    Personally my response to the inevitable bazooka/grenade/flamethrower question would be to point out how it's much more likely with those weapons to hurt or kill someone you didn't intend to, no matter your skill at using it.

    Sure, in some future all-out rebellion it'd be anything-goes, but that's nowhere near a picnic.

  • ||

    Would anyone care to offer a reasoned response to the suggestion that if the cops can have it, so can anyone else?

  • ||

    Yeah:

    Most cops are so incompetent at handling a firearm safely that they really shouldn't be trusted with anything more deadly than a straw and some spitballs.

  • ||

    Fallacious? Gimme a break. Half of all murders are done by people related or acquainted with the victim, not career criminals. Since I can't control criminal behavior, these people I know are a risk factor to my family and myself that I can have some control over.

    And people going about their daily business armed are more of a threat. What, gun owners don't get into arguments, fights or get drunk and when they do, cause more damage than unarmed people? C'mon, let's live in the real world here.

    I live in a major city and have had a drunk legally licensed gun owner pull a weapon and threaten me over a parking space. Believe me, gun owners can be just as likely to be wackos as anyone else and much more deadly. Why shouldn't I give them a wider berth?


    dhex - How is it a Scarlet Letter? Are you ashamed that you are carrying a weapon? I do think there are people who would choose not to associate with you but shouldn't that be their right?

    People convicted of carrying a concealed weapon should be subject to a stringent penalty. Enough to make the law enforcible. Maybe a mandatory year.

    Convicted violent felons or the mentally ill are subject to imprisonment and supervision or should be, that's another discussion.

  • ||

    "Since I can't control criminal behavior, these people I know are a risk factor to my family and myself that I can have some control over."

    So, given that those with concealed carry permits are LESS likely to commit crime than even the general populace, can you explain to me how harassing them via the law makes you safer?

    "C'mon, let's live in the real world here. "

    Statistically speaking, I am the one living in the real world, not you. You have yet to produce one shred of statistical evidence that legal gun owners are any more likely to commit a crime.

  • ||

    "People convicted of carrying a concealed weapon should be subject to a stringent penalty. Enough to make the law enforcible. Maybe a mandatory year."

    Wow. So if a person puts a winter coat on over their pistol because it's a cold day out, they should go to jail for a whole year. Man, you're tough on crime.

  • ||

    "Convicted violent felons or the mentally ill are subject to imprisonment and supervision or should be, that's another discussion."

    It strikes me as completely relevant. Should it be legal for a newspaper to publish the name and address of anyone with a felony conviction who lives in that community?

  • ||

    Wow. So if a person puts a winter coat on over their pistol because it's a cold day out, they should go to jail for a whole year. Man, you're tough on crime.

    MG-I think you're being trolled. Nobody could be that ignorant.

    Just catching up after this morning, had a long meeting in between. It does make one shake their head when someone comes up with the idea that if you're a permit holder, you're carrying a firearm to aggressively assault someone, and they don't think it through.

    Personally what I think you're hearing with that is that they would be a threat if they were carrying a firearm, that they would go out and attack someone just for getting upset, that they would blow someone away in a fit of anger, so everyone else must be of the same bent.

  • ||

    Indeed. Psychological projection. I've really only ever seen NtS's arguments coming from people who have a propensity to provoke and/or escalate a situation that they should just walk away from.

  • ||

    I didn't know that wearing a holster was such a burden. Or that you had to keep your gun warm. Are we projecting here a little also?

    I never said that people with Concealed Carry permits were more likely to commit crimes. I'll even concede that they might be slightly less likely to commit crimes though you'll have to prove to me anything more than a small advantage. And you seem to be implying that for some reason, gun owners are not like other people. They don't get into arguments? Like the 5,000 gun homicides annually that are caused by an argument?

    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/circumsttab.htm

    What I have said is that when gun owners, like anyone else, have an argument, they are more likely to be deadly to those around them. Which is why I want to know if you are carrying.

    And it already is legal for newspapers and websites to publish the names and addresses of Felons. They're public records, somebody just has to gather them from the courthouse.

  • ||

    I'll even concede that they might be slightly less likely to commit crimes though you'll have to prove to me anything more than a small advantage.

    Easily done. You would be hard-pressed to find a more law-abiding group of adult Americans than CCW permit holders.

    In Texas "concealed carry licensees had arrest rates far lower than the general population for every category of crime. For instance:

    "Licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public - 127 per 100,000 population versus 730 per 100,000.

    "Licensees were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses than the general public - 386 per 100,000 population versus 5,212 per 100,000.

    "Further, the general public is 1.4 times more likely to be arrested for murder than licensees, and no licensee had been arrested for negligent manslaughter."

    http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html

  • ||

    What I have said is that when gun owners, like anyone else, have an argument, they are more likely to be deadly to those around them.

    "Gun owners" as a class includes both the hardened criminals and your law-abiding types, so this sentence carries very little meaning. What you can't find any evidence for is that law-abiding gun owners are likely to turn homicidal during an argument, just because they have a gun. Indeed, the data on CCW holders shows just the opposite.

  • ||

    Half of all murders are done by people related or acquainted with the victim, not career criminals.

    This is a non sequitur. Most of the crimes committed by career criminals are dfone to people who are related to or acquainted with the perp.

  • ||

    "I didn't know that wearing a holster was such a burden. Or that you had to keep your gun warm. Are we projecting here a little also?"

    Nope, simply outlining the fact that you are obviously unfamiliar with proper methods for carrying a handgun, and that you have given zero thought to the unintended consequences of your proposal to lock up anyone who carries concealed.

    "I never said that people with Concealed Carry permits were more likely to commit crimes. I'll even concede that they might be slightly less likely to commit crimes though you'll have to prove to me anything more than a small advantage."

    If a CCW holder, who is by definition a law-abiding citizen is less likely to commit a crime then you obviously have nothing to fear.

    Criminality of TX CCW holders vs. the Public at Large

    Similar statistics are available for Florida, as well, and nowhere have I seen stats that would contradict these trends in other states.

  • dhex standing in for Dan T.||

    "How is it a Scarlet Letter?"

    well, you said you wanted to know about people who are dangers, right? how else would you mark the mentally ill and people convicted of violent felonies in the same way you'd want to know if someone was carrying a handgun? you need some kind of public, obvious sign, right, since the issue here is social engagement (or lack thereof) and social sanctioning (from your perspective).

  • LarryA||

    From Giuliani's video, the first statement. "New York City might be a state where you wouldn't allow the Second Amendment to be enforced."

    So if New York City or State wants to shut down newspapers, set up a state church, and suspend trial by jury that's just reasonably restricting individual rights?

    Note to Giuliani: Keep your "but" off of my Bill of Rights.

    Besides the fact that if any other licensing system produced the same blatantly discriminatory results as the NYC gun license system every civil rights organization available would be filing lawsuits.

    As it should be, when you need self defense you should call the police.

    Absolutely. Right after you get out your handgun. That way when they arrive they can chalk outline the criminal's body instead of yours. The Virginia Tech. students waited for police, who responded in really good time, 8-9 minutes. Thirty one people died.

    Why does the 2nd Amendment protect the right to CONCEAL a weapon? I don't believe it does. You have the right to carry a weapon, you don't have the right to sneak up on me with it.

    1. It isn't our choice. States are requiring concealed carry primarily so anti-gun types won't wet their pants every time they see a licensee.
    2. I personally would rather carry concealed because then I won't be the first one taken out when the bad guy shows up. Concealed carry provides more deterrence because the person planning the crime doesn't know if or who is carrying.

    And if I run a business that is a potential target, like a jeweler, don't I have the right to refuse entry to someone I see carrying a weapon?

    Sure. In most states simply post a sign. But you're making your business less safe, not more.

    Carry it in plain sight and I can assess if you are a threat.

    The people who are threats aren't going to carry in plain sight regardless of the law. You are only restricting those who carry legally, and historically are less of a threat than those who don't carry. See the chart at http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm.

    So do you really think that average of 807 annual workplace homicides were committed all by people openly carrying their weapon or primarily by people who concealed that they were carrying it into work?

    Actually, virtually all of the workplaces where there were such events prohibit employees bringing firearms onto company property. The person causing the problem was in violation for bringing the gun. Why would it make any difference if he was breaking the law against concealing it? See the recent shooting in Virginia Tech's "gun free zone."

    Besides, a good portion of these incidents involved someone with a shotgun or rifle, which obviously wasn't concealed.

    The only advantage concealing a weapon allows is that you can approach someone without their being aware that you are a threat to them.

    The other advantage concealing a weapon allows is that a criminal can approach someone without being aware that they are a threat to him. Until it's too late.

  • ||

    Now c'mon, think you can come up with a little less biased source than a right-wing lobbying group. And even there, the particular stats you cite came from "... an unpublished report, engineering statistician William Sturdevant found that concealed carry licensees had arrest rates far lower than the general population for every category of crime."

    In fact, Googling that report led to a Dallas Morning News article debunking those stats:
    http://www.kc3.com/news/more_lies_hci.htm
    (on a anti-handgun site but I checked and it is in the newspaper archive if you want to pay for it)

    Got any thing from the DOJ? Or maybe even a University?

  • ||

    "And even there, the particular stats you cite came from "... an unpublished report, engineering statistician William Sturdevant found that concealed carry licensees had arrest rates far lower than the general population for every category of crime.""

    Uh, dude, he provided a link that went directly to the "unpublished" report.

    Also, two things:
    The study you cite is from the notoriously inaccurate Violence Policy Center.

    The VPC's "study" lists only arrest numbers, not convictions. I guess in the eyes of the VPC, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law doesn't apply to gun owners.

  • ||

    "Got any thing from the DOJ? Or maybe even a University?"

    Do you?

  • ||

    "The other advantage concealing a weapon allows is that a criminal can approach someone without being aware that they are a threat to him. Until it's too late."

    There has been more than one incident in which a person who was legally exercising their right to carry openly had the cops called on them by someone who was ignorant of the law.

    Allowing concealed carry avoids such incidents.

  • LarryA||

    In fact, Googling that report led to a Dallas Morning News article debunking those stats: http://www.kc3.com/news/more_lies_hci.htm (on a anti-handgun site but I checked and it is in the newspaper archive if you want to pay for it)

    Did you read the article you linked?

    Actually kc3.com is Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed, a pro gun site. The article debunks the VPC figures against concealed carry.

    About the third time the VPC cited Texas Department of Public Safety statistics incorrectly the 77th Texas Legislature (2001) passed HB 2784 to change the reporting law to prevent such, citing VPC misuse of the former statistics. The DPS officers who run our instructor classes don't like the VPC one little bit.

    (I keep track of Texas gun legislation at http://www.txchia.org/legistex07.htm.)

  • ||

    I'd like to know what's the difference in carrying a gun and on my body is as opposed to my car.

    Does that mean I have to get a gun rack or will a "Keep honking I'm reloading" bumber sticker be sufficient warning for you?

    Of course why stop there? How about a detailed list of all my firearms posted outside my home? I won't object, although my neighbors without guns might. Since there's now any easy way for a criminal to more easily assess the threat to himself.

  • robc||

    mediageek,

    Exactly. In KY, cops in Louisville, Lexington and Covington are know to harrass open carriers. In the rest of the state, open carry is generally okay. Since I live in 1 of those 3 cities, I conceal.

  • ||

    Of course why stop there? How about a detailed list of all my firearms posted outside my home? I won't object, although my neighbors without guns might. Since there's now any easy way for a criminal to more easily assess the threat to himself.

    Nah, have to be posted on the internet for maxium exposure.

    This whole premise of a firearm making someone more dangerous is rather strange to me. If someone is predisposed to kill you, they will try when they get mad regardless. Knives are pretty efficient killing mechanisms, and have been used in mass assults/murders. Swords work, bats work. Construction tools are great.

  • ||

    I think dhex hit something clear here. Wear a red sticker if you have ever been in for psychiatric treatment. I want to know when I'm in the presence of danger.

    You just don't have the right to know what is in my pocket. You don't have the right to search my belt line to make yourself feel better. I'm sorry.

  • ||

    Not the senator: The only advantage concealing a weapon allows is that you can approach someone without their being aware that you are a threat to them.


    A gun worn on the outside ruins the look of your suit. That's why some cowboys wore two guns for the symmetry.

    Consider everyone is a threat. Treat everyone as if they had a concealed weapon. That is what the police do.

  • dhex||

    mr. senator is trolling us with ineptness!

  • dhex||

    also, this might be interesting:

    http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

    h+r gets some really lame trolls. either we get jerkoffs who don't do their homework, or we get T. Nads, who pulls the "i'm so misunderstood" like some fucking goth topic-laden nu metal fan.

    truly this is market failure.

  • ||

    The article debunks the VPC figures against concealed carry.

    The VPC is notoriously innaccurate in almost all their statements.

    Back in the 80s one of the groups that amalgamated to form the VPC ran a glossy full-page back-cover ad in a national mag listing Switzerland as a country whose low homicide rate demonstrated the effectiveness of gun-control laws.

    They apparently were totally unaware that at that time most cantons in Switzerland had laws that were far less restrictive than those in many American states.

  • dhex||

    vpc and the brady people do seem to live on the scummy side of public advocacy normally inhabited by the "we can de-gay your kids for you" type groups.

  • ||

    Isaac-

    I would pay decent money to have a scan of that magazine ad.

    FWIW, Switzerland, to this day, still has an extremely active and passionate gun culture. As does Norway.

  • ||

    I have no idea, but since we're talking about crimes committed by fellow workers, not robberies by criminals, I'd say a fair percentage are by licensed gun owners, wouldn't you?

    Bullshit - this IS a senator cleverly pretending to not [be] a senator. Only a real senator would admit he has "no idea" and then proceed to talk out his ass as though he had a clue.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement