Should concealed carry gun laws be nationalized?

By Peggy Williams, examiner.com

Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 15 different states according to a new study released today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC).

The study was released just prior to a U.S. Senate debate scheduled for this week on an amendment to the defense authorization bill (S. 1390). That amendment would allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the state in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another state that grants concealed carry permits. The debate promises to be a heated one.

Those who believe passionately in their right to carry a concealed weapon are frustrated because of the patchwork of laws that vary from state to state as to whether they can carry their weapons in another state or even apply to get a permit to carry a weapon in some states.

Those, like the VPC, who believe that gun ownership should be heavily regulated and even denied in some instances, cry foul saying the amendment sponsored by Senator John Thune (R-SD) would create a de facto national concealed carry system, overriding the rights of states with more restrictive laws governing the carrying of concealed handguns.

The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence said, regarding the effects of the amendment, “Gun-toters from states like Georgia, Mississippi or South Dakota who can get concealed gun permits with no training would be able to carry their hidden guns legally in every state except Wisconsin and Illinois…” The Brady Campaign’s statement further explained, “The amendment…would allow the carrying of loaded, concealed handguns outside a person’s home state, even by persons legally barred from possessing guns in the state where the carrying occurs. It would effectively allow the concealed carry laws of one state to nullify the restrictions on gun possession in other states.”

The Brady Campaign cites multiple studies that have shown that laws allowing the carrying of concealed firearms have not reduced crime and, if anything, have increased violent crime, including murder and robbery.

The National Rifle Association, on the other hand, cites a study for the Department of Justice that found that 40 percent of felons had not committed crimes because they feared the prospective victims were armed. The NRA believes that “expanding the right to carry will enhance public safety.

Guncite.com, a website devoted to preserving and guaranteeing the Second Amendment, argues that states that have right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes. They cite a study by John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties. That study concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. John Lott is the author of the popular 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press). In his book he concludes, “…criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats…”

Some would question (despite the NRA’s assertions above) whether criminals respond rationally to anything. Certainly in the case of the shootings at Virginia Tech and Columbine, those shooters were not deterred by the threat of violent deterrence. Just the opposite: they planned to die violently whether by their own weapons or by others.

And in fact, when using the argument of dropping crime rates to bolster the pro-gun position, one needs only look at other statistics to see that the argument is not all that simple.

While crime rates may have dropped in certain states prior to 1992 (old statistics at this point), more current data published by the National Institute of Corrections shows that Wisconsin – a state that does not allow concealed-carry permits – has a crime rate that is well below the national average. Wisconsin’s crime rate in 2007 was 16% lower than the national average rate. It turns out that property crimes accounted for 90.7% of that number, and that in fact Wisconsin’s violent crime rate was a full 38% lower than other states.

ABC News ran a special in April, called “If I Only Had a Gun,” in which they experimented with the effectiveness of allowing students to carry concealed weapons on campus. Using simulated intruder attacks, the program argued and participants concurred, that even those participants who were comfortable with guns and had training in their use did poorly in response to an emergency situation and in some cases made the situation worse, shooting at people other than the intruders. Guns rights advocates immediately claimed the ABC experiment was “rigged,” taking issue with the program and its findings

Following the Virginia Tech incident, there was a push by gun lobbyists – specifically the NRA and Students for Concealed Carry on Campus to pass guns-on-campus bills in 22 different states. Interestingly, the opposition against the efforts to legislate colleges and universities into allowing students to carry loaded, hidden handguns into classrooms came from the students themselves. The Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus, which is organizing a national coalition of universities and colleges to reject the gun lobby’s agenda, lists 90 schools in 23 states and counting.

Colin Goddard, who as a student at Virginia Tech University in April 2007 was shot four times and probably has more of a right to speak on this issue than anyone, went on record saying, “the gun lobby used this event to further its agenda of introducing guns into every aspect of American society, adding now the learning environment. Instead, they could have used this example of how a prohibited purchaser got his guns, not on the streets and through the ‘black market’ but at a local pawn shop and over the internet, as a way of saying ‘Hey, our current laws we have are inadequate and unenforceable’. It got students across the country motivated and made us speak out.”

The U.S. Conference of Mayors, representing 1,139 cities, opposes the Thune amendment. The group released a statement today saying “The American people need to be aware that public safety is being compromised by gun lobby amendments to disparate, unrelated legislation now moving through Congress. They need to be reminded of what’s at stake when more guns are on our streets: that every day in the United States there are approximately 84 deaths involving firearms, that 34 of these are homicides, and that well over half of these homicides – 56 percent – involve people age 29 and younger.”

The International Association of Police Chiefs has taken a strong stance that state governments be allowed to maintain the ability to legislate concealed carry laws that best fit the needs of their communities. The IACP has consistently opposed any federal legislative proposals that would either pre-empt and/or mandate the liberalization of an individual state’s laws that would allow citizens of other states to carry concealed weapons in that state without meeting its requirements. This group even opposed legislation signed by President George W. Bush in 2004 allowing off-duty and retired officers to carry concealed weapons throughout the country regardless of state or local firearms restrictions.

So where does this leave us?

I am a person who does not own a gun, nor do I have any interest in owning a gun. However, there are people very close to me who are gun owners and feel very strongly about their perceived need to and their right to own their weapons. I respect that need and their right.

I am a believer that guns should be regulated in the same way that driver’s licenses are regulated. I believe gun owners should be required to take courses on gun use and safety and should be tested on their knowledge and skill, similar to the way drivers are tested. I do not believe everyone should be allowed to own a gun. Nor am I convinced that anyone except off-duty and retired police officers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons.

I am ambivalent about the amendment that would allow anyone with a permit to carry their weapon into any state that allows permitting. I am a believer in States’ rights, and see this amendment as an abuse of States’ rights.

But if this amendment is allowed to pass, then I think there should be uniform federal rules and regulations governing who can own a gun and under what circumstances. Otherwise we’ve effectively set up a national system without any national oversights or requirements. That could easily lead to one (or several) states becoming “permit havens,” wherein an individual who would be denied a permit to carry concealed weapons in one state goes to another state that has less stringent standards to obtain the permit.

I recognize that the debate over the Second Amendment and anything having to do with gun rights, gun use, and the role of guns in civil violence and everyday life is very emotional on both sides. I put the question [in the title] out there for the purpose of discussion and debate.

I encourage comments on both sides of the issues. However, only respectful comments will be allowed. Any comments, on either side, that are disrespectful or verbally abusive of either the author or other commenters, or that degrade into name-calling will be deleted. With that said…have at it!