Showing papers on "Gun control published in 2006"

Cultural Cognition and Public Policy

Abstract: Our concern in this Essay is to explain the epistemic origins of political conflict. Citizens who agree that the proper object of law is to secure society’s material well-being are still likely to disagree—intensely—about what policies will achieve that end as an empirical matter. Does the death penalty deter homicides, or instead inure people to lethal violence? Would stricter gun control make society safer, by reducing the incidence of crime and gun accidents, or less safe, by hampering the ability of individuals to defend themselves from predation? What threatens our welfare more—environmental pollution or the economic consequences of environmental protection laws? What exacts a bigger toll on public health and productivity—the distribution of street drugs or the massive incarceration of petty drug offenders? At first glance, it might seem that such disagreement doesn’t really require much explanation. Figuring out the empirical consequences of criminal, environmental, and other regulatory laws is extremely complicated. Scientists often disagree about such matters. Moreover, even when expert consensus seems to emerge, it is based on highly technical forms of proof that most members of the public can’t realistically be expected to understand, much less verify for themselves. So citizens disagree about the empirical dimensions of various public policy questions because conclusive information about the consequences of such policies is either nonexistent or inaccessible to them. But it turns out that this explanation is as simplistic as it is intuitive. If the source of public dispute about the empirical consequences of public policy were based on the indeterminacy or inaccessibility of scientific knowledge, than we would expect beliefs about these consequences either to be randomly distributed across the population or to be correlated with education. But this is not so: Factual disagreement on matters such as the death penalty, environmental protection laws, gun control and the like is highly polarized across distinct social groups—racial, sexual, religious, regional, and

Do laws restricting access to firearms by domestic violence offenders prevent intimate partner homicide

Abstract: Domestic violence imposes a large cost on society. The authors exploit state variation in timing to examine the impact of three types of law on intimate partner homicides. These laws restrict access to firearms by individuals who are subject to a restraining order or have been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor or allow law enforcement officers to confiscate firearms at a domestic violence scene. The authors find that female intimate partner homicide rates decline 7% after a state passes a restraining order law. They find no effect from the domestic violence misdemeanor or confiscation laws.

School Violence: Fears Versus Facts

Abstract: Illustrated with numerous case studies–many drawn from the author’s work as a forensic psychologist–this book identifies 19 myths and misconceptions about youth violence, from ordinary bullying to rampage shootings. It covers controversial topics such as gun control and the effects of entertainment violence on children. The author demonstrates how fear of school violence has resulted in misguided, counterproductive educational policies and practices ranging from boot camps to zero tolerance. He reviews evidence from hundreds of controlled studies showing that school-based school violence prevention programs and mental health services, which are largely effective, are often overlooked in favor of politically popular yet ineffective programs such as school uniforms, Drug Abuse Resistance Education, and Scared Straight. He concludes by reviewing some of his own research on student threat assessment as a more flexible and less punitive alternative to zero tolerance, and presents a wide ranging series of recommendations for improving and expanding the use of school-based violence prevention programs and mental health services for troubled students. Key features include the following: Contrarian Approach–This book identifies and refutes 19 basic misconceptions about trends in youth violence and school safety, and shows how the fear of school violence has been exaggerated through inaccurate statistics, erroneous conclusions about youth violence, and over-emphasis on atypical, sensational cases. Readability–The book translates scientific, evidence-based research into language that educators, parents, law enforcement officers, and policymakers can readily understand and shows what can be done to improve things. Expertise–Dewey Cornell is a forensic psychologist and Professor of Education at the University of Virginia, where he holds an endowed chair in Education. He is Director of the UVA Youth Violence Project and is a faculty associate of the Institute of Law, Psychiatry, and Public Policy. The author of more than 100 publications in psychology and education, he frequently testifies in criminal proceedings and at legislative hearings involving violence prevention efforts. This book is appropriate for courses or seminars dealing wholly or partly with school violence and school safety. It is also an indispensable volume for school administrators and safety officers; local, state, and national policymakers; involved parents; and academic libraries serving these groups.

A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America

Abstract: Americans are deeply divided over the Second Amendment. Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns. Others, that it does no more than protect the right of states to maintain militias. Now, in the first and only comprehensive history of this bitter controversy, Saul Cornell proves conclusively that both sides are wrong. Cornell, a leading constitutional historian, shows that the Founders understood the right to bear arms as neither an individual nor a collective right, but as a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well regulated militia. He shows how the modern "collective right" view of the Second Amendment, the one federal courts have accepted for over a hundred years, owes more to the Anti-Federalists than the Founders. Likewise, the modern "individual right" view emerged only in the nineteenth century. The modern debate, Cornell reveals, has its roots in the nineteenth century, during America's first and now largely forgotten gun violence crisis, when the earliest gun control laws were passed and the first cases on the right to bear arms came before the courts. Equally important, he describes how the gun control battle took on a new urgency during Reconstruction, when Republicans and Democrats clashed over the meaning of the right to bear arms and its connection to the Fourteenth Amendment. When the Democrats defeated the Republicans, it elevated the "collective rights" theory to preeminence and set the terms for constitutional debate over this issue for the next century. A Well Regulated Militia not only restores the lost meaning of the original Second Amendment, but it provides a clear historical road map that charts how we have arrived at our current impasse over guns. For anyone interested in understanding the great American gun debate, this is a must read.

Language of the Gun: Youth, Crime, and Public Policy

Abstract: Legal and public policies concerning youth gun violence tend to rely heavily on crime reports, survey data, and statistical methods. Rarely is attention given to the young voices belonging to those who carry high-powered semiautomatic handguns. In "Language of the Gun", Bernard E. Harcourt recounts in-depth interviews with youths detained at an all-male correctional facility, exploring how they talk about guns and what meanings they ascribe to them in a broader attempt to understand some of the assumptions implicit in current handgun policies. In the process, Harcourt redraws the relationships among empirical research, law, and public policy. Home to over 150 repeat offenders ranging in age from twelve to seventeen, the Catalina Mountain School is made up of a particular stratum of boys - those who have committed the most offenses but will still be released upon reaching adulthood. In an effort to understand the symbolic and emotional language of guns and gun carrying, Harcourt interviewed dozens of these incarcerated Catalina boys. What do these youths see in guns? What draws them to handguns? Why do some of them carry and others not? For Harcourt, their often surprising answers unveil many of the presuppositions that influence our laws and policies.

Understanding and Informing Policy Implementation: A Case Study of the Domestic Violence Provisions of the Maryland Gun Violence Act.

Abstract: The Maryland Gun Violence Act, enacted into law in 1996, explicitly authorized courts to order batterers to surrender their firearms through civil protective orders It also vested law enforcement with the explicit authority to remove guns when responding to a domestic violence complaint In order to assess how these laws were implemented, we designed a case study and collected data from in-depth, key informant interviews, court observations, and relevant documents We present findings from this study and recommend how to increase the likelihood that policies designed to separate batterers and guns are implemented in a way that will result in greater protections for victims of domestic violence

Separating batterers and guns: a review and analysis of gun removal laws in 50 States.

Abstract: Firearms play an important role in lethal domestic violence incidents. The authors review state laws regarding two policies to separate batterers from firearms: laws authorizing police to remove firearms when responding to a domestic violence complaint ("police gun removal laws") and laws authorizing courts to order guns removed from batterers through a protective order ("court-ordered removal laws"). As of April 2004, 18 states had police gun removal laws; 16 states had court-ordered removal laws. The authors examine relevant characteristics of the laws and recommend that these laws be mandatory, apply to all guns and ammunition possessed by an abuser, and include clear procedures to enhance implementation.

Overcoming the Fear of Guns, the Fear of Gun Control, and the Fear of Cultural Politics: Constructing a Better Gun Debate

Abstract: The question of how strictly to regulate firearms has convulsed the national polity for the better part of four decades, and in this article Donald Braman and Dan M. Kahan conclude that the best way to engender productive debate is to investigate deeper than the statistics and address the competing American social attitudes on guns themselves: guns symbolizing honor, human mastery over nature, and individual self-sufficiency on the one hand, and guns creating the perpetuation of illicit social hierarchies, the elevation of force over reason, and the expression of collective indifference to the well-being of strangers on the other. Braman and Kahan posit that purely instrumental arguments lack the power to persuade either side because they ignore what really motivates individuals to favor or oppose gun control — namely, their competing cultural worldviews and identities. They claim that the only meaningful gun control debate is one that explicitly addresses whether and how the underlying cultural visions at stake should be embodied by American law. Therefore, to improve the quality of the U.S. gun control debate and break its impasse, Braman and Kahan argue for the constructive of a new, culturally pluralistic vocabulary, which embraces the cultural meanings of public policy, rather than eliding or suppressing them.

Are Temporary Restraining Orders More Likely to Be Issued When Applications Mention Firearms

Abstract: Restraining orders, an important legal intervention for victims of domestic violence, have broad potential for injury prevention. Using data from one of the busiest restraining order clinics in the nation, the authors examined 1,354 applicants' descriptions of abuse. Most (89.2%) applicants were issued a restraining order. A total of 16.0% of applicants mentioned a firearm in their descriptions of abuse; doing so was not associated with restraining order issuance. About 1 in 20 applicants, even if issued a restraining order, would not be protected by the federal firearm purchase and possession prohibitions because they had not lived with or had a child with the defendant. However, the proportion of these individuals who report threatened or actual use of firearms against them is similar to that of other applicants. Federal and, when relevant, state law should be modified to include these persons.

Does gun control reduce crime or does crime increase gun control

Abstract: Advocates argue that gun control laws reduce the incidence of violent crimes by reducing the prevalence of firearms. Gun laws control the types of firearms that may be purchased, designate the qualifications of those who may purchase and own a firearm, and restrict the safe storage and use of firearms. On this view, fewer guns mean less crime. Thus, there is a two-step linkage between gun control and crime rates: (1) the impact of gun control on the availability and accessibility of firearms, particularly handguns, and (2) the effect of the prevalence of guns on the commission of crimes. The direction of the effect runs from gun control to crime rates. Conversely, because high crime rates are often cited as justifying more stringent gun control laws, high rates may generate political support for gun regulations. This suggests a causal effect running from crime rates to more stringent gun laws. But because both relationships between gun control and crime rates unfold over time, they are not simultaneously determined in the usual econometric sense. For example, crime rates in the early 1990s could be expected, ceteris paribus, to influence the stringency of gun control measures in the late 1990s. In turn, more stringent gun control in the late 1990s could be expected, ceteris paribus, to affect crime rates several years later. Using state-level data, this article provides estimates of these twin relationships between gun control and crime rates. Measuring the Degree of Gun Control Researchers attempting to estimate the effect of gun control on crime rates face two problems. First, how is gun control to be measured? What is the empirical counterpart to gun control? Gun control is an umbrella term covering everything from laws prohibiting the ownership of defined classes of firearms to mandating the inclusion of gun locks with every firearm sold. These measures represent discrete legislative acts passed on different dates by different governing bodies. How do they interact to control the availability of firearms? Are the various measures complements or substitutes? Second, the effectiveness of a particular gun control statute depends not only on its being on the books but the degree to which the law is enforced. Two jurisdictions may have the same gun control statute but experience very different effects, because in one of the jurisdictions little effort is devoted to enforcing the regulation. Enforcement of gun laws must be taken into account in order to accurately assess gun control. One contribution of this study is that it addresses these problems by using a comprehensive index of gun control laws for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The index includes those laws in place in 1998. Normalized to take on values of 0 to 100, the index is based on 30 weighted criteria applied to six categories of gun control regulations. The index was constructed as a project of the Open Society Institute's Center on Crime, Communities and Culture. (1) The index "concentrates on states because most gun laws are state laws, though federal law also plays an important role" (Open Society Institute 2000: 1). Because our study uses cross-sectional data by state, to match up with the index, federal laws are treated as a constant across all states and the District of Columbia. (2) Another reason for focusing on states is that 40 states prohibit or restrict local governments from enacting gun control ordinances. Although there are literally thousands of state and local gun control statutes, the authors of the index group specific gun control measures into the following six categories. (1) Registration of firearms including purchase permits and gun registration of handguns and long guns (rifles and shotguns). (2) Safety training required before purchase. (3) Regulation of firearm sales including background checks, minimum age requirements for purchasing a firearm, a waiting period before a sale can be completed, one-gun-a-month limitation on purchases, all applied to long guns and/or handguns, plus a ban on "Saturday night specials," junk guns, and assault weapons. …

Overcoming the fear of guns, the fear of gun control, and the fear of cultural politics: Constructing a better gun debate

Abstract: For most Americans, the "Great American Gun Debate" isn't particularly "great." The question of how strictly to regulate firearms has convulsed the national polity for the better part of four decades without producing results satisfactory to either side. Drowning in a sea of mind-numbing statistics, ordinary citizens stand little chance of even understanding their opponents' arguments, much less being persuaded by them. Battered by pro-control forces in one election and by anti-control ones in the next, moderate politicians say as little as they can get away with. The organizers of relatively extreme interest groups, in contrast, say -- indeed, scream -- as much as they possibly can, symbiotically nurturing a divided public's anxiety that one side or the other is poised to score a decisive victory. Our goal in this Article is to diagnose the pathologies that afflict the American gun debate and to prescribe a possible cure. That debate, we will argue, has been disfigured by two prominent misconceptions, one relating to what the gun debate is fundamentally about, and the other to how citizens of a liberal democracy should talk to each other when they are divided on issues of fundamental values. Overcoming these misconceptions almost certainly won't dispel Americans' differences of opinion on guns. But it will go a long way towards making our public discussion of this issue into one that honors rather than mocks our pretension to be a well-functioning deliberative democracy.

Disarming Batterers Through Restraining Orders: The Promise and the Reality in California

Abstract: Laws that prohibit persons under a domestic violence restraining order from purchasing or possessing a firearm are a primary way to keep guns out of the hands of batterers. In July 2005, the California Attorney General's Task Force on the Local Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence issued a report called Keeping the Promise: Victim Safety and Batterer Accountability. The report focused, in part, on the extent to which California's domestic violence restraining order system succeeds in disarming batterers. Restraining orders are the principal means by which the criminal justice system can accomplish this objective. The Task Force found that criminal justice agencies and the courts performed poorly in this area. The report strongly recommended that a more strategic, collaborative use of laws already on the books could significantly improve performance, without much additional expense. What follows is a summary of those finding and recommendations.

Taking Guns from Batterers: Public Support and Policy Implications

Abstract: Federal law prohibits the purchase or possession of a firearm by persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence and those under certain domestic violence restraining orders. The purpose of this investigation is to examine public sentiment about the removal of firearms in the absence of a restraining order or misdemeanor conviction following domestic violence. An experimental vignette design was used in a telephone survey of a cross-sectional statewide sample of 522 community-residing adults in California. Study design and population weights were applied; the findings, thus, are a reasonable approximation for the population of California. In more than 3,500 vignettes, the abusive behavior was judged to be wrong, illegal, or should be illegal (98.7%, 73.1%, and 77.7%, respectively). Although only about one half (56.5%) of the scenarios were thought to merit the issuance of a restraining order, three fourths (77.4%) were thought to merit the removal of firearms. Multivariate analyses indicated greater support for firearms removal when the abuse involved sexual or physical abuse (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] ranged from 2.65 to 5.64) or a gun (AOR = 6.54). Men were the sole population group with significantly lower support for firearm removal following domestic violence (AOR = 0.39). The men who wanted firearms to remain did not differ from other men on any of the measured variables. In sum, there is substantial support, especially when a gun is displayed in a domestic violence incident, for policies requiring the removal of firearms from abusers.

Gun possession among Massachusetts batterer intervention program enrollees.

Abstract: Batterers with access to firearms present a serious lethal threat to their partners. The purpose of this exploratory study is to estimate the prevalence of and risk markers for gun possession among Massachusetts men enrolled in batterer intervention programs. The authors found that 1.8% of the men reported having a gun in or around their home. Those most likely to report having a gun were White, earned $25,000 or more per year, had served in the military, engaged in problem gambling, and had attempted homicide or threatened their partner with a firearm. Recommendations for strengthening relevant gun laws both within and outside of Massachusetts are discussed.

Theorising Gun Control: The Development of Regulation and Shooting Sports in Britain

Abstract: Utilising an account of the development of gun control legislation in Britain and the work of Norbert Elias, this paper argues that there are a number of processes that influence the development of such legislation, both in Britain and elsewhere It argues that while processes such as the state's predisposition to consolidate its monopoly on the use of violence and advances in people's threshold of repugnance at violence influence the development of legislation, they can also lead to a blurring of the distinction between legally held sporting guns and illegal firearms in the hands of criminals The paper concludes by considering other factors such as the efficacy of the prohibitionist lobby on the one hand and the gun lobby on the other, together with historical factors that may, in part, account for international variation in regimes of gun control

Law enforcement versus battered women: The conflict over the lautenberg amendment

Abstract: Since the early 1970s, law enforcement agencies have made great strides in improving their response to domestic violence. However, attempts to reform the 1996 Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban Act (P.L. 104-208, section 658, 1997) pitted law enforcement against the battered women’s movement. Contra predictions of system equilibrium, in this competition—between the victims of the new law (law enforcement officers) and the victims whom the new law intended to protect (battered women)—decision makers chose battered women over law enforcement officers. This article examines why this conflict developed, identifies the strategies that won in this conflict, and considers the impact of this conflict on domestic violence.

Gun Control: Statutory Disclosure Limitations on ATF Firearms Trace Data and Multiple Handgun Sales Reports

Abstract: This report briefly describes a provision known as the "Tiahrt" amendment, a rider on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) appropriations that prohibits ATF from disclosing firearm trace data and multiple handgun sales reports data for any purpose other than supporting a criminal investigatoin or agency licensing proceeding. The Tiahrt amendment is so called because its sponsor is Representative Todd Tiahrt. A coalition of 210 city mayors favors the repeal of this rider, but there is much opposition to that motion.

Krouse, William J.

Abstract: Congress continues to debate the efficacy and constitutionality of federal regulation of firearms and ammunition. It is a contentious debate, with strong advocates for and against the further federal regulation of firearms. Gun control advocates argue that federal regulation of firearms curbs access by criminals, juveniles, and other "high-risk" individuals. Gun control opponents deny that federal policies keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk persons; rather, they argue, control often create burdens for law-abiding citizens and infringe upon constitutional rights provided by the Second Amendment. This report explores this issue in greater detail, including related legislation.

Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms

Abstract: Chapter 1 Preface Chapter 2 Introduction Chapter 3 Guns and the Constitution Chapter 4 Statistics and Firearms Chapter 5 Gun Policies Chapter 6 Public Opinion Chapter 7 Interest Groups, Gun Control, and Elections Chapter 8 Guns in the Media Chapter 9 A View from a State: Gun Policy in Virginia Chapter 10 Politics and Gun Control Policy-Present and Future

State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms

Abstract: I. INTRODUCTION Debates rage about the meaning of the second Amendment; but observers often miss that there are forty-five right-to-beararms provisions in American constitutional law, not just one. Forty-four states have state constitutional rights to bear arms. Most are written quite differently from the second Amendment. Nearly all secure (at least in part) an individual right to keep some kinds of guns for self-defense. Some date back to the Framing; some have been enacted in the last four decades. Serious analyses of the original meaning of the second Amendment should consider the Framing-era state provisions. Serious analyses of modern gun control proposals should consider the currently effective provisions. Serious analyses of American tradition as to the right to bear arms should consider all the provisions as they now are and as they have evolved over time. Unfortunately, there are to my knowledge no print sources summarizing not just all the currently enacted rights but also all the past versions of these provisions. This article aims to fill that gap. Part II lists all the current and past provisions by state. Part III provides a table that indicates whether the provisions, as written or as interpreted by the state court, secure an individual right to keep some kinds of guns for self-defense, as opposed to merely a collective right or possibly an individual right aimed solely at some other purpose. Part IV lists all the current and past provisions by enactment date, and notes how each enactment differed from the preceding version. II. PROVISIONS BYSTATE, CURRENTAND PAST Each provision is listed with the year it was first enacted; moves to different sections are not noted. If a provision first enacted in one year was changed very slightly some years later, the latter version is listed together with the original year, and the changes and change dates are noted in the footnotes. Alabama 1819: "That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."1 Alaska 1994: "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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State."2 1959: "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."3 Arizona 1912: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."4 Arkansas 1868: "The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms, for their common defense."5 1864: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."6 1861: "That the free white men and Indians of this State have the right to keep and bear arms for their individual or common defense."7 1836: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."8 California: No provision. Colorado 1876: "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."9 Connecticut 1818: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."10 Delaware 1987: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."11 Florida 1990: "(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law. …

The Early American Origins of the Modern Gun Control Debate: The Right to Bear Arms, Firearms Regulation, and the Lessons of History

Abstract: The debate over gun control is hardly a new development in American history. Although modern opponents of gun regulation have asserted that gun control is a recent phenomenon, inspired by a racist and anti-immigrant agenda, that claim, like so many claims in Second Amendment scholarship, is false. The earliest efforts at gun control were enacted during the Jacksonian era, when Americans grappled with the nation's first gun violence crisis. A number of states passed the first laws intended to reduce gun violence. Then, as now, the enactment of gun control prompted a backlash, which led to an intensified commitment to gun rights. The embarrassing truth about the Second Amendment debate that neither side wishes to admit is that gun rights ideology is the illegitimate and spurned child of gun control.

Gun Control Policy Preference in Context: A Contextually Sensitive Model of Gun Control Policy Preferences

Abstract: This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by ScholarWorks@UNO with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself.

From fieldwork to facts to firearms control: Research and advocacy towards stricter firearm control legislation in South Africa

Abstract: Children have special protection under the South African constitution, including the right to safety, health and an environment conducive to their wellbeing and optimal development. Yet, firearms contribute significantly to the high incidence of deaths and injuries among South African children and in young males in their late teens. This case study is about the participation of the Child Health Policy Institute (CHPI) in a law reform process ultimately aimed at reducing firearm injuries and deaths in the country by exercising stricter gun control through legislation and other reforms. This feature briefly describes the political context in which the project was initiated, the research on firearm injuries and deaths in children conducted by the CHPI, and the dissemination of the research findings. The role of the CHPI as an academic institution within the Gun Control Alliance is also examined as are the lessons learnt in trying the bridge the gap between research and law reform.

A Review of: "Suing the Gun Industry: A Battle at The Crossroads of Gun Control and Mass Torts"

Abstract: For some two decades, victims of firearm violence in the United States have used the tort litigation system to make claims not just against gun offenders but also against gun dealers and manufactur...

The Reasonable Right to Bear Arms

Abstract: This article examines the state constitutional law doctrine that has developed around the right to bear arms. Although the Second Amendment has been likened to a constitutional ghost town, the right to bear arms at the state level is more like a bustling metropolis. Forty-two states have constitutional provisions guaranteeing an individual right to bear arms, and these provisions have been the subject of hundreds of published state court decisions. Yet, the state constitutional doctrine is remarkably consistent and uniform. Without exception, the state courts apply an extremely deferential form of judicial scrutiny to laws restricting gun ownership that requires only that such laws be reasonable regulations. Under that test, which accepts vastly overinclusive laws, only gun measures so extreme as to amount to a complete destruction or evisceration of the underlying right are deemed constitutionally impermissible. As a result, of the hundreds of published state court decisions concerning the right to bear arms, only six have invalidated a gun control law or its application to a particular individual in the past half-century. If that same test is adopted for the Second Amendment, then we can expect that any decision by the Supreme Court reinterpreting that provision to include an individual right to bear arms will have, at best, a marginal impact on the constitutionality of gun control.

The struggle to legislate for stricter gun control measures and the South African Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000

Abstract: Although it had been a stated intention of the new government as early as June 1994 to deal with the proliferation of firearms in the country, particularly illegal firearms, a number of issues delayed the implementation of this intention. This article traces this struggle to legislate for stricter gun control measures, a process which essentially turned out to be a lengthy and often acrimonious period of public consultation and debate. Although this culminated in the new Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000 being passed in Parliament in October 2000 and assented to and passed into law by the President on 4 April 2001, this was not the end of the legislative process as it took almost another four years for the supporting regulations to be finalised. These eventually came into effect on 1 July 2004. The resulting Act and Regulations were, to a certain extent, a piece of legislation where concessions and compromises from both sides of the so-called "gun debate" (pro-gun lobby and gun-control activists) were made. However, the consensus of opinion from legislators and observers was that the Act, in fact, was one containing stricter gun control measures than many similar pieces of legislation elsewhere in the world.

O Sistema Nacional de Armas (Sinarm) como sistema de gerenciamento do estoque legal de armas no Brasil: uma contribuição às políticas públicas

Abstract: This article analyzes the results of research carried out in 2005 on the functioning of the National Arms System as an instrument for management of information on legal possession of firearms. The research won a competitive grant from the National Secretariat of Public Security (SENASP/ Ministry of Criminal Justice.) It seeks to understand how the SINARM - an entity whose importance increased as a result of the “NO” victory on a national gun control referendum that was conducted in 2005 - can contribute to the existence of public policies for Public Security and particularly, its own efficiency as a system for control and management of legally-owned arms and weapons in Brazil. We look at its connections to public safety policies, to the absence of a “culture of control” in the country and to the multiple causes of deaths by firearms. To lend support to our argument, the research compared the SINARM to analogous systems in other countries, analyzed legislation, carried out interviews with authorities and technicians who manage the system and above all, carried out in loco observation on the way the SINARM works. We conclude that its creation meant progress and that its operation is simple but not particularly reliable or secure; nonetheless, we also maintain that there are ways to deal with such difficulties, since the entity is crucial to the existence of public security policies.