Showing papers on "Gun control published in 2009"

Mass Shootings in Schools: The Worst Possible Case for Gun Control

Abstract: The most frequent policy lesson drawn following the Columbine school shootings was the need for more gun controls. Review of the details of both Columbine and other contemporary school shootings indicates, however, that the specific gun control measures proposed in their aftermath were largely irrelevant and almost certainly could not have prevented the incidents or reduced their death tolls. These measures included restrictions on gun shows, child access prevention laws mandating locking up guns, and bans on assault weapons. Ironically, exploitation of school shootings for the advocacy of irrelevant gun controls may have obscured the genuine merits of various gun control measures for reducing “ordinary” gun violence. Thus, mass school shootings provided the worst possible basis for supporting gun control.

Gun Control after Heller : Threats and Sideshows from a Social Welfare Perspective

Abstract: What will happen after Heller? We know that the Supreme Court will no longer tolerate comprehensive federal prohibitions on home handgun possession by some class of trustworthy homeowners for the purpose of, and perhaps only at the time of, self-defense. But the judiciary could push further, if nothing else by incorporating Heller's holding into the Fourteenth Amendment and enforcing it against states and municipalities. In fact, the majority opinion offered little guidance for future cases. It presented neither a purely originalist method of constitutional interpretation nor a constraining doctrinal framework for evaluating other regulation - even while it gratuitously suggested that much existing gun control is acceptable. In the absence of more information from the Court, we identify plausible legal arguments for the next few rounds of litigation and assess the stakes for social welfare. We conclude that some of the most salient legal arguments after Heller have little or no likely consequence for social welfare based on available data. For example, the looming fight over local handgun bans - an issue on which we present original empirical data - seems largely inconsequential. The same can be said for a right to carry a firearm in public with a permit. On the other hand, less prominent legal arguments could be quite threatening. Taxation and regulation targeted especially at firearms might be presumptively disfavored by judges in the future, along the lines of free speech doctrine. This could have serious consequences. In addition, Second Amendment doctrine might generally dampen enthusiasm for innovative regulatory responses to the problem of gun violence. The threat of litigation may inhibit policy experimentation ranging from micro-stamping on shell casings, to pre-market review of gun design, to so-called personalized firearms, and beyond.

The illicit firearms trade in North America

Abstract: Gun violence in North American is the subject of much speculation and debate, often based on limited or incomplete empirical evidence. We summarize the regulatory frameworks in Mexico, the United States and Canada, and provide statistics on gun misuse in these countries. Based on our analysis of publicly available information on sources of crime guns, we conclude that while the United States is a major supplier of illegal handguns to Canada and illegal firearms of all types to Mexico, quantifying the extent of its role, particularly in Mexico, is difficult because of data limitations. Still more difficult is to project the consequences of an effective crackdown by US authorities. If the illicit supply from the USA dried up, the criminal gangs could turn to a variety of other sources that already appear to be playing some role. A complete analysis of these issues must await more complete disclosure by the authorities of data on gun sources and trafficking investigations.

Guns, crime and social order A Canadian perspective

Abstract: Canada has undergone intensive public debate concerning firearms over the past two decades, much of which has concerned the effectiveness of gun control legislation Since about 2005 public discourse has focused increasingly on an upsurge in gun-crime perpetrated by street-level criminals The article examines the projection of these concerns within the Canadian mass media and through official statistics It shows that gun control legislation appears to have had a positive effect on gun-related crime in Canada, but that a residuum of gun-crime has remained Evidence suggests that a process of pistolization is ongoing in some places, but that it is not a dominant strain The article also looks at some examples of grassroots resistance to pistolization in Canada in some communities that are worst affected by street-level gun crime

The Myth of Big-Time Gun Trafficking and the Overinterpretation of Gun Tracing Data

Abstract: In recent years the gun control movement has increasingly shifted its efforts from lobbying for new gun-control legislation to facilitating lawsuits against the gun industry, especially those based on claims of negligent distribution of firearms. These lawsuits are based on the premise that organized gun trafficking, much of it involving corrupt or negligent licensed dealers, plays an important role in supplying guns to criminals. This paper first assesses the extant evidence bearing on this claim, as well as on underlying assertions as to how one can tell whether a crime gun has been trafficked or whether a licensed dealer is involved in trafficking. Law enforcement evidence indicates that high-volume trafficking is extremely unusual, and that average “traffickers” handle fewer than a dozen guns. The aggregate volume of guns moved by known traffickers is negligible compared to even low estimates of the number of guns stolen. City-level data on crime guns recovered in fifty large U.S. cities in 2000 are then analyzed to investigate (a) whether supposed indicators of gun trafficking are valid, (b) what factors affect trafficking levels, (c) the impact of gun trafficking on gun possession levels among criminals, and (d) the impact of gun trafficking on crime rates. The findings suggest that most supposed indicators that a crime gun has been trafficked have little validity. One possible exception is whether a gun has an obliterated serial number (OSN). Using the share of crime guns with an OSN as a city-level indicator of the prevalence of gun trafficking, the analysis showed that trafficking is more common where guns are scarcer. The analysis also showed that laws regulating the purchase of guns, including one-gun-a-month laws specifically aimed at trafficking, show no effect on trafficking activity. Finally, the research indicates that trafficking levels show no measurable effect on gun possession among criminals (measured as the share of homicides committed with guns), and generally show no effect on violent-crime rates.

The myth of big-time gun trafficking and the overinterpretation of gun tracing data.

Abstract: In recent years the gun control movement has increasingly shifted its efforts from lobbying for new gun-control legislation to facilitating lawsuits against the gun industry, especially those based on claims of negligent distribution of firearms. These lawsuits are based on the premise that organized gun trafficking, much of it involving corrupt or negligent licensed dealers, plays an important role in supplying guns to criminals. This paper first assesses the extant evidence bearing on this claim, as well as on underlying assertions as to how one can tell whether a crime gun has been trafficked or whether a licensed dealer is involved in trafficking. Law enforcement evidence indicates that high-volume trafficking is extremely unusual, and that average "traffickers" handle fewer than a dozen guns. The aggregate volume of guns moved by known traffickers is negligible compared to even low estimates of the number of guns stolen. City-level data on crime guns recovered in fifty large U.S. cities in 2000 are then analyzed to investigate (a) whether supposed indicators of gun trafficking are valid, (b) what factors affect trafficking levels, (c) the impact of gun trafficking on gun possession levels among criminals, and (d) the impact of gun trafficking on crime rates. The findings suggest that most supposed indicators that a crime gun has been trafficked have little validity. One possible exception is whether a gun has an obliterated serial number (OSN). Using the share of crime guns with an OSN as a city-level indicator of the prevalence of gun trafficking, the analysis showed that trafficking is more common where guns are scarcer. The analysis also showed that laws regulating the purchase of guns, including one-gun-a-month laws specifically aimed at trafficking, show no effect on trafficking activity. Finally, the research indicates that trafficking levels show no measurable effect on gun possession among criminals (measured as the share of homicides committed with guns), and generally show no effect on violent-crime rates. Language: en

CAEP position statement on gun control

Abstract: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Firearm-related injury and death continue to be a significant problem in Canada. Since the 1990s Canadian emergency physicians (EPs) have played an active role in advocating for gun control. This paper updates the Canadian Association of Emergency Physician’s (CAEP’s) position on gun control. Despite a media focus on homicide, the majority of firearm-related deaths are a result of suicide. Less than 40% of firearm-related injuries are intentionally inflicted by another person. Since the implementation of Canada’s gun registry in 1995, there has been a significant reduction in firearm-related suicides and intimate partner homicides. Proposed weakening of gun laws in Canada will have a significant impact on firearm-related mortality and injury. There must be instead an expansion of programs focused on prevention of suicide, intimate partner violence and gang-related violence. The majority of intentional or unintentional firearm-related injuries involve a violation of safe storage or handling practice. The potential for future harm because of unsafe storage or handling or through gang conflict retribution supports our position that health care facilities report gunshot wounds (GSWs). Moreover, a nationwide surveillance system is necessary to support research and to guide future public policy development and legislation. As EPs we must advocate for injury control. All firearm injuries and deaths are preventable, and we must advocate for a multifaceted approach in order to minimize this risk to our patients.

Caught in a Crossfire: Legal and Illegal Gun Ownership in America

Abstract: Just beneath the surface of much of the popular, political, and scholarly debate on gun control is a set of assumptions about the propinquity of the legal and illegal gun worlds and the people who inhabit those arenas. Few people know about, or carefully consider, exactly what these two worlds look like. As a result, much of the debate is ill informed and results in poorly crafted, if well intended, policy suggestions or actions, or the lack thereof. It is important to understand the simple facts of legal and illegal gun ownership and use because these serve as the foundation of the entire debate on myriad gun control issues.

Gun control and suicide: The impact of state firearm regulations, 1995-2004

Abstract: Suicide is a major cause of preventable death. Restricting access to lethal means has been identified as an effective approach to suicide prevention, and firearms regulations are one way to reduce gun availability. This study examines the relationship between state firearms regulations and suicide among males, using negative binomial regression and state panel data for the years 1995–2004. Results suggest that firearms regulations which function to reduce overall gun availability have a significant deterrent effect on suicide, while prohibited persons categories have less of an effect. Overall, the results suggest that gun control measures such as permit and licensing requirements might have public health benefits.

Race, Fear, and Firearms: The Roles of Demographics and Guilt Assuagement in the Creation of a Political Partition

Abstract: The current political debate over guns and gun control is a relatively recent phenomenon going back only 40 to 50 years. To many observers today, the partisan lines drawn on this issue seem perfectly logical and inevitable: just another front on the ideological battlefield between liberals and conservatives. However, few observers seem to critically examine the origins of this particular battlefront and the way these lines were drawn. How and why did those on the political-left become crusaders for “sensible” gun control laws while those on the political right became defenders of the Second Amendment? Our research suggests a combination of factors, including demographic shifts and the historical linking of racial and ethnic minority groups with violent criminal behavior ultimately led to this political division.

Gun Control after "Heller": Litigating against Regulation

Abstract: The "core right" established in D.C. vs. Heller (2008) is to keep an operable handgun in the home for self-defense purposes. If the Court extends this right to cover state and local jurisdictions, the result is likely to include the elimination of the most stringent existing regulations - such as Chicago's handgun ban - and could also possibly ban regulations that place substantial restrictions or costs on handgun ownership. We find evidence in support of four conclusions: The effect of Heller may be to increase the prevalence of handgun ownership in jurisdictions that currently have restrictive laws; Given the best evidence on the consequences of increased prevalence of gun ownership, these jurisdictions will experience a greater burden of crime due to more lethal violence and an increased burglary rate; Nonetheless, a regime with greater scope for gun rights is not necessarily inferior - whether restrictive regulations would pass a cost benefit test may depend on whether we accept the Heller viewpoint that there is a legal entitlement to possess a handgun; In any event, the core right defined by Heller leaves room for some regulation that would reduce the negative externalities of gun ownership.

Using the Issue Crawler to Map Gun Control Issue-Networks

Abstract: What can hyperlinkage analysis tell us about advocacy networks? This paper examines the pro and anti gun control movements in North America using hyperlinkage analysis. Hyperlinks benefit “issue-networks” because they represent the connections of one group to another. We use the Issue Crawler software to determine how gun advocacy networks are linked on-line. In examining the gun control community online we follow Noortje Marres’s definition of an “issue-network” (2006), rather than the original “issue people” definition (or lobbyists) derived from Hugh Heclo in 1978, to help address the deficiencies of hyperlinkage analysis on its own. We argue that hyperlinkage analysis of the pro gun control movement indicates that its strongest resources are not found, and its “issue-work” does not occur, online. Online there are not as many groups linked into the pro network, as the anti gun control groups. Therefore, a mixed methodology is required to determine the work being done that hyperlink analysis maps cannot illustrate.

Heller's Catch 22

Abstract: Joseph Heller's satire Catch-22 has become a classic for its revealing look at the illogic, inconsistency, and circular reasoning common in modern bureaucratic life. This article uses Heller's novel to frame a critical analysis of the recent landmark Second Amendment decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that carries the Catch-22 author's surname, District of Columbia v. Heller. The majority opinion in Heller suffers from many of the missteps and contradictions Heller's novel identified. Although hailed as a "triumph of originalism," the opinion paradoxically relies on a thoroughly modern understanding of gun rights. Justice Scalia has argued that originalism is necessary to preserve the legitimacy of the Court, but Heller is more likely to be accepted as legitimate precisely because Scalia's opinion departed from the original meaning of the Second Amendment. Moreover, this celebrated landmark decision has had almost no effect on the constitutionality of gun control. To date, the federal courts have yet to invalidate a single gun control law for violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms, despite scores of cases. While some laws are sure to be invalidated in time, the new Second Amendment's bark is far worse than its right. The greatest irony is that Heller's logical flaws and inconsistencies improve the decision, making it more likely to endure and helping to cement a reasonable, not radical, right to bear arms.

The District of Columbia v. Heller and Antonin Scalia's Perverse Sense of Originalism

Abstract: This Essay weighs Justice Scalia's Heller opinion in the balance, and finds it wanting. Rather than being a garden variety case of originalism manque, i.e. an effort to pin point a single original understanding when in fact meaning was hotly contested at the time constitutional text was created, Heller emerges as an act of (self?)-deception or conscious fraud. Few of the historical assumptions that underlie Justice Scalia's analysis withstand scrutiny. The majority holding-that the Second Amendment was originally understood to protect the right to possess any commonly held weapon for purposes unrelated to militia service such as self-defense and hunting-requires misreading, misunderstanding, or ignoring the bulk of relevant evidence such as the debates on the pending Amendment in the House of Representatives and the common meaning accorded bearing arms in newspapers and pamphlets of the day. Rather than using historical source material to inform his analysis, Justice Scalia operates with the faith-based assumption that the framers must have intended to protect a private right to gun possession, and then manipulates outlying evidence to dress up his claim in ill-fitting pseudo academic garb. In the process he demonstrates conclusively that the originalist methodology he trumpeted in A Matter of Interpretation as the surest remedy against judicial injection of subjective values into constitutional adjudication is in fact nothing more than a hollow sham.

Preventing Suicide: Closing the Exits Revisited

Abstract: Preface Introduction Domestic gas Car exhaust Jumping Trains Medications & poisons Gun control in Canada Gun control in Australia & other nations Conclusions: A look at some issues Index.

Four Exceptions in Search of a Theory: District of Columbia v. Heller and Judicial Ipse Dixit

Abstract: This Symposium Essay examines the Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. Specifically, the Essay examines four exceptions to the right to bear arms that the Court specifically approved: laws disarming felons; laws disarming the mentally ill; laws prohibiting the possession of firearms in sensitive places; and laws regulating the commercial sale of firearms. The Essay argues that these exceptions cannot be completely justified on originalist grounds, at least under the form of originalism that the Court is likely to employ. The Essay further argues that the exceptions cannot be justified if strict scrutiny is the applicable standard of scrutiny. Accordingly, some lesser standard of review of firearms regulation must apply.

Gibbons v. Ogden, Law, and Society in the Early Republic

Abstract: Gibbons v. Ogden, Law, and Society in the Early Republic examines a landmark decision in American jurisprudence, the first Supreme Court case to deal with the thorny legal issue of interstate commerce. Decided in 1824, Gibbons v. Ogden arose out of litigation between owners of rival steamboat lines over passenger and freight routes between the neighboring states of New York and New Jersey. But what began as a local dispute over the right to ferry the paying public from the New Jersey shore to New York City soon found its way into John Marshall's court and constitutional history. The case is consistently ranked as one of the twenty most significant Supreme Court decisions and is still taught in constitutional law courses, cited in state and federal cases, and quoted in articles on constitutional, business, and technological history. Gibbons v. Ogden initially attracted enormous public attention because it involved the development of a new and sensational form of technology. To early Americans, steamboats were floating symbols of progress-cheaper and quicker transportation that could bring goods to market and refinement to the backcountry. A product of the rough-and-tumble world of nascent capitalism and legal innovation, the case became a landmark decision that established the supremacy of federal regulation of interstate trade, curtailed states' rights, and promoted a national market economy. The case has been invoked by prohibitionists, New Dealers, civil rights activists, and social conservatives alike in debates over federal regulation of issues ranging from labor standards to gun control. This lively study fills in the social and political context in which the case was decided-the colorful and fascinating personalities, the entrepreneurial spirit of the early republic, and the technological breakthroughs that brought modernity to the masses.

Cease Fire: A 'Win-Win' Strategy on Gun Policy for the Obama Administration

Abstract: Amidst all the economic trouble, one industry has reason to celebrate. Sales of firearms increased significantly before the 2008 election, driven by fears that as President Barrack Obama would bring tighter restrictions on guns. The FBI reported that almost fifty percent more background checks were conducted in the first week of November 2008 compared to the same week in 2007. While generating a surge for the gun industry, the 2008 elections may have a more significant effect on policy issues surrounding guns. After several years of momentum in favor of the National Rifle Association (NRA), the 2008 election favored gun control advocates. Should the Obama administration, with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, make a push for legislation tightening restrictions on firearms, or move to adopt a more gun-friendly stance, or do nothing and hope the issue receives as little attention as possible? This article lays out a strategy for the Obama administration to translate the campaign rhetoric of overcome old dividing lines and partisan bickering into action. Despite the decades long political and cultural conflict surrounding gun control, there is room for consensus and compromise. President Obama should announce that he wants progress on regulating firearms, but will not support any proposal unless it also enhances gun rights. This article describes examples of how both sides could work together on measures that promote beneficial use of guns while reducing harmful misuse. This approach emphasizes compromise in that the Obama administration would take a middle path between pursuing ideal policies and paying attention only to pragmatic political considerations. The approach must blend principle with practicality. Supporting measures that bolster both gun control and gun rights would enable Obama to make steps toward improving law and policy concerning guns, while minimizing the political risk and reducing the bitterness of the gun debate. This article begins with an overview of the gun issue and a review of major developments in recent years. Although the NRA devoted enormous resources to convincing voters that Barack Obama posed a serious threat, Obama downplayed the issue, neither emphasizing nor repudiating reasonable gun control measures. Learning from the pitfalls and building on achievements of the past, the Obama administration can make progress on the gun issue with a strategy that emphasizes the compatibility of gun rights and sensible gun control.

District of Columbia et al. v. Heller: Another Round in the Debate Over Gun Control

Abstract: n a 5-4 decision on June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States identified circumstances under which the SecondAmendment to the Constitution allows for an individual to lawfully possess a handgun. In the majority opinion of the Court, Justice Scalia stated, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” (Supreme Court of the United States, 2008, p. 1). This potentially landmark decision addresses (at least in part) the longstanding question over whether the right to bear arms mentioned in the Second Amendment applies to individuals or whether it authorizes states to arm militias. More specifically, the Heller decision overturned the 1976 ban on handguns in the District of Columbia, which prohibited the possession of handguns, prohibited their registration, and invalidated the requirement that other firearms (e.g., rifles and shotguns) stored within the home must be (a) unloaded and (b) disassembled or equipped with a trigger locking device (Supreme Court of the United States, 2008). No doubt, the potential implications of the Heller case will result in even more debate over an issue that Wellford, Pepper, and Petrie (2004) suggest is already one of the most controversial subjects in the United States. The primary objective of this essay is to show how the case reflects the extremely complex issue of guns and policies surrounding their ownership and use.

Taking Aim at Tiahrt

Abstract: TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I BACKGROUND A Gun Trafficking Patterns: A Few "Bad Apples" and Worse Guns B ATF Gun Trace System 1 Primary Purpose: Tracing Guns 2 Secondary Purpose: Identifying Gun Traffickers C Municipal Lawsuits Against the Gun Industry D PLCAA E Litigating the PLCAA: City of New York v A-1 Jewelry & Pawn II EVOLUTION OF THE TIAHRT AMENDMENT A 2003 B 2004 C 2005 D 2006 E 2007 F 2008 G Trend and Outlook III THE TIAHRT AMENDMENT SHOULD BE ABANDONED A The Tiahrt Amendment Is Redudant of the PLCAA: What Congress Giveth, Congress Taketh Away B The Tiahrt Amendment Does Not Protect Law Enforcement 1 How Does Wholesale Trace Data Release Actually Endanger Law Enforcement? 2 Trace Data Release Does Not "Hinder[] Law Enforcement" 3 Law Enforcement Privilege Makes the Tiahrt Amendment Unnecessary C Law Enforcement la Best Protected by Sensible Data Release 1 Sensible Data Release: Subject to Confidentiality Order 2 Sensible Data Release: Redact Sensitive Fields CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK HOW ABANDONING THE TIAHRT AMENDMENT ALLOWS AMERICA'S CITIES TO REFORM "BAD APPLE" (1) GUN SELLERS THROUGH PUBLIC NUISANCE LITIGATION "Every gun has a story to tell" (2) --William G McMahon, Special Agent in Charge, New York Field Office, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives INTRODUCTION Officer Russell Timoshenko of the New York City Police Department was only twenty-three years old when he was shot twice, in the face and neck, by an illegal 45-caliber Llama pistol (3) Timoshenko and his partner, Officer Herman Yan, had reason to be suspicious of the BMW SUV (4) they pulled over at 2:30 am on July 9, 2007, because the BMW's license plate belonged to a Mitsubishi (5) The BMW's darkly tinted windows (6) did not allow Timoshenko and Yan to see the three armed criminals inside the vehicle (7) Without warning, two of the vehicle's passengers shot at the officers as they approached the vehicle (8) A bulletproof vest saved Yan's life (9) Timoshenko was declared brain dead (10) After five days on life support, Officer Timoshenko died (11) As convicted felons, (12) Timoshenko's killers were not permitted to own or carry firearms (13) Yet they had three pistols: a TEC-9, the 45-caliber Llama that killed Timoshenko, and a 9-millimeter Hi-Point used to shoot Yan (14) Within hours (15) of the shooting, investigators used the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Gun Trace System database to determine the origin of the three illegal guns (16) The guns were originally sold out of state (17) The Llama used to kill Timoshenko had already been used in a "drive-by" shooting (18) The twice-murderous Llama led a typical gun life cycle, in which traffickers purchase guns in localities with relatively lax gun control to illegally resell them in localities with strict gun control (19) Guns recovered in New York are trafficked largely from Southern states along Interstate 95, mostly from Virginia (20) The Llama was originally purchased in Hampton, Virginia (21) from a dealer who sold guns from his home and later lost his license to sell firearms (22) R&B Guns was notorious for selling guns without following federal and state laws (23) This pattern is also typical in gun trafficking Although most gun dealers, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), obey state and federal gun sale laws, the small percentage of violators sell the vast majority of all crime guns (24) In fact, "[j]ust 12 percent of dealers accounted for over 57 percent of the crime guns traced to current dealers in 1998" (25) That statistic is even more glaring in light of the fact that "85 percent of licensed dealers had no crime gun traces in 1998 …

Heller High Water? The Future of Originalism

Abstract: Has originalism won? It’s easy to think so, judging from some of the reaction to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.1 The Heller Court held that the District of Columbia could neither ban possession of handguns nor require that all other firearms be either unloaded and disassembled or guarded by a trigger lock. In finding for the first time in the Court’s history that a gun control law violated the Second Amendment, Justice Scalia’s opinion for the 5-4 majority appeared to be a sterling exemplar of originalism, the method of constitutional interpretation that he has helped to popularize. More surprising to most observers, the dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens also seemed to be in the originalist tradition.2 Hence the claim advanced by some in the decision’s wake that “we are all originalists now.”3 If that claim is true, it is profoundly important to the future of constitutional law. Originalists believe that judges generally should prioritize the original understanding of constitutional provisions over contemporary understandings that avail themselves of social and intellectual progress. Since this is not how constitutional law has been made for much of our history, a serious commitment by the Supreme Court to originalism would destabilize some of our most familiar and cherished political traditions. If the claim is not true, then constitutional lawyers, particularly progressives, must take care to separate the rhetoric of originalists from the impact of originalism on actual constitutional cases.

The Second Amendment: An Analysis of District of Columbia v. Heller

Abstract: The case analyzed in this article is District of Columbia v. Heller, a 154-page decision absolutely overflowing with sharply conflicting accounts of history and the principles of linguistics, not to mention competing views on the meaning of earlier Supreme Court pronouncements regarding the Second Amendment and the role of the courts in second-guessing policy judgments made by the elected branches of government. Although this was a truly historic decision that opens a whole new chapter of constitutional law, it leaves open more questions than it resolves, and thus, invites many rounds of litigation for years to come. The bottom line is that Heller is truly a landmark decision, but one certain to usher in a new era of gun litigation. The first round will be devoted to the question of incorporation -- the threshold question that the Supreme Court will ultimately resolve. What follows, the author surmises, will be litigation throughout the nation attempting to tackle the thornier question of how to evaluate the constitutionality of firearm regulations. What standard should the courts use? How deferential should the courts be to legislative fact-finding? Although the Supreme Court ducked that issue in Heller, it is only a matter of time until the Court will have to establish the standard used to evaluate governmental regulation of firearms.

Gun Control after Heller: Litigating against Regulation

Abstract: The "core right" established in D.C. vs. Heller (2008) is to keep an operable handgun in the home for self-defense purposes. If the Court extends this right to cover state and local jurisdictions, the result is likely to include the elimination of the most stringent existing regulations - such as Chicago's handgun ban - and could also possibly ban regulations that place substantial restrictions or costs on handgun ownership. We find evidence in support of four conclusions: The effect of Heller may be to increase the prevalence of handgun ownership in jurisdictions that currently have restrictive laws; Given the best evidence on the consequences of increased prevalence of gun ownership, these jurisdictions will experience a greater burden of crime due to more lethal violence and an increased burglary rate; Nonetheless, a regime with greater scope for gun rights is not necessarily inferior - whether restrictive regulations would pass a cost benefit test may depend on whether we accept the Heller viewpoint that there is a legal entitlement to possess a handgun; In any event, the core right defined by Heller leaves room for some regulation that would reduce the negative externalities of gun ownership.

Gun Control: A Documentary and Reference Guide

Abstract: Readers Guide to Related Documents and Sidebars Foreword by Gregg Lee Carter Acknowledgments Introduction 1. Founding Documents and Gun Rights 2. The Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment, and Early Laws 3. Early Supreme Court Rulings on Gun Laws and Rights 4. Early State Court Rulings on Gun Regulations and Rights 5. Twentieth Century Supreme Court Cases 6. Lower Federal Court Rulings on the Second Amendment 7. Modern Gun Laws 8. Gun Control, the States, and Politics Gun Control Resources

Gun Control and the Right to Arms after 9/11

Abstract: How did September 11 affect the gun control debate in the United States? The gun control lobby attempted to use terrorism fears to promote some of their long-standing action items—such as restrictions on gun shows, and bans on .50 caliber firearms. The gun control efforts were generally unsuccessful. The pro-gun lobby gained some marginal benefit from an increase in the number of gun owners, and from greater support for “right to carry” legislation.

Second Amendment Plumbing After Heller: Of Standards of Scrutiny, Incorporation, Well-Regulated Militias and Criminal Street Gangs

Abstract: The decision of the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller ended one debate about the Second Amendment while beginning another. Prior to Heller, the principal point on which courts and scholars had joined issue was whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right to bear arms or a right to participate in an organized militia. In Heller, the Court came down on the individual-rights side while resolving little else about the extent to which the Second Amendment will constrain the power to regulate firearms. Among the many questions left for future litigation, the two most important are the extent to which firearms regulations must be justified in order to withstand constitutional attack, and whether the Second Amendment is applicable to the state and local laws as a result of its "incorporation" within the Fourteenth Amendment. This article addresses these critical issues of doctrinal "plumbing" in the wake of Heller. Part I considers the stakes in the constitutional debates to come - a consideration that bears importantly on both incorporation and the standard of scrutiny. Part I argues that the available data suggest that stringent regulation of concealable weapons played an important role in driving down the rate of violent crime. By virtue of the underappreciated interaction between the constitutional rules governing search and seizure and the scope of firearms regulation, gun control laws enhance the ability of the police to utilize aggressive stop-and-frisk tactics when they suspect that a firearm is being carried unlawfully. These tactics, in turn, make it risky for gangs and drug dealers to carry firearms in public, thereby reducing the rate of violent confrontations in public places. The Second Amendment right articulated in Heller, however, imperils such efforts to drive firearms off the streets. Part II turns to the historical evidence on incorporation. There has been something of a trend in the academy in favor of the view that incorporation of the Bill of Rights reflects the intentions of the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment. This scholarship, however, fails to take account of the emerging consensus among originalists that constitutional interpretation should not be guided by the intentions of constitutional drafters but instead by the meaning of the text as it would have been originally understood by the public - a view embraced by Heller itself. The historical case for incorporation is deeply problematic when measured against original public meaning. While many of those most instrumental in the crafting the Fourteenth Amendment likely did believe that it rendered the first eight amendments applicable to the states, there is only deeply conflicting evidence about whether this had become an accepted public meaning when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. The historical evidence therefore supplies no satisfactory basis for resolving the incorporation question. Part III considers the case for incorporation under current doctrine, which asks whether a given right is "necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty." To determine whether Second Amendment rights are sufficiently fundamental to merit incorporation, it is first necessary to examine the nature of those rights; and that leads to the Second Amendment standard of scrutiny. Heller contains an important clue; it defines the "militia" to include all those "physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense"; the militia is accordingly not limited to only the members of an "organized militia." It follows that textual support for regulatory power over firearms is found in the Second Amendment's preamble, which, Heller explains, is properly consulted to clarify the Amendment. The preamble envisions a "well regulated militia"; thus, the preamble indicates that the entire populace capable of bearing arms may be "well regulated." Regulation, however, cannot render the right itself nugatory, and for this reason, Heller suggests that firearms regulation should be sustained as long as it poses no undue burden to the right to keep and bear arms, much as the Court has evaluated abortion regulations. Part III then concludes that even this qualified version of the Second Amendment right does not merit incorporation. The eighteenth-century conception of the right to bear arms has not fared particularly well in subsequent jurisprudential history, and, even more important, in many high-crime urban areas, it may be effectively impossible to create the type of "well-regulated militia" envisioned by the Second Amendment. The demands of ordered liberty argue for leaving gun control policy at the state and local level.