Showing papers on "Gun control published in 2012"

The Global Right Wing and the Clash of World Politics

Abstract: 1. Clashing networks in world politics 2. Making and unmaking policy 3. Culture wars gone global: gay rights vs the Baptist-burqa network 4. Litigating for the lord: American attorneys and European sexualities 5. Shootout at UN plaza: dueling over global gun control 6. Battlefield Brazil: national disarmament and international activism 7. Conclusion.

Specifying the Role of Exposure to Violence and Violent Behavior on Initiation of Gun Carrying: A Longitudinal Test of Three Models of Youth Gun Carrying

Abstract: Two waves of longitudinal data from 1,049 African American youth living in extreme poverty are used to examine the impact of exposure to violence (Time 1) and violent behavior (Time 1) on first time gun carrying (Time 2). Multivariate logistic regression results indicate that (a) violent behavior (Time 1) increased the likelihood of initiation of gun carrying (Time 2) by 76% after controlling for exposure to violence at Time 1, which is consistent with the stepping stone model of youth gun carrying, and (b) youth who were both exposed to violence at Time 1 and engaged in violent behavior at Time 1 were more than 2.5 times more likely to initiate gun carrying at Time 2 compared to youth who had neither of these characteristics, which supports the cumulative risk model of youth gun carrying. The authors discuss the implications of these findings in clarifying the role of violence in the community on youth gun carrying and the primary prevention of youth gun violence.

The Effectiveness of Policies and Programs That Attempt to Reduce Firearm Violence: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract: In response to rising rates of firearms violence that peaked in the mid-1990s, a wide range of policy interventions have been developed in an attempt to reduce violent crimes committed with firearms Although some of these approaches appear to be effective at reducing gun violence, methodological variations make comparing effects across program evaluations difficult Accordingly, in this article, the authors use meta-analytic techniques to determine what works in reducing gun violence The results indicate that comprehensive community-based law enforcement initiatives have performed the best at reducing gun violence

University Faculty Attitudes Toward Guns on Campus

Abstract: A number of states are currently reviewing legislation expanding handgun legislation, and studies examining the public's attitudes toward gun control legislation are abundant. This article examines attitudes of university faculty toward expanding the places where concealed handguns may be carried to include college campuses and churches. An opinion survey was administered to 287 faculty/administrators. Bivariate relationships are discussed, as well as three regression models examining the effects of six independent variables on support for current gun legislation, support for expanding concealed carry on college campuses, and support for expanding concealed carry in places of worship. Results showed that a substantial majority of faculty opposes such legislation, but support or opposition is significantly determined by political party and gun ownership.

Gun Control Legislation

Abstract: This report provides basic firearms-related statistics, an overview of federal firearms law, and a summary of legislative action in the 111th Congress. The report concludes with salient issues that have generated significant congressional interest, including the 1994-2004 LCAFD ban.

Stand Your Ground Laws, Homicides, and Injuries

Abstract: The controversies surrounding gun control policies have recently moved to the forefront of public's attention in the United States and elsewhere. Since 2005, eighteen states in the United States have passed laws extending the right to self-defense with no duty to retreat to any place a person has a legal right to be, and several additional states are debating the adoption of similar legislation. Despite the implications that these laws may have for public safety, there has been little empirical investigation of their impact on crime and victimization. In this paper, we use monthly data from the U.S. Vital Statistics to examine how Stand Your Ground laws affect homicides and firearm injuries. We identify the impact of these laws by exploiting variation in the effective date of these laws across states over time. Our results indicate that Stand Your Ground laws are associated with a significant increase in the number of homicides among whites, especially white males. According to our estimates, between 28 and 33 additional white males are killed each month as a result of these laws. We find no consistent evidence to suggest that these laws increase homicides among blacks. Auxiliary analysis using data from the Supplemental Homicide Reports indicates that our results are not driven by the killings of assailants. We also find that the stand your ground laws are not related to non-homicide deaths, which should not respond to gun laws. Finally, we analyze data from the Health Care Utilization Project to show that these laws are also associated with a significant increase in emergency room visits and hospital discharges related to firearm inflicted injuries. Taken together, these findings raise serious doubts against the argument that Stand Your Ground laws make public safer.

Canadian Firearms Legislation and Effects on Homicide 1974 to 2008

Abstract: Canada has implemented legislation covering all firearms since 1977 and presents a model to examine incremental firearms control. The effect of legislation on homicide by firearm and the subcategory, spousal homicide, is controversial and has not been well studied to date. Legislative effects on homicide and spousal homicide were analyzed using data obtained from Statistics Canada from 1974 to 2008. Three statistical methods were applied to search for any associated effects of firearms legislation. Interrupted time series regression, ARIMA, and Joinpoint analysis were performed. Neither were any significant beneficial associations between firearms legislation and homicide or spousal homicide rates found after the passage of three Acts by the Canadian Parliament--Bill C-51 (1977), C-17 (1991), and C-68 (1995)--nor were effects found after the implementation of licensing in 2001 and the registration of rifles and shotguns in 2003. After the passage of C-68, a decrease in the rate of the decline of homicide by firearm was found by interrupted regression. Joinpoint analysis also found an increasing trend in homicide by firearm rate post the enactment of the licensing portion of C-68. Other factors found to be associated with homicide rates were median age, unemployment, immigration rates, percentage of population in low-income bracket, Gini index of income equality, population per police officer, and incarceration rate. This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008.

Arming and disarming : a history of gun control in Canada

Abstract: From the Ecole Polytechnique shootings of 1989 to the political controversy surrounding the elimination of the federal long-gun registry, the issue of gun control has been a subject of fierce debate in Canada. But in fact, firearm regulation has been a sharply contested issue in the country since Confederation. Arming and Disarming offers the first comprehensive history of gun control in Canada from the colonial period to the present. In this sweeping, immersive book, R. Blake Brown outlines efforts to regulate the use of guns by young people, punish the misuse of arms, impose licensing regimes, and create firearm registries. Brown also challenges many popular assumptions about Canadian history, suggesting that gun ownership was far from universal during much of the colonial period, and that many nineteenth century lawyers - including John A. Macdonald - believed in a limited right to bear arms. Arming and Disarming provides a careful exploration of how social, economic, cultural, legal, and constitutional concerns shaped gun legislation and its implementation, as well as how these factors defined Canada's historical and contemporary 'gun culture.'

Exploring Gun Ownership as a Social Identity to Understanding the Perceived Media Influence of the Virginia Tech News Coverage on Attitudes toward Gun Control Policy

Abstract: This study examines the perceived effects of the Virginia Tech shooting news coverage on self and others’ attitudes toward gun control policy and the moderating role of gun ownership. One hundred sixty-four respondents completed an online survey. Larger, third-person perceptions (TPPs) were reported for those who owned guns due to the reduction of the perceived effect on self. Exposure to gun-related news was associated with perceived effect on self, but only for non-gun owners. Results are discussed in light of TPP and intergroup research.

Gun utopias? Firearm access and ownership in Israel and Switzerland

Abstract: The 2011 attempted assassination of a US representative renewed the national gun control debate. Gun advocates claim mass-casualty events are mitigated and deterred with three policies: (a) permissive gun laws, (b) widespread gun ownership, (c) and encouragement of armed civilians who can intercept shooters. They cite Switzerland and Israel as exemplars. We evaluate these claims with analysis of International Crime Victimization Survey (ICVS) data and translation of laws and original source material. Swiss and Israeli laws limit firearm ownership and require permit renewal one to four times annually. ICVS analysis finds the United States has more firearms per capita and per household than either country. Switzerland and Israel curtail off-duty soldiers' firearm access to prevent firearm deaths. Suicide among soldiers decreased by 40 per cent after the Israeli army's 2006 reforms. Compared with the United States, Switzerland and Israel have lower gun ownership and stricter gun laws, and their policies discourage personal gun ownership.

Gun Policy in the United States and Canada: The Impact of Mass Murders and Assassinations on Gun Control

Abstract: 1. An Introduction to Political Culture and Gun Control Policy in the United States and Canada 2. Agenda Setting, Institutions, and Interest Groups in the United States and Canada 3. The United States: Violence Leads No Where 4. Canada: Violent Events Drive Change 5. Conclusions: A Discussion of Why Canada Reacts to Gun Violence Events, and the United States Does Not 6. Gun Control Policy in the United States and Canada 2008 to Present Bibliography.

Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law

Abstract: Thoroughly updated and greatly expanded from its original edition, this three-volume set is the go-to comprehensive resource on the legal, social, psychological, political, and public health aspects of guns in American life. * 450 alphabetically organized entries, including 100 new for this edition, covering key issues (suicide, video games and gun violence, firearm injury statistics) and events (workplace shootings, the Virginia Tech massacre) * 102 expert contributors from all academic fields involved in studying the causes and effects of gun violence * A chronology of pivotal moments and controversies in the history of firearm ownership and use in the United States * An exhaustive bibliography of print and online resources covering all aspects of the study of guns in the United States * Appendices on federal gun laws, state gun laws, and pro- and anti-gun-control organizations

America, guns and freedom: Part II - An international perspective.

Abstract: The need for reducing gun violence is discussed along with the necessity for citizens to assume some responsibility for protecting themselves, their families, and their property from criminal elements because the police cannot physically be everywhere to protect us all of the time. The problem of sensationalization of gun crimes by the media, multiple shootings by deranged individuals, accidents with firearms, suicide rates, and children with guns are discussed. The relationship of civilian disarmament in the context of tyrannical governments and genocide are also explored. Incidents in which liberty has been extinguished because firearms have been banned and citizens have been disarmed by increasingly oppressive governments, and the converse, countries where freedom has been preserved by armed citizens are also described. We conclude that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens deter crimes, and nations that trust their citizens with firearms have governments that sustain liberty and affirm individual freedom. Governments that do not trust their citizens with firearms tend to be despotic and tyrannical, and are a potential danger to good citizens — and a peril to humanity.

'Every boy ought to learn to shoot and to obey orders': Guns, Boys, and the Law in English Canada from the late Nineteenth Century to the Great War

Abstract: Firearms became a key part of boy and male youth culture in English Canada before the Great War. By the 1890s, imperialist sentiments had infused the growing interest in hunting, advocates of which celebrated the value of rifle shooting by suggesting that it made boys into ideal British men. As well, emerging worries about the feminization of urban youth led to calls for military drill and rifle training. At the same time, businesses heavily marketed cheap, mass-produced arms to young people by asserting that firearms could inculcate manly virtues. Businesses also attempted to redefine some weapons as acceptable consumer items. The use of weapons by young people led to a number of apprehended social ills, including accidental shootings, environmental destruction, and militarizing a generation of young people. However, legislative efforts to limit access to firearms were modest. In 1892 and 1913, the Canadian government placed limitations on to whom certain weapons could be sold, but the widespread assumption that certain kinds of arms were acceptable for most boys and youth meant that these measures frequently went unenforced.

Justice Breyer's Triumph in the Third Battle Over the Second Amendment

Abstract: In recent years, the Supreme Court has issued two landmark decisions about the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. District of Columbia v. Heller rejected the notion that the Second Amendment protects only organized militia activities, and McDonald v. City of Chicago found that the right to keep and bear arms applies to state and local governments via incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment. Those decisions left important questions unanswered. In particular, the Supreme Court declined to specify what level of scrutiny or test should be used to assess the validity of gun laws. Lower courts are now wrestling with that crucial issue. Examining the decisions made so far, this Article argues that the third phase of the fight over the right to keep and bear arms is moving toward an unusual result. The lower court decisions reflect the pragmatic sentiments of Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinions in Heller and McDonald. Frustrated by the predominantly historical approach and the puzzling categorizations suggested by Justice Scalia and the other members of the Heller and McDonald majorities, the lower courts have focused on contemporary public policy interests and applied a form of intermediate scrutiny that is highly deferential to legislative determinations and leads to all but the most drastic restrictions on guns being upheld. Justice Breyer thus stands poised to achieve an unexpected triumph despite having come out on the losing side of both of the Supreme Court’s recent clashes over the right to keep and bear arms.

Gun Control on College and University Campuses in the Wake of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago

Abstract: From the Constitution’s ratification in 1791 until its 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the Supreme Court had never held that a statute violated the Second Amendment. In invalidating Washington, D.C.’s extensive gun control prohibitions, which extended into the home, the Court declared that the Second Amendment protects citizens’ right to keep and bear arms in the home for the purpose of self-defense, so long as the weapon was of the kind used for such purposes at the founding. Moreover, in contrast to precedents going back to the nineteenth century, the Court stated this right was independent of any militia service by the gun user. In 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court declared the Second Amendment was enforceable against the states. In practical terms this meant that as of 2010 a new protection was incorporated into the Bill of Rights. Thus, the Second Amendment joined its constitutional cousins including, for example, the First Amendment Free Speech and Religion Clauses, as rights limiting states’ power.This article examines the capacity of public colleges and universities to enact campus gun control policies affecting students, faculty, staff, and others, in light of the landmark Heller and McDonald decisions and judicial interpretations of those cases, along with state constitutional and statutory constraints on the ability of public college and university officials to act autonomously in fashioning campus gun control policies. Through this examination, this article derives principles to guide campus officials in the quest to fulfill their policy goals, while remaining faithful to citizens’ individual Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms,” and state limitations on campus institutional power. The article makes observations about areas in which campus officials should feel secure in enacting firearm controls, as well as where ambiguities remain, and concludes that the political branches of state government, rather than lofty constitutional principles, may determine who prevails in this contentious policy debate.

Do the Mentally Ill Have a Right to Bear Arms

Abstract: In the same opinion in which it recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, the Supreme Court suggested that the mentally ill are excluded. This article rejects that suggestion and considers three possible levels of constitutional scrutiny. At the lowest level of scrutiny, all current laws restricting gun possession by the mentally ill are likely constitutional; at the highest level, none. The action is in the middle. Such laws are generally grounded on a perception that the mentally ill are dangerous to others. Most are not, but virtually all are at significantly higher risk of suicide. In the end, suicide, not violence, prevention is the rationale most likely to provide adequate constitutional footing for present policies.

The Great Gun Control War of the Twentieth Century--and its Lessons for Gun Laws Today

Abstract: Introduction I. From the Roaring Twenties to the Calm Fifties A. The 1920s B. The New Deal and World War II C. The 1950s II. Things Fall Apart A. 1966 B. 1967 C. 1968 III. The 1970s A. The Rise of the Handgun Prohibition Lobbies and the Revolt at the NRA B. Handgun Prohibition Efforts in the District of Columbia and Massachusetts C. The NRA Counteroffensive, and the Growing Sophistication of the Gun Control Lobby IV. The Age of Reagan V. George H.W. Bush VI. The Clinton Era VII. The Re-emergence of the Second Amendment VIII. Columbine and the 2000 Election IX. The Great American Gun War Winds Down X. Gun Control in the Twenty-First Century A. No Systems Designed to Impede Responsible Gun Ownership and Use B. No Bans on Common Types of Firearms C. Protection of the Right of Self-Defense D. Judicial Protection of the Right to Licensed Carry, but Not to Unlicensed Concealed Carry INTRODUCTION A movement to ban handguns began in the 1920s in the Northeast, led by the conservative business establishment. In response, the National Rifle Association (NRA) began to get involved in politics and was able to defeat handgun prohibition. Gun control and gun rights became the subjects of intense political, social, and cultural battles for much of the rest of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first. Often, the battles were a clash of absolutes: One side contended that there was absolutely no right to arms, that defensive gun ownership must be prohibited, and that gun ownership for sporting purposes could be, at most, allowed as a very limited privilege. The other side asserted that the right to arms was absolute, and that any gun control laws infringed that right. By the time that Heller and McDonald came to the Supreme Court, the battles had mostly been resolved. The Supreme Court did not break new ground, but instead reinforced what had become the American consensus: the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, especially for self-defense, is a fundamental individual right. That right, however, is not absolute. There are some gun control laws that do not violate the right, particularly laws which aim to keep guns out of the hands of people who have proven themselves to be dangerous. In the post-Heller world, as in the post-Brown v. Board of Education world, a key role of the courts will be to enforce federal constitutional rights against some local or state jurisdictions whose extreme laws make them outliers from the national consensus. I. FROM THE ROARING TWENTIES TO THE CALM FIFTIES A. The 1920s During the nineteenth century, gun control was almost exclusively a Southern phenomenon. (1) It was concerned with keeping guns out of the hands of slaves or free blacks before the Civil War, curbing dueling, and suppressing the freedmen after the Civil War. (2) The only gun control that found favor outside the region was restricting the concealed carrying of handguns. (3) While openly carrying weapons ("open carry") was considered legitimate and constitutionally protected, concealed carrying of weapons ("concealed carry") was viewed as something that would be done only by a person who was up to no good. (4) Towards the end of the century, fears of labor unrest led some states to enact bans on mass armed parades without a permit. (5) Early in the twentieth century, concerns about organized labor, the huge number of immigrants, and race riots in which some blacks defended themselves with firearms led non-Southern states, such as California and Michigan, to enact licensing systems or short waiting periods for handgun purchases. (6) The most famous of these early Northern controls was New York State's Sullivan Law, enacted in 1911, which required permits to own or carry handguns. (7) During the same period, communist and anarchist groups often attempted to provoke violence. …

Gunning for Page One: The Gun Control Debate and Social Movement Organization Tactics in Garnering Media Coverage

Abstract: ............................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... ii Vita ..................................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... v Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Understanding Media Coverage as a Social Movement Resource ................... 5 Chapter 3: Collective Action Framing and Media ............................................................ 10 Beyond Core Tasks ....................................................................................................... 12 The Brady Campaign and The National Rifle Association ........................................... 16 Chapter 4: Data and Analytic Strategy ............................................................................. 23 Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 23 Analytic Strategy ........................................................................................................... 34 Chapter 5: Findings ........................................................................................................... 36 Qualitative Inferences of the NRA and Brady Campaign Press Releases .................... 36 Understanding Tactical Implication of Press Releases Frames and Packages .............. 45 Press Releases’ Assocaiton with Media Coverage of SMOs ........................................ 50 v Press Releases’ Association with Framing in Media Coverage .................................... 57 Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusion ............................................................................. 61 References ......................................................................................................................... 66

How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution

Abstract: This Article chronologically reviews the British gun control which precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gun powder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gun powder, from individuals and from local governments; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events which changed a situation of rising political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment. From the events of 1774-75, we can discern that import restrictions or bans on firearms or ammunition are constitutionally suspect -- at least if their purpose is to disarm the public, rather than for the normal purposes of import controls (e.g., raising tax revenue, or protecting domestic industry). We can discern that broad attempts to disarm the people of a town, or to render them defenseless, are anathema to the Second Amendment; such disarmament is what the British tried to impose, and what the Americans fought a war to ensure could never again happen in America. Similarly, gun licensing laws which have the purpose or effect of only allowing a minority of the people to keep and bear arms would be unconstitutional. Finally, we see that government violence, which should always be carefully constrained and controlled, should be especially discouraged when it is used to take firearms away from peaceable citizens. Use of the military for law enforcement is particularly odious to the principles upon which the American Revolution was based. Language: en

School Shootings, Crises of Masculinities, and Media Spectacle: Some Critical Perspectives

Abstract: Purpose – This chapter examines the role of the media, guns, and violence in the social construction of masculinity in today's mediatized American culture. Methodology – The chapter draws on critical theory and cultural studies to address crises of masculinity and school shootings. It applies and further develops Guy Debord's (1970) theory on spectacle in the contexts of contemporary violent media spectacles. Findings – In the chapter it is argued that school shooters, and other indiscriminate gun killers, share male rage and attempts to resolve crises of masculinity through violent behavior; exhibit a fetishism of guns or weapons; and resolve their crises through violence orchestrated as a media spectacle. This demands growing awareness of mediatization of American gun culture, and calls for a need for more developed understanding of media pedagogy as a means to create cultural skills of media literacy, as well as arguing for more rational gun control and mental health care. Originality/value of paper – The chapter contributes to the contemporary debate on mediatization of violence by discussing it within critical theory and cultural studies. The theoretical framework is applied to analysis of a range of different empirical cases ranging from school shootings to the Colorado movie theater massacre at the first night of the latest Batman movie in the summer of 2012.

Cross-Border Spillover: U.S. Gun Laws and Violence in Mexico

Abstract: To what extent, and under what conditions, does access to arms fuel violent crime? To answer this question, we exploit a unique natural experiment: the 2004 expiration of the U.S. Federal Assault Weapons Ban exerted a spillover on gun supply in Mexican municipios near Texas, Arizona and New Mexico, but not near California, which retained a pre-existing state-level ban. We find first that Mexican municipios located closer to the non-California border states experienced differential increases in homicides, gun-related homicides and crime gun seizures in the post-2004 period. Second, the magnitude of this effect is contingent on political factors related to Mexico's democratic transition. Killings increased substantially more in municipios where local elections had become more competitive prior to 2004, with the largest differentials emerging in high narco-trafficking areas. Our findings are consistent with the notion that political competition undermined informal agreements between drug cartels and entrenched local governments, highlighting the role of political instability in mediating the gun-crime relationship.

This Is Gun Country: The International Implications of U.S. Gun Control Policy

Abstract: Mexican drug trafficking organizations are the largest providers of illicit drugs to the United States. They have also grown to rely on advanced, high-power weaponry and to use their nearly military-grade armament to maintain control over smuggling corridors, and local drug production areas. Cartels are also linked to nearly 40,000 deaths over the last five years, many of which were committed with guns originating in the United States. The United States is likely the most prevalent source of weapons for the increasingly violent cartels. The U.S. government estimates that nearly ninety percent of all weapons used in the drug war originate in the United States. An analysis of current gun connol policy in the United States and Mexico suggests this is likely the case; Mexico has particularly sttict gun connol laws in contrast to the relatively lenient gun connol regulation in the United States. Both counnies have implemented domestic policies aimed at reducing the southward flow of arms into Mexico, yet so far have had little success. This Note argues that arms ttafficking has been facilitated by current U.S. gun control policy, and it will likely continue without a foundational shift in either U.S. or international policy.It's a terrible problem. They have to do something about it.-The Honorable Robert Gottsfield1IntroductionThe rhetoric of the "War on Drugs" has been familiar to many U.S. citizens since the days of President Richard M. Nixon.2 That language has taken on a more literal meaning in recent years due to the in- creased threat posed by Mexican drug cartels and distribution net- works.3 The Mexican government now faces an opponent that out- spends it in the fight, while utilizing a governmental task force that has been plagued with murders from and defections to the cartels them- selves.4 Mexico's governmental efforts to reduce drug trafficking and associated gun crime have been met with a violent response from the cartels, including executions and mutilations, as well as a drug-related murder rate that doubled between 2007 and 2008.5The cartels are fueled by U.S. demand for drugs; many use their profits to purchase high-powered firearms from states along the border, where they can legally obtain weapons that are prohibited for sale in Mexico.6 In an effort to combat the threat presented by the Mexican cartels, the United States offered Mexico an aid package that provides funding for military, police, and joint intelligence operations.7 Yet by increasing support to the Mexican military, the United States has, in essence, armed both sides of the conflict.8Federal gun control policies in the United States, and state-level policies in the southwestern states, are a major factor in the increasing violence against both Mexican and U.S. citizens-that includes both in- creased murders and kidnappings domestically as well as over 40,000 murders in Mexico since 2006.9 Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) purchase firearms in the United States, where there is greater access to weapons and more lenient regulation on sales.10 Moreover, many of the relevant purchases are made in Arizona and Texas, where the emphasis on the individual right to own firearms is manifested in relatively lenient gun control laws.11 These two states, along with Cali- fornia, host the top twelve dealers that are allegedly arming the cartels.12Arms trafficking is unlikely to decrease without increased coopera- tion between the United States and Mexico.13 Although regulations re- stricting trafficking are likely constitutional, cultural factors in the southwestern states make domestic reform, tightening restrictions on firearms sales, unlikely.14 One commentator suggested that lax regula- tions in Texas and Arizona "reflect both the libertarian traditions of the West and the anxious vigilance of firearms enthusiasts toward their Se- cond Amendment rights."15 State gun control laws impose few restric- tions on firearms sales, making prosecution of those accused of trans- acting with Mexican cartels more difficult. …

Deterrence Effects of Gun Laws in Games with Asymmetric Skills and Information

Abstract: This paper presents a game theoretic model of crime and self-defense with gun use. The main purpose is to evaluate gun control policy effectiveness on crime reduction. The effects of agent‟s information assumption and some extensions such as criminals‟ first move advantage and different costs and skills on gun carry are studied. The results show that policies that increase the availability of guns take criminals to always carry guns even if they have fight advantage over the victims. The main conclusions are that gun control implies on a decrease of gun crimes and that such policies are more effective when affects both criminals and victims costs.

Open Fire: A Portrait of Gun Control in U.S. and International Newspaper Articles after the 2011 Arizona Mass Shooting

Abstract: ................................................................................................... 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................. 3 LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................ 6 Chapter

May I See Your License? Terry Stops and License Verification

Abstract: When are police justified in detaining someone engaging in an activity requiring a license in order to investigate whether that person, in fact, has a valid license? The answer to this question is surprisingly varied. In Delaware v. Prouse, the Supreme Court held that police officers generally need reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed before conducting a forcible stop. But the rules on other licenses vary widely. For example, in the hunting context, many courts have allowed either suspicionless stops of suspected hunters or, at most, required reasonable suspicion that a person is a hunter - not that the person is an unlicensed hunter. And in cases involving individuals carrying weapons, many courts have engaged in a formalistic inquiry that looks to whether non-licensure is an element of the offense or having a license to carry a gun is an affirmative defense. If the non-licensure is an element of the offense, some courts have required reasonable suspicion both that the person is carrying a gun and that he lacks a valid license; but most courts have held that if having a license to carry is an affirmative defense, then police may stop anyone suspected of carrying a gun until the person proves that he fits within the defense (i.e., he has a license). This Article suggests a unified framework for analyzing license-related Terry stops, and discusses how that standard interacts with the statutory structure of licensure laws. In this Article, I make two primary arguments. First, under current Supreme Court doctrine, there are only two ways to justify a forcible stop to check the validity of a license: either (1) a person must have a significantly diminished expectation of privacy by engaging in the underlying activity; or (2) officers must have reasonable suspicion that the particular individual is unlicensed. Second, I argue that (2) is true no matter how the law is structured - that is, regardless of whether non-licensure is an element of the offense or having a license is an affirmative defense. In other words, how the legislature structures a criminal statute is irrelevant for determining what truth conditions constitute “reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.”My second argument leads to a major theoretical question: What is the function of the element/defense distinction in criminal procedure? I argue that the distinction serves no function in Fourth Amendment criminal procedure; the only function of the element/defense distinction is to divide evidentiary burdens of production at trial. “Reasonable suspicion of criminal activity” (or “probable cause”) occurs only when there is reasonable suspicion (or probable cause) both that a person has satisfied the elements of the offense and that the person has no relevant defense making the action permissible.

Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens

Abstract: The ostensible purpose of gun control legislation is to reduce firearm deaths and injuries. The restriction of access to firearms will make criminals unable to use guns to shoot people. Gun control laws will also reduce the number of accidental shootings. Those are the desired effects, at least in theory. It is important, however, for conscientious policymakers to consider not only the stated goals of gun control regulations, but the actual results that they produce.What would be the effect of depriving ordinary, law-abiding citizens from keeping arms for self-defense? One result seems certain: the law-abiding would be at a distinct disadvantage should criminals acquire guns from underground markets. After all, it is simply not possible for police officers to get to every scene where they are urgently needed.Outside of criminology circles, relatively few people can reasonably estimate how often people use guns to fend off criminal attacks. If policymakers are truly interested in harm reduction, they should pause to consider how many crimes — murders, rapes, assaults, robberies — are thwarted each year by ordinary persons with guns. The estimates of defensive gun use range between the tens of thousands to as high as two million each year.This paper uses a collection of news reports of self-defense with guns over an eight-year period to survey the circumstances and outcomes of defensive gun uses in America.Federal and state lawmakers often oppose repealing or amending laws governing the ownership or carrying of guns. That opposition is typically based on assumptions that the average citizen is incapable of successfully employing a gun in self-defense or that possession of a gun in public will tempt people to violence in "road rage" or other contentious situations. Those assumptions are false. The vast majority of gun owners are ethical and competent. That means tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns.

Second Things First: What Free Speech Can and Can’t Say About Guns

Abstract: In the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller 1 and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 2 courts and scholars remain deeply conflicted not only about the specific rules of Second Amendment doctrine, but about what even counts as a Second Amendment argument. An advocate might defend a particular gun control law on the basis that it effectively prevents violent deaths, only to be told that such a “freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach” is forbidden. 3 So the advocate might switch tacks and emphasize the law’s similarity to the kinds of historically well-established restrictions approved in Heller, 4 only to learn that it would be “weird” if a law’s constitutionality depended on its age. 5

Toward a Future, Wiser Court: A Blueprint for Overturning District of Columbia v. Heller

Abstract: Introduction I. The Power of Dissenting Opinions II. Heller A. Majority Opinion B. Justice Stevens's Dissenting Opinion III. Landmark Cases from Future, Wiser Courts A. From Racism to Equality: Plessy and Brown 1. Plessy v. Ferguson 2. Brown v. Board of Education B. From Repression to Sexual Freedom: Bowers and Lawrence 1. Bowers v. Hardwick 2. Lawrence v. Texas C. Other Illustrative Cases from Future Courts IV. Factors Leading to a Decision Being Overturned A. Retrograde Decision in Face of Strong Social Movement B. Strength and Guidance of Prior Dissent C. Composition of the Court at the Time of Decision D. The Degree of Consensus Among the Court V. Blueprint for Overturning Heller Conclusion INTRODUCTION Justice John Paul Stevens recently bantered to Time Magazine that, if he could fix one thing about the American judicial system, it would be to make all of his dissents into majority opinions. (1) Banter aside, he stressed that if he could choose only one of his dissents to turn into a majority opinion, it would be his dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller. (2) Specifically, he said that he "would change the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Court got that quite wrong. Gun policy should be handled by legislatures and by states, not by federal judges appointed for life." (3) With that same hope, it is rumored that, during a lecture to the Harvard Club of Washington, D.C., Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed her strong desire that Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion in Heller will become the majority opinion of "a future, wiser Court." (4) Heller is still the subject of national debate and is one of the more controversial decisions from the Roberts Court. The Court issued its pivotal 5-4 ruling on June 26, 2008, (5) finding for the first time that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to posses firearms unrelated to service in a well-regulated militia. (6) In its analysis, the Court concluded that "central" to the Second Amendment is the natural right to self-defense, and by extension, the right to possess handguns for self-defense within the home. (7) In finding so, the Court struck down a decades-old D.C. law that banned handgun possession and required that firearms in the home be stored safely. (8) Justice Stevens issued one of two dissenting opinions. (9) In his dissent, he argued passionately that the majority rendered "a dramatic upheaval in the law" and decided the case on "a strained and unpersuasive reading" of the Second Amendment. (10) He emphasized that the Second Amendment does not contain any "statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense." (11) He also stressed that the Court's ruling overturned long-standing precedent announced in United States v. Miller, which held that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of" the state militia. (12) The decision in Heller raised the obvious question of its potential impact on existing gun control laws and whether they will stand up to a Second Amendment challenge. (13) But few have questioned whether a "future, wiser Court" will simply reverse Heller. Our Article provides a blueprint for how Justice Ginsberg's hope may be realized. In Part I, we discuss the influence and guidance that dissenting opinions may provide to future, wiser Courts. In Part II, we analyze Heller, paying particular attention to the tensions that the conflicting majority and dissenting opinions raise. In Part III, we analyze landmark cases from future, wiser Courts that overturned stale or decidedly wrong precedent. In Part IV, we draw from these examples in order to evaluate the conditions that lead to overturning a Supreme Court case. Finally, in Part V, we apply the framework to Hellerand suggest possible ways to author its reversal. …