Joshua Prince announces that a class action brought by himself and two other attorneys has settled. It challenged Philadelphia's disclosure of private carry permit information. Philadelphia disclosed information regarding appeals from initial denials or revocations online, despite a State law provision making it confidential.
The settlement terms include the city paying $1.45 million, agreeing never to disclose again, scrapping information requirements that exceed those embodied in statute, and instituting a lot of other reforms.
It's posted at the Volokh Conspiracy, which is now one of the Washington Post blogs (a wonder in itself!)
Basically, in 1986:
Under 10% of the US population lived in "shall issue" States.
About 33% lived in States that had no CCW permit process at all.
The remaining 57% lived in "may issue" States.
Only residents of Vermont could carry concealed without a permit.
As of today:
66% of the population lives in "shall issue" States.
No States have no CCW permit system at all.
27% live in "may issue" States.
7% live in States where you can carry concealed without a permit.
(And if the effect of the Peruta ruling is to make "shall issue" the rule in California and Hawaii, the percent in "may issue" will fall to 14%, and "shall issue" will rise to 79%).
The Wall Street Journal reports: compared to last year, CCW permits are up 17% in Florida, near 100% in Ohio, and in several States have already exceeded their 2012 levels, halfway through 2013. The total issued nationwide is now estimated at 8 million.
In Charlotte, the number of indoor shooting ranges has doubled, and two more are planned for next year.
2011: Ohio allows CCW permittees to carry in restaurants and bars. 2012: nothing happens.
"“There was a lot of hubbub about it on both sides, ... then almost immediately it just got quiet,” said Scott Heimlich, owner of Barcelona Restaurant in Columbus and president of the Central Ohio Restaurant Association. “In restaurants, we have not had any incidents.”"
Here, in pdf. It finds:
8,000,000 ccw permits have been issued.
Virtually the entire country, apart from Ill, Calif, and some NE states, has gone with "shall issue," or does not require a permit for concealed carry.
Revocations are rare (p. 26). Arizona had issued 12,000 permits, and revoked 30 (I assume these are annual figures, since total permits are much higher). Texas had issued 143,000 and revoked 900.
Data is also broken down by State (p. 78 ff). Florida has about 887,000 active permits, while Hawaii has zero. Pennsylvania has 786,000; Maryland has 12,000. Someone with spare time could compute out the ratio of permits to population, and compare that to crime rates.
UPDATE: GAO was requested to study CCW laws by, I believe, Nancy Pelosi, in hopes that they'd find data that she could use to argue against nationwide CCW reciprocity, by finding that standards vary widely. Which is pretty much the case. However, since permit holders seem to be quite law abiding whatever the standards are, the results are likely disappointing to her.
Apparently (the article isn't clear) Oklahoma allows concealed carry if you have a permit, and requires that the firearm be concealed, and there is a proposal to allow permitees to carry openly, as well. The Norman Transcript worries:
"The open carry law may not make much difference in the state. It will bring questions and stares from visitors.... Police officers don’t want to see open carry either, as they can’t easily discern the good guys with guns from the bad guys with guns. In a life-threatening situation, no one is going to ask which one has a permit.
It can’t help economic development, either. A consultant brought in earlier this year said the state had an image problem because of too many tornado sightings. He didn’t mention gun sightings, but we can’t help but think it, too, doesn’t project the state’s best image."
I find these worries rather strange (how does open vs. concealed carry make it harder for police to sort out good guys vs. criminals?), but then Arizona for most of my life followed what I term the western rule. Unlimited open carry, and no concealed carry (no permits for it, either, until it went to "shall issue" and then no permit required). There at least you could see the rationale: carrying was seen as completely normal and mainstream, so it should be done openly. It's hard to see a rationale for the opposite rule, except perhaps "someone might get scared if you didn't hide it."
It holds that the Colorado pre-emption statute, which covers "local governments," applies to universities. After all, the Court points out, the statute has a specific exemption for elementary, middle, and high schools, showing that the Legislature felt school were a local government -- and the legislature didn't exempt universities.
Story here. With all the permit holders, it's getting to where violent crime isn't safe anymore.
Over at No Lawyers, Only Guns and Money. Essentially, as "shall issue" rapidly spread, homicide rates rapidly fell. They draw, I think, the sound conclusion that "Violent crime is a complex issue, but national data is clear that there is no positive correlation between liberalized concealed carry laws and increased violent crime." Coincidence doesn't prove causation, but lack of coincidence certainly raises serious questions about lack of causation.
Four weeks into "shall issue," the State has received over 44,000 applications.
HB 822, national CCW reciprocity, has passed the House. Bloomberg's Mayors are not happy.
USA Carry has an interactive map that shows which other States honor your concealed carry permit. Very useful for folks who travel!
Story here. 83,000 permit applications downloaded, over a hundred received and approved on the first day, the licensing agency sets up large tubs to receive applications for those who want to hand-deliver them.
It passed the committee yesterday.
[One comment was in limbo for a time, because the word "casino" is on the "hold for approval" list, and I was away from the computer]
Story here. The story doesn't give enough detail for any meaningful comment.
Pdf available here. According to the CalGuns blog, only about one in a thousand California non-LEOs have been able to secure a license. With the ban on open, unloaded carry, that means that 99.9% of its population are forbidden to carry in any form.
on Violence Policy Center's claims that licensed CCW holders have been involved in crime. Other than including "victims" who were shot in self defense, double counting others, and including as murders people who are very much alive, he doesn't have a lot of say.
No Lawyers -- Only Guns and Money-- has an interesting graph. To abbreviate ... from 1986 to present, "shall issue" went from about 10% of the US population to over 60%, while "no issue" of CCW permits fell from 33% to about 5%. Another interesting trend is that States tend to go from "no issue" to "shall issue." Arizona did that in a way, going from no issue to shall issue to no permit required. It never had a "may issue" stage.
Winters v. Willis pending on petition for cert. in the US Supreme Court.
The sheriff refused to issue a "shall issue" CCW license to person who holds medicinal pot prescription, claiming federal law (which forbids users of marihuana to possess firearms) prevents its issuance. State law may require him to issue (the State law has several prohibited person categories, but none relating to this), but Federal law pre-empts the issue. [Yes, it presents the anomaly of a State official actually arguing for more Federal control over him. I don't know if pot use does strange things to a person's mind, but the pot issue certainly seems to do it].
The Oregon Supreme Court holds that the Gun Control Act provision does not pre-empt the State CCW law.
Deeply shocked that Federal law is not restricting his official conduct, the sheriff petitions the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari.
The Respondent waives her right to file an opposition (commonly done when odds of a grant seem very law--why spend a thousand or two on printing costs?[ , but last week the Court ordered her to respond. That a sign it is at least thinking seriously about taking the case.
I can't see the pre-emption, since you can have a marihuana prescription without actually using it, and a CCW permit without possessing a firearm. I'd think the minimum requirement for a conflict would be that the Federal law forbids firearm sales to anyone with a prescription, whether they use it or not.
UPDATE: a reader emails, and the spam filter blocked for some reason, the following comment:
I have no dog in this fight, but I find it even more interesting that the ATF's letter to FFLs indicating
that medicinal user also places the purchaser in the category of unlawful user.
looks like a serious issue between the states and the feds here brewing.
"Ten years after Michigan made it much easier for its citizens to get a license to carry a concealed gun, predictions of widespread lawless behavior and bloodshed have failed to materialize.
Today, nearly 276,000 -- or about four out of every 100 eligible adult Michiganders -- are licensed.
That's more than twice the number predicted when the debate raged over whether Michigan should join the growing ranks of so-called "shall issue" states.
. . . . . . .
Anti-gun activists say changing the law was a grave mistake. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Web site describes state reforms like the one enacted in Michigan as "a recipe for disaster."
Michigan's prosecuting attorneys association led the push against changing the law in 2001. Today, Ionia County Prosecutor Ronald Schafer, president of the group, says it's hard to remember what the fuss was about.
"I think you can look back and say, 'It was a big nothing.' ""
Announcement here. Chuck Michel won it on behalf of the NRA and the Calif. Rifle and Pistol Association.
A few months ago, Arizona became the third State to allow concealed carry without a permit. Yesterday, Wyoming became the fourth. And Publicola informs me that a Colorado bill to the same effect is up for a House vote today.
Most visitors to the Capitol have to go thru metal detectors, which can be a slow line on a busy day, but CCW permittees have a lane that sidesteps the metal detectors. So lobbyists and journalists are getting CCW permits in order to get in more easily.
This is priceless. Bill Honda, president of Kilgore College in Texas, gets upset that a legislator has introduced a bill that would allow CCW licenseees to carry on campuses.
He calls for legislation to be "based on a good body of information." Then he describes the mass shooting at the Luby's cafeteria in terms that suggest he is somewhere between uninformed and delusional -- in his version of events, "you had multiple shooters, and innocent people were killed by other people who had concealed, licensed handguns, because they weren’t sure who was the shooter and who was a defender.”
Article here. As always he does a serious job of refutation, find their figures (tiny though they are) include a large proportion of self-defense shooting, and even suicides, which don't have a lot to do with CCW permits.
Hat tip to reader Jim Kindred....
Story here. "U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett also ordered Weber to successfully complete a court-approved course on the U.S. Constitution within five months."
Prof. Volokh notes a District Court ruling allowing a claim that an Iowa sheriff violated Equal Protection and the First Amendment by refusing a carry permit based on his political activities. Parts of the complaint were dismissed, for sundry technical reasons, and portions of the remainder may be mooted by Iowa's change to "shall issue."
The ruling is also noteworthy for its formating (no more Courier in 12 point) and its breakthru use of "complete flummadiddle" on p. 17. We may hope that both become universal in the future.
Complaint, in pdf, here. The plaintiff is an anesthesia tech, working at the university hospital; they fired him over his having a handgun in a car, parked on campus, about a mile away. I haven't checked the KY law, but it certainly sounds like he has a good case. I note they not only fired him, in violation of the statute, but opposed his application for unemployment benefits. Reminds me of what an attorney who does medical malpractice here told me. About 1/3 of his cases arise when a hospital hands off its bill to a collection agency. The family suspected their member had died due to a screw up, but were willing to consider it water under the bridge -- until Acme Collections starts pestering them for $5,000 to pay for the treatment that killed the person.
Hat tip to reader Charles Riggs....
The First Circuit has ruled that an LEO can respond to a carrier of a concealed arm by throwing down on him, detaining him even after he produced a permit to so carry, and then seize the firearm despite the permit. The court apparently reasons that even though the fellow has a CCW permit, there is no system in place for the officer to confirm that it is real, ergo it was reasonable to seize the firearm.
Licensed carrier carries concealed on Atlanta's MARTA mass transit, is detained for half an hour and released. A federal judge rules the detention was lawfully based on probable cause.
Here's the rub: if the offense of CCW were worded as "it is unlawful to carry a weapon concealed without a permit," then lack of a permit is part of the offense, and until there is reason to suspect that, there is no probable cause. But if it is worded as "It is unlawful to carry a weapon concealed. Exception for people having permits," then concealed carrying is the offense, and sufficient suspicion of that justifies an arrest or detention. Having the permit is a defense, and the officer doesn't have to rule that out, any more than he has to rule out insanity, justification, etc..
I think a separate question here is the length of the detention. Absent true arrest, the detention must be reasonable, and no more than is required for the proper purpose. Here, once the person shows his permit (and perhaps the officer verifies it is valid), the detention should end. I doubt suit would have been filed if the officer had asked for a permit, he'd shown it and matter had ended there.
Hat tip to readers Ryan Gill, Scott Nolde, and Ed Stone...
Ed Stone notes in the Atlanta Examiner that this is the first anniversary of a Georgia law allowing CCW licensees to carry on mass transit systems. Some Atlanta mass transit system operators had begged for bulletproof shields to protect them from their homicidal yet CCW licensed passengers. "We don't want cameras. Cameras don't save people's lives. ... We want something that gives us a fighting chance."
Results of the first year: homicides on the Atlanta mass transit system fell from 2 to zero. Armed robberies from 94 to 71. Not much of a bloodbath.
Here's some video on his presentation. Quite a good argument for allowing CCW on campus.
Hat tip to reader Nick L.....
Story here. The Sheriff has approved 37 carry permits this year, and a Brady Campaign spokesman worries that this "would not make us safer and could actually increase gun violence in Sacramento County..."
Howard Nemerov runs the figures for Texas. Depending upon your standard (all convictions, violent offense convictions, homicide convictions, etc.) the only question is how much better the permit holders come off. For most measures, their rates are 1/9 to 1/10 those of nonpermittees.
In Florida, applications for CCW permits are up 67%, to 150,000 and the issuing agency is asking for 61 temporary employees to tackle them.
Hat tip to reader gunshytourist...
John Pierce has an excellent response.
Story here. Governor Brewer signed legislation modifying the previous absolute ban on carrying in any establishment that served liquor (in any amount). Under the new law, a person could carry in such a place if (1) they personally consume no liquor; (2) they have a CCW permit; and (3) the establishment doesn't post signs forbidding carrying.
In the meantime, the governor of Tenn. just vetoed a similar bill. Strangely, the [UK] Guardian reports that he signed the bill. Say Uncle reports that the governor did sign a bill letting off duty LEOs carry in such establishments, "Also, note the press coverage. When it’s for police they refer to establishments that serve alcohol. When it’s for handgun carry permit holders, they’re all bars."
Hat tip to reader Ed Stone....
Alphecca notes it's been introduced. I'd share his doubts it's going anywhere soon.
Woman comes into office with a hunting bow, shoots a guy with an arrow, draws a (fake) gun, and points it at two other employees.
Who happen to be CCW holders, and packing. She takes several hits and retreats. An officer comes in to evacuate the guy with the arrow in him, and she starts drawing the bow for a shot at the officer, who fires on her.
While in other Texas news, two guys with revolvers kick in an apartment door. Only to find two guys with shotguns inside.
Hat tip to reader six-gun Sally....
A summary of a recent article, over at the Volokh Conspiracy. It's an answer to an earlier article arguing that shall-issue increases crime rates. I'm not statistician, but the gist of it is that the earlier article got its results only by considering crime rates in the first five years after enactment; if it had extended to six or more years, it would show crime rate reductions.
(For me, this is further proof of the inadequacies of statistical work in the gun law arena. I could understand a conclusion that shall-issue is followed by crime rate increases, or reductions, or no change. I cannot understand a conclusion that it is followed by crime rate increases followed by crime rate reductions. To be precise, I can understand that pattern, provided it is divorced from any concept of causation -- that is, the pattern is pure coincidence, perhaps the product of when the laws were enacted in relation to the predictable crime rate cycles).
Hat tip to reader Carl in Chicago...
Bob Owens tries six months of carrying concealed.
Story here. The perils of "may issue." The new sheriff decides there simply must be too many permits, because a neighboring county has issued only a third as many. On the other hand, there is evidence the outgoing (indicted) sheriff issued them to campaign workers and buddies.
Hat tip to Dan Gifford...
A newspaper (Mail-Tribune of Medford OR) sued Sheriff Mike Winters to obtain the names of CCW permit holders. He opposed on the ground that State law exempts from disclosure info that is related to personal security. The Circuit Court ruled that CCW permits aren't automatically related to security; that must be proven.
Sheriff Rob Gordon came up with a novel idea to deal with the ruling (and the probability that someone would make a similar request of him), and polling CCW holders by mail to ask their reasons for obtaining a permit, and whether they want their data kept private. He also set up a webpage where people can enter their reason and whether they want their records held private.
[Story updated and corrected in light of reader Gordon R. Durand's comment].
Update: as I recall, when another paper tried this sort of story, local firearm rights groups researched and put online all publicly-available data on its editorial staff. Home addresses and phone numbers (obtained from voting registration forms), house size and valuations (from the county assessor's office), etc., etc, etc.. I seem to recall that the paper gained a newfound respect for privacy.
She had a permit, but open carried at soccer games. The other soccer moms got bent out of shape, and the sheriff revoked her CCW permit (he didn't like her openly carrying, so he put her in a position where openly is the only way she can carry. Makes a lot of sense.) Fortunately, a court has overruled the sheriff.
Hat tip to reader Dave Ladin.... who sends a followup story and a note the spamcatcher blocked:
"Soccer parents wince at prospect of guns at games"
"Gregg-Bolognese said some...fathers have threatened to take a gun away from
anyone who arrives at a game with one, an idea she tries to squelch."
QED proof that she needs to carry in that thug league.
My own thought: perhaps projection, in the psychological sense? A person knows they have a mental issue, doesn't want to admit it, and claims that others have the problem. "It's not me, it's you!" A nasty drunk get loaded and nasty and tells someone else they're a mean drunk.
What the unnamed person proposes: "if that lady legally carries something I don't want her carrying, I'll just assault her and take it."
And why doesn't he want her to have it? "She might be unpredictably violent."
UPDATE: Sebastian has a good point. And even here in the southwest, open carry in town is rare. In the desert, sure. Only a fool greenie wanders around unarmed and without a canteen, where the law is nonexistent in a practical sense (and even when it does apply, rattlesnakes and bears and such are notoriously ignorant of it). But in town... you can leave the gun in the car, and crime isn't terribly high.
Soccer mom in Pennsylvania has a CCW permit, but open carries to soccer games -- as is legal, permit or no. The other moms say this makes them "uncomfortable," and the sheriff revokes her CCW permit.
Hat tip to Eric Schultz and Mark Noble (who's a candidate for US Congress in Ohio-15).
Story here, regarding their first national meeting in D.C.. Rather slanted -- a five second clip from the meeting, and more from their opponents -- but then it's hard to expect much else.
Many CCW permit systems forbid licensees to carry in certain locations -- bars, courthouses, etc.. A fair number of these have a prohibition on carry in churches. Jack Burton has some interesting thoughts on this, and principles of separation of church and state.
Basically: (1) what makes a church special in a way that, say a VFW hall is not? (2) The response has to be that a church is a holy nonprofit group's home, and the legislature judges that packing a gun in there would be an offense to the Almighty. Apart from being rather presumptuous (the Almighty may like guns, and who is a legislature to define his tastes) doesn't that sound a bit like an entanglement of church and state?
Thanks to reader Rick Schwartz for the tip...
Via Instpundit and SayUncle comes this report of a Nevada CCW holder who killed the murderer.
The Deseret News has the story. The problem is that a majority of their applicants are from out of State, and this year they'll issue 40,000 of them.
Limiting it to residents might bump up against the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution (i.e, the original one, not the 14th Amendment). That's a complex subject; a challenge to the NY requirement that a person either live or have an office in-State in order to get a firearms permit there was upheld a while back on the tenuous ground that the State wasn't discriminating unfairly, it just found it easier to keep track of people who lived or officed there.
Hat tip to Joe Olson....
Story here. The legislation allows CCW holders to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, on mass transit, etc..
Here's the comment website. I'd cut and paste the Docket ID, FWS-R9-NSR-2008-0062, into the message just to make sure it gets to the right place. You can read the proposed rule as a pdf off the comment page, too.
The admin rules are essentially: if the agency wants to change a rule, they must publish a proposed rule with explanation. The public must be given a reasonable time (30-60 days is customary) to comment on it. Then the agency publishes the final rule, together with a response to significant comments. So it's not just a letter to the editor: although numbers don't hurt, logical reasons affect the process better than simple statements of support. I'd suggest emphasizing how law-abiding CCW licenesees are (preferrably with links to sites with hard numbers), and responding to claims it'd lead to risk of poaching.
UPDATE: reader Carl in Chicago provides his comment, pasted into extended remarks, below.
From the Palm Beach Post, a story that begins "It could've been a typical spat between grocery store customer and manager, with the customer announcing he planned to take his business elsewhere. But then the customer drew his gun. The store manager drew his and so did the assistant manager."
The aggressor fired repeatedly, but the manager and clerk held their fire, cornered him outside, and talked him into putting down his gun. Police arrested him for attempted murder, etc..
An Oregon court has ruled that the Mail-Tribune has a right to copies of the CCW permit holders in Jackson County.
As in by 60% over last year.
Instapunk has a great post on the group, together with one of their posters.
From the Detroit Free Press:
"Six years after new rules made it much easier to get a license to carry concealed weapons, the number of Michiganders legally packing heat has increased more than six-fold.
But dire predictions about increased violence and bloodshed have largely gone unfulfilled, according to law enforcement officials and, to the extent they can be measured, crime statistics.
The incidence of violent crime in Michigan in the six years since the law went into effect has been, on average, below the rate of the previous six years. The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, also has declined.
More than 155,000 Michiganders -- about one in every 65 -- are now authorized to carry loaded guns as they go about their everyday affairs, according to Michigan State Police records.
About 25,000 people had CCW permits in Michigan before the law changed in 2001.
Kenneth Levin, a West Bloomfield physician, was one of those critics. In a letter to the Free Press in July 2001, he referred to the "inevitable first victim of road or workplace rage as a result of this law."
Last month, Levin said he suspected "it probably hasn't turned out as bad as I thought. I don't think I was wrong, but my worst fears weren't realized.""
Word is that they have reached a reciprocity agreement.
Snowflakes in Hell is reporting the case of a PA man who carried openly into a polling place (which, he pointed out when challenged, is completely legal), and is told his carry permit is being revoked. The grounds are a clause that denies permits to a person “whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.” The sheriff contends that his open carry "violates the spirit of the law," even though it is completely legal.
Story here: now, it is a trial court, not an appellate one, and it is "as applied," in the context of a pizza deliveryman in a high-crime area.
Reading the opinion (linked to that page): He defended himself against an armed robbery, and was then charged with CCW for it. It wasn't the first time. The court applies the new state constitutional amendment on arms, the Wisconsin caselaw construing it, which essentially requires for concealed carry that the individual's need to carry outweigh the state's interest in enforcing CCW bans, and that the situation be such that open carry wasn't a feasible way to exercise the right to arms. The trial court concluded both were true and dismissed the prosecution.
Hat tip to Budd Schroeder....
Story here. Oregon law allows CCW holder to carry on school grounds, and she has good reason to need self defense capabilities. But the school district contends that, even tho such carrying is legal, their policies can forbid it: a person couldn't be prosecuted, but could be fired, essentially.
I received from a reader a list of the 500 or so CCW permits that the sheriff of LA County has allowed. Just by way of experiment, I took the first name given for a holder in each municipality, and did a quick Google for them. Strangely, the occupations seem more associated with money and celebrity than with likely need for defense against crime:
Private investigator: 2
Pvt atty: 1
Venture capitalist: 1
Major business: 1
Nothing found: 4
Someone who researched the entire list says there are 135 issued to judges and 57 to attorneys (i.e., about 40% of the tota).
22 go to addresses in Beverly Hills, and 10 to Malibu which have virtually no murders, and other violence rates around half the national average. In Compton, which has a murder rate five times the national average, there are zero CCW permits. Same for Lynwood, which has nearly three times the national average murder rate. Basically, if you want a CCW permit in LA County, it's best to live in a wealthy area with a zero homicide rate.
UPDATE: the experience of one CCW applicant is in extended remarks below.
A Virginia judge has ruled the issuing agency cannot require disclosure of SSNs as a condition of application.
What looks like a pretty fair treatment, at the Tulsa World.
Hat tip to Budd Schroeder...
Here's a website for a group that offers CCW classes both for AZ and for UT. (The significance of the latter is that Utah's permits are easier to get and more widely honored, and you don't have to reside in Utah... except that if you're an Arizonan, the state won't let you carry in-state based on one).
The WV Atty General has the announcement.
Story here. He definitely kept a cool head. Saw the robbery, drew, took cover where he controlled the robber's escape route, trapped him, summoned police, and when they arrived let them take the lead. The robber is also charged with murdering two bank clerks.
Story in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
Here it is.
[UPDATE: a reader notes that it classifies South Carolina as an unrestricted open carry state, which it isn't. S.C. Code Sec. 16-23-20 provides that it is illegal to carry a handgun about the person, and then lists a bunch of exceptions (such as hunters and fishermen while hunting and fishing), but it's apparently not the case that (as in my Arizona) you can just carry anything openly.
The immediate results of the shopping mall shooting there have been a doubling in CCW permit applications.
" "The Trolley Square shootings was a horrific, historic, violent act," McConkie says. "People reacted in different ways. Many people wanted a concealed carry permit and people who had let their permits go dormant reapplied."
Firearms instructor Clark Aposhian says his classes, usually with fewer than 10 students, have swelled to 20 or 30. "Since the 13th of February, I'm teaching easily 150 a week."
Aposhian says he has been asked to train 45 employees from one company and even a large Salt Lake church group. He declined to identify them."
An email from VCDL:
"The RT's reckless actions have endangered lives, as there are people on that CHP list who are under threat from violent ex-spouses or from criminals they have helped put in jail.
I have been returning calls from concerned gun owners and the stories are heartbreaking and intense. One woman's mother wakens at the slightest sound in the middle of the night and she calls the police and her daughter. She is living in constant fear that the person who has threatened to kill her has now found her address complements of the Roanoke Times.
Some people are looking at moving immediately.
Fortunately, your combined efforts shutdown the database within one day, hopefully before too many bad guys had a chance to use it.
I called the Fredericksburg Freelance-Press and the King George Journal-Press on Friday. Both papers are still printing the names and other information on local CHP holders.
I explained the seriousness of what they are doing. I said that there is nothing to be gained by printing permit holder information, but a lot to be lost."
CCW licensee shoots a man who tried to rob him with a pellet gun that looked like a .45
Hat tip to Dan Gifford.
In Memphis, two CCW permitees stop and arrest a gunman who was firing at cars.
Don't hold your breath on the national media picking this story up.
Hat tip to Dan Gifford.
US Senators John Thune and Ben Nelson have introduced a national CCW reciprocity bill, similar to that introduced last Session by Sen. Allen. Here's a pdf of the bill and their "dear colleague" letter to other Senators.
Don Kates has sent part of a rough draft of an article he's working on, regarding discretionary permit issue. It's under extended remarks, below.
Interesting data released today. Florida is, of course, the inventor of liberalized handgun concealed carry permits, of "castle doctrine" laws that allow lethal force in self defense without having to retreat, and a few other such measures.
Naturally, the Brady Campaign used Florida as their poster child for a gun-crazy state. Brady began an advertising campaign to warn tourists against entering this dangerous state. "The �Shoot First� law is a new law in Florida that police, prosecuting attorneys and gun violence prevention advocates worry may lead to the reckless use of guns on the streets of Florida cities." Sarah Brady intoned, ""The net effect of the new 'Shoot First' law in Florida is, unfortunately, precisely what we feared. People are dying who did not deserve to die." Just for good measure, Brady added "Gun violence in Florida could increase in 2005 because Congress failed to renew the federal assault weapon ban, which expired last fall, and Florida has no state law restricting assault weapons or rapid-fire ammunition magazines. Florida also does not require background checks at gun shows, does not require child-safety locks to be sold with guns, does not have any handgun safety standards to limit Saturday night specials and even forces police to let people carry hidden handguns in public."
Well, the Palm Beach Post reports that Florida's crime rates have fallen to the lowest level since 1971. "A telephone message left for comment after hours with the The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, D.C. was not immediately returned."
You can get the report, in pdf format, here. It shows that, even though the state's population is growing, total homicides fell by 6.9%, and firearm homicides by 6.1%. Given the population increase, the decrease in rates would have been greater.
[UPDATE: Welcome, instavalanche! Take a look at the main page. Blogging has been a bit light since I've been working on creating the first Second Amendment documentary film. Starring, among other academics, Instapundit himself, not to mention Gene Volokh and Dave Kopel of the Volokh Conspiracy. All by coincidence -- when I started filming in early 2003, blog were unknown.
[UPDATE in light of comment: I know that NRA and Gun Owners of America rate candidates. I suspect that, come election time, you can find the ratings online somewhere, but don't have a url cite for it].
I don't have a link yet, but am informed by email that a federal bill has been introduced by Sen. George Allen, with 13 cosponsors, (update: reader Jim Archer reports that here's a link) to the following effect:
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard
in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed
firearms in the State.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS BY NONRESIDENTS.
(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:
`Sec. 926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents
`(a) Definition- In this section, the term `another State' means a State other than the State from which a person holds a license or permit described in subsection (b)(2).
`(b) Authorization- Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, and subject to subsection (c), a person may carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in another State if the person--
`(1) is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm; and
`(2) is carrying a valid license or permit that--
`(A) is issued by a State; and
`(B) permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device).
`(1) IN GENERAL- If another State issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, a person may carry a concealed firearm in that State under this section under the same restrictions that apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom that State has issued such a license or permit.
`(2) NO LICENSES BY STATE- Except to the extent expressly permitted by State law, if another State does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, a person may not carry a concealed firearm in that State under this section--
`(A) in a police station;
`(B) in a public detention facility;
`(C) in a courthouse;
`(D) in a public polling place;
`(E) at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body;
`(F) in a school;
`(G) at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms;
`(H) in a portion of an establishment licensed by that State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises; or
`(I) inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport.'.
UPDATE: see extended comments below]
Ohioans for Concealed Carry reports an abuse matter.
The gun owner held a CCW permit, but was carrying openly and peacefully when apparently someone reported him. Oregon, Ohio police made a felony stop--guns out, keep your hands out of the car, etc. They charged him with failure to notify police he had a CCW permit (although he states he did so, and it's not clear to me that those requirements apply when carry is open) and with violating a city ordinance that forbids ALL carry of ALL firearms.
Then for good measure, the authorities revoked his CCW permit and confiscated his firearms. Legal basis for that is not known.
Here's a media report of a study indicating that liberalizing CCW does not increase crime rates (from the report it's unclear whether the result is that it has no effect, or whether, as John Lott's work indicates, it reduces crime rates).
The Kansas legislature appears almost certain to pass a liberalized concealed carry permit bill, but the governor has pledged to veto it. Sponsors think they have enough votes for an override, but that it'll be close.
The Arizona House of Reps has voted to drop refresher course requirements for CCW permits.
The requirement was for a two-hour course to update holders on changes to the gun laws. As the sponsors pointed out, the state gun laws don't change all that much, and it would be simpler for the state merely to mail the license holders any changes.