Senate Set to Nationalize Concealed Handgun Laws That Have Killed 7 Cops, 44 Private Citizens

For more than two decades a top priority of the gun lobby has been establishing and expanding state laws that allow the carrying of concealed handguns by private citizens. These "shall issue" laws eliminate the discretion of local law enforcement and licensing agencies to determine eligibility for permits to carry concealed handguns (commonly known as CCW, concealed carry weapon, permits). In many states, the criteria for legally carrying a loaded, hidden handgun in public is virtually equal to the limited requirements that must be met to purchase a handgun.

This effort may culminate as early as today as the U.S. Senate prepares take up an amendment sponsored by South Dakota Senator John Thune to the defense authorization bill (S. 1390) that would create a de facto national concealed carry system. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has stated that he will filibuster the amendment.

The danger the Thune amendment poses is illustrated all too clearly by a new study released today by my organization, the Violence Policy Center, which reveals that in the two-year period May 2007 through April 2009 individuals issued state permits to carry loaded, concealed handguns have killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens. Breaking the numbers down, the study found that:

Over the two year period May 2007 through April 2009, concealed handgun permit holders have slain seven law enforcement officers resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All of the killings were committed with guns. An additional three law enforcement officers were injured in these incidents.

Over the two year period May 2007 through April 2009, concealed handgun permit holders have slain at least 44 private citizens resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All but one of the killings were committed with guns. An additional six private citizens were injured in these incidents.

In six of the 31 incidents (19 percent), the concealed handgun permit holder killed himself, bringing the total fatality count to 57.

The 51 homicides occurred in 15 states. Law enforcement officers were killed in four states: Florida, Idaho, Ohio (two incidents), and Pennsylvania (two incidents). Private citizens were killed in 14 states: Alabama, Colorado, Florida (nine incidents), Idaho, Kentucky, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina (two incidents), Ohio (three incidents), Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah (two incidents), and Virginia. All of these homicides resulted in criminal charges against the concealed carry license holders or the suicide of the licensee.

In a rational world, numbers like these would cause states to reassess these misguided and deadly programs. But these days, at least on Capitol Hill, we all seem to live in the National Rifle Association's world.

Since the first "shall issue" law was passed in Florida in 1987, similar measures have spread across the country: today 48 states have some form of concealed carry law -- either lax "shall issue" laws or more restrictive "may issue" laws. A parallel effort has produced a growing network of reciprocity in which states recognize the validity of CCW permits issued by other states.

The Thune amendment would establish a de facto national concealed handgun system by overriding many state laws by mandating that those states allow the carrying of loaded, concealed firearms by anyone permitted to carry concealed weapons in another state. All states with any type of concealed carry system would be forced to allow a person to carry concealed firearms even if the person carrying is barred from possessing guns by the state in which they wish to carry. In essence, states with extremely weak concealed carry requirements, such as Idaho, would dictate the terms by which people in states with tough permitting requirements, such as California, could carry concealed firearms.

The bill also sets no limits on the types of concealed firearms that people can carry. Which firearms could be carried would be determined by the state issuing the concealed carry license -- even if the type of gun is banned in the state where the person chooses to carry the firearm. The result would be that states like Idaho could enable people to carry assault pistols in California, a state where all assault weapons are banned.

Behind the false claims of public safety and personal protection, "shall-issue" concealed handgun laws were originally promoted by the gun lobby and gun industry to jumpstart sagging handgun sales by creating a new market for smaller, more powerful handguns.

As then-National Rifle Association lobbying chief Tanya Metaksa told The Wall Street Journal in a September 1996 article headlined "Tinier, Deadlier Pocket Pistols Are in Vogue:"

"The gun industry should send me a basket of fruit -- our efforts have created a new market."

Of course in its public arguments the gun lobby usually neglects to mention its own financial interests, instead promising state legislators and the public that handgun carriers armed by the new law would have a beneficent penumbra effect: aiding police by stopping crimes and protecting the citizenry. And for those who questioned the wisdom of putting guns into these citizens' hands and then sending them off into the general public, the NRA's Metaksa had a ready answer. At an April 18, 1996 press conference in Dallas, Texas, Metaksa asserted:

"As we get more information about right-to-carry, our point is made again and again ... People who get permits in states which have fair right-to-carry laws are law-abiding, upstanding community leaders who merely seek to exercise their right to self-defense."

So how many "law abiding, upstanding community leaders" do you know who shoot and kill law enforcement officers? And if anyone had said to the state legislators who voted for these bills -- outside of Florida, whose legislators seem intent on continually passing new laws with catchy names to change the definition of self-defense to fit the bullet-happy mindset of concealed handgun permit holders -- yes, these permit holders will face criminal charges for killing a police officer every few months or so and a private citizen every few weeks, would they still have voted for them?

Concealed handgun proponents, in defense of these laws, argue that contrary to the warnings lodged by permit opponents, blood isn't running in the streets. In fact, in the August 2009 issue of the NRA's America's 1st Freedom magazine, NRA head Wayne LaPierre states:

"Everywhere the NRA has fought for self-defense reforms, all of the elitist predictions about 'Wild West shootouts' or 'blood in the streets' have proven utterly false."

Or as perennial pro-gun commenter Thirdpower wrote back in May:

"Police officers have not died by droves by license holders. Streets are not running red with blood."

If seven dead police officers doesn't qualify as "a drove," and a total of 51 dead doesn't count as "blood in the streets," what does?

Comments

[twogunmojo]

how many times do i have to say it...did any anti-gunners go to school at all...the federal government can add to your rights anytime they choose....if they decide you can yell fire in a theater under the first amendment then go scream your head off...if they decide expand the second amendment to mean that all guns are legal to carry all the time...that is within their scope.....and what is an "assault pistol".....

[Rhetticent]

Josh, I would invite you to my home, where you can stay while you participate in a Concealed Carry class in my state. Go through the process, see how serious the people are about safety and how much training they are required to have. Keep an open mind about the people who take the time to get CCW licensure before you start making generalities.

[Thirdpower]

Josh already has an FFL license.

His 'open mind' consists of wanting to ban handguns, long guns and any type of firearm he can find some form of derogatory term for. He openly admits to using deception to try and ban semi-autos by deliberately confusing the them with machineguns to the public.

[djkrlsn]

Since Josh has an FFL--he knows the law--he is just looking for ANY excuse to ban civilian ownership of firearms

[Ohio9]

Josh: "The bill also sets no limits on the types of concealed firearms that people can carry. Which firearms could be carried would be determined by the state issuing the concealed carry license -- even if the type of gun is banned in the state where the person chooses to carry the firearm. The result would be that states like Idaho could enable people to carry assault pistols in California, a state where all assault weapons are banned."

More VPC lies.

First of all, California doesn't ban "assault pistols". They ban certain handguns based on arbitrary cosmetic features (such as color) and restrict magazine capacity to 10 rounds. True "assault pistols" (fully automatic handguns), are already prohibited from civilian manufacture under federal law.

Second of all, let's look at the actual text of the law, something that Josh doesn't cite because it proves him wrong:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-845

"A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, IF THE INDIVIDUAL COMPLIES WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE."

Clearly, an out of state CCW holder would still have to comply with state laws on what guns can be legally owned and carried.

[OdinsEye]

So, of the cases Josh touts as evidence of "Concealed Handgun Laws That Have Killed 7 Cops, 44 Private Citizens", only 31-32% actually involved the concealed carry of firearms.

Unfortunately, there is no way of being able to know just how many of these remaining incidents would have occured even if the person did not have a concealed carry permit, but chances are good that quite a few would have.

IOW, Josh's "evidence" is less than convincing.

[djkrlsn]

OE--it always is

[legaleagle 45]

I wonder what would occur if a comparison was made between the police and those persons having CCW? Count all the murders committed by police (whether on duty or off duty) during the same time frame (using the same exact criteria established by VPC--- thus strangulation of spouse at home counts as does the filing of criminal charges without a final determination of guilt), compare that to the total number of police in the entire USA. With that percentage of "violent cops" established, all we need do, is use VPC's figures, compare that to the total number of CCW holders in the entire USA to determine an equivalent percentage of "violent ccw holders".

I would not be afraid of the results of such a study, but I would bet dollars to donuts such a study would not be published by VPC.

[OdinsEye]

Looking at Josh's linked VOC study, I tried to run down all the scenarios for the 57 deaths in the study

The numbers may be slightly off due to conflicting information and being able to account for the death in more than one category, but here is how it breaks down:

Committed with a concealed carry firearm while legally carrying = 18 (1 possible self-defense, the court case is not finished)

Committed when not carrying concealed or when no permit would be required = 34

Committed with other than a concealed weapon (IOW, rifle, shotgun, or non-firearm methods) = 5

[legaleagle 45]

"Committed with a concealed carry firearm while legally carrying = 18 (1 possible self-defense, the court case is not finished)"

VPC lied? "I am SHOCKED! Shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

[Ohio9]

Hey Josh, if armed citizens are so bad to the police, then can you please explain why law enforcement strongly SUPPORTS gun rights for private citizens, including CCW?

From a 2005 survey of over 22,500 Sheriff's and police Chiefs:

http://www.aphf.org/surveyresults.pdf

* 92% of the respondents supported civilian gun-ownership rights for sport and self defense;
* 95% of the police chiefs and sheriffs believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources
* 60% believe a system of nationwide concealed carry would reduce violent crime.

So either Josh is wrong or the cops support policies that get themselves killed. Which is it?

[Ohio9]

Josh: "In a rational world, numbers like these would cause states to reassess these misguided and deadly programs."

Wrong. In a rational world, these numbers would compared to our overall total of over 18,000 homicides per year to prove that the number of CCW holders who commit murder is insignificant;y small

Also like most studies from the VPC, even these small numbers are inflated. The VPC included events in which suspects have not yet been convicted, and cases in which they may be innocent. A good example is a Florida case in which a woman shot an FBI agent raiding her home. She claimed she thought the agents were home invaders and they did not properly identify themselves as police, so she may be innocent.

Josh: "If seven dead police officers doesn't qualify as "a drove," and a total of 51 dead doesn't count as "blood in the streets," what does?

Again, that would be numbers showing that CCW holders commit large numbers of murders compared to rest of the population. But instead, the VPC's own study proves they do not.

From the time the VPC "study" started recording police deaths to the present, 468 cops have died in the line of duty (source, Officer down memorial page). Only in the VPC fantasy land could 7 dead cops out of that number be used to demonize a group of millions.

[legaleagle 45]

"If seven dead police officers doesn't qualify as "a drove," and a total of 51 dead doesn't count as "blood in the streets," what does? "

A scientific study which actually evaluates the positive and negative impacts associated with CCW. One that uses studues to establish a statistically SIGNIFICANT correlation between police deaths and civilian deaths both before and after CCW and in comparison with similarly situated states with more restrictive CCW requirements so that variations in national trends can be minimized.instead of relying upon anecdotal evidence as a scare tactic to persuade the masses... How about that Josh?

I am sure you can get David Hemenway and Deborah Azrael to cooperate. Then I will counter with Don Kates and Gary Mauser. Then we can argue about the objectiveness of each study, while CDC issues a 3rd report indicating neither positive or negative impacts can be established for CCW laws, which will then bring us back to a basic subject of freedom... if something neither positively effects society nor negatively effects society, any law directed at such activity should be in favor of greater freedom and not diminished freedom.

Don't you agree, Josh?

[TurkTuron]

From legaleagle45:

"I am sure you can get David Hemenway and Deborah Azrael to cooperate. Then I will counter with Don Kates and Gary Mauser. Then we can argue about the objectiveness of each study, while CDC issues a 3rd report indicating neither positive or negative impacts can be established for CCW laws, which will then bring us back to a basic subject of freedom... if something neither positively effects society nor negatively effects society, any law directed at such activity should be in favor of greater freedom and not diminished freedom."

Deborah Azrael? There really is such a person?

I visited the U.S. Air Force Museum five days ago and there was on display an AC-130 "Spectre" gunship that had been used in Afghanistan. The plane was called "Azrael - The Angel Of Death", and the placard said that "Azrael" was the name of the angel of death in the Koran.

What an odd name for a doctor!

[legaleagle 45]

The people referred to in my post are real, no names have been changed to protect the innocent.

;-)

[OdinsEye]

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/deborah-azrael/

[OdinsEye]

Typical Josh manipulation. If you actually READ the study he links to, you can see that many of the incidents he refers to were NOT commited using a legally concealed firearm or were NOT committed while carrying concealed.

Take, for example, this entry:

Christina Korbe
Date: November 19, 2008

Note that the shooting occured within Korbe's house where no concealed carry permit is required.

In this one, the firearm used was not a concealed carry firearm:

Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: William Littleton
Date: December 15, 2008

Note that the firearm was a rifle, not something one carries around concealed.

Or even better, how about this example:

Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Tony Villegas
Date: March 5, 2009

Note that Villegas did not use a firearm at all in his crime. Instead, he strangled his victim.

[OdinsEye]

That puts a great big gaping hole in the side of Josh's "Senate Set to Nationalize Concealed Handgun Laws That Have Killed 7 Cops, 44 Private Citizens" claim.

[Thirdpower]

"If you're not sure if a guy has a gun, you may not try to do some things to him that you might otherwise try to get away with," said Peoria police Officer Troy Skaggs, president of the Peoria Police Benevolent Union. "It's the fear of the unknown."

Papis said he would expect a well-run concealed-carry system to create a reduction in crimes against individuals.

"In my 34 years of law enforcement, there have been many, many instances that I knew if the victim would have had a weapon to defend themselves, the outcome would have been quite different," he said.

http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1730895291/Police-say-concealed-carry-law-would-deter-criminals

Hmm. A paid anti-gun advocate leading a group w/ ZERO membership in comparison to hundreds of non-appointed police chiefs and officers.

[legaleagle 45]

Good quote, I like this one as well:

"If you've got to resist, your chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah." - Dr. Arthur Kellerman, Health Magazine (March/April 1994) p 61

[Ohio9]

Oh, can I play too?

"I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."

-- Dianne Feinstein

[Sivispacemparabellum]

And here we go , with a single post and a single link Im going to blow Josh's " study " conclusions clear out of the water ! This one link , a single PAGE , has details of three times the number of Police Officers SAVED by law abiding CCW Holder . Here ya go !


http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/officers_peril.htm

[Ohio9]

Nice one, that would cause Josh to question his logic. If, that is, his arguments had any logic in the first place.

[DaveNYC]

The basic problem with Mr. Sugarmann's purely anecdotal approach is illustrated by the following example.

Above, I relate an incident (1) where a CCW holder saved the life of a police officer. Mr. Sugarmann has related 7 incidents in which (he says that) CCW holders killed a police officer. Once 6 more people have posted stories about CCW holders who saved the lives of police officers, Mr. Sugarmann's point is lost. When the 7th person posts, presumably Mr. Sugarmann concedes that his own approach compels the contrary conclusion.

Public policy should be based on scientifically sound observations, rather than misleading anecdotes. Misleading anecdotes are just fodder for extremists.

[DaveNYC]

Moreover, Mr. Sugarmann ignores the larger issue – which is that bona fide statistical studies have demonstrated that concealed handgun laws decrease the incidence of violent crime. (The rationale: if people who are contemplating criminal acts know their victims may be armed, they are less likely to engage in the act.) Indeed, 40 states would not have passed “shall issue” CCW laws were this not the case. Indeed, in drafting this response I took note that in 2008 firearms-related police officer fatalities hit their lowest point since 1956. The data does not support Mr. Sugarmann’s conclusions – it refutes them. The passage of CCW laws is directly correlated with decreasing violent crime and decreasing police officer fatalities.

Given Mr. Sugarmann’s penchant for anecdotal evidence, I will share an anecdote of my own. The only police officer I personally know was ever involved in a gun fight…was rescued by a private citizen with a CCW who shot and killed the perpetrator. He told me he thought he would have likely been killed otherwise. That incident doesn’t show up in the “facts” that Mr. Sugarmann misleadingly cites to support his unfounded “blood running in the streets” conclusion.

[DaveNYC]

This falacious argument relies entirely on anecdotal evidence. Mr. Sugarmann’s purported “study” does not use any established statistical or scientific principles, is not the product of any peer review, and does not examine any other variables or factors. Mr. Sugarmann tells us simply that “concealed handgun laws have killed 7 cops” in 2 years and suggests that the absence of concealed handgun laws would result in 7 additional living police officers.

Mr. Sugarmann does not tell us how these rates compare to the population as a whole. Are handgun owners more or less likely to shoot police officers? If we took the same number of non-CCW holders, would we find that that sample of the population had killed more than 7 police officers? Indeed, Mr. Sugarmann’s argument entirely ignores any bona fide statistical analysis of whether CCW holders are more or less likely to engage in violent criminal acts than the rest of the population. (Presumably, Mr. Sugarmann fails to do this because he already knows that as a group licensed gun owners have very low incidences of violent crime.) There is no reason whatsoever to presume that sampling the same number of persons from any other section of the population would not also result in a similar conclusion.

[Rhetticent]

A quick review of the CDC website reveals that in 2006, the most recent year of data, that there were 360 handgun deaths by "legal intervention", which category includes self-defense, or the killing of a person legally by police. During that same period, there were 12,791 homicides by handgun.

There are obviously people who will apply for and obtain CCW permits who are either not always rational or not always law abiding. I note that your studies do not make any attempt to determine how many lives are saved through legal intervention of people defending themselves or others: do you think that might undermine your argument?

I for one do not abrogate my duty to protect myself and my family.

[DaveNYC]

The FBI Uniform Crime Report Data (subset "Law Enforcement Officers Killed") is complete through 2007 and there are tentative reports for 2008. There are no results for 2009 -- begging the obvious question, where does Mr. Sugarmann get his "April 2009" figures? Of course, he doesn't waste time with citations.

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel09/statistics%20_051109.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2007/