I agree that people with concealed carry licenses have apparently
proven themselves to be quite law-abiding, though that was hardly obvious when
the experiment began. Moreover, according to Felony Defendants in Large Urban
Counties, 2004, 35% of all murderers (and voluntary manslaughterers) didn't
have any prior adult conviction, even a misdemeanor conviction, though likely
some fraction of those had juvenile convictions. So it is not implausible that
guns in the hands of otherwise seemingly law-abiding citizens (certainly not
ones who can be disqualified from getting concealed carry permits, or keeping a
gun at home without a permit) will indeed be used to murder or commit
manslaughter.
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raymond Kessler [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:29 PM
> To: Volokh, Eugene; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Volokh: California Court of Appeal Upholds Ban
>
> If the people are law abiding (licensed to carry by the state) what is there
> to be realistically afraid of? In Texas one does not have to have a felony
> conviction to be denied a license. Lesser offenses can result in denial. I
> know an individual who was denied a license to carry in Texas because of a
> failing to respond to a ticket about a loud party. I know, because I helped
> him investigate the situation. A few years later, he was granted a license.
> If you eliminate all the categories of people under federal law and relevant
> state law who cannot get a license or are prohibited from possessing,
> receiving, etc. a handgun, there are few really dangerous people left. Some
> people are just afraid of weapons period (I think it's called hoplophobia).
> It's the people carrying concealed without a license that one needs to fear.
> The folks with licenses are generally not the kind of folks who are going to
> let an argument escalate into a shootout. There are very few, if any cases
> where a licensed carrier was provoked into committing a crime with the
> licensed weapon. If you have reliable info. On any such cases, please
> provide. Further, in such cases, they may have carried anyway whether they
> had a license or not. Assume that a person routinely carries a gun
> illegally. They decide to get a license to legalize it. They would carry
> with or without the license. Is there a casual connection between the
> license or licensed carrying and the crime? No! In addition there is a
> difference between a generalized fear of something and using that fear to
> deny persons their legal rights. If fear alone, with no empirical
> demonstration of real potential harm, can justify banning inanimate objects,
> There will be lots of ordinary objects that are banned. There are lots of
> phobias out there.
> However, I agree that the empirical case for gun control aimed at ordinary
> citizens has not been made.
> Ray
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:44 AM
> To: '[email protected]'
> Subject: RE: Volokh: California Court of Appeal Upholds Ban
>
> I'm a supporter of gun rights, but surely there's nothing that odd
> about people being afraid of law abiding citizens with guns (and even more
> so about convicted felons with guns). The case for gun control is on
> balance not, in my view, supported by the facts, but it is surely plausible.
> It's not ridiculous to worry that the presence of a gun might escalate an
> argument into a shootout, and in fact while the great bulk of homicides are
> committed by people with some arrest record, many are not committed by
> people with a felony conviction record.
>
> To be sure, other devices, such as alcohol and cars, are used in
> about as many killings of innocent bystanders as are guns. But people are
> also afraid, and rightly so, of misuse of alcohol and cars, and in fact
> there are many regulations -- many plausible, some good, some silly -- of
> the use of both.
>
> Of course, driving a car and drinking alcohol aren't constitutional
> rights, and having guns is, not just under Heller and the original meaning
> of the Second Amendment, but also under at least 40 state constitutions.
> But that doesn't tell us that much about what constitutes infringement on
> the right. That gun rights can be regulated though not prohibited has been
> a nearly universal refrain in state court decisions on the right to bear
> arms for the last two centuries. Many have gone way too far in upholding
> even serious burdens on the rights, but it's hard to claim that there's any
> support in American legal tradition for the proposition that gun rights (or
> speech rights or freedom from search and seizure or many other rights) are
> absolute, even for law-abiding citizens. So we can't just assume that
> people have a constitutional right to possess some particular kinds of guns,
> and ask why people are afraid of others' exercising that right.
>
> Eugene
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:firearmsregprof-
> > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Raymond Kessler
> > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 8:17 AM
> > To: Volokh, Eugene; [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: Volokh: California Court of Appeal Upholds Ban
> >
> > In addition to being very unrealistic, the ranch sniping hypo is one of
> > those 1 in a 100 million cases that, for better or worse, the law usually
> > doesn't deal with. It is very difficult to write a statute or
> > constitutional provision that can cover every conceivable exercise of a
> > claimed right. Further, Heller seems to be limited to "weapons in common
> > use." .50 cal. Rifles are not in common use. Further the Court assumes
> that
> > certain types of persons (e.g. convicted felons) could have their rights
> > limited. Is this hypo symptomatic of the "parade of horribles" and scare
> > tactics about the 2nd Amend? See, for example Bogus' article in Syracuse
> > Law review arguing that Heller romanticized insurrection (59 SYLR 253)and
> > Dorf's fear (59 SYRLR 225) that dangerous felons will be allowed to carry
> > concealed weapons on NY city streets. Every time a state enacts a
> concealed
> > carrying licensing scheme someone claims the streets will soon be running
> > with blood. Why are some people so afraid of law abiding citizens with
> > guns? Why are some people so afraid of other who exercise a
> constitutional
> > right?
> >
> > Ray Kessler
> > Prof. of Criminal Justice
> > Sul Ross State Univ.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected]
> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Volokh,
> Eugene
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:33 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: Volokh: California Court of Appeal Upholds Ban
> >
> > Hmm -- how realistic is it to expect that one will be sniped at
> from
> > a distance where a .50 caliber rifle will reach, but other rifles (recall
> > that the state law doesn't keep you from having other rifles) won't?
> >
> > Eugene
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email protected] [mailto:firearmsregprof-
> > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of rufx2
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:13 PM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: RE: Volokh: California Court of Appeal Upholds Ban
> > >
> > > Eugene- Person or persons sniping at your house from the property line
> of
> > > your ranch and you can't use a .50 in defense? Wait for them to come
> > closer
> > > and use your Heller-Approved handgun?
> > > {Cf pdf pages 27 & 37}
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email protected]
> > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> > > [email protected]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:01 PM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 67, Issue 2
> > >
> > > ------- Original Message --------
> > > Subject: [Volokh] Eugene Volokh: California Court of Appeal
> Upholds
> > > Ban
> > > on .50-Caliber Rifles Against Second Amendment Challenge:
> > > Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 00:19:39 -0400
> > > From: [email protected]
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > ...
> > > I can't speak to the wisdom of a .50-caliber ban, but this seems to be
> > > a sensible interpretation of Heller's test for what "arms" are
> > > protected. Moreover, as I argue in my forthcoming [2]Implementing the
> > > Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Self-Defense article, this is also
> > > consistent with a sensible interpretation of the right to keep and
> > > bear arms in self-defense. In my article, I argue that Heller's
> > > "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes"
> test
> > > is flawed. But, among other things, I argue that the right to bear
> > > arms for self-defense shouldn't be seen as infringed by restrictions
> > > that don't materially interfere with the right to self-defense; and a
> > > ban on .50-caliber rifles doesn't materially interfere with
> > > self-defense (see PDF pages 12-19 and 48, as well as PDF pages 37-42
> > > for the discussion of interpreting the scope of "arms" post-Heller).
> > >
> > > This doesn't speak, of course, to the right to keep and bear arms for
> > > other reasons, such as deterrence of government tyranny and the like.
> > > But I leave that questions to others (much as the Court did in
> > > Heller); writing 100+ pages on the right to bear arms in self-defense
> > > is enough for me.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > To post, send message to [email protected]
> > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
> > >
> > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> > private.
> > > Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted;
> people
> > can
> > > read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward
> > the
> > > messages to others.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to [email protected]
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
> >
> > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> > wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to [email protected]
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
> >
> > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.
> > Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people
> can
> > read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward
> the
> > messages to others.
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to [email protected]
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
