Conceal and Carry Laws Help Decrease Crime Rates in the US - Research Paper Example

Conceal and Carry Laws help decrease crime rates in US Samantha Rae Loughlin Southern New Hampshire 06/09 JUS 604: Legal and Justice Research Conceal and Carry Laws help decrease crime rates in US Introduction The need to improve security in the United States has led to the adoption of a number of laws and legislations aimed at securing individuals from armed aggression and violence. Following the second amendment in the United States, citizens were allowed to possess guns as a way of protection against violent crime (Lott, 2013). However, the variation between this law and other laws on gun control in other parts of the world has led to a number of debates on the ability of gun possession to control crime. The enactment if the concealed carry or carrying a concealed weapon in different states in the country has been attributed to reduced crime rates, though the debate has attracted divergent opinions (Lott, 2000). Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” In latest times, carrying a firearm for defines could implement a felony conviction. In Illinois or Wisconsin, this is still very precise. Fortunately, the people have vocalized and law-abiding citizens now can lawfully carry a weapon. People are taking advantage of their 2nd-Amendment rights in promptly cumulative numbers around the country, and crime is diminishing. Coincidence, or cause and effect? The adoption of the right to conceal and carry laws has been critical in the overall reduction of crime rates in the United States History of concealed gun laws The laws on concealed handguns have existed in the United States even before the beginning of the civil war and were meant to reduce the occurrence of violent criminal activities. In some states, the carrying of concealed weapons was banned and this applied even to on duty law enforcement officers during this period. These laws have been challenged even during this time and just as has been the case in the recent past, the Supreme Court has been drawn into the legal battle. In 1897 case of Robertson vs Baldwin, the Supreme Court ruled that the enactment of laws regulating the carrying of concealed firearms was legal and in no way infringed on the right of citizens nor did it violate the second amendment in a way. However, different other laws have been development to ease the regulation while attempting to reduce the impacts of concealed guns on increase in criminal activities in the country. However, some states like Vermont did not adopt the law and instead developed a free environment for the possession of concealed weapons. After the Second World War, changes to the law were witnessed in certain states in the country including Washington, New Hampshire and Connecticut. These states adopted the ‘shall issue’ statutes which allowed the legalisation of the citizens to carry concealed weapons unless there are legal issues disqualifying an applicant (Lott, 2013). Issues such as conviction history and a previous case of felony could be used to deny an applicant the right to possess a firearm in the country. However, the ‘shall issue’ statutes did not provide the authorities with the mandate to decide whether an applicant had the right and qualifications to carry concealed guns, except on the provisions of the constitution. Different other states adopted this provision, making the total number to 39 states today where officials have no legal mandate to deny an individual the right to carry a concealed weapon (Grossman & Lee, 2008). Other states that have not adopted the ‘shall issue’ statutes has instead enacted the ‘may issue’ statute which gives the authorities the power to deny an individual the right to carry concealed handgun. In such states, the applicants are legally required to provide adequate ground as to why they should be allowed to carry concealed weapons. Once convinced or otherwise, the issuing officer has the legal right to allow or deny the applicant to carry a concealed handgun. Today, nine states in the United States have adopted the ‘may issue’ statute which is viewed as an approach towards controlling gun use among the citizens. Other states such as Alaska and Vermont have no laws restricting the carrying of concealed guns and are classified as ‘shall issue’ though no provisions for restricting the issuance of the gun are provided (Lott, 2000). The second amendment and the conceal carry laws The enactment of the second amendment provided every citizen with the right to protect themselves using guns and other firearms. This law has been used as ground for opposing any laws that have been passed to restrict public right to conceal carry. Despite the progress that has been made by the federal government, states and local governments, the overriding provisions of the second government have infringed on the gun controls effort. Different interpretations of the second amendment have been attributed to the confusion which has marred the gun control efforts in the country (Grossman & Lee, 2008). During the time of the enactment of the second amendment, the foundation generation lacked enough trust on the ability of the army to protect their lives and properties. Most of the citizens also adopted the long English tradition that governments controlled by the minority continue to use guns as ways of controlling and oppressing the majority in the country. With such fears in mind, the government was allowed to use militias consisting of ordinary people with limited military training and experience to protect the territorial boundaries of the country. This led to the enactment of the second amendment which granted the militias the right to hold and use guns, a right that was extended to the citizens as a way of protection according to some interpreters like Senator Paul rand of the tea party (Kovandzic, Marvell & Vieraitis, 2005). Following the Sandy Hook tragedy, president Obama announced that there was need for the congress to enact stricter gun control laws in the country. Though his policies like health and educational policies have received widespread support, this announcement was received coldly by most people especially the republicans and the tea party members. This group of politicians argues that the second amendment protects the rights of the citizens to own and use guns for protection. This argument is believed to represent the historical tradition of the United States any move to restrict it may infringe on their rights and liberties as provided by the second amendment (Lott, 2000). This judgment however acknowledged that laws which have been enacted by the federal and state governments on gun use restriction remain viable and permissible, a statement that increased the confusion and protracted the gun control debate (Lott, 2013). According to the model constitution developed by Thomas Jefferson in Virginia, no freeman should be debarred from the use and ownership of gun to protect the integrity of his land and tenements. John Adams replicated the arguments of Jefferson when he argued that the arms found among the citizens must be used at individual discretion for the purpose of private defense. Though the interpretation of the second amendment has been subjected to manipulative arguments, the framers according to Coxe, a pioneer interpreter of the amendment intended to protect the right of the people to bear private arms (Kovandzic, Marvell & Vieraitis, 2005). According to gun control proponents, the mention of militias in this amendment stresses the fact that the law is only applicable to organized militias such the National Guard. Though the framers of the constitution intended to protect the country against external aggressive invasion, the militias were not organized state employees (Ayres & Donohue, 2002). In his response, president Obama first pronounces his belief in the second amendment of the United States constitution. This was a response to whether he was still willing to reduce the number of illegal guns in the streets. In responding to this question, the president first expresses the belief that the country, him included, has on the second amendment. A decision to implement, enforce and protect the second amendment cannot in any way achieve the response that the president gave. Different forms of gun controls have been established and these have clearly demonstrated the extent to which such process infringes on the provisions of the second amendment. The use of gun registration as a method of regulating the illegal use of guns in the country has been subjected to varying interpretations (Grossman & Lee, 2008). Though the registration of guns enable the government monitor the use of guns and enables the judicial process to punish the gun offenders, its benefits are limited in the current context. Through gun registration, the crimes committed by the same gun can be discovered but the criminal cannot be traced in the event that the gun was stolen from the rightful owner. Guns are constitutionally protected and this makes it illegal for the government to require citizens to registered protected objects. This is more so now that the benefits of registration are trivial and cannot eliminate the gun crime in the country. Concealed gun carry and crime rates in the United States The debate on the impacts of carrying concealed weapon on the crime rate in the United States was ignited by a publication of John Lott in 1998. Before releasing this report, Lott carried a study in all counties in the United States on the impact of concealed carry laws on crime rates. As a result, he concluded that more guns, less crime; a phrase that raised heat among legal academicians who set to disagree with his findings. However, the studies conducted by Lott has been considered as one of the most detailed survey on the impacts of gun control on criminal activities and the rate or crime in the country (Kovandzic, Marvell & Vieraitis, 2005). The right to carry laws, whose provisions requires citizens to acquire license and training on the use of guns reduces the rate of crime in the country. According to Lott (2001), counties that have legalised carrying of concealed weapons have witnessed over 69% decline in violent crime as compared to countries that have the ‘may issue’ statute. When former president bill Clinton sanctioned a conference at the national academy of science on the impacts of gun control in the reduction of crime, a fallacious approach was adopted. As a result, it led to the development of much tougher gun control laws without provided any statistical support for the way in which previous gun control laws have led to a decline in crime rate in the country (Grossman & Lee, 2008). In the states where it is illegal to carry concealed weapons, the law abiding citizens are the only ones that follow the regulation and the same cannot be said of the criminals. Guns in criminal’s hands do not care about the existence of the regulations as compared to a law abiding citizen in right to carry states. As a result, by limiting the right of the law abiding citizens to have access to the guns through the ‘no issue’ or ‘may issue’ statutes the security of the general public is compromised. Their ability to protect themselves against the criminals is also reduced or completely eliminated and this leads to increase in intentional murder and injuries in such states according to Lott (2001). Concealed carry laws adopted by certain states like Chicago have little ability to bar criminals from carry weapons and using them to perpetuate their criminal acts. The deterrent effect and ability created by the right to carry laws prevent the occurrence of crime in most states as compared to complete restriction of carrying concealed weapons (Donohue & Ayres, 2003). According to gun control proponents, criminals do not have control over their actions but are only driven by the tough circumstances and the greedy capitalistic society. Law abiding and hardworking citizens are also living within the same environment and require protection against society blaming psychopaths. The presence of concealed right laws results to a situation where criminals are forced to avoid engaging in confrontational situation that will be reciprocated with equal force and violence by handgun carrying citizens. According to James Craig, a senior police officer in Detroit, states with concealed carry permits have a low murder and violence rate and this can only be attributed on the ability of the people to respond to attacks (Kovandzic, Marvell & Vieraitis, 2005). A survey was recently conducted in Wisconsin, three months after the establishment of the concealed carry law to determine the level of crime in the cities. According to the report released by the Cato institute, media and 911 reports on gun violence declined significantly. This is due to the fact that defensive gun uses are rarely reported as the aggressors always flee on realising their targets are armed and defended (Ayres & Donohue, 2002). Instead, media reports changed and illuminated an increase in law abiding citizens scaring away criminals before a criminal act is committed. The same approach was adopted in Colorado following the concealed carry law enactment and the study involved different colleges in the state. According to the report released by the University of Colorado, a 60% decline in crime was reported in 2004. The report was however different when compared to statistics from the university of Colorado where the application of the concealed carry law was exempted. Using stickers in campus office doors that states how violent crime is prohibited and loathed has no power to deter a gun wielding criminal from using it. Instead, allowing a professor, Matron or even a security guard to possess a gun under the concealed carry law will be an effective deterrent against criminal violence in campuses and colleges (Donohue & Ayres, 2003). As the Supreme Court readies itself to make a determination on the legality of gun ban in Chicago, the strength of the libertarian gun laws has been disposed in different academic environments. Countries and states with libertarian laws have a strong constitutional and desire to control crime as opposed to the strict gun control states and countries. This is according to the results provided by Lott in his studies of Washington DC, Chicago, Jamaica and Ireland where the gun control and concealed carry laws differ significantly. According to Lott, the crime rate in Washington increased after the gun banning of 1976 which restricted concealed carry among the citizens. However, opponents of gun controlled have discredited the results of Lott, instead arguing that the increase in crime after 1980 was as a result of the crack wars that were witnessed in the city. The same results were posted in Chicago following the 1983 gun ban which led to increased gun use restriction and control. Jamaica and Ireland banned public possession of guns in the 70s and Lott attributed this to increased crime rate in the country in the years that followed. According to a report released by Lott and Mustard, the introduction of concealed carry laws did not only lead to a decline in violent crime but led to a shift from violent to nonviolent category. Following the enactment of these laws in specific ‘shall issue’ laws, the presence of violent crimes such as homicide, rape and aggravated assault declined by 4-7%. Violent crime was also dropped in favour of nonviolent crimes such as property crimes, a result that the duo referred to as the substitution effect of the concealed carry laws. With criminals finding it challenging to engage in criminal activities supported by their illegal firearms, most of them resorted to other nonviolence crimes that could not be countered in the same manners as violent crime (Donohue & Ayres, 2003). According to Lott, women are more prone to gun aided violence in the United States as compared to men and their inability to protect themselves leaves them at the mercy of the criminals. However, the adoption of concealed gun laws in different states has aided women to protect themselves against criminal violence such as rape and aggravated assault. In situations where both the sexes have the right to carry concealed guns, murder and homicide rates decline. This view has been supported by previous studies which have attributed decline in home violence and murder especially among acquaintances to the introduction of the conceal carry laws in different states in the country. With women carrying guns as their male counterparts, their vulnerability is reduced and the willingness of the armed men to commit crime is highly deterred (Maraist, 2012). Additionally, Lott also highlighted that women with the right to carry concealed handgun reduces violent crime rate by over three to four times as compared to an armed man. In most instances, the victims of violent crimes are the weaker members of the society who are viewed as being vulnerable and unable to protect themselves against the activities of the aggressors. Such a definition has befitted the female gender for a long time and this explains the traditionally high crime incidences targeting the female gender as compared to their male counter parts. Providing a man with a handgun makes little impacts as compared to allowing a woman to carry concealed weapon through the right legislation and laws (Donohue & Ayres, 2003). Opponents of unrestricted gun ownership have argued that citizens licensed to own guns have nothing restricting them from using the same guns to commit a violent crime, a process that negates the reasons for the enactment of the concealed gun rights. However, according to a study conducted by Lott in Florida, more than 300,000 concealed guns were licensed from 1945 to 1987 (Ayres & Donohue, 2002). However, there were only 5 reported violent crimes involving the use of permitted guns within this period, a reflection that conceal gun ownership does not provide room for increase in gun crime in the country. In fact, the five cases reported involving guns issued under the concealed law had no fatalities due to the training that the gun owners were subjected to prior to issuance (Grossman & Lee, 2008). Minor incidents have also been cited as a fertile ground for concealed handgun owners to use their weapons and intimidate or threaten others. This was also captured in Lott study which covered over 32 states, most of which have the conceal ownership laws with no restriction to gun ownership. According to the results presented by Lott, only a single case of this nature was reported in Texas in which a shooting incident followed. However, a grand jury formed to hear this case concluded that the use of the gun during the incident was propelled by the need for self-defines (Maraist, 2012). Apart from marital violence and use of conceal weapons for violence, opponents of Lott study findings have argued that accidental shootings makes right to limit access to guns. In the country, the number of accidental gun deaths is significantly low, placed at a value lower than 200 annually, a demonstration that accidental gun violence cannot be used as a basis to enact laws against the conceal gun ownership laws (Donohue & Ayres, 2003). Conclusion Individuals who possess the guns illegally and are therefore criminals whose gun ownership is not known by the government commit gun violence in the United States. The desire to increase the safety of the citizens has led to the adoption of a number of gun ownership and control laws in line with the second amendment. The ‘shall issue’ states in the country have developed an environment where citizens have the right to own conceal guns and the issuing authority has no legal power to deny the applicants. According to Lott’s theory of more guns, less crime, the ability of the citizens to protect themselves can only be improved if they are allowed to own guns and use them in self-defines. References Ayres, I., & Donohue, J. J. (2002). Shooting down the more guns, less crime hypothesis. , : Donohue, J., & Ayres, I. (2003). Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis. UC Berkeley: Centre for the Study of Law and Society Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program. Grossman, S. & Stephen A. (2008). May Issue Versus Shall Issue: Explaining the Pattern of Concealed-Carry Handgun Laws, 1960-2001. Contemporary Economic Policy; Vol. 26 No. 2, April 2008. Kovandzic, T., Marvell, T., & Vieraitis, L. (2005). The Impact of "Shall-Issue" Concealed Handgun Laws on Violent Crime Rates: Evidence from Panel Data for Large Urban Cities. Homicide Studies, 9(4), 292-323. Doi: 10.1177/1088767905279972. Lott, J. R. (2000). More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and Gun-Control laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lott, J. R. (2013). More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control laws, third edition. University of Chicago Press. Maraist, F. L. (2012). Tort Law: The American and Louisiana Perspectives. Lake Mary, FL: Vandeplas Publishing. Read More