"Gun
Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid
K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010.
Revised 12/10/12.
http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
|
» Click on the footnote numbers for
meticulous documentation of each fact.
» Type "Ctrl F" to search this page.
» Quick Click to:
|
 |
This research is based upon the most recent
available data in 2010. Facts from earlier
years are cited based upon availability and
relevance, not to slant results by singling
out specific years that are different from
others. Likewise, data associated with the
effects of gun control laws in various
geographical areas represent random,
demographically diverse places in which such
data is available.
Many aspects of the gun control issue are
best measured and sometimes can only be
measured through surveys,[1] but the
accuracy of such surveys depends upon
respondents providing truthful answers to
questions that are sometimes controversial
and potentially incriminating.[2] Thus, Just
Facts uses such data critically, citing the
best-designed surveys we find, detailing
their inner workings in our footnotes, and
using the most cautious plausible
interpretations of the results.
Particularly, when statistics are involved,
the determination of what constitutes a
credible fact (and what does not) can
contain elements of personal subjectivity.
It is our mission to minimize subjective
information and to provide highly factual
content. Therefore, we are taking the
additional step of providing readers with
four examples to illustrate the type of
material that was excluded because it did
not meet Just Facts'
Standards of Credibility.
* Firearms are generally classified into
three broad types: (1) handguns, (2) rifles,
and (3) shotguns.[3] Rifles and shotguns are
both considered "long guns."
* A
semi-automatic firearm fires one bullet each
time the trigger is pulled and automatically
loads another bullet for the next pull of
the trigger. A fully automatic
firearm (sometimes called a "machine gun")
fires multiple bullets with the single pull
of the trigger.[4]
* As of 2009, the United States has a
population of 307 million people.[5]
* Based on production data from firearm
manufacturers,[6] there are roughly 300
million firearms owned by civilians in the
United States as of 2010. Of these, about
100 million are handguns.[7]
* Based upon surveys, the following are
estimates of private firearm ownership in
the U.S. as of 2010:
* A 2005 nationwide Gallup poll of 1,012
adults found the following levels of firearm
ownership:
* In the same poll, gun owners stated they
own firearms for the following reasons:
* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in
the United States during 2008. Of these,
about 10,886 or 67% were committed with
firearms.[11]
* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977
households found that over the previous five
years, at least 0.5% of households had
members who had used a gun for defense
during a situation in which they thought
someone "almost certainly would have been
killed" if they "had not used a gun for
protection." Applied to the U.S. population,
this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per
year. This figure excludes all "military
service, police work, or work as a security
guard."[12]
* Based on survey data from the U.S.
Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000
violent crimes were committed in the United
States during 2008. These include
simple/aggravated assaults, robberies,
sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13]
[14]
[15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were
committed by offenders visibly armed with a
gun.[16]
* Based on survey data from a 2000 study
published in the Journal of Quantitative
Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to
defend themselves and others from crime at
least 989,883 times per year.[18]
* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977
households found that over the previous five
years, at least 3.5% of households had
members who had used a gun "for
self-protection or for the protection of
property at home, work, or elsewhere."
Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts
to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This
figure excludes all "military service,
police work, or work as a security
guard."[19]
* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
found that Americans use guns to frighten
away intruders who are breaking into their
homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]
* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state
prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at,
wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime
because they "knew or believed that the
victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who
had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or
captured by an armed victim"[22]
*
Click here to see why the following
commonly cited statistic does not meet Just
Facts'
Standards of Credibility: "In homes
with guns, the homicide of a household
member is almost 3 times more likely to
occur than in homes without guns."
* At the current homicide rate, roughly one
in every 240 Americans will be murdered.[23]
* A U.S. Justice Department study based on
crime data from 1974-1985 found:
• 42% of Americans will be the victim of a
completed violent crime (assault, robbery,
rape) in the course of their lives
• 83% of Americans will be the victim of an
attempted or completed violent crime
• 52% of Americans will be the victim of an
attempted or completed violent crime more
than once[24]
* A 1997 survey of more than 18,000 prison
inmates found that among those serving time
for a violent crime, "30% of State offenders
and 35% of Federal offenders carried a
firearm when committing the crime."[25]
* Nationwide in 2008, law enforcement
agencies reported that 55% of aggravated
assaults, 27% of robberies, 40% of rapes,
and 64% of murders that were reported to
police resulted in an alleged offender being
arrested and turned over for
prosecution.[26]
[27]
* Currently, for every 12 aggravated
assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes,
and murders committed in the United States,
approximately one person is sentenced to
prison for committing such a crime.[28]
[29]
[30]
* A 2002 U.S. Justice Department study of
272,111 felons released from state prisons
in 1994 found that within three years of
their release:
• at least 67.5% had been arrested for
committing a new offense
• at least 21.6% had been arrested for
committing a new violent offense
• these former inmates had been charged with
committing at least 2,871 new homicides,
2,444 new rapes, 3,151 other new sexual
assaults, 2,362 new kidnappings, 21,245 new
robberies, 54,604 new assaults, and 13,854
other new violent crimes[31]
* Of 1,662 murders committed in New York
City during 2003-2005, more than 90% were
committed by people with criminal
records.[32]
* In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council
passed a law generally prohibiting residents
from possessing handguns and requiring that
all firearms in private homes be (1) kept
unloaded and (2) rendered temporally
inoperable via disassembly or installation
of a trigger lock. The law became operative
on Sept. 24, 1976.[33]
[34]
* On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court,
in a 5-4 ruling, struck down this law as
unconstitutional.[35]
* During the years in which the D.C. handgun
ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the
Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73%
higher than it was at the outset of the law,
while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11%
lower.[37]
* In 1920, Britain passed a law requiring
civilians to obtain a certificate from their
district police chief in order to purchase
or possess any firearm except a shotgun. To
obtain this certificate, the applicant had
to pay a fee, and the chief of police had to
be "satisfied" that the applicant had "good
reason for requiring such a certificate" and
did not pose a "danger to the public safety
or to the peace." The certificate had to
specify the types and quantities of firearms
and ammunition that the applicant could
purchase and keep.[38]
* In 1968, Britain made the 1920 law
stricter by requiring civilians to obtain a
certificate from their district police chief
in order to purchase or possess a shotgun.
This law also required that firearm
certificates specify the identification
numbers ("if known") of all firearms and
shotguns owned by the applicant.[39]
* In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring
civilians to surrender almost all privately
owned handguns to the police. More than
162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of
ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered"
by February 1998. Using "records of firearms
held on firearms certificates," police
accounted for all but fewer than eight of
all legally owned handguns in England,
Scotland, and Wales.[40]
|
† Homicide data is published according to
the years in which the police initially
reported the offenses as homicides, which
are not always the same years in which the
incidents took place.
‡ Large anomalies unrelated to guns:
2000: 58 Chinese people suffocated to death
in a shipping container en route to the UK
2002: 172 homicides reported when Dr. Harold
Shipman was exposed for killing his patients
2003: 20 cockle pickers drowned resulting in
manslaughter charges
2005: 52 people were killed in the July 7th
London subway/bus bombings
|
* Not counting the above-listed anomalies,
the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52%
higher since the outset of the 1968 gun
control law and 15% higher since the outset
of the 1997 handgun ban.[42]
* In 1982, the city of Chicago instituted a
ban on handguns. This ban barred civilians
from possessing handguns except for those
registered with the city government prior to
enactment of the law. The law also specified
that such handguns had to be re-registered
every two years or owners would forfeit
their right to possess them. In 1994, the
law was amended to require annual
re-registration.[43]
[44]
[45]
* In the wake of Chicago's handgun ban, at
least five suburbs surrounding Chicago
instituted similar handgun bans. When the
Supreme Court overturned the District of
Columbia's handgun ban in June 2008, at
least four of these suburbs repealed their
bans.[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
* In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
(5-4) that Chicago's ban is
unconstitutional.[51]
* Since the outset of the Chicago handgun
ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged
17% lower than it was before the law took
effect, while the U.S. murder rate has
averaged 25% lower.[53]
* Since the outset of the Chicago handgun
ban, the percentage of Chicago murders
committed with handguns has averaged about
40% higher than it was before the law took
effect.[55]
* In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims
in Chicago were killed with handguns.[56]
* Under federal law:
• It is illegal and punishable by up to 10
years in prison for the following people to
receive, possess, or transport any firearm
or ammunition:
someone convicted of or under indictment for
a felony punishable by more than one year in
prison, someone convicted of a misdemeanor
punishable by more than two years in prison,
a fugitive from justice, an unlawful user of
any controlled substance, someone who has
been ruled as mentally defective or has been
committed to any mental institution, an
illegal alien, someone dishonorably
discharged from the military, someone who
has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship,
someone subject to certain restraining
orders, or someone convicted of a domestic
violence misdemeanor.[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
• It is illegal and punishable by up to 10
years in prison to sell or transfer any
firearm or ammunition to someone while
"knowing" or having "reasonable cause to
believe" this person falls into any of the
prohibited categories listed above.[61]
[62]
• It is illegal to "engage in the business
of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in
firearms" without a federal license to do
so.[63]
[64]
[65]
• It is illegal for any federally licensed
firearms business to sell or transfer any
firearm without first conducting a
background check to see if the
buyer/recipient falls into any of the
prohibited categories listed above.[66]
[67]
• It is illegal for anyone except a
federally licensed firearms business to
sell, buy, trade, or transfer a firearm
across state lines.[68]
* Under federal law, private individuals are
not required to a conduct a background check
before selling or transferring a firearm to
someone who lives in the same state, but it
is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years
in prison for a private individual to sell
or transfer a firearm while "knowing" or
having "reasonable cause to believe" that
the recipient falls into one of the
prohibited categories above.[69]
[70]
* Some states such as California require
background checks for all firearms
transactions, including those conducted
between private individuals.[71]
[72]
[73]
* In the 10-year period from November 30,
1998 to December 31, 2008, about 96 million
background checks for gun purchases were
processed through the federal background
check system. Of these, approximately
681,000 or about 1% were denied.[74]
[75]
* During 2002 and 2003, out of 17 million
background checks resulting in 120,000
denials, the federal government prosecuted
154 people (about one-tenth of 1% of the
denials).[76]
[77]
* According to federal agents interviewed in
a 2004 U.S. Justice Department
investigation, the "vast majority" of
denials under the federal background check
system are issued to people who are not "a
danger to the public because the prohibiting
factors are often minor or based on
incidents that occurred many years in the
past." As examples of such, agents stated
that denials have been issued due to a 1941
felony conviction for stealing a pig and a
1969 felony conviction for stealing
hubcaps.[78]
[79]
* The same investigation audited 200
background check denials and found that 8%
of denied applicants were not prohibited
from lawfully possessing a firearm.[80]
* During 2008, applicants appealed about 19%
of the 70,725 background check denials
issued that year. Of these, about 23% were
later overturned and the applications
approved.[81]
* As of 2010, federal law does not prohibit
members of terrorist organizations from
purchasing or possessing firearms or
explosives.[82]
* Between February 2004 and February 2010,
1,225 firearm and three explosives
background checks for people on terrorist
watch lists were processed through the
federal background check system. Of these,
91% of the firearm transactions and 100% of
the explosives transactions were
allowed.[83]
* Under federal law, individuals who have
been convicted of a felony offense that
would typically prohibit them from
possessing firearms can lawfully possess
firearms if their civil rights are restored
by the requisite government entities.[84]
* As of 2002, 15 states automatically
restore the firearm rights of convicts upon
their release from prison or completion of
parole, and 6 other states automatically
restore the firearm rights of juvenile
convicts upon their release from prison or
completion of parole. In 2004, the Office of
the Inspector General of the U.S. Department
of Justice wrote that this system
|
may result in a paradoxical situation in
which someone convicted of a misdemeanor
crime of domestic violence is permanently
barred from owning a firearm, while someone
who kills his spouse has his firearm rights
restored after serving his sentence.[85] |
* To undergo a background check, prospective
gun buyers are required by federal
regulations to present "photo-identification
issued by a government entity."[86]
* Using fake driver's licenses bearing
fictitious names, investigators with the
Government Accountability Office had a 100%
success rate buying firearms in five states
that met the minimum requirements of the
federal background check system.[87]
[88] A
2001 report of this investigation states
that the federal background check system
"does not positively identify purchasers of
firearms," and thus, people using fake IDs
are not flagged by the system.[89]
* "A gun show is an exhibition or gathering
where guns, gun parts, ammunition, gun
accessories, and literature are displayed,
bought, sold, traded, and discussed."[90]
* Roughly 2,000-5,200 gun shows take place
in the United States each year.[91]
* Gun shows "provide a venue for the sale
and exchange of firearms by federal firearms
licensees (FFLs).... Such shows also are a
venue for private sellers who buy and sell
firearms for their personal collections or
as a hobby. In these situations, the sellers
are not required to have a federal firearms
license. Although federal firearms laws
apply to both FFLs and private sellers at
gun shows, private sellers, unlike FFLs, are
under no legal obligation to ask purchasers
whether they are legally eligible to buy
guns or to verify purchasers' legal status
through background checks...."[92]
* In the three-year period from October 2003
through September 2006, the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)
conducted 202 operations at 195 gun shows,
leading to 121 arrests and 83 convictions
(with some cases still pending as of June
2007).[93]
* A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey of
14,285 state prison inmates found that among
those inmates who carried a firearm during
the offense for which they were sent to
jail, 0.7% obtained the firearm at a gun
show, 1% at a flea market, 3.8% from a pawn
shop, 8.3% from a retail store, 39.2%
through an illegal/street source, and 39.6%
through family or friends.[94]
* Right-to-carry laws permit individuals who
meet certain "minimally restrictive"
criteria (such as completion of a background
check and gun safety course) to carry
concealed firearms in most public
places.[95] Concealed carry holders must
also meet the minimum federal requirements
for gun ownership as
detailed above.
* Each state has its own laws regarding
right-to-carry and generally falls into one of three
main categories:
1) "shall-issue" states, where concealed
carry permits are issued to all qualified
applicants
2) "may-issue" states, where applicants must
often present a reason for carrying a
firearm to an issuing authority, who then
decides based on his or her discretion
whether the applicant will receive a permit
3) "no-issue" states, where concealed carry
is generally forbidden
* As of January 2012:
• 40 states are shall-issue:
|
Alaska |
Arizona |
Arkansas |
Colorado |
|
Florida |
Georgia |
Idaho |
Indiana |
|
Iowa |
Kansas |
Kentucky |
Louisiana |
|
Maine |
Michigan |
Minnesota |
Mississippi |
|
Missouri |
Montana |
Nebraska |
Nevada |
|
New
Hampshire |
New Mexico |
North Carolina |
North Dakota |
|
Ohio |
Oklahoma |
Oregon |
Pennsylvania |
|
Rhode
Island |
South Carolina |
South Dakota |
Tennessee |
|
Texas |
Utah |
Vermont |
Virginia |
|
Washington |
West Virginia |
Wisconsin |
Wyoming |
NOTE:
Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming allow
lawful firearm owners to carry concealed
firearms without a permit. All other
shall-issue states require firearm owners to
obtain a permit to carry concealed firearms.[97]
• 9 states are may-issue:
|
Alabama |
California |
Connecticut |
Delaware |
|
Hawaii |
Maryland |
Massachusetts |
New Jersey |
|
New
York |
|
|
|
NOTE: May-issue states vary significantly in the
implementation of their laws. Some, such as
Connecticut,[100] act effectively as
shall-issue states, while others, such as
New Jersey, act effectively as no-issue
states.[101]
• 1 state is no-issue: Illinois [102]
*
Click here to see why the following
commonly cited statistic does not meet Just
Facts'
Standards of Credibility: In
right-to-carry states, the violent crime
rate is 24% lower than the rest of the U.S.,
the murder rate is 28% lower, and the
robbery rate is 50% lower.
* On October 1, 1987, Florida's
right-to-carry law became effective.[103]
* This law requires that concealed carry
licensees be 21 years of age or older, have
clean criminal/mental health records, and
complete a firearms safety/training
course.[104]
* As of July 31, 2010, Florida has issued
1,825,143 permits and has 746,430 active
licensees,[105] constituting roughly 5.4% of
the state's population that is 21 years of
age or older.[106]
* Since the outset of the Florida
right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate
has averaged 36% lower than it was before
the law took effect, while the U.S. murder
rate has averaged 15% lower.[108]
* From the outset of the Florida
right-to-carry law through July 31, 2010,
Florida has revoked 5,674 or 0.3% of all
issued permits. Of these:
• 522 permits were revoked for crimes
committed prior to licensure
• 4,955 permits were revoked for crimes
committed after licensure, of which 168
involved the usage of a firearm.[109]
* In January 1996, Texas's right-to-carry
law became effective.[110]
* This law requires that concealed carry
licensees be at least 21 years of age (or 18
years of age if a member or veteran of the
U.S. armed forces), have clean
criminal/mental health records, and complete
a handgun proficiency course.[111]
* In 2009, Texas had 402,914 active
licensees,[112] constituting roughly 2.4% of
the state's population that is 21 years of
age or older.[113]
* Since the outset of the Texas
right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate
has averaged 30% lower than it was before
the law took effect, while the U.S. murder
rate has averaged 28% lower.[115]
* On July 1, 2001, Michigan's right-to-carry
law became effective.[116]
* This law requires that concealed carry
licensees be at least 18 years of age (or 21
years of age if purchasing a handgun from a
licensed dealer), have clean criminal/mental
health records, and pass a written firearms
safety test.[117]
* Since the outset of the Michigan
right-to-carry law, the Michigan murder rate
has averaged 4% lower than it was before the
law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate
has averaged 2% lower.[119]
* In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm
accidents in the United States, constituting
0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that
year.[120]
* Fatal firearm accidents in 2007 by age
groups:
|
Age Group |
Fatal Firearm Accidents |
|
Raw number |
Portion of fatal accidents
from all causes |
|
<1 yrs |
1 |
0.1% |
|
1-4 yrs |
18 |
1.1% |
|
5-9 yrs |
20 |
2.1% |
|
10-14 yrs |
26 |
2.1% |
|
15-24 yrs |
155 |
1.0% |
|
25-34 yrs |
94 |
0.6% |
|
35-44 yrs |
91 |
0.5% |
|
45-54 yrs |
82 |
0.4% |
|
55-64 yrs |
57 |
0.5% |
|
65+ yrs |
69 |
0.2% |
* In 2007, there were roughly 15,698
emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm
accidents,[123] constituting 0.05% of 27.7
million emergency room visits for non-fatal
accidents that year.[124]
* These emergency room visits for non-fatal
firearm accidents resulted in 5,045
hospitalizations,[125] constituting 0.4% of
1.4 million non-fatal accident
hospitalizations that year.[126]
* In D.C. v Heller, the 2008 Supreme Court
ruling striking down Washington's D.C.'s
handgun ban, Justice Stephen Breyer authored
a dissenting opinion that was joined by
Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter,
and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The opinion states:
First, consider the facts as the legislature
saw them when it adopted the District
statute. As stated by the local council
committee that recommended its adoption, the
major substantive goal of the District's
handgun restriction is "to reduce the
potentiality for gun-related crimes and
gun-related deaths from occurring within the
District of Columbia." ...
... [A]ccording to the committee, "[f]or
every intruder stopped by a homeowner with a
firearm, there are 4 gun-related accidents
within the home."[128] |
* This committee report cites no source or
evidence for this statistic.[129]
* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) found that Americans use guns to
frighten away intruders who are breaking
into their homes about 498,000 times per
year.[130]
* According to the CDC, there were about
18,498 gun-related accidents that resulted
in death or an emergency room visit during
2001[131] (the earliest year such data is
available from the CDC[132]). This is
roughly 27 times lower than the CDC's 1994
estimate for the number of times Americans
use guns to frighten away intruders who are
breaking into their homes.[133]
* Five critical rules of gun safety from the
NRA and other sources:
1) Always keep the gun pointed in a safe
direction (whether loaded or unloaded).
2) Always keep your finger off the trigger
until ready to shoot.
3) Always keep the gun unloaded until ready
to shoot.
4) Be aware of what is behind your target.
5) When handling firearms, never use alcohol
or any drug that might impair your awareness
or judgment (including prescription
drugs).[134]
* From the 1990 election cycle through
August 22, 2010, the following political
contributions were made by gun rights and
gun control interest groups to federal
candidates:
| |
Total
Contributions |
Donations to
Democrats |
Donations to
Republicans |
Percent
to Dems |
Percent to
Repubs |
|
Gun Rights |
$22,467,579 |
$3,231,405 |
$19,195,400 |
14% |
85% |
|
Gun Control |
$1,888,886 |
$1,776,310 |
$112,326 |
94% |
6% |
* In the 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, and 2000
election cycles, neither gun rights nor gun
control interest groups were among the top
50 interest groups donating to incumbent
members of Congress.[137]
* In the 2008 election cycle, gun rights
groups donated $2,397,743 to federal
candidates,[138] equating to about 1% of the
money donated by lawyers/law firms.[139]
* In the 2008, election cycle, gun control
groups donated $57,919 to federal
candidates, equating to about 2% of the
money donated by gun rights groups.[140]
* The 2008 Republican Party Platform voices
support for the Second Amendment and the
Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v
Heller, which overturned Washington's D.C.'s
handgun ban. The Platform calls for "the
next president to appoint judges who will
similarly respect the Constitution."[141]
* The 2008 Democratic Party Platform voices
support for the Second Amendment, states
that the "right to own firearms is subject
to reasonable regulation," and calls for
"closing the gun show loophole, improving
our background check system, and reinstating
the assault weapons ban."[142]
* The President of the United States
appoints judges to the Supreme Court. These
appointments must be approved by a majority
of the Senate.[143] Senate rules allow for a
"filibuster," in which a vote to approve a
judge can be blocked unless unless
three-fifths of the senators (typically 60
out of 100) agree to let it take place.[144]
[145]
* Once seated, federal judges serve for life
unless they voluntarily resign or are
removed through impeachment, which requires
a majority vote of the House of
Representatives and a two-thirds vote in the
Senate.[146]
* On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court,
in a 5-4 decision, ruled that Washington's
D.C.'s handgun ban was
unconstitutional.[147] Both of the Justices
appointed by Democrats voted to uphold the
ban, and five of the seven Justices
appointed by Republicans voted to strike it
down.[148]
* Of the five Justices who voted to strike
down the D.C. handgun ban, Barack Obama
voted against the nomination of two of them
and identified two of the others as judges
he would not have nominated.[149]
[150]
[151] Of the four justices who voted to
uphold the handgun ban, John McCain
identified all of them as judges he would
not have nominated.[152]
* In May 2009, President Obama announced
Sonya Sotomayor as his first nominee to the
Supreme Court.[153] She was confirmed in a
68-31 Senate vote, with 100% of Democrats
voting for her confirmation and 78% of
Republicans voting against it.[154]
* Within a year of being confirmed to the
Supreme Court,[155] Sotomayor joined in a
dissenting opinion declaring that Chicago's
handgun ban was constitutional, that "the
use of arms for private self-defense does
not warrant federal constitutional
protection from state regulation," and that
the Framers of the Constitution "did not
write the Second Amendment in order to
protect a private right of armed
self-defense."[156]
* In May 2010, Obama announced his second
nominee to the Supreme Court, Elena
Kagan.[157] As a law clerk for Supreme Court
Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan wrote a
memo recommending Marshall deny hearing an
appeal from a man who was convicted of
violating Washington, D.C.'s gun laws. She
wrote in the memo:
|
[The man's] sole contention is that the
District of Columbia's firearms statutes
violate his constitutional right to "keep
and bear arms." I'm not sympathetic.[158] |
* Kagan was confirmed to the Supreme Court
by the Senate in a 63-37 vote, with 98% of
Democrats voting for her confirmation and
88% of Republicans voting against it.[159]
* In the Bill of Rights, the Second
Amendment to the Constitution reads:
|
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of
the people to keep and bear Arms shall not
be infringed.[160] |
* Gun control proponents have argued and
some federal courts have ruled that the
Second Amendment does not apply to
individual citizens of the United States but
only to members of militias, which, they
assert, are now the state National Guard
units.[161]
[162] In 2002, a federal appeals
court panel ruled that "the people" only
"have the right to bear arms in the service
of the state."[163]
* Gun rights proponents have argued and some
federal courts have ruled that the Second
Amendment recognizes "an individual right to
keep and bear arms."[164] In 2001, a federal
appeals court panel ruled that the Second
Amendment "protects the right of
individuals, including those not then
actually a member of any militia or engaged
in active military service or training, to
privately possess and bear their own
firearms...."[165]
* James Madison was the primary author of
the Bill of Rights,[166] is known as the
"Father of the Constitution" for his central
role in its formation,[167] and was one of
three authors of the Federalist Papers, a
group of essays published in newspapers and
books to explain and lobby for ratification
of the Constitution.[168]
[169]
* In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison
addressed the concern that a standing
federal army might conduct a coup to take
over the nation. He argued that this was
implausible because, based on the country's
population at the time, a federal standing
army couldn't field more than 25,000-30,000
men. He then wrote:
|
To these would be opposed a militia
amounting to near half a million of citizens
with arms in their hands, officered by men
chosen from among themselves, fighting for
their common liberties, and united and
conducted by governments possessing their
affections and confidence. |
|
Besides the advantage of being armed, which
the Americans possess over the people of
almost every other nation, the existence of
subordinate governments, to which the people
are attached, and by which the militia
officers are appointed, forms a barrier
against the enterprises of ambition, more
insurmountable than any which a simple
government of any form can admit of.
Notwithstanding the military establishments
in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are
carried as far as the public resources will
bear, the governments are afraid to trust
the people with arms.[170] |
* In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council
passed a law generally prohibiting residents
from possessing handguns and requiring that
all firearms in private homes be (1) kept
unloaded and (2) rendered temporally
inoperable via disassembly or installation
of a trigger lock.[171]
[172]
* On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court,
in a 5-4 ruling known as D.C. v Heller,
struck down this law as
unconstitutional.[173]
* Excerpts from the majority ruling (Justice
Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas,
and Alito):
|
The District's total ban on handgun
possession in the home amounts to a
prohibition on an entire class of "arms"
that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of
the standards of scrutiny the Court has
applied to enumerated constitutional rights,
this prohibition ... would fail
constitutional muster. |
|
Similarly, the requirement that any lawful
firearm in the home be disassembled or bound
by a trigger lock makes it impossible for
citizens to use arms for the core lawful
purpose of self-defense and is hence
unconstitutional. |
|
The Second Amendment is naturally divided
into two parts: its prefatory clause and its
operative clause. The former does not limit
the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be
rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia
is necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms shall not be infringed." |
* Excerpts from a minority dissent (Justice
Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and
Breyer):
|
[T]he words "the people" in the Second
Amendment refer back to the object announced
in the Amendment's preamble. They remind us
that it is the collective action of
individuals having a duty to serve in the
militia that the text directly protects and,
perhaps more importantly, that the ultimate
purpose of the Amendment was to protect the
States' share of the divided sovereignty
created by the Constitution. |
|
As used in the Second Amendment, the words
"the people" do not enlarge the right to
keep and bear arms to encompass use or
ownership of weapons outside the context of
service in a well-regulated militia. |
* Excerpt from a minority dissent (Justice
Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, and
Ginsburg):
|
[The Framers were] unlikely then to have
thought of a right to keep loaded handguns
in homes to confront intruders in urban
settings as central. And the subsequent
development of modern urban police
departments, by diminishing the need to keep
loaded guns nearby in case of intruders,
would have moved any such right even further
away from the heart of the amendment's more
basic protective ends. |
* The Bill of Rights includes two Amendments
other than the Second that use the phrase
"right of the people":
|
Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances."[174] |
|
Amendment 4: "The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be
seized."[175] |
* In D.C. v Heller, the Supreme Court
Justices debated the meaning of the phrase
"right of the people" in the Second
Amendment. Below are excerpts of this
debate:
• Majority Opinion (Justice Scalia, joined
by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito):
The unamended Constitution
and the Bill of Rights use the
phrase "right of the people" two
other times... The Ninth
Amendment uses very similar
terminology.... All
three of these instances
unambiguously refer to
individual rights, not
"collective" rights, or rights
that may be exercised only
through participation in some
corporate body. ...
... Nowhere else in the Constitution does a
"right" attributed to "the people" refer to
anything other than an individual right.
What is more, in all six other provisions of
the Constitution that mention "the people,"
the term unambiguously refers to all members
of the political community, not an
unspecified subset. |
• Dissenting Opinion (Justice Stevens,
joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer):
The Court also overlooks the significance of
the way the Framers used the phrase "the
people" in these constitutional provisions.
In the First Amendment, no words define the
class of individuals entitled to speak, to
publish, or to worship; in that Amendment it
is only the right peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances, that is described as a right of
"the people." These rights contemplate
collective action. While the right peaceably
to assemble protects the individual rights
of those persons participating in the
assembly, its concern is with action engaged
in by members of a group, rather than any
single individual. Likewise, although the
act of petitioning the Government is a right
that can be exercised by individuals, it is
primarily collective in nature. For if they
are to be effective, petitions must involve
groups of individuals acting in concert. ...
As used in the Fourth Amendment, "the
people" describes the class of persons
protected from unreasonable searches and
seizures by Government officials. It is true
that the Fourth Amendment describes a right
that need not be exercised in any collective
sense. But that observation does not settle
the meaning of the phrase "the people" when
used in the Second Amendment. |
• Majority Opinion (Justice Scalia, joined
by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito):
|
Justice Stevens is of course correct ...
that the right to assemble cannot be
exercised alone, but it is still an
individual right, and not one conditioned
upon membership in some defined "assembly,"
as he contends the right to bear arms is
conditioned upon membership in a defined
militia. And Justice Stevens is dead wrong
to think that the right to petition is
"primarily collective in nature."
Ibid. See
McDonald v. Smith, 472 U. S. 479, 482-484
(1985) (describing historical origins of
right to petition). |
* In an 1833 Supreme Court case known as
Barron v Baltimore, the Court ruled that the
rights of the people in the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights only had to be respected
by the federal government and could be
infringed by state governments.[176]
* During the aftermath of the Civil War in
1868, the United States adopted the 14th
Amendment to the Constitution, the first
section of which reads:
|
... No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws. ...[177] |
* Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan served on
the committee that drafted the 14th
Amendment, and he introduced it on the floor
of the Senate. In this speech, he stated
that that the "great object" of the first
section of the amendment is "to restrain the
power of the States and compel them at all
times to respect" the "personal rights
guaranteed and secured by the first eight
amendments of the Constitution" including
"the right to keep and to bear
arms...."[178]
* In 1982, the city of Chicago instituted a
ban on handguns. This ban barred civilians
from possessing handguns except for those
registered with the city government prior to
enactment of the law. The law also specified
that such handguns had to be re-registered
every two years or owners would forfeit
their right to possess them. In 1994, the
law was amended to require annual
re-registration.[179]
[180]
[181]
* On June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled (5-4) that this ban is
unconstitutional.[182]
* Excerpt from the majority ruling (Justice
Alito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy,
and
Thomas):
|
In sum, it is clear that the Framers and
ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment
counted the right to keep and bear arms
among those fundamental rights necessary to
our system of ordered liberty. |
* Excerpt from a concurring opinion (Justice
Thomas):
|
[An 1876 decision by the Supreme Court]
holding that blacks could look only to state
governments for protection of their right to
keep and bear arms enabled private forces,
often with the assistance of local
governments, to subjugate the newly freed
slaves and their descendants through a wave
of private violence designed to drive blacks
from the voting booth and force them into
peonage, an effective return to slavery.
Without federal enforcement of the
inalienable right to keep and bear arms,
these militias and mobs were tragically
successful in waging a campaign of terror
against the very people the Fourteenth
Amendment had just made citizens. |
* Excerpt from a minority dissent (Justice
Breyer, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor):
|
[T]he use of arms for private self-defense
does not warrant federal constitutional
protection from state regulation. |
* Excerpt from a minority dissent (Justice
Stevens):
|
[T]he strength of the individual's liberty
interests and the State's regulatory
interests must always be assessed and
compared. |
[1] Paper: "Estimating intruder-related
firearm retrievals in U.S. households,
1994." By Robin M. Ikeda and others.
Violence and Victims, Winter 1997. Pages
363-372.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354
Page 370: "Obtaining information on the
protective use of firearms in an efficient
and unbiased manner is difficult. These data
can be collected through official records,
such as police reports, or through special
studies. Police reports are more likely to
include events with untoward outcomes.
Cross-sectional surveys may also be subject
to reporting biases and may not yield a
sufficient number of episodes to analyze
because these events are rare. Nevertheless,
surveys are likely to be the most common
investigatory tool because of their
simplicity and apparent
straightforwardness."
[2] Book: Firearms and Violence: A Critical
Review. By the Committee to Improve Research
and Data on Firearms and the Committee on
Law and Justice, National Research Council
of the National Academies. Edited by Charles
F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V.
Petrie. National Academies Press, 2005. Page
35:
While surveys of firearms acquisitions,
possession, and use are of varying quality
and scope, they all share common
methodological and survey sampling-related
problems. The most fundamental of these is
the potential for response errors to survey
questionnaires. Critics argue that asking
people whether they own a firearm, what kind
it is, and how it is used may lead to
invalid responses because ownership is a
controversial matter for one or more
reasons: some people may own a firearm
illegally, some may own it legally but worry
that they may use it illegally, and some may
react to the intense public controversy
about firearm ownership by becoming less (or
even more) likely to admit to ownership
(Blackman, 2003).7
7 While in most surveys respondents are
provided confidentiality, the concern is
still expressed that violations of
confidentiality directly or through data
mining could lead to the identification of
specific respondents in a way that might
allow the identification of firearms owners.
[3] Report: "Guns Used in Crime." By
Marianne W. Zawitz. U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July
1995.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF
Page 2:
What are the different types of firearms?
Handgun A weapon designed to fire a small
projectile from one or more barrels when
held in one hand with a short stock designed
to be gripped by one hand.
Revolver A handgun that contains its
ammunition in a revolving cylinder that
typically holds five to nine cartridges,
each within a separate chamber. Before a
revolver fires, the cylinder rotates, and
the next chamber is aligned with the barrel.
Pistol Any handgun that does not contain
its ammunition in a revolving cylinder.
Pistols can be manually operated or
semiautomatic. A semiautomatic pistol
generally contains cartridges in a magazine
located in the grip of the gun. When the
semiautomatic pistol is fired, the spent
cartridge that contained the bullet and
propellant is ejected, the firing mechanism
is cocked, and a new cartridge is chambered.
Derringer A small single- or multiple-shot
ha
Rifle A weapon intended to be fired from
the shoulder that uses the energy of the
explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to
fire only a single projectile through a
rifled bore for each single pull of the
trigger.
Shotgun A weapon intended to be fired from
the shoulder that uses the energy of the
explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire
through a smooth bore either a number of
ball shot or a single projectile for each
single pull of the trigger.
[4] Report: "Firearm Use by Offenders." By
Caroline Wolf Harlow, U.S. Department of
Justice, November 2001.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940
Page 15:
A semiautomatic gun is a firearm in which a
shell is ejected and the next round of
ammunition is loaded automatically from a
magazine or clip. The trigger must be pulled
for each shot. Semiautomatic guns may be
classified as handguns, rifles, or shotguns.
A machine gun is an automatic gun which, if
the trigger is held down, will fire rapidly
and continuously. It is not a semi-automatic
gun for which the trigger must be pulled for
each shot. (Classified as fully automatic
for analysis.)
[5] Dataset: "Annual Estimates of the
Resident Population for the United States,
Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1,
2000 to July 1, 2008." U.S. Census Bureau,
December 2009.
http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html
As of July 1, 2009, total people =
307,006,550
[6] Book: Firearms and Violence: A Critical
Review. By the Committee to Improve Research
and Data on Firearms and the Committee on
Law and Justice, National Research Council
of the National Academies. Edited by Charles
F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V.
Petrie. National Academies Press, 2005.
Pages 56-57:
Firearm production statistics are derived
from reports of firearms manufacture,
import, and export made the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Estimates of
firearm availability are derived by adding
the net growth in the number of firearms
(manufactures plus imports minus exports) to
a base measure of firearms stock.4
4 Production-based estimates have
limitations in that they account for neither
additions to the stock from illegal or other
uncounted means nor losses from seized,
lost, or nonworking firearms. These data
also exclude firearms manufactured or
exported for the military but include
firearms purchased by domestic law
enforcement agencies.
Page 57: "Table 3-2 presents
production-based estimates of the size of
the civilian firearms stock based on a
cumulated total since 1999."
1999, total firearms (258,322,465), handguns
(93,742,357)
[7] Web page: "Firearms Fact Card, 2010."
National Rifle Association, January 20,
2010.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=83
"Privately owned firearms in the U.S.:
Approaching 300 million, including nearly
100 million handguns. The number of firearms
rises over 4 million annually."
NOTE: Although the NRA does not state that
this data is derived from production-based
estimates, it is consistent with the 1999
production-based estimates in the citation
above.
[8] Data from and calculations performed
with information from the following sources:
a) Web page: "Firearms Fact Card, 2010."
National Rifle Association, January 20,
2010.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=83
"Gun owners in the U.S.: 70-80 million;
40-45 million own handguns"
"American households that have firearms:
40-45%"
NOTES:
- Although the NRA does not state that this
data is derived from surveys, Just Facts
found that it is consistent with a broad
range of surveys.
- Just Facts requested data on firearm
ownership from the U.S. Department of
Justice on February 17, 2010. The Department
of Justice responded that this information
is "not maintained by this Agency."
b) Dataset: "Average Number of People per
Household, by Race and Hispanic Origin,
Marital Status, Age, and Education of
Householder: 2009." U.S. Census Bureau,
January 2009.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2009.html
Total households = 117,181,000
c) Dataset: "Annual Estimates of the
Resident Population for the United States,
Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1,
2000 to July 1, 2008." U.S. Census Bureau,
December 2009.
http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html
As of July 1, 2009, total people =
307,006,550
d) Web page: "State & County QuickFacts."
U.S. Census Bureau. Last revised November
17, 2009.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2008 =
24.3%
CALCULATIONS:
1) Number of households with a gun =
117,181,000 households in the U.S. ×
.040-.045 households with a gun =
46,872,400-52,731,450
2) Percentage of adults owning a gun = 70-80
million people owning a gun / (307,006,550
people in the U.S. × (1-.243 persons under
18 years old)) = 30.1% - 34.4%
3) Percentage of adults owning a handgun =
40-45 million people owning a handgun /
(307,006,550 people in the U.S. × (1-.243
persons under 18 years old)) = 17.2% - 19.4%
[9] Article: "Gun Ownership and Use in
America." By Joseph Carroll. Gallup Poll,
November 22, 2005.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx
[10] Article: "Gun Ownership and Use in
America." By Joseph Carroll. Gallup Poll,
November 22, 2005.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx
[11] Report: "2008 Crime in the United
States, Expanded Homicide Data – Table 9."
Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S.
Department of Justice, September 2009.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_...
NOTE: This table states that 66.9% of all
murders were committed with firearms, but
this data does not account for all homicides
– only those for which a "Supplemental
Homicide Report" was filed (correspondence
from U.S. Department of Justice to Just
Facts, January 15, 2010). Hence, this table
shows 14,180 total murder victims, while the
UCR states: "An estimated 16,272 persons
were murdered nationwide in 2008." Assuming
the proportion of murders committed with
firearms is approximately the same
regardless of whether or not a Supplemental
Homicide Report is filed:
16,272 ×.669 ≈ 10,886 people murdered with
firearms
[12] Paper: "Armed
Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and
Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun." By Gary
Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,
Fall 1995.
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/backissues/86-1.html
Page 160: "The present survey ... was
carefully designed to correct all of the
known correctable or avoidable flaws of
previous surveys.... We interviewed a large
nationally representative sample...."
Pages 160-161: "A professional telephone
polling firm, Research Network of
Tallahassee, Florida, carried out the
sampling and interviewing."
Page 161: "Each interview began with a few
general 'throat-clearing' questions about
problems facing the R's community and crime.
The interviewers then asked the following
question: 'Within the past five years, have
you yourself or another member of your
household used a gun, even if it was not
fired, for self-protection or for the
protection of property at home, work, or
elsewhere? Please do not include military
service, police work, or work as a security
guard.'"
Page 172: "While estimates of DGU frequency
are reliable because they are based on a
very large sample of 4,977 cases, results
pertaining to the details of DGU incidents
are based on 213 or fewer sample cases, and
readers should treat these results with
appropriate caution."
Page 163: "An additional step was taken to
minimize the possibility of DGU [defensive
gun use] frequency being overstated. The
senior author went through interview sheets
on every one of the interviews in which a
DGU was reported, looking for any indication
that the incident might not be genuine. ...
There were a total of twenty-six cases where
at least one of these problematic
indications was present. ... Estimates using
all of the DGU cases are labeled herein as
'A' estimates, while the more conservative
estimates based only on cases devoid of any
problematic indications are labeled 'B'
estimates."
Page 176: "Another way of assessing how
serious these incidents appeared to the
victims is to ask them how potentially fatal
the encounter was. We asked Rs
[respondents]: "If you had not used a gun
for protection in this incident, how likely
do you think it is that you or someone else
would have been killed? Would you say almost
certainly not, probably not, might have,
probably would have, or almost certainly
would have been killed?" Panel K indicates
that 15.7% of the Rs stated that they or
someone else "almost certainly would have"
been killed...."
NOTES: Table 2 on page 184 lists the results
of the survey. In keeping with Just Facts'
Standards of Credibility, we are using the
most cautious plausible interpretations of
this data, which is for households (as
opposed to individuals) and a five-year
recall period based "only on cases devoid of
any problematic indications." As shown in
this table, this amounts to 3.456% of
households or 1,029,615 defensive gun uses
per year. Accounting for the 15.7% figure
from page 176 (cited above): 1,029,615
defensive gun uses per year × .157 of
respondents stating someone "almost
certainly would have been killed" if they
"had not used a gun for protection" =
161,650 such incidents. Using percentages
for the same calculation: 3.456% × .157 =
0.54%.
[13] Web page: "Definitions." U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Last revised May 3, 2010.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tdtp
Aggravated assault
(1) Intentionally and without legal
justification causing serious bodily injury,
with or without a deadly weapon or (2) using
a deadly or dangerous weapon to threaten,
attempt, or cause bodily injury, regardless
of the degree of injury, if any. Includes
attempted murder, aggravated battery,
felonious assault, and assault with a deadly
weapon.
Robbery
Completed or attempted theft, directly from
a person, of property or cash by force or
threat of force, with or without a weapon,
and with or without injury.
Simple assault
Attack without a weapon resulting either in
no injury, minor injury (for example,
bruises, black eyes, cuts, scratches or
swelling) or in undetermined injury
requiring less than 2 days of
hospitalization. Also includes attempted
assault without a weapon.
[14] NOTE:
The U.S. government publishes two
primary crime measures: The FBI's "Uniform
Crime Report" (UCR) and the Department of
Justice's "National Crime Victimization
Survey" (NCVS). The UCR is based upon
incidents reported to law enforcement
authorities and does not account for
unreported crimes. The NCVS is based upon
data gathered from extensive interviews, and
hence, provides more accurate estimates of
crime than the UCR.* The NCVS, however, does
not provide data on: murders and
nonnegligent manslaughters (because the
victims cannot be interviewed), crimes
committed against children under the age of
12, and commercial crimes such as robberies
of banks and convenience stores.† Therefore,
Just Facts uses the NCVS data as a baseline
and extrapolates the missing information
from UCR and NCVS data.
* Book: Firearms and Violence: A Critical
Review. By the Committee to Improve Research
and Data on Firearms and the Committee on
Law and Justice, National Research Council
of the National Academies. Edited by Charles
F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V.
Petrie. National Academies Press, 2005.
Page
21: "The National Crime Victimization Survey
... is widely viewed as a "gold standard for
measuring crime victimization."
Page 30:
"Although the NCVS data do many things
right, they are, like any such system, beset
with methodological problems of surveys in
general as well as particular problems
associated with measuring illicit, deviant,
and deleterious activities...."
† Report: "The Nation's two crime
measures."
U.S. Department of Justice, October 2004.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ntcm.pdf
The U.S. Department of Justice administers
two statistical programs to measure the
magnitude, nature, and impact of crime in
the Nation: the Uniform Crime Reporting
(UCR) Program and the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS). Each program
produces valuable information about aspects
of the Nation's crime problem. Because the
UCR and NCVS programs are conducted for
different purposes, use different methods,
and focus on somewhat different aspects of
crime, the information they produce together
provides a more comprehensive panorama of
the Nation's crime problem than either could
produce alone. …
The FBI's UCR program … collects information
on the following crimes reported to law
enforcement authorities: homicide, forcible
rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary,
larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and
arson. …
[Regarding the NCVS:] Two times a year, U.S.
Census Bureau personnel interview household
members in a nationally representative
sample of approximately 42,000 households
(about 75,000 people). Approximately 150,000
interviews of persons age 12 or older are
conducted annually. …
[The NCVS] does not measure homicide or
commercial crimes (such as burglaries of
stores). …
Second, the two programs measure an
overlapping but non-identical set of crimes.
The NCVS includes crimes both reported and
not reported to law enforcement. The NCVS
excludes, but the UCR includes, homicide,
arson, commercial crimes, and crimes against
children under age 12.
[15]
CALCULATION:
4,856,510 NCVS violent victimizations (not
including: (a) fatal crimes, (b) crimes
committed against children under the age of
12, and (c) commercial crimes)*
+ (a) 16,272 UCR murders and nonnegligent
manslaughters (i.e., fatal crimes)†
+ (b) 244,866 nonfatal violent
victimizations committed against children
under age 12 (extrapolated)‡
+ (c) 222,125 commercial robberies
(extrapolated)§
≈ 5,339,773 violent criminal victimizations
* Bulletin: "National Crime Victimization
Survey: Criminal Victimization, 2008." By
Michael R. Rand. Bureau of Justice
Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice,
September 2009.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv08.pdf
Page 1: "Violent crimes" include
"rape/sexual assault, robbery, and
aggravated and simple assault."
Page 1, Table 1 shows 4,856,510 violent
criminal victimizations, of which
551,830
are robberies.
† Report: "2008 Crime in the United States,
Murder." Federal Bureau of Investigation,
U.S. Department of Justice, September 2009.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html
"The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)
Program defines murder and nonnegligent
manslaughter as the willful (nonnegligent)
killing of one human being by another. … An estimated 16,272 persons were murdered
nationwide in 2008."
NOTE: Although the verbiage above could
imply that "nonnegligent manslaughter" and
"murder" are categorized as separate
offenses, this is not the case. As explained
in correspondence from the U.S. Department
of Justice to Just Facts (January 15,
2010), "These two are counted as one
offense, and numbers defining them are not
separated." Hence, the 16,272 murders cited
above also includes nonnegligent
manslaughters.
‡ Report: "2008 Crime in the United States,
Expanded Homicide Data – Table 9." Federal
Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of
Justice, September 2009.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_...
NOTE: Extrapolating data from this source
(further details available
upon request),
approximately 4.8% of murder victims were
under the age of 12. If a similar percentage
of nonfatal violent victimizations occur in
this age group:
y = violent victimizations, ages 0-11
y ≈ (0.048 ×
4,856,510 NCVS violent
victimizations) / (1 - 0.048)
y ≈ 244,866
§ Report: "2008 Crime in the United States,
Robbery." Federal Bureau of Investigation,
U.S. Department of Justice, September 2009.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/robbery.html
NOTE: Excluding hold-ups of lemonade stands,
it is fairly safe to assume there are few
commercial robberies of children under the
age of 12. Extrapolating data from this
source (further details available
upon request), approximately 28.7% of robberies
are commercial and 71.3% are private.
Applying these proportions to the NCVS data:
y = commercial robberies
y ≈ (0.287 ×
551,830 NCVS (private)
robberies) / (1 - 0.287)
y ≈ 222,125
[16] CALCULATION:
343,550 NCVS violent victimizations in which
the offender was armed with a firearm (not
including: (a) fatal crimes, (b) crimes
committed against children under the age of
12, and (c) commercial crimes).*
+ (a) 10,886 murders and nonnegligent
manslaughters in which a firearm was used
(extrapolated)†
+ (b) 17,385 nonfatal violent victimizations
committed against children under age 12 in
which the offender was armed with a firearm
(extrapolated)‡
+ (c) 53,310 commercial robbery
victimizations in which the offender was
armed with a firearm (extrapolated)§
+ 10,706 rapes/sexual assaults in which the
offender was armed with a firearm
(extrapolated)#
≈ 435,837 violent victimizations in which
the offender was armed with a firearm
* Bulletin: "National
Crime Victimization
Survey: Criminal Victimization, 2008." By
Michael R. Rand. Bureau of Justice
Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice,
September 2009.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv08.pdf
Page 6: "An offender was armed with a gun,
knife, or other object used as a weapon in
an estimated 20% of all incidents of violent
crime in 2008 (table 7)."
Page 6, "Text table 3. Firearm use in
violent crime, 1999 and 2008": violent
victimizations involving a firearm =
343,550
Page 6, "Table 7. Presence of weapons in
violent incidents, by type, 2008":
- percentage of robberies involving a
firearm = 24%
- number of rapes/sexual assaults involving
a firearm = 0 {Note: Just Facts does not
take this figure at face value and instead,
extrapolates an estimated number.}
NOTE: With regard to guns and other weapons,
this report employs the words "presence" and
"use" interchangeably. This is evident by
the fact that "Text table 3. Firearm use in
violent crime, 1999 and 2008" and "Table 7.
Presence of weapons in violent incidents, by
type, 2008" cite the same figure (303,880)
for the number of violent firearm incidents.
Thus, the word "use" does not necessarily
mean the offender fired the gun. Instead,
the word "use" means the offender was armed
with a gun.
† Report: "2008 Crime in the United States,
Expanded Homicide Data – Table 9." Federal
Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of
Justice, September 2009.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_...
NOTE: This table states that 66.9% of all
murders were committed with firearms, but
this data does not account for all homicides
– only those for which a "Supplemental
Homicide Report" was filed (correspondence
from U.S. Department of Justice to Just
Facts, January 15, 2010). Hence, this table
shows 14,180 total murder victims, while the
UCR states: "An estimated 16,272 persons
were murdered nationwide in 2008." Assuming
the proportion of murders committed with
firearms is approximately the same
regardless of whether or not a Supplemental
Homicide Report is filed:
16,272 ×.669 ≈ 10,886 people murdered with
firearms
‡ 2008 NCVS data shows
4,856,510 nonfatal
violent victimizations of people ages 12 and
over, of which 343,550 or 7.1% involved the
use of firearms. Based upon the
extrapolation above, roughly
244,866
nonfatal violent victimizations were
committed against children under the age of
12. Assuming the proportion of
victimizations committed with firearms is
approximately the same regardless of whether
or not the victims are under the age of 12
(probably a high estimate):
244,866 × .071 ≈ 17,385 nonfatal violent
victimizations committed against children
under age 12 in which the offender was armed
with a firearm
§ Based upon the extrapolation above,
roughly 222,125 commercial robberies were
committed in 2008. 2008 NCVS data shows
24%
of noncommercial robberies are committed
using firearms. Assuming the proportion of
robberies committed with firearms is
approximately the same regardless of whether
or not they are commercial (probably a low
estimate):
222,125 × .24 ≈ 53,310 commercial robbery
victimizations in which the offender was
armed with a firearm
# 2008 NCVS data shows
zero rape/sexual
assaults committed by an offender armed with
a gun, and the 2008 UCR explicitly states,
"Weapon data are not collected for forcible
rape offenses." [Report: "2008 Crime in the
United States, Violent Crime." Federal
Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of
Justice, September 2009.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/index.html]
Hence, Just Facts extrapolates the number of
rape/sexual assaults involving firearms
based upon several relatable NCVS and UCR
metrics (further details available
upon request).
[17] Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive
Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment."
By David McDowall and others. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, March 2000.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/rngn3274255v6j67/
Page 7:
The most important of the other set of
questions asked:
Within the past 12 months, have you yourself
used a gun, even if it was not fired, to
protect yourself or someone else, or for the
protection of property at home, work, or
elsewhere?
This is largely identical to the standard
question from the other surveys, but the
reference period is 1 year rather than 5
years. The question also refers to the
respondent alone, rather than to all
household members.
Page 8: "Because gun ownership is a strong
correlate of firearm resistance (e.g., Kleck
and Gertz, 1996, p. 187), we selected a
national sample from commercial lists of
likely gun owners. Of the eventual
respondents, 83% did report the presence of
a gun in their home."
Page 8: "This left 3006 households, an 81%
response rate. The interviewers selected a
single respondent from within each
household. In a random 75% of the cases, the
interviewers asked for the male head of
household. In the remaining 25% they asked
for the female head."
Page 10: "Table II. Types of Incidents of
Firearm Defense...."
[18] As shown in the previous footnote, this
study did not use a nationally
representative population. To correct for
this, Just Facts used the following
equation:
t = c × g × p / [n
×
r × [[s × d / f] +
[(1-s) × (1- d) / (1- f)]]]
Where:
t = Total defensive gun uses in a nationally
representative population
c = Defensive gun uses in this survey,
civilian against offender, clear = 48
g = Minimum proportion of households with a
gun = 0.34*
p = Population, ages 25-70 = 158,799,375†
n = Survey sample size = 3006
r = Proportion of survey respondents with a
gun in their home = .83
s = Proportion of survey respondents who are
female = .25
d = Proportion of defensive gun uses by
females = .46‡
f = Proportion of population (ages 25-70)
who are females = .51†
NOTES:
In keeping with Just Facts'
Standards of Credibility, we have given preferentiality
to figures that are contrary to our
viewpoints and used the most cautious
plausible interpretations of this data.
Details of how we have done this are
explained in the following notes.
* This equation operates under the conservative
assumption that respondents in homes without
firearms had no defensive gun uses, even
though such people may have used others'
firearms for defense. In a range of surveys
stretching over the previous 30 years, 34%
is the lowest figure we have found for the
percentage of homes with guns. [Paper:
"Estimating intruder-related firearm
retrievals in U.S. households, 1994." By
Robin M. Ikeda and others. Violence and
Victims, Winter 1997. Pages 363-372.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354
Page 369: "A second concern about
representativeness of the sample is that the
prevalence of households with firearms in
our survey (34%) is lower than that reported
in polls (41%) for the same year (Maguire &
Pastore, 1995). ... It is similar, however,
to that observed in the 1994 National Health
Interview Survey (37%) (personal
communication, National Center for Health
Statistics) and another national telephone
survey about using firearms for protection
(36%) (Kleck & Gertz, 1995)."]
† Data file: "U.S. Interim Projections by
Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin:
2000-2050, Detailed Data File." Population
Projections Branch, U.S. Census Bureau, May
11, 2004.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/...
NOTE: The survey in the footnote above
selected respondents by asking for the
male/female head of household. Just Facts
used a conservative estimate of this
population by only including people from 25
to 70 years old.
‡ Paper: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The
Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a
Gun." By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal
of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/backissues/86-1.html
Page 178: "Perhaps the most surprising
finding of the survey was the large share of
reported DGUs [defensive gun uses] that
involved women. Because of their lower
victimization rates and lower gun ownership
rates, one would expect women to account for
far less than half of DGUs. Nevertheless,
46% of our sample DGUs involved women."
[19] Paper: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The
Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a
Gun." By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal
of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/backissues/86-1.html
Page 160: "The present survey ... was
carefully designed to correct all of the
known correctable or avoidable flaws of
previous surveys.... We interviewed a large
nationally representative sample...."
Pages 160-161: "A professional telephone
polling firm, Research Network of
Tallahassee, Florida, carried out the
sampling and interviewing."
Page 161: "Each interview began with a few
general 'throat-clearing' questions about
problems facing the R's community and crime.
The interviewers then asked the following
question: 'Within the past five years, have
you yourself or another member of your
household used a gun, even if it was not
fired, for self-protection or for the
protection of property at home, work, or
elsewhere? Please do not include military
service, police work, or work as a security
guard.'"
Page 172: "While estimates of DGU frequency
are reliable because they are based on a
very large sample of 4,977 cases, results
pertaining to the details of DGU incidents
are based on 213 or fewer sample cases, and
readers should treat these results with
appropriate caution."
Page 163: "An additional step was taken to
minimize the possibility of DGU [defensive
gun use] frequency being overstated. The
senior author went through interview sheets
on every one of the interviews in which a
DGU was reported, looking for any indication
that the incident might not be genuine. ...
There were a total of twenty-six cases where
at least one of these problematic
indications was present. ... Estimates using
all of the DGU cases are labeled herein as
'A' estimates, while the more conservative
estimates based only on cases devoid of any
problematic indications are labeled 'B'
estimates."
NOTES: Table 2 on page 184 lists the results
of the survey. In keeping with Just Facts'
Standards of Credibility, we have cited the
most conservative result of this survey,
which is for households (as opposed to
individuals) and a five-year recall period
based "only on cases devoid of any
problematic indications." As shown in this
table, this amounts to 3.456% of households
or 1,029,615 defensive gun uses per year.
[20] Paper: "Estimating intruder-related
firearm retrievals in U.S. households,
1994." By Robin M. Ikeda and others.
Violence and Victims, Winter 1997.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354
Page 363:
To estimate the frequency of firearm
retrieval because of a known or presumed
intruder, the authors analyzed data from a
1994 national random digit dialing telephone
survey (n = 5,238 interviews). ... National
projections based on these self-reports
reveal an estimated 1,896,842 (95% CI
[confidence interval] = 1,480,647-2,313,035)
incidents in which a firearm was retrieved,
but no intruder was seen; 503,481 (95% CI =
305,093-701,870) incidents occurred in which
an intruder was seen, and 497,646 (95% CI =
266,060-729,231) incidents occurred in which
the intruder was seen and reportedly scared
away by the firearm.
Page 364: "A specified random selection
procedure was used to ensure that
approximately one half of respondents were
male and one half were female. If more than
one eligible individual was in the selected
gender category, the interviewer asked for
the respondent with the most recent
birthday. Households occupied by minorities
were oversampled to ensure adequate minority
representation and then weighted to adjust
for unequal selection probabilities."
[21] Book: Armed and Considered Dangerous: A
Survey of Felons and Their Firearms
(Expanded Edition). By James D. Wright and
Peter D. Rossi. Aldine De Gruyter, 1986
(Expanded edition published in 1994).
Page 1: "Almost all of the information
presented here was obtained from a survey of
men serving sentences for felony offenses in
11 state prisons scattered throughout the
country. However uncertain one may be about
their reliability as sources, convicted
criminals are about the only source of
empirical information on this topic that can
be tapped at reasonable cost. (We also show
later that convicted felons are not totally
unreliable informants.)"
Page 26: "[W]e restricted the study to
felons who had been out "on the street"
recently enough to possess useful, current
information; operationally, this meant a
restriction to men who began their current
prison term on or after 1 January 1979."
Page 32:
The definitive study of the quality of
prisoner self-report data is Marquis (1981),
a data quality analysis of the RAND
"Criminal Careers" survey. In this study,
data quality was assessed by comparing
prisoners' self reports with information
contained in official criminal justice
records. Since the format and procedures of
the RAND survey were very similar to those
followed in our survey, it is reasonable to
assume that Marquis' findings generalize.
Summarizing briefly, Marquis found:
1. There is no evidence that prisoners
attempt to deny salient aspects of their
criminal past. ...
2. Comparisons of self-reported
conviction-offense data with official
records showed that "on a general level, the
data are close to unbiased" (Marquis, 1981:
32). Moderate biases were found on some
items , but in general, reliability of the
self-report data was "moderately high."
[22] Same as above. Page 155:
2. Have you ever been scared off, shot at,
wounded, or captured by an armed victim? No:
66%, Yes: 34%, (N) = (1673)
3. Was there ever a time in your life when
you decided not to do a crime because you
knew or believed that the victim was
carrying a gun? No, never: 61%, Yes, just
once: 10%, Yes, a few times: 22%, Yes, many
times: 8%, (N) = (1627)
4. [H]ave any of the criminals you have
known personally ever been scared off, shot
at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim?
No, none: 31%, Yes, but only one: 10%, Yes,
a few: 48%, Yes, many: 11%, (N) = (1627)
[23] Calculations performed with data from
the following sources:
a) Report: "2008 Crime in the United States,
Murder." Federal Bureau of Investigation,
U.S. Department of Justice, September 2009.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html
"An estimated 16,272 persons were murdered
nationwide in 2008."
b) Dataset: "Annual Estimates of the
Resident Population for the United States,
Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1,
2000 to July 1, 2008." U.S. Census Bureau,
December 22, 2008.
http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html
"July 1, 2008, United States: 304,059,724"
c) Report: "Deaths: Preliminary Data for
2007." By Jiaquan Xu and others. U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Division of Vital Statistics, August 19,
2009.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_01.pdf
Page 1: "Life expectancy at birth rose by
0.2 years to 77.9 years."
NOTE: The calculations that
determine this fact were performed by a
licensed actuary using two different
methodologies, both of which yield the same
answer. An Excel file containing these
calculations is available
upon request.
[24] Report: "Lifetime Likelihood of
Victimization." By Herbert Koppel. Bureau of
Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of
Justice, March 1987.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/104274.pdf
Page 1:
Annual victimization rates alone do not
convey the full impact of crime as it
affects people. No one would express his or
her concern by saying, "I am terribly afraid
of being mugged between January and December
of this year." People are worried about the
possibility that at some time in their lives
they will be robbed or raped or assaulted,
or their houses will be burglarized.
Annual rates can provide a false sense of
security by masking the real impact of
crime. Upon hearing that the homicide rate
is about 8 to 10 per 100,000 population, one
feels safe; after all, 1 chance in 10,000 is
not very frightening. Actually, however, at
recent homicide rates about 1 of every 133
Americans will become a murder victim; for
black males the proportion is estimated to
be 1 of every 30. Similarly, while 16 out of
10,000 women are rape victims annually, the
lifetime chances of suffering a rape are
much greater.
The problem lies with people's perception of
the meaning of annual rates with respect to
their own lives. If the Earth revolved
around the sun in 180 days, all of our
annual crime rates would be halved, but we
would not be safer. ...
Because of the assumptions involved in the
calculations and because the data derive
from a sample survey, the numbers presented
in this report are estimates only; they
should be interpreted only as indications of
approximate magnitude, not as exact
measures. Essentially they are calculated
values of lifetime risk rather than
descriptions of what has been observed.
Page 2: "The estimates of lifetime
likelihood of victimization are derived
under the assumption that, throughout their
lifetimes, people in the U.S. have incurred,
and will continue to incur, criminal
victimization at the same annual rates as
were observed in the years 1975 through
1984."
Page 2 (Table 1): "Lifetime likelihood of
victimization"
| Percent of Persons Who Will be Victimized by Violent Crime Starting at 12 Years of Age |
| |
Total |
Number of Victimizations |
| |
one or more |
one |
two |
three or more |
| Violent Crime |
83% |
30% |
27% |
25% |
| Violent Crime, Completed |
42% |
32% |
9% |
2% |
[25] Report: "Firearm Use by Offenders." By
Caroline Wolf Harlow, U.S. Department of
Justice, November 2001.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940
Page 2: "Data for this report are based
primarily on personal interviews with large
nationally representative samples of State
and Federal prison inmates."
Page 13: "A total of 14,285 interviews were
completed for the State survey and 4,041 for
the Federal survey, for overall response
rates of 92.5% in the State survey and 90.2%
in the Federal survey."
Page 1: "Among inmates in prison for
homicide, a sexual assault, robbery, assault
or other violent crime, 30% of State
offenders and 35% of Federal offenders
carried a firearm when committing the
crime."
[26] Report: "Crime in the United States,
Table 25: Percent of Offenses Cleared by
Arrest or Exceptional Means, by Population
Group, 2008." U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, September
2009.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_25.html
Total, All Agencies, Percent cleared by
arrest:*
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter = 63.6%
Forcible rape = 40.4%
Robbery = 26.8%
Aggravated assault = 54.9%
Data Declaration
(http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_25_dd.html):
"The data used in creating this table were
from all law enforcement agencies submitting
at least 6 months of complete offense
reports for 2008."
NOTE:
* Report: "Crime in the United States,
Offenses Cleared." U.S. Department of
Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
September 2009.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/clearances/index.html
Cleared by Arrest
In the UCR Program, a law enforcement agency
reports that an offense is cleared by
arrest, or solved for crime reporting
purposes, when at least one person is:
• Arrested.
• Charged with the commission of the
offense.
• Turned over to the court for prosecution
(whether following arrest, court summons, or
police notice).
To qualify as a clearance, all of the
conditions listed above must have been met.
In its calculations, the UCR Program counts
the number of offenses that are cleared, not
the number of arrestees. Therefore, the
arrest of one person may clear several
crimes, and the arrest of many persons may
clear only one offense. In addition, some
clearances that an agency records in a
particular calendar year, such as 2004, may
pertain to offenses that occurred in
previous years.
[27] NOTE: As shown in the following three
articles, the data cited above is suspect
because it is based on reports from local
law enforcement agencies:
a) Article: "Retired Officers Raise
Questions on Crime Data." By William K.
Rashbaum. New York Times, February 7, 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/nyregion/07crime.html?hp
"More than a hundred retired New York Police
Department captains and higher-ranking
officers said in a survey that the intense
pressure to produce annual crime reductions
led some supervisors and precinct commanders
to manipulate crime statistics, according to
two criminologists studying the department."
b) Article: "Reducing rape with an eraser."
By Judith Riesman. Dr. Judith Riesman,
September 12, 2006.
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2006/09/reducing_rape_w.html
c) Article: "Brooklyn's 81st Precinct probed
by NYPD for fudging stats; felonies
allegedly marked as misdemeanors." By Rocco
Parascandola. New York Daily News, February
2, 2010.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/02/02/...
"A Brooklyn precinct is under investigation
for manipulating statistics to make its cops
look like better crimefighters, the Daily
News has learned. ... Schoolcraft told The
News the top brass are so concerned with
numbers that one precinct lieutenant is
known as 'The Shredder' because he's often
spotted destroying documents."
[28] Web page: "Definitions." U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Last revised May 3, 2010.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tdtp
Aggravated assault
(1) Intentionally and without legal
justification causing serious bodily injury,
with or without a deadly weapon or (2) using
a deadly or dangerous weapon to threaten,
attempt, or cause bodily injury, regardless
of the degree of injury, if any. Includes
attempted murder, aggravated battery,
felonious assault, and assault with a deadly
weapon.
Robbery
Completed or attempted theft, directly from
a person, of property or cash by force or
threat of force, with or without a weapon,
and with or without injury.
Simple assault
Attack without a weapon resulting either in
no injury, minor injury (for example,
bruises, black eyes, cuts, scratches or
swelling) or in undetermined injury
requiring less than 2 days of
hospitalization. Also includes attempted
assault without a weapon.
[29] NOTE: The U.S. government publishes two
primary crime measures: The FBI's "Uniform
Crime Report" (UCR) and the Department of
Justice's "National Crime Victimization
Survey" (NCVS). The UCR is based upon
incidents reported to law enforcement
authorities and does not account for
unreported crimes. The NCVS is based upon
data gathered from extensive interviews, and
hence, provides more accurate estimates of
crime than the UCR.* The NCVS, however, does
not provide data on: murders and
nonnegligent manslaughters (because the
victims cannot be interviewed), crimes
committed against children under the age of
12, and commercial crimes such as robberies
of banks and convenience stores.† Therefore,
Just Facts uses the NCVS data as a baseline
and extrapolates the missing information
from UCR and NCVS data.
* Book: Firearms and Violence: A Critical
Review. By the Committee to Improve Research
and Data on Firearms and the Committee on
Law and Justice, National Research Council
of the National Academies. Edited by Charles
F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V.
Petrie. National Academies Press, 2005.
Page
21: "The National Crime Victimization Survey
... is widely viewed as a "gold standard for
measuring crime victimization."
Page 30:
"Although the NCVS data do many things
right, they are, like any such system, beset
with methodological problems of surveys in
general as well as particular problems
associated with measuring illicit, deviant,
and deleterious activities...."
† Report: "The Nation's two crime
measures."
U.S. Department of Justice, October 2004.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ntcm.pdf
The U.S. Department of Justice administers
two statistical programs to measure the
magnitude, nature, and impact of crime in
the Nation: the Uniform Crime Reporting
(UCR) Program and the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS). Each program
produces valuable information about aspects
of the Nation's crime problem. Because the
UCR and NCVS programs are conducted for
different purposes, use different methods,
and focus on somewhat different aspects of
crime, the information they produce together
provides a more comprehensive panorama of
the Nation's crime problem than either could
produce alone. …
The FBI's UCR program … collects information
on the following crimes reported to law
enforcement authorities: homicide, forcible
rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary,
larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and
arson. …
[Regarding the NCVS:] Two times a year, U.S.
Census Bureau personnel interview household
members in a nationally representative
sample of approximately 42,000 households
(about 75,000 people). Approximately 150,000
interviews of persons age 12 or older are
conducted annually. …
[The NCVS] does not measure homicide or
commercial crimes (such as burglaries of
stores). …
Second, the two programs measure an
overlapping but non-identical set of crimes.
The NCVS includes crimes both reported and
not reported to law enforcement. The NCVS
excludes, but the UCR includes, homicide,
arson, commercial crimes, and crimes against
children under age 12.
[30] Calculations performed with data from
the following sources:
a) Report: "Felony Sentences in State
Courts, 2006 – Statistical Tables." By Sean
Rosenmerkel and others. U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
December 2009.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fssc06st.pdf
Page 2 (in pdf): "Felonies are widely defined as crimes with
the potential of being punished by more than
1 year in prison. State courts sentenced an
estimated 1,132,290 persons for a felony in
2006, including 206,140 (or 18% of all
felony convictions) for a violent felony
(table 1.1). ...
In 2006 an estimated 69% of all persons
convicted of a felony in state courts were
sentenced to a period of confinement—41% to
state prison and 28% to local jails (table
1.2). Jail sentences are usually a year or
less in a county or city facility, while
prison sentences are usually more than a
year and are served in a state facility."
Page 4 (in pdf): "Table 1.2. Types of felony
sentences imposed in state courts, by
offense, 2006"
Violent offenses, incarceration rate = 77%
NOTE: As table 1.1 shows, "Violent offenses"
in this report include murder/nonnegligent
manslaughter, rape, other sexual assault,
robbery, aggravated assault, and other
violent crimes such as negligent
manslaughter and kidnapping. Simple assault
is not included in these figures because it
is a misdemeanor offense.
b) Report: "Federal Justice Statistics, 2006
- Statistical Tables." Prepared by the Urban
Institute under the supervision of Mark
Motivans of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, United States Department of
Justice, May 1, 2009.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/html/fjsst/2006/fjs06st.pdf
Page 32 (in pdf): Table 5.2. "Type and
length of federal sentences imposed, by
offense, October 1, 2005 - September 30,
2006."
Incarcerations for violent offenses = 2,311
NOTE: As page 32 (in the pdf) shows,
violent felony offenses in this report
include murder, negligent manslaughter,
assault, robbery, sexual abuse, kidnapping,
threats against the President. Simple
assault is not included in these figures
because it is a misdemeanor offense.
c) CALCULATION:
1,595,600 aggravated assaults, robberies,
and rapes/sexual assaults (not including:
(a) fatal crimes, (b) crimes committed
against children under the age of 12, and
(c) commercial crimes)*
+ (a) 16,272 UCR murders and nonnegligent
manslaughters (i.e., fatal crimes)†
+ (b) 80,450 aggravated assaults, robberies,
and rapes/sexual assaults committed against
children under age 12 (extrapolated)‡
+ (c) 222,125 commercial robberies
(extrapolated)§
≈ 1,914,447 aggravated assaults, robberies,
and rapes/sexual assaults
* Bulletin: "National Crime Victimization
Survey: Criminal Victimization, 2008." By
Michael R. Rand. U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, September
2009.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv08.pdf
Page 1, Table 1 shows 839,940 aggravated
assaults, 551,830 robberies, and 203,830
rapes/sexual assaults. Total of these crimes
= 1,595,600
† Report: "2008 Crime in the United States,
Murder." Federal Bureau of Investigation,
U.S. Department of Justice, September 2009.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html
"The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)
Program defines murder and nonnegligent
manslaughter as the willful (nonnegligent)
killing of one human being by another. …
An estimated 16,272 persons were murdered
nationwide in 2008."
NOTE: Although the verbiage above could
imply that "nonnegligent manslaughter" and
"murder" are categorized as separate
offenses, this is not the case. As explained
in correspondence from the U.S. Department
of Justice to Just Facts (January 15,
2010), "These two are counted as one
offense, and numbers defining them are not
separated." Hence, the 16,272 murders cited
above also includes nonnegligent
manslaughters.
‡ Report: "2008 Crime in the United States,
Expanded Homicide Data – Table 9." Federal
Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of
Justice, September 2009.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_...
NOTE: Extrapolating data from this source
(further details available
upon request),
approximately 4.8% of murder victims were
under the age of 12. If a similar percentage
of nonfatal violent victimizations occur in
this age group:
y = violent victimizations, ages 0-11
y ≈ (0.048 × 1,595,600 aggravated assaults,
robberies, and rapes/sexual assaults) / (1 -
0.048)
y ≈ 80,450
§ Report: "2008 Crime in the United States,
Robbery." Federal Bureau of Investigation,
U.S. Department of Justice, September 2009.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/robbery.html
NOTE: Excluding hold-ups of lemonade stands,
it is fairly safe to assume there are few
commercial robberies of children under the
age of 12. Extrapolating data from this
source (further details available
upon request), approximately 28.7% of robberies
are commercial and 71.3% are private.
Applying these proportions to the NCVS data:
y = commercial robberies
y ≈ (0.287 ×
551,830 NCVS (private)
robberies) / (1 - 0.287)
y ≈ 222,125
CALCULATIONS:
a)
206,140 violent felony convictions in state
courts × 0.77 incarceration rate for violent
felony convictions in state courts = 158,728
incarcerations for violent felonies in
states courts
b) 2,311 incarcerations for violent offenses
in federal courts + 158,728 incarcerations
for violent felonies in states courts =
161,039 incarcerations for violent crimes
c)
1,914,447 aggravated assaults, robberies,
and rapes/sexual assaults / 161,039
incarcerations for such crimes = 11.9
violent crimes for every incarceration
NOTES:
The latest available data were used for
these calculations, and there is a
three-year chronological variance between the annual
totals in the sources cited. However, given
the slight changes in such data from year
to year, the approximation is valid.
[31] Report: "Recidivism of Prisoners
Released in 1994." By Patrick A. Langan and
David J. Levin. Bureau of Justice
Statistics, June 2, 2002.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf
Page 1:
This study of the rearrest, reconviction,
and reincarceration of prisoners tracked
272,111 former inmates for 3 years after
their release in 1994. The 272,111 –
representing two-thirds of all prisoners
released in the United States that year –
were discharged from prisons in 15
States....
• Within 3 years from their release in 1994
–
67.5% of the prisoners were rearrested for a
new offense (almost exclusively a felony or
a serious misdemeanor)
Page 2: "To an unknown extent, recidivism
rates based on State and FBI criminal
history repositories understate actual
levels of recidivism. The police agency
making the arrest or the court disposing of
the case may fail to send the notifying
document to the State or FBI repository.
Even if the document is sent, the repository
may be unable to match the person in the
document to the correct person in the
repository or may neglect to enter the new
information. For these reasons, studies such
as this one that rely on these repositories
for complete criminal history information
will understate recidivism rates."
Page 4: "The 67.5% of releases rearrested
within 3 years, or 183,675 persons, were
charged with 744,480 new crimes, or an
average of 4 new crimes each (table 3). Over
100,000 were new charges for a violent
crime, including 2,900 new homicides, 2,400
new kidnappings, 2,400 rapes, 3,200 other
sexual assaults, 21,200 robberies, 54,600
assaults, and nearly 13,900 other violent
crimes." {Table 3 on this page has the
precise figures cited by Just Facts.}
Page 4: "Over their adult criminal history
(both prior to and following their release)
the 272,111 offenders were arrested for
nearly 4.9 million offenses altogether: 4.1
million prior to release plus nearly 0.8
million after release. That is an average of
about 17.9 charges each."
Page 5: How many of the 272,111 were ever
arrested for violence[?] Although 22.5% of the
272,111 were released from prison in 1994
following an arrest and conviction for a
violent crime, 53.7% of all the prisoners
had a prior arrest for violence, and 21.6%
were arrested for a violent crime after
their release. Altogether, 67.8% of the
prisoners released in 1994 had a record of
violence.
[32] Article: "New York Killers, and Those
Killed, by Numbers." By Jo Craven Mcginty.
New York Times, April 28, 2006.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/nyregion/28homicide.html?...
"From 2003 through 2005, 1,662 murders were
committed in New York. ... More than 90
percent of the killers had criminal records;
and of those who wound up killed, more than
half had them."
[33] Article: "A History of D.C. Gun Ban."
Compiled by Meg Smith and Leah Carliner.
Washington Post, June 26, 2008.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/...
June 1976: [T]he D.C. Council votes 12 to 1
in favor of a bill restricting city
residents from acquiring handguns. The law
exempts guards, police officers and owners
who had registered their handguns before it
took effect. Under the bill, all firearms
(including rifles and shotguns, which were
not restricted by the law) must be kept
unloaded and disassembled, except those in
business establishments.
September 1976: Attempts in Congress to
block the District law fail, clearing the
way for it to go into effect.
[34] Legal brief 07-290: "District of
Columbia and Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of the
District Of Columbia, Petitioners, v. Dick
Anthony Heller, Respondent. In the Supreme
Court of the United States." By Linda Singer
(Attorney General for the District of
Columbia) and others. January 4, 2008.
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/...
Pages 1-2:
Relevant portions of the D.C. Code provide:
§ 7-2502.02. Registration of certain
firearms prohibited.
(a) A registration certificate shall not be
issued for a:
(1) Sawed-off shotgun;
(2) Machine gun;
(3) Short-barreled rifle; or
(4) Pistol not validly registered to the
current registrant in the District prior to
September 24, 1976, except that the
provisions of this section shall not apply
to any organization that employs at least 1
commissioned special police officer or other
employee licensed to carry a firearm and
that arms the employee with a firearm during
the employee's duty hours or to a police
officer who has retired from the
Metropolitan Police Department.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prevent a
police officer who has retired from the
Metropolitan Police Department from
registering a pistol.
§ 7-2507.02. Firearms required to be
unloaded and disassembled or locked.
Except for law enforcement personnel
described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each
registrant shall keep any firearm in his
possession unloaded and disassembled or
bound by a trigger lock or similar device
unless such firearm is kept at his place of
business, or while being used for lawful
recreational purposes within the District of
Columbia.
[35] Ruling: District Of Columbia v.
Heller. U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 2008.
Case 07-290. Decided 5-4. Majority: Scalia,
Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito. Dissenting:
Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=...
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock
requirement (as applied to self-defense)
violate the Second Amendment. The District's
total ban on handgun possession in the home
amounts to a prohibition on an entire class
of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly
choose for the lawful purpose of
self-defense. Under any of the standards of
scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated
constitutional rights, this prohibition—in
the place where the importance of the lawful
defense of self, family, and property is
most acute—would fail constitutional muster.
Similarly, the requirement that any lawful
firearm in the home be disassembled or bound
by a trigger lock makes it impossible for
citizens to use arms for the core lawful
purpose of self-defense and is hence
unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at
oral argument that the D. C. licensing law
is permissible if it is not enforced
arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court
assumes that a license will satisfy his
prayer for relief and does not address the
licensing requirement. Assuming he is not
disqualified from exercising Second
Amendment rights, the District must permit
Heller to register his handgun and must
issue him a license to carry it in the home.
[36] Graph constructed with data from:
a) Dataset: "Uniform Crime Reporting
Program, District of Columbia, 1960-2008."
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal
Justice Information Services Division. Data
supplied to Just Facts on June 15, 2010.
Data available upon
request.
b) Article: "Homicide totals for 2009
plummet in District, Prince George's." By
Allison Klein. Washington Post, January 1,
2010.
"The number of slayings last year in the
District, once known as the murder capital
of the United States, was 140, a 25 percent
drop from 2008. ... The homicide numbers
were compiled as of late Thursday night and
could go up New Year's Eve, but any such
increases are not likely to change the
overall trend."
NOTE: By performing calculations with the
data above (140 slayings in 2009, which is a
25% drop from 2008) and 2008 data from the
FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Just
Facts has determined that these "slayings"
include both homicides and nonnegligent
manslaughters, not just homicides.
c) Dataset: "Annual Estimates of the
Resident Population for the United States,
Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1,
2000 to July 1, 2009." U.S. Census Bureau,
December 2009.
http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html
Population in DC as of July 1, 2009 =
599,657
d) Dataset: "Uniform Crime Reporting
Program, United States, 1960-2008." Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice
Information Services Division. Data supplied
to Just Facts on June 15, 2010. Data
available upon
request.
[37] Calculated with data from:
Dataset: "Uniform Crime Reporting Program,
District of Columbia, 1960-2008." Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice
Information Services Division. Data supplied
to Just Facts on June 15, 2010. Data
available upon
request.
Dataset: "Uniform Crime Reporting Program,
United States, 1960-2008." Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Criminal Justice Information
Services Division. Data supplied to Just
Facts on June 15, 2010. Data available
upon request.
NOTE: The averages were calculated by
averaging the murder rates from all years in
which the ban was effective for at least 6
months of the year.
[38] Law: "Firearms Act, 1920." Office of
Public Sector Information.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1920/pdf/ukpga_19200043_en.pdf
Chapter 43, Section 1:
(1) A person shall not purchase, have in his
possession, or carry any firearm or
ammunition unless he holds a certificate (in
this Act called a firearm certificate)
granted under this section, and in force at
the time. ...
(2) A firearm certificate shall be granted
by the chief officer of police of the
district in which the applicant for the
certificate resides, if he is satisfied that
the applicant is a person who has a good
reason for requiring such a certificate and
can be permitted to have in his possession,
use, and carry a firearm or ammunition
without danger to the public safety or to
the peace, and on payment of the prescribed
fee....
(3) A firearm certificate shall be in the
prescribed form and shall specify the nature
and number of the firearms to which it
relates, and, as respects ammunition, the
quantities authorised to be purchased and to
be held at any one time thereunder, and the
certificate may on the application of the
holder thereof be varied from time to time
by the chief officer of police of the
district in which the holder for the time
resides. ...
(5) A firearm certificate shall, unless
previously revoked or cancelled, continue in
force for three years, but shall be
renewable for a further period of three
years by the chief officer of police of the
district in which the holder of the
certificate resides....
(7) The fee to be paid on the grant or
renewal of a firearm certificate shall be
such as is specified in the First Schedule
to this Act.
(8) If any person purchases, has in his
possession, uses, or carries a firearm or
ammunition without holding a firearm
certificate or otherwise than as authorised
by such a certificate or, in the case of
ammunition, in quantities in excess of those
so authorised, or fails to comply with any
condition subject to which the certificate
is granted, he shall be liable in respect of
each offence on summary conviction to a fine
not exceeding fifty pounds, or to
imprisonment, with or without hard labour,
for a term not exceeding three months, or to
both such imprisonment and fine....
Chapter 43, Section 12:
(1) In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requirestion. The expression "
firearm " means any lethal firearm or other
weapon of any description from which any
shot, bullet, or other missile can be
discharged, or any part thereof, and the
expression " ammunition " means ammunition
for any such firearms, and includes
grenades, bombs, and other similar missiles,
whether such missiles are capable of use
with a firearm or not, and ingredients and
components thereof :
Provided that a smooth bore shot-gun or
air-gun or air-rifle (other than air-guns
and air-rifles of a type declared by rules
made by a Secretary of State under this Act
to be specially dangerous) and ammunition
therefor shall not in Great Britain be
deemed to be a firearm and ammunition for
the purpose of the provisions of this Act
other than those relating to the removal of
firearms and ammunition from one place to
another or for export:
[39] Law: "Firearms Act, 1968." Office of
Public Sector Information.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1968/...
Part I: Provisions as to Possession,
Handling and Distribution of Weapons and
Ammunition; Prevention of Crime and Measures
to Protect Public Safety
General restrictions on possession and
handling of firearms and ammunition.
Section 1: Requirement of firearm
certificate.
(1) Subject to any exemption under this Act,
it is an offence for a person—
(a) to have in his possession, or to
purchase or acquire, a firearm to which this
section applies without holding a firearm
certificate in force at the time, or
otherwise than as authorised by such a
certificate;
(b) to have in his possession, or to
purchase or acquire, any ammunition to which
this section applies without holding a
firearm certificate in force at the time, or
otherwise than as authorised by such a
certificate, or in quantities in excess of
those so authorised.
(2) It is an offence for a person to fail to
comply with a condition subject to which a
firearm certificate is held by him. ...
Section 2: Requirement of certificate for
possession of shot guns.
(1) Subject to any exemption under this Act,
it is an offence for a person to have in his
possession, or to purchase or acquire, a
shot gun without holding a certificate under
this Act authorising him to possess shot
guns.
(2) It is an offence for a person to fail to
comply with a condition subject to which a
shot gun certificate is held by him. ...
Part II: Firearm and Shot Gun Certificates;
Registration of Firearms Dealers
Grant, renewal, variation and revocation of
firearm and shot gun certificates
Section 26 A: Applications for firearm
certificates.
(1) An application for the grant of a
firearm certificate shall be made in the
prescribed form to the chief officer of
police for the area in which the applicant
resides and shall state such particulars as
may be required by the form. ...
Section 26B: Applications for shot gun
certificates.
(1) An application for the grant of a shot
gun certificate shall be made in the
prescribed form to the chief officer of
police for the area in which the applicant
resides and shall state such particulars as
may be required by the form.
Section 27: Special provisions about firearm
certificates. ....
(2) A firearm certificate shall be in the
prescribed form and shall specify the
conditions (if any) subject to which it is
held, the nature and number of the firearms
to which it relates [including if known
their identification numbers,] and, as
respects ammunition, the quantities
authorised to be purchased and to be held at
any one time thereunder. ...
Section 28: Special provisions about shot
gun certificates. ...
(2A) A shot gun certificate shall specify
the description of the shot guns to which it
relates including, if known, the
identification numbers of the guns.]
[40] Report: "Home Office: Handgun Surrender
and Compensation." House of Commons,
Committee of Public Accounts, June 21, 1999.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/...
6. Over 162,000 handguns and 700 tonnes of
ammunition were compulsorily surrendered to
local police stations between July 1997 and
February 1998. The surrender was the main
measure in response to the tragic events of
13 March 1996, when Thomas Hamilton walked
into Dunblane Primary School armed with four
handguns and 743 rounds of ammunition and
shot dead 16 children and their teacher, and
wounded 10 other children and three other
teachers. Under the first Firearms
(Amendment) Act of 1997 large-calibre
handguns became prohibited from 1 July 1997,
with owners having until 30 September 1997
to dispose of them lawfully, and
small-calibre handguns became prohibited
from 1 February 1998, with disposal by 28
February 1998.
7. As a first step in managing the surrender
and compensation schemes, the Home Office
and the police needed to contact handgun
owners and dealers to ensure that they were
aware of the terms of the prohibition and
surrender. The Home Office provided booklets
for the police to distribute to handgun
owners and dealers, explaining the
requirements of the legislation and the
terms of the compensation. ...
13. The Home Office could not provide
absolute assurance that no handguns had been
unlawfully retained, but was reasonably
satisfied that individual police forces had
ensured that prohibited handguns in their
area had either been surrendered or
otherwise lawfully disposed of. The Home
Office assured us that individual forces had
accurate records of firearms held on
firearms certificates. They had used these
to follow up firearms which were to be
surrendered under the terms of the Acts, and
had made adequate checks on handguns claimed
to have been otherwise lawfully disposed of,
for example by owners sending them abroad.
Sixteen of the 26 police forces the National
Audit Office visited considered that they
had satisfied themselves that all relevant
handguns had been traced and those
prohibited surrendered. The remaining ten
had been unable to account for the handguns
held by a total of 35 owners by the end of
the surrender period, although by September
1998 over three-quarters of these cases had
been resolved. ...
15. The intention of the prohibition under
the 1997 firearms legislation was to remove
handguns from civilian ownership, and
thereby also from the risk of being used in
crime.
[41] Graph constructed with data from:
Report: "Homicides, Firearm Offences and
Intimate Violence 2008/09."
Edited by Kevin Smith and John Flatley. UK
Home Office, January 21, 2010.
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb0110.pdf
Page 9:
Data presented in this chapter have been
extracted from the Homicide Index. Since it
is continually being updated with revised
information from the police and the courts,
the Homicide Index is a better source of
data than the main recorded crime dataset.
...
[On] 24 November 2009, the ... the Homicide
Index database was 'frozen' so that analysis
could be conducted.
Page 10:
The term 'homicide' covers the offences of
murder, manslaughter and infanticide. ...
Homicide offences up to the financial year
2008/09 are presented in this chapter, with
offences shown according to the year in
which the police initially recorded the
offence as homicide. This is not necessarily
the year in which the incident took place or
the year in which any court decision was
made. ...
Caution is needed when looking at homicide
trend figures, primarily because they are
based on the year in which offences are
recorded by the police rather than the year
in which the incidents took place. As an
example of this, the 172 homicides
attributed to Dr Harold Shipman as a result
of Dame Janet Smith's inquiry took place
over a long period of time but were all
recorded by the police during 2002/03 [same
as fiscal year 2002 in the chart made by
Just Facts]. Also, where several people are
killed by the same principal suspect (such
as the cockle pickers who drowned in
Morecambe Bay and the 7 July 2005 London
bombing victims), the number of homicides
counted is the total number of persons
killed rather than the number of incidents.
Page 11: "Figure 1.1 Offences recorded by
the police in England and Wales, 1957 to
2008/09"
Page 20: "Table 1.01 Offences initially
recorded by the police as homicide by
current classification: England and Wales,
1956 to 2008/09"
[42] Calculated with data from the source
above.
NOTES:
- The 52% figure was calculated by averaging
the homicide rates from 1969 through fiscal
year 2008, and comparing this figure to
1968.
- The 15% figure was calculated by averaging
the homicide rates from fiscal years
1998-2008 and comparing this figure to
fiscal year 2007 (which happens to be the
same figure as calendar year 2007).
[43] Ruling number 1-95-1779: "Hunt v.
Daley." Appellate Court of Illinois, First
District, Third Division, February 19, 1997.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1056110.html
This proceeding involves the 1982 Chicago
Weapons Ordinance, passed by the Chicago
City Council on March 19, 1982 … rendering
certain firearms unregisterable in the City
of Chicago. Under that ordinance, several
categories of firearms, including handguns,
became unregisterable in the City of
Chicago. … However, pursuant to a
grandfathering provision provided in the
1982 ordinance, handgun owners whose
handguns were validly registered prior to
the effective date of the handgun ban could
continue to re-register their handguns. …
The 1982 ordinance also required that such
re-registration take place every two years.
... [It was] ... amended and recodified in
1994 to require annual re-registration....
The failure to re-register firearms every
two years after the enactment of the 1982
ordinance rendered such firearms permanently
unregisterable, and thereby caused handgun
owners to forfeit their right to possess
such firearms within the City of Chicago.
[44] Ruling number 83-1431: "Sklar v.
Byrne." United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit, February 8, 1984 (as
amended April 17, 1984).
http://openjurist.org/727/f2d/633
On March 19, 1982, the Chicago City Council
passed an ordinance amending Chapter 11.1 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Chicago
which regulates the sale, possession and
registration of firearms and ammunition. The
ordinance requires that all firearms in
Chicago be registered with the city. ... The
ordinance also classifies some firearms as
"unregisterable," thus making illegal their
possession in the City of Chicago. Among the
categories of "unregisterable" firearms are
"Handguns, except those validly registered
to a current owner in the City of Chicago
prior to the effective date of this
Chapter."... The effective date of the
Chapter was April 10, 1982.
[45] Case file: McDonald v Chicago.
Plaintiff's complaint. Filed June 26, 2008.
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/...
"Chicago Municipal Code § 8-20-200 provides:
(a) Every registrant must renew his
registration certificate annually.
Applications for renewal shall be made by
such registrants 60 days prior to the
expiration of the current registration
certificate. (b) The application for renewal
shall include the payment of a renewal fee
as follows: 1 firearm ... $20.00…."
[46] Article: "Evanston latest suburb to
repeal handgun ban in wake of high court
ruling." By Deborah Horan, Chicago Tribune,
August 12, 2008.
http://chicagotribune.com
"Following the lead of at least two other
Chicago suburbs [presumably Morton Grove and
Wilmette], the City of Evanston has repealed
its handgun ban in the wake of the June U.S.
Supreme Court decision that ruled blanket
prohibitions of handguns in the home for
self-defense violated 2nd Amendment rights."
NOTE: According to their demographics page
(https://cityofevanston.org/pdf/DemographicProfile.pdf),
the City of Evanston has a population of
74,239 as of the 2000 Census. Accessed
September 9, 2010.
[47] Article: "Morton Grove repeals
27-year-old gun ban." By Robert Channick,
Chicago Tribune, July 28, 2008.
http://chicagotribune.com
"Morton Grove's landmark handgun ban,
imposed 27 years ago, died quietly Monday
night, as the suburb's Village Board bowed
to a new legal reality and repealed the
ordinance. The board's 5-1 vote came in
response to last month's ruling by a divided
U.S. Supreme Court that struck down a
similar ban. The high court ruled that the
2nd Amendment protects a person's right to
own a firearm for self-defense."
NOTE: According to their website, (http://www.mortongroveil.org/) Morton Grove
is a village comprising 22,451, as of March
28, 2009. No date is given for the estimate
or census result.
[48] Article: "Wilmette Handgun Ban Dead,
7-0 Vote Repeals Law." WBBM 780 Chicago.
July 23, 2008.
http://www.wbbm780.com
"The village board voted Tuesday night 7-0
to repeal the 19-year-old ban, following 45
minutes of discussion and public
comment. The ordinance has not been enforced
since last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling
affirming individual gun ownership rights in
the case of the District of Columbia vs.
Heller."
NOTE: According to their demographics page,
(http://www.wilmette.com/about/demographics.aspx)
Wilmette is a city with a population
estimated in 2004 to number 27,628. Accessed
March 28, 2009.
[49] Article: "Winnetka repeals handgun
ban." By Lisa Black, Chicago Breaking News
Center, November 19, 2008.
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/11/winnetka-...
"Winnetka Village Council voted unanimously
Tuesday night to repeal the suburb's
20-year-old ban on possessing handguns but
kept intact other portions of its ordinance
regulating firearm use.... The action
followed a recent Supreme Court decision and
the filing of a lawsuit by the National
Rifle Association and three village
residents who asserted the ban violated
their 2nd Amendment rights."
NOTE: According to their demographics page
(http://www.villageofwinnetka.org/pdf/documents/winn_census_data.pdf),
Winnetka Village had a total population of
12,419 in the 2000 census. Accessed March
28, 2009.
[50] Article: "City wins 1st round in
handgun ban challenge." By Carlos Sadovi and
Hal Dardick, Chicago Breaking News Center,
December 18, 2008.
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/12/...
"On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Milton
Shadur rejected the gun rights group's
effort to extend the D.C. ruling to Chicago
and Oak Park."
NOTES:
- See
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/oakpark.pdf
for the original complaint filed against Oak
Park by the NRA.
- Oak Park is a village comprising
50,824 people, according to their
demographics page,
(http://www.oak-park.us/Village_Background/Village_Profile.html).
No date is given for the estimate or census
figure. Accessed March 28, 2009.
[51] Ruling: McDonald v Chicago. U.S.
Supreme Court, June 28, 2010. Case 08–1521.
Decided 5-4. Majority: Alito, Roberts,
Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas. Dissenting:
Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZS.html
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v.
Heller ... we held that the Second
Amendment* protects the right to keep and
bear arms for the purpose of self-defense,
and we struck down a District of Columbia
law that banned the possession of handguns
in the home. The city of Chicago (City) and
the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb,
have laws that are similar to the District
of Columbia's, but Chicago and Oak Park
argue that their laws are constitutional
because the Second Amendment has no
application to the States. ... Applying the
standard that is well established in our
case law, we hold that the Second Amendment
right is fully applicable to the States.
NOTE:
Second Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. Ratified December 15, 1791.
http://justfacts.com/constitution.asp#Amendment2
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right
of the people to keep and bear Arms shall
not be infringed."
[52] Graph constructed with data from:
a) Dataset: "Uniform Crime Reporting
Program, United States, 1960-2008." Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice
Information Services Division. Data supplied
to Just Facts on June 15, 2010. Data
available upon
request.
b) Amicus Brief No. 08-1521: McDonald v
Chicago. By Maureen Martin and Nancy Lee
Carlson. Heartland Institute.
http://www.americanbar.org/...
Appendix 1 (page 22 in pdf).
NOTE: Just Facts compared the data in this
brief with comparable data obtained from the
Census Bureau and FBI (available
upon request). Notwithstanding some minor
differences, the data was largely congruent.
Just Facts chose to use the data in this
brief because it is more complete than the
other sources.
[53] Calculated with data from the footnote
above. The averages were calculated by
averaging the murder rates from all years in
which the ban was effective for at least 6
months of the year.
[54] Graph constructed with data from
Amicus Brief No. 08-1521: McDonald v
Chicago. By Maureen Martin and Nancy Lee
Carlson. Heartland Institute.
http://www.americanbar.org/...
Appendix 1 (page 22 in pdf).
[55] Calculated with data from the footnote
above. The averages were calculated by
averaging the data from all years in which
the ban was effective for at least 6 months
of the year.
[56] "2005 Chicago Murder Analysis Report."
Chicago Police Department. Table 6 (page
25), Table 7 (page 26), and Figure 13 (page
27).
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/...
NOTE: The following is paraphrased from
tables and figure cited above. Table 6:
"Shot: 339 (75.7%) of Victims." Table 7:
"Shot – Handgun: 327; Rifle: 5; Shotgun: 2
victims. Stabbing – Knife: 39 victims."
Figure 13: This is a graph showing the trend
of shootings and stabbings in murders from
1991 to 2005. The lowest percentage of
murders that were shootings is 69.0% (1992);
the highest is 80.2% (2003). There is not,
however, any statistically significant trend
of an increase in shootings, (it is only
coincidence that the lowest percentage
occurred in 1992 and the highest in 2003).
CALCULATION: 327 handgun victims / 339
firearm victims = .965
[57] Web page: "Identify Prohibited
Persons." Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms. Accessed July 23, 2010 at
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/identify-prohibited-persons.html
The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful
for certain categories of persons to ship,
transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18
USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any
such prohibited persons are also unlawful.
18 USC 922(d).
These categories include any person:
* Under indictment or information in any
court for a crime punishable by imprisonment
for a term exceeding one year;
* convicted of a crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
* who is a fugitive from justice;
* who is an unlawful user of or addicted to
any controlled substance;
* who has been adjudicated as a mental
defective or has been committed to any
mental institution;
* who is an illegal alien;
* who has been discharged from the military
under dishonorable conditions;
* who has renounced his or her United States
citizenship;
* who is subject to a court order
restraining the person from harassing,
stalking, or threatening an intimate partner
or child of the intimate partner; or
* who has been convicted of a misdemeanor
crime of domestic violence ....
[58] United States Code Title 18, Part I,
Chapter 44, Section 922: "Firearms, Unlawful
Acts." Current as of February 1, 2010.
Accessed July 23, 2010 at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_...
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of,
a crime punishable by imprisonment for a
term exceeding one year; {In this law, the
words, "crime punishable by imprisonment for
a term exceeding one year," do not mean what
they plainly state. See the next footnote
for full clarification. The implications of
this are addressed shortly later in this
research.}
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted
to any controlled substance...
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental
defective or who has been committed to a
mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United
States...
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed
Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United
States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that—...
(B) restrains such person from harassing,
stalking, or threatening an intimate partner
of such person or child of such intimate
partner or person, or engaging in other
conduct that would place an intimate partner
in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the
partner or child...
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a
misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,
to ship or transport in interstate or
foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting
commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to
receive any firearm or ammunition which has
been shipped or transported in interstate or
foreign commerce.
[59] United States Code Title 18, Part I,
Chapter 44, Section 921: "Definitions."
Current as of February 1, 2010. Accessed
July 31, 2010 at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_...
(a)(20) The term "crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year"
does not include—
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining
to antitrust violations, unfair trade
practices, restraints of trade, or other
similar offenses relating to the regulation
of business practices, or
(B) any State offense classified by the laws
of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable
by a term of imprisonment of two years or
less.
What constitutes a conviction of such a
crime shall be determined in accordance with
the law of the jurisdiction in which the
proceedings were held. Any conviction which
has been expunged, or set aside or for which
a person has been pardoned or has had civil
rights restored shall not be considered a
conviction for purposes of this chapter,
unless such pardon, expungement, or
restoration of civil rights expressly
provides that the person may not ship,
transport, possess, or receive firearms.
[60] United States Code Title 18, Part I,
Chapter 44, Section 924: "Firearms,
Penalties." Current as of February 1, 2010.
Accessed July 23, 2010 at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sup_01_...
"(a)(2) Whoever knowingly violates subsection
(a)(6), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), or (o) of
section 922 shall be fined as provided in
this title, imprisoned not more than 10
years, or both."
[61] United States Code Title 18, Part I,
Chapter 44, Section 922: "Firearms, Unlawful
Acts." Current as of February 1, 2010.
Accessed July 23, 2010 at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_...
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to
sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or
ammunition to any person knowing or having
reasonable cause to believe that such
person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been
convicted in any court of, a crime
punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to
any controlled substance...
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental
defective or has been committed to any
mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United
States...
(6) who ... has been discharged from the
Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United
States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) is subject to a court order that
restrains such person from harassing,
stalking, or threatening an intimate partner
of such person or child of such intimate
partner or person, or engaging in other
conduct that would place an intimate partner
in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the
partner or child...
(9) has been convicted in any court of a
misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. ...
[62] United States Code Title 18, Part I,
Chapter 44, Section 924: "Firearms,
Penalties." Current as of February 1, 2010.
Accessed July 23, 2010 at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18...
"(a)(2) Whoever knowingly violates
subsection (a)(6), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j),
or (o) of section 922 shall be fined as
provided in this title, imprisoned not more
than 10 years, or both."
[63] United States Code Title 18, Part I,
Chapter 44, Section 922: "Firearms, Unlawful
Acts." Current as of February 1, 2010.
Accessed July 23, 2010 at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_...
(a) It shall be unlawful—
(1) for any person—
(A) except a licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage
in the business of importing, manufacturing,
or dealing in firearms, or in the course of
such business to ship, transport, or receive
any firearm in interstate or foreign
commerce...
[64] United States Code Title 18, Part I,
Chapter 44, Section 921: "Definitions."
Current as of February 1, 2010. Accessed
July 23, 2010 at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_...
(a) As used in this chapter— ...
(21) The term "engaged in the business"
means—
(A) as applied to a manufacturer of
firearms, a person who devotes time,
attention, and labor to manufacturing
firearms as a regular course of trade or
business with the principal objective of
livelihood and profit through the sale or
distribution of the firearms manufactured;
(B) as applied to a manufacturer of
ammunition, a person who devotes time,
attention, and labor to manufacturing
ammunition as a regular course of trade or
business with the principal objective of
livelihood and profit through the sale or
distribution of the ammunition manufactured;
(C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as
defined in section 921 (a)(11)(A), a person
who devotes time, attention, and labor to
dealing in firearms as a regular course of
trade or business with the principal
objective of livelihood and profit through
the repetitive purchase and resale of
firearms, but such term shall not include a
person who makes occasional sales,
exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the
enhancement of a personal collection or for
a hobby, or who sells all or part of his
personal collection of firearms;
(D) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as
defined in section 921 (a)(11)(B), a person
who devotes time, attention, and labor to
engaging in such activity as a regular
course of trade or business with the
principal objective of livelihood and
profit, but such term shall not include a
person who makes occasional repairs of
firearms, or who occasionally fits special
barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to
firearms;
(E) as applied to an importer of firearms, a
person who devotes time, attention, and
labor to importing firearms as a regular
course of trade or business with the
principal objective of livelihood and profit
through the sale or distribution of the
firearms imported; and
(F) as applied to an importer of ammunition,
a person who devotes time, attention, and
labor to importing ammunition as a regular
course of trade or business with the
principal objective of livelihood and profit
through the sale or distribution of the
ammunition imported.
(22) The term "with the principal objective
of livelihood and profit" means that the
intent underlying the sale or disposition of
firearms is predominantly one of obtaining
livelihood and pecuniary gain, as opposed to
other intents, such as improving or
liquidating a personal firearms collection:
Provided, That proof of profit shall not be
required as to a person who engages in the
regular and repetitive purchase and
disposition of firearms for criminal
purposes or terrorism.
[65] United States Code Title 18, Part I,
Chapter 44, Section 924: "Firearms,
Penalties." Current as of February 1, 2010.
Accessed July 23, 2010 at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sup_01_...
"(n) A person who, with the intent to engage
in conduct that constitutes a violation of
section 922 (a)(1)(A), travels from any
State or foreign country into any other
State and acquires, or attempts to acquire,
a firearm in such other State in furtherance
of such purpose shall be imprisoned for not
more than 10 years."
[66] United States Code Title 18, Part I,
Chapter 44, Section 922: "Firearms, Unlawful
Acts." Current as of February 1, 2010.
Accessed July 23, 2010 at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_...
(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 30 days
after the Attorney General notifies
licensees under section 103(d) of the Brady
Handgun Violence Prevention Act that the
national instant criminal background check
system is established [November 30, 1998*],
a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer,
or licensed dealer shall not transfer a
firearm to any other person who is not
licensed under this chapter, unless—
(A) before the completion of the transfer,
the licensee contacts the national instant
criminal background check system established
under section 103 of that Act...
* NOTE: Review of the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives'
Enforcement of Brady Act Violations
Identified Through the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System." U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of the
Inspector General, July 2004.
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/exec.htm
"The Brady Act of 1993 created a 3-day
waiting period before a purchaser can take
possession of a firearm, and it established
a background check system - the NICS
[National Instant Criminal Background Check
System] - that firearms dealers were
required to contact before the transfer of
any firearm to ensure that a person
receiving a firearm was not prohibited under
the GCA [1968 Gun Control Act] from
possessing firearms. The FBI implemented the
NICS on November 30, 1998."
[67] Web page: "National Instant Criminal
Background Check System Fact Sheet." U.S.
Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of
Investigation. Accessed July 24, 2010 at
http://www2.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm
Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act (Brady Act) of 1993 ... the
National Instant Criminal Background Check
System (NICS) was established for Federal
Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to contact by
telephone, or other electronic means, for
information to be supplied immediately on
whether the transfer of a firearm would be
in violation of Section 922 (g) or (n) of
Title 18, United States Code, or state law.
...
The NICS is a national system that checks
available records on persons who may be
disqualified from receiving firearms. The
FBI developed the system through a
cooperative effort with the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(ATF) and local and state law enforcement
agencies. The NICS is a computerized
background check system designed to respond
within 30 seconds on most background check
inquiries so the FFLs receive an almost
immediate response. Depending on the
willingness of state governments to act as a
liaison for the NICS, the FFLs contact
either the FBI or a designated state Point
of Contact (POC) to initiate background
checks on individuals purchasing or
redeeming firearms. The background check
process, as performed by the FBI and by
state POCs, is described below.
[68] United States Code Title 18, Part I,
Chapter 44, Section 922: "Firearms, Unlawful
Acts." Current as of February 1, 2010.
Accessed July 23, 2010 at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_...
(a) It shall be unlawful—...
(3) for any person, other than a licensed
importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed
dealer, or licensed collector to transport
into or receive in the State where he
resides ... any firearm purchased or
otherwise obtained by such person outside
that State, except that this paragraph
(A) shall not preclude any person who
lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or
intestate succession in a State other than
his State of residence from transporting the
firearm into or receiving it in that State,
if it is lawful for such person to purchase
or possess such firearm in that State...
(5) for any person (other than a licensed
importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed
dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer,
sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any
firearm to any person (other than a licensed
importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed
dealer, or licensed collector) who the
transferor knows or has reasonable cause to
believe does not reside in ... the State in
which the transferor resides; except that
this paragraph shall not apply to
(A) the transfer, transportation, or
delivery of a firearm made to carry out a
bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition
by intestate succession of a firearm by, a
person who is permitted to acquire or
possess a firearm under the laws of the
State of his residence...
[69] United States Code Title 18, Part I,
Chapter 44, Section 922: "Firearms, Unlawful
Acts." Current as of February 1, 2010.
Accessed July 23, 2010 at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_...
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to
sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or
ammunition to any person knowing or having
reasonable cause to believe that such
person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been
convicted in any court of, a crime
punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to
any controlled substance...
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental
defective or has been committed to any
mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United
States...
(6) who ... has been discharged from the
Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United
States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) is subject to a court order that
restrains such person from harassing,
stalking, or threatening an intimate partner
of such person or child of such intimate
partner or person, or engaging in other
conduct that would place an intimate partner
in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the
partner or child...
(9) has been convicted in any court of a
misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. ...
[70] United States Code Title 18, Part I,
Chapter 44, Section 924: "Firearms,
Penalties." Current as of February 1, 2010.
Accessed July 23, 2010 at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sup_01_...
"(a)(2) Whoever knowingly violates
subsection (a)(6), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j),
or (o) of section 922 shall be fined as
provided in this title, imprisoned not more
than 10 years, or both."
[71] "First Reports Evaluating the
Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing
Violence: Firearms Laws." Prepared by Robert
A. Hahn and others. U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, October 3, 2003.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
The Brady Law ... established national
restrictions on acquisition of firearms and
ammunition from federal firearms licensees.
The interim Brady Law (1994--1998) mandated
a 5-day waiting period to allow background
checks. The permanent Brady Law, enacted in
1998, eliminated the required waiting
period. It normally allows 3 days for a
background check, after which, if no
evidence of a prohibited characteristic is
found, the purchase may proceed.... Certain
states have established additional
restrictions, and some require background
checks of all firearms transactions, not
only those conducted by federal firearms
licensees.
[72] Web page: "Federal and State Firearms
Laws." National Rifle Association Institue
for Legislative Action. Accessed July 24,
2010 at
http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/
NOTE: This page contains a clickable map
with links to synopses of the firearm laws
in each state. In California for example,
"All firearms sales, transfers or loans,
including private transactions and sales at
gun shows, must go through a California
licensed firearms dealer." As explained
above, federal law requires all dealers to
conduct a background check to sell or
transfer any firearm. Thus, this California
law effectively requires background checks
for all firearms transactions.
[73] Report: "State Laws and Published
Ordinances — Firearms, 2008 — 29th Edition."
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Revised December 2009.
http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/state-laws/29th-edition/index.html
NOTE: For those looking for more detail than
is provided in the previous source, this
report contains the laws of every state.
[74] "National Instant Criminal Background
Check System (NICS) 2008 Operations Report."
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau
of Investigation.
http://www2.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/ops_report2008/ops_report2008.htm
"From November 30, 1998, to December 31,
2008, a total of 95,984,008 transactions
were processed through the NICS. ... From
November 30, 1998, to December 31, 2008, the
NICS Section has denied a total of 680,905
background check transactions."
CALCULATION: 680,905 denied transactions /
95,984,008 transactions processed = 0.0071
denial rate
[75] On July 30, 2010, Just Facts sent a
letter to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives requesting data on
the number of prosecutions and convictions
stemming from these 681,000 denials. We are
awaiting a reply.
[76] Executive Summary: Review of the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives' Enforcement of Brady Act
Violations Identified Through the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System."
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the
Inspector General, July 2004.
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/exec.htm
During calendar years (CY) 2002 and 2003,
the FBI processed 8.5 million NICS [National
Instant Criminal Background Check System]
background checks and state POCs [points of
contact] processed 8.2 million NICS
background checks. ...
The FBI refers to the ATF [Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives]
the names of all prohibited persons who
attempted to or succeeded in obtaining a
firearm from an FFL [Federal Firearms
Licensee].
... During CYs [calendar years] 2002 and
2003, only 154 (less than 1 percent) of the
120,000 persons who were denied during the
NICS background check were prosecuted.
Historically, USAOs [U.S. Attorneys'
offices] have been unsuccessful in achieving
convictions in many of these cases and
consequently have been unwilling to expend
their limited resources on prosecuting most
NICS cases. ...
We believe that the number of referrals and
prosecutions is low because of the
difficulty in obtaining convictions in NICS
cases. These cases lack "jury appeal" for
various reasons. The factors prohibiting
someone from possessing a firearm may have
been nonviolent or committed many years ago.
The basis for the prohibition may have been
noncriminal (e.g., a dishonorable discharge
from the U.S. military). It is also
difficult to prove that the prohibited
person was aware of the prohibition and
intentionally lied to the FFL. We were also
told that in parts of the United States
where hunting historically has been part of
the regional culture, juries are reluctant
to convict a person who attempted to
purchase a hunting rifle. ...
CALCULATIONS:
8.5 million checks processed by the federal
government + 8.2 million processed by the
states = 16.7 million NICS background checks
120,000 denied transactions / 16,700,000
transactions processed = 0.0072 denial rate
154 prosecutions / 120,000 denied
transactions = 0.0013 prosecution rate
[77] Report: "Review of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives'
Enforcement of Brady Act Violations
Identified Through the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System." U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of the
Inspector General, July 2004.
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/results.htm
Despite the large number of Brady Act
violations identified by the FBI, these
violations rarely have been prosecuted.
Historically, the USAOs [U.S. Attorneys'
offices] have been unsuccessful in achieving
convictions in many of these types of cases.
Consequently, they have been unwilling to
prosecute most NICS cases. ...
According to Section 1117 of the U.S.
Attorneys' Criminal Resource Manual, one of
the factors to be used in determining if a
particular case merits federal prosecution
is whether the potential defendant was "on
notice" that his or her possession of a
firearm was illegal.48 Several ATF special
agents stated that when they contact
individuals, many said they did not realize
they were prohibited from possessing a
firearm. Some knew that they had been
convicted of a crime, but did not realize
that the charge was a felony. Others did not
realize that they were subject to the
prohibition of misdemeanor crimes of
domestic violence because they actually were
charged with another type of offense, such
as assault or disorderly conduct. ...
48 Other factors to consider are the date of
the previous conviction, the circumstances
under which the firearm was obtained, the
existence of indicators of current potential
for violence, available alternatives to
federal prosecution, and whether false
statements were made.
[78] Executive Summary: "Review of the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives' Enforcement of Brady Act
Violations Identified Through the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System."
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the
Inspector General, July 2004.
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/exec.htm
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
reviewed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives' (ATF) enforcement
of violations of the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act of 1993 (Brady Act) (Public
Law 103-159) that are identified through the
Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI)
National Instant Criminal Background Check
System (NICS). Specifically, we reviewed the
extent to which the ATF investigated
violations of the Brady Act referred by the
FBI, whether the ATF retrieved firearms
issued to prohibited persons in a timely
manner, and the extent to which Brady Act
violations were referred to and prosecuted
by the U.S. Attorneys' offices (USAO). ...
The FBI refers to the ATF the names of all
prohibited persons who attempted to or
succeeded in obtaining a firearm from an FFL
[Federal Firearms Licensee].
[79] Report: "Review of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives'
Enforcement of Brady Act Violations
Identified Through the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System." U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of the
Inspector General, July 2004.
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/results.htm
Despite the large number of Brady Act
violations identified by the FBI, these
violations rarely have been prosecuted.
Historically, the USAOs [U.S. Attorneys'
offices] have been unsuccessful in achieving
convictions in many of these types of cases.
Consequently, they have been unwilling to
prosecute most NICS [National Instant
Criminal Background Check System] cases. ...
NICS Subjects Are Not Considered Dangerous
The special agents we spoke with generally
commented that they do not consider the vast
majority of NICS referral subjects a danger
to the public because the prohibiting
factors are often minor or based on
incidents that occurred many years in the
past. For example, one group supervisor
cited a retrieval case in which the person
was prohibited from owning a firearm because
of a felony conviction for stealing four
hubcaps from a car. In another example, a
Brady Operations Branch specialist cited a
case where the person was prohibited due to
a 1941 felony conviction for stealing a pig.
We also were told that "bad guys" generally
do not purchase their firearms through
legitimate dealers; instead, they have
someone with a clean record purchase the
firearm for them (known as a "straw
purchase") through an FFL, buy a firearm on
the black market, or purchase the firearm at
a flea market or gun show from a non-FFL.
[80] Executive Summary: "Review of the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives' Enforcement of Brady Act
Violations Identified Through the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System."
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the
Inspector General, July 2004.
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/exec.htm
Some Denied Persons Are Subsequently
Determined by the ATF Not to Be Prohibited
After performing additional research, the
ATF frequently determines that the denied
individual is not prohibited from possessing
a firearm. Generally this occurs because the
FBI could not readily determine the
individual's prohibited status due to
inaccurate and incomplete automated state
records.
We found that 69 of the 197 (35 percent)
delayed denials and 16 of the 200 (8
percent) standard denials in our sample were
applicants who should not have been
prohibited from purchasing a firearm.34
Special agents in each of the four divisions
we visited stated that this was a common
occurrence. Although the investigative files
did not specify why the subjects in our
sample were found not to be prohibited, our
discussions with ATF personnel identified
several reasons why this generally occurs:
(1) the subject's firearm rights had been
restored under state law, (2) the subject's
prohibition for a misdemeanor crime of
violence did not meet the federal criteria,
or (3) a protective order had expired or was
about to expire. These circumstances are
discussed in detail in the following
sections.
[81] "National Instant Criminal Background
Check System (NICS) 2008 Operations Report."
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau
of Investigation.
http://www2.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/ops_report2008/ops_report2008.htm
... 12,709,023 background checks [were]
processed through the NICS [National Instant
Criminal Background Check System] in
2008....
... 70,725 denial decisions were provided in
2008. ....
In 2008, the NICS Section received a total
of 13,396 appeal requests....
[I]n 2008, approximately 23 percent of
appealed deny transactions were overturned
and proceeded.
CALCULATION:
13,396 appeal requests / 70,725 denial
decisions = 0.189 appeal rate
[82] Summary: "Terrorist Watchlist
Screening." Government Accountability
Office, May 5, 2010.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-703T
"Membership in a terrorist organization does
not prohibit a person from possessing
firearms or explosives under current federal
law."
[83] Report: "Terrorist Watchlist
Screening." Government Accountability
Office, May 5, 2010.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10703t.pdf
Page 5: "In total, individuals on the
terrorist watchlist have been involved in
firearm and explosives background checks
1,228 times since NICS started conducting
these checks in February 2004, of which
1,119 (about 91 percent) of the transactions
were allowed to proceed while 109 were
denied...."
Page 4:
In May 2009, we reported that from February
2004 through February 2009, a total of 963
NICS background checks resulted in valid
matches with individuals on the terrorist
watchlist.8 Of these transactions,
approximately 90 percent (865 of 963) were
allowed to proceed because the checks
revealed no prohibiting information, such as
felony convictions, illegal immigrant
status, or other disqualifying factors. Two
of the 865 transactions that were allowed to
proceed involved explosives background
checks. The FBI does not know how often a
firearm was actually transferred or if a
firearm or explosives license or permit was
granted, because gun dealers and explosives
dealers are required to maintain but not
report this information to the NICS
[National Instant Criminal Background Check
System] Section. About 10 percent (98 of
963) of the transactions were denied based
on the existence of prohibiting information.
No transactions involving explosives
background checks were denied.
Pages 4-5:
For today's hearing, we obtained updated
statistics from the FBI through February
2010. Specifically, from March 2009 through
February 2010, FBI data show that 272 NICS
background checks resulted in valid matches
with individuals on the terrorist
watchlist.9 One of the 272 transactions
involved an explosives background check,
which was allowed to proceed because the
check revealed no disqualifying factors
under the Safe Explosives Act. According to
FBI officials, several of the 272 background
checks resulted in matches to watchlist
records that—in addition to being in the
FBI's Known or Suspected Terrorist File—were
on the Transportation Security
Administration's "No Fly" list. In general,
persons on the No Fly list are deemed to be
a threat to civil aviation or national
security and therefore should be precluded
from boarding an aircraft. According to FBI
officials, all of these transactions were
allowed to proceed because the background
checks revealed no prohibiting information
under current law.
[84] United States Code Title 18, Part I,
Chapter 44, Section 921: "Firearms,
Definitions." Current as of February 1,
2010. Accessed July 31, 2010 at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_...
(a)(20) The term "crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year"
does not include—
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining
to antitrust violations, unfair trade
practices, restraints of trade, or other
similar offenses relating to the regulation
of business practices, or
(B) any State offense classified by the laws
of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable
by a term of imprisonment of two years or
less.
What constitutes a conviction of such a
crime shall be determined in accordance with
the law of the jurisdiction in which the
proceedings were held. Any conviction which
has been expunged, or set aside or for which
a person has been pardoned or has had civil
rights restored shall not be considered a
conviction for purposes of this chapter,
unless such pardon, expungement, or
restoration of civil rights expressly
provides that the person may not ship,
transport, possess, or receive firearms.
NOTE: The term "crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year"
is used in the section of this code
governing who can legally purchase and
possess firearms (see here).
[85] Report: "Review of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives'
Enforcement of Brady Act Violations
Identified Through the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System." U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of the
Inspector General, July 2004.
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/results.htm
Currently, when a federal crime is the
prohibiting factor, the person's firearm
rights can only be restored through a
presidential pardon. ...
All but two states have provisions for
restoring firearm rights.37 [37 Statistics on
states' restorations of rights provisions
used in this section were extracted from the
Survey of State Procedures Related to
Firearm Sales, Midyear 2002, published by
the DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics,
October 15, 2003 (revised version) and from
ATF P 5300.5 State Laws and Published
Ordinances - Firearms (2003 - 24th Edition).
The two states that do not have provisions
for restoration rights are Alabama and
Vermont.] Firearm rights are restored
automatically or through application. The
conditions for restoration vary greatly
among the states by age (juveniles versus
adults), type of crime, and the time frame
between release from prison or parole and
restoration of rights. In some states,
restoration rights specifically apply only
to convicted felons, which may result in a
paradoxical situation in which someone
convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence is permanently barred from owning a
firearm, while someone who kills his spouse
has his firearm rights restored after
serving his sentence.
Twenty-one states automatically restore
firearm rights upon release from prison or
completion of parole.38 [38
In six of these
states, automatic restoration only applies
to juveniles.] Forty-five states have
provisions for restoring firearm rights
through application.39 [39 In 21 of these
states, restoration of firearm rights only
occurs through pardons or expungements of
records.]
[86] Report: "Firearms Purchased From
Federal Firearm Licensees Using Bogus
Identification." Government Accountability
Office, March 19, 2001.
Page 3: "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms (ATF) regulations implementing the
Brady Act provide that before an FFL
[Federal Firearms Licensee] may sell or
deliver a firearm, the prospective purchaser
must provide photo-identification issued by
a government entity."
[87] Summary: "Firearms Purchased from
Federal Firearms Licensees Using Bogus
Identification." In "Counterfeit
Identification and Identification Fraud
Raise Security Concerns." Government
Accountability Office, September 9, 2003.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d031147t.pdf
Page 8:
From October 2000 through February 2001, we
used counterfeit driver's licenses with
fictitious identifiers to purchase firearms
from federal firearm licensees in five
states—Virginia, West Virginia, Montana, New
Mexico, and Arizona. The weapons purchased
included (1) a 9mm stainless semiautomatic
pistol, (2) a .380 semiautomatic pistol, (3)
a 7.62mm Russian-manufactured rifle, (4) a
.22 caliber semiautomatic rifle, (5) a 9mm
semiautomatic pistol, and (6) a .25 caliber
semiautomatic pistol.
The five states in which we purchased
firearms conformed to the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act of 19937 by
requiring instant background checks. For the
most part, the federal firearm licensees we
contacted adhered to then-existing federal
and state laws regarding such purchases,
including the instant background checks.
Because we used counterfeit driver's
licenses and fictitious identities there was
no negative information in the system about
the names we created.
[88] Article: "Undercover Federal Probe
Finds Defects in Gun Background Checks."
Associated Press, March 22, 2001.
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/22/news/mn-41268
The background check system can determine if
a potential gun buyer has a criminal
history, but there is no safeguard to verify
whether the name or identification being
used by the buyer is valid, the General
Accounting Office investigation found. ...
Officials at the GAO used off-the-shelf
software and laminators to create
counterfeit driver's licenses, inventing
fictitious names, Social Security numbers
and dates of birth. ...
The agents told committee members at a
hearing that they were sold guns every time
they tried.
[89] Report: "Firearms Purchased From
Federal Firearm Licensees Using Bogus
Identification." Government Accountability
Office, March 19, 2001.
Page 1: "The five states that we selected to
purchase firearms in ... conformed to the
Brady Act's minimum requirements, relying on
an instant background check."
Page 2: "Consistent with the Brady Act ...
we found that the instant background check
does not positively identify purchasers of
firearms. Rather, it is a negative check
that cannot ensure that the prospective
purchaser is not a felon or other prohibited
person...."
[90] Executive Summary: "The Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives'
Investigative Operations at Gun Shows." U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of the
Inspector General, June 2007.
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0707/exec.htm
[91] Executive Summary: "The Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives'
Investigative Operations at Gun Shows." U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of the
Inspector General, June 2007.
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0707/exec.htm
"We found no definitive source for the
number of gun shows held annually. ...
Available estimates of the number of gun
shows in the United States ranged from 2,000
to 5,200 annually."
[92] Executive Summary: "The Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives'
Investigative Operations at Gun Shows." U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of the
Inspector General, June 2007.
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0707/exec.htm
[93] Executive Summary: "The Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives'
Investigative Operations at Gun Shows." U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of the
Inspector General, June 2007.
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0707/exec.htm
We found that ATF does not have a formal gun
show enforcement program, but conducts
investigative operations at gun shows when
it has law enforcement intelligence that
illegal firearms activity has occurred or is
likely to occur at specific gun shows. ...
ATF conducted investigative operations at
gun shows based on law enforcement
intelligence. ...
From fiscal year (FY) 2004 through FY 2006,
ATF opened approximately 6,233 firearms
trafficking investigations. During this
3-year period, ATF Special Agents conducted
202 operations at 195 gun shows.... ATF's
operations at these gun shows led to 121
arrests, resulting in 83 convictions. (Some
cases are still pending, so their final
dispositions are unknown.) Additionally, ATF
seized 5,345 firearms during investigative
operations related to these shows.
Seventy-seven percent of ATF's investigative
operations at gun shows were covert
operations that targeted specific
individuals suspected of firearms
trafficking. ...
Of the 202 investigative operations
conducted by ATF at gun shows, only 23
percent (46) targeted general firearms
trafficking at the shows. Further, only 6 of
the ATF's 23 field divisions – Columbus,
Houston, New Orleans, Phoenix, San
Francisco, and Washington, D.C. – conducted
these types of operations. The operations
were not part of investigations of specific
individuals, but rather were initiated based
on intelligence from law enforcement and
other sources such as FFLs, that various
firearms trafficking crimes were occurring
at gun shows in those six divisions'
geographic areas of responsibility.
[94] Report: "Firearm Use by Offenders." By
Caroline Wolf Harlow, U.S. Department of
Justice, November 2001.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940
Page 2: "Data for this report are based
primarily on personal interviews with large
nationally representative samples of State
and Federal prison inmates."
Page 13: "A total of 14,285 interviews were
completed for the State survey and 4,041 for
the Federal survey, for overall response
rates of 92.5% in the State survey and 90.2%
in the Federal survey."
Page 6, Table 8: "Source of firearms
possessed during the current offense of
State prison inmates, 1997 and 1991."
[95] Book: "Guns in American Society: An
Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture,
and the Law." Edited by Gregg Lee Carter.
ABC-CLIO, 2002. Section: "Right-to-Carry
Laws." By James A. Beckman. Page 502:
Right-to-carry laws, often also called
"shall issue" laws, refer to those state
laws that mandate that state law enforcement
officials or courts shall issue concealed
firearm-carrying permits to applicants who
meet fair and minimally restrictive
statewide standards established by the state
legislature. The right-to-carry laws make
the allocation or distribution of
firearm-carrying permits mandatory upon
state officials so long as the applicants
meet the minimum statewide standards.
[96] Web page: "Concealed
Firearm Permit Information By State." USA
Carry. Accessed November 6, 2012 at
http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_information.html
"[A]s long as you are legally able to own a
firearm and [are] 21 year of age or older,
you can carry concealed in the State of
Arizona without a concealed weapon permit."
"Alaska Statute 11.61.220 allows anyone 21
or older, who may legally carry a firearm to
also carry it concealed without having to
obtain a special permit."
"It is lawful to carry a firearm [in
Vermont] openly or concealed provided the
firearm is not carried with the intent or
avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man."
"As of July 8, 2011, anyone who meets the
same requirements to obtain a Wyoming
concealed weapons permit can legally carry a
firearm in any place that is not
specifically prohibited."
NOTES:
- Overviews of the laws in each state are
provided via the clickable map.
- USA Carry was the only comprehensive,
up-to-date, and easily accessible source
that Just Facts was able to locate for this
information. For detailed information on the
laws of each state, see the report: "State
Laws and Published Ordinances — Firearms,
2009-2010 — 30th Edition." U.S. Department
of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives. Revised December
2010.
http://www.atf.gov/...
[97] Web page: "Concealed
Firearm Permit Information By State." USA
Carry. Accessed January 22, 2012 at
http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_information.html
"[A]s long as you are legally able to own a
firearm and [are] 21 year[s] of age or
older, you can carry concealed in the State
of Arizona without a concealed weapon
permit."
"Alaska Statute 11.61.220 allows anyone 21
or older, who may legally carry a firearm to
also carry it concealed without having to
obtain a special permit."
"It is lawful to carry a firearm [in
Vermont] openly or concealed provided the
firearm is not carried with the intent or
avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man."
"As of July 8, 2011, anyone who meets the
same requirements to obtain a Wyoming
concealed weapons permit can legally carry a
firearm in any place that is not
specifically prohibited."
NOTES:
- Overviews of the laws in each state are
provided via the clickable map.
- USA Carry was the only comprehensive,
up-to-date, and easily accessible source
that Just Facts was able to locate for this
information. For detailed information on the
laws of each state, see the report: "State
Laws and Published Ordinances — Firearms,
2009-2010 — 30th Edition." U.S. Department
of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives. Revised December
2010.
http://www.atf.gov/...
[99] Web page: "Concealed
Firearm Permit Information By State." USA
Carry. Accessed January 22, 2012 at
http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_information.html
NOTES:
- Overviews of the laws in each state are
provided via the clickable map.
- USA Carry was the only comprehensive,
up-to-date, and easily accessible source
that Just Facts was able to locate for this
information. For detailed information on the
laws of each state, see the report: "State
Laws and Published Ordinances — Firearms,
2009-2010 — 30th Edition." U.S. Department
of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives. Revised December
2010.
http://www.atf.gov/...
[100] Connecticut law allows local police,
wardens, or selectmen to issue temporary
concealed carry permits to private citizens,
which the state government reviews for
issuance of "a state permit to carry a
pistol or revolver."* † Between January 1,
2000 and December 31, 2009, the state of
Connecticut issued 166,190 permits, while
during almost the same period (January 1,
2000- February 24, 2010), the state denied
436 permits (2.6% of the total).‡
NOTES:
* Report: "Gun Permit Issues." By Veronica
Rose. Connecticut Office of Legislative
Research, April 10, 2008.
http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=1838&Q=418126&PM=1
"Connecticut is a "may issue" state, in that
the permit-issuing official has discretion
to determine whether to issue or revoke a
permit."
† Connecticut Law: Title 29, Chapter 529,
Section 29-28(b): "Permit to carry pistol or
revolver." Accessed March 17, 2010 at
http://law.justia.com/connecticut/codes/title29/sec29-28.html
‡ Correspondence from the Connecticut
Special Licensing & Firearms Unit to Just
Facts, February 24, 2010 and March 18, 2010.
[101] Article: "The State (by State) of
Right-To-Carry." By Dave Kopel. National
Rifle Association Institute for Legislative
Action, July 28, 2006.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=198&issue=003
Do-Issue: Three states—Alabama, Connecticut
and Iowa—have statutes that are not
completely Shall-Issue, but that reserve
some discretion to the issuing law
enforcement agency. In these states, local
law enforcement will generally issue a
permit to the same kinds of persons who
would qualify for a permit in a Shall-Issue
state, and many times these states are
included on Shall-Issue state lists.
Capricious-Issue: Eight coastal states have
permit laws but give local law enforcement
almost unlimited discretion to deny permits.
Although there can be significant variation
from one locality to another, permits are
rarely issued in most jurisdictions, except
to celebrities or other influential people.
These Capricious-Issue states are Hawaii,
California, Delaware (not as bad as the
others, in practice), Maryland, New Jersey
(the worst), New York, Massachusetts and
Rhode Island.
[102] Web page:
"Concealed Firearm Permit Information By
State." USA Carry. Accessed January 22, 2012
at
http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_information.html
NOTES:
- Overviews of the laws in each state are
provided via the clickable map.
- USA Carry was the only comprehensive,
up-to-date, and easily accessible source
that Just Facts was able to locate for this
information. For detailed information on the
laws of each state, see the report: "State
Laws and Published Ordinances — Firearms,
2009-2010 — 30th Edition." U.S. Department
of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives. Revised December
2010.
http://www.atf.gov/...
[103] Paper: Carrying Concealed Weapons in
Self-Defense: Florida Adopts Uniform
Regulations for the Issuance of Concealed
Weapons Permits." By Richard Getchall.
Florida State University Law Review, 1987.
Pages 751-791.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Getchell1.htm
Page 777: "The concealed weapons Act is
named the Jack Hagler Self Defense Act...."
Page 789: "The Jack Hagler Self Defense Act
became law on October 1, 1987."
[104] Florida Law 790.06: "Weapons and
Firearms, License to Carry Concealed Weapon
or Firearm." Accessed August 30, 2010 at
http://law.justia.com/florida/codes/TitleXLVI/ch0790.html
(2) The Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services shall issue a license if
the applicant:
(a) Is a resident of the United States...
(b) Is 21 years of age or older;
(c) Does not suffer from a physical
infirmity which prevents the safe handling
of a weapon or firearm;
(d) Is not ineligible to possess a firearm
pursuant to s. 790.23 by virtue of having
been convicted of a felony;
(e) Has not been committed for the abuse of
a controlled substance or been found guilty
of a crime under the provisions of chapter
893 or similar laws of any other state
relating to controlled substances within a
3-year period immediately preceding the date
on which the application is submitted;
(f) Does not chronically and habitually use
alcoholic beverages or other substances to
the extent that his or her normal faculties
are impaired. ...
(g) Desires a legal means to carry a
concealed weapon or firearm for lawful
self-defense;
(h) Demonstrates competence with a firearm
by any one of the following:
1. Completion of any hunter education or
hunter safety course approved by the Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission or a
similar agency of another state;
2. Completion of any National Rifle
Association firearms safety or training
course;
3. Completion of any firearms safety or
training course or class available to the
general public offered by a law enforcement,
junior college, college, or private or
public institution or organization or
firearms training school, utilizing
instructors certified by the National Rifle
Association, Criminal Justice Standards and
Training Commission, or the Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services;
4. Completion of any law enforcement
firearms safety or training course or class
offered for security guards, investigators,
special deputies, or any division or
subdivision of law enforcement or security
enforcement;
5. Presents evidence of equivalent
experience with a firearm through
participation in organized shooting
competition or military service;
6. Is licensed or has been licensed to
carry a firearm in this state or a county or
municipality of this state, unless such
license has been revoked for cause; or
7. Completion of any firearms training or
safety course or class conducted by a
state-certified or National Rifle
Association certified firearms instructor...
(i) Has not been adjudicated an
incapacitated person under s. 744.331, or
similar laws of any other state, unless 5
years have elapsed since the applicant's
restoration to capacity by court order;
(j) Has not been committed to a mental
institution under chapter 394, or similar
laws of any other state, unless the
applicant produces a certificate from a
licensed psychiatrist that he or she has not
suffered from disability for at least 5
years prior to the date of submission of the
application;
(k) Has not had adjudication of guilt
withheld or imposition of sentence suspended
on any felony or misdemeanor crime of
domestic violence unless 3 years have
elapsed since probation or any other
conditions set by the court have been
fulfilled, or the record has been sealed or
expunged;
(l) Has not been issued an injunction that
is currently in force and effect and that
restrains the applicant from committing acts
of domestic violence or acts of repeat
violence; and
(m) Is not prohibited from purchasing or
possessing a firearm by any other provision
of Florida or federal law.
[105] Web page: "Concealed Weapon / Firearm
Summary Report." Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division
of Licensing, July 31, 2010.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html
Note: This web page is constantly updated to
reflect the latest data. These are the
figures as of August 31, 2010:
| |
10/1/87 - 07/31/10 |
| Licenses Issued |
1,825,143 |
| Licenses Valid |
746,430 |
[106] Calculation performed with data from
the citation above and the dataset:
"Estimates of the Resident Population by
Selected Age Groups for the United States,
States, and Puerto Rico: July 1, 2009." U.S.
Census Bureau, June 2010.
http://www.census.gov/popest/states/asrh/SC-EST2009-01.html
Florida population:
18 years and older = 14,480,196
18-24 years = 1,667,090
CALCULATIONS:
a)
Estimate of Florida population, 21 years and
older: 14,480,196 – (3/7 × 1,667,090) =
13,765,729 people
b)
746,430 valid licensees / 13,765,729 people
= 0.054
[107] Graph constructed with data from:
a) Dataset: "Uniform Crime Reporting
Program, Florida, 1960-2008." Federal Bureau
of Investigation, Criminal Justice
Information Services Division. Data supplied
to Just Facts on June 15, 2010. Data
available upon
request.
b) Dataset: "Uniform Crime Reporting
Program, United States, 1960-2008." Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice
Information Services Division. Data supplied
to Just Facts on June 15, 2010. Data
available upon
request.
[108] Calculated with data from the footnote
above.
NOTE: The averages were calculated by
averaging the murder rates from all years in
which the ban was effective for at least 6
months of the year.
[109] Web page: "Concealed Weapon / Firearm
Summary Report." Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division
of Licensing, July 31, 2010.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html
Note: This web page is constantly updated to
reflect the latest data. These are the
figures as of August 31, 2010:
| |
10/1/87 - 07/31/10 |
| Applications Received |
1,848,835 |
| Licenses Issued |
1,825,143 |
| Licenses Valid |
746,430 |
| Applications Denied |
12,648 |
|
Criminal History
|
4,242 |
|
Incomplete Application
|
8,406 |
| Licenses Revoked |
5,674 |
|
Clemency Rule Change or Legislative Change
|
66 |
|
Illegible Prints With No Response
|
10 |
|
Crime Prior to Licensure
|
522 |
|
Crime After Licensure
|
4,955 |
|
--Firearm Utilized--
|
[168] |
|
Other
|
121 |
|
Reinstated*
|
633 |
* Statistics regarding number of licenses
reinstated not maintained prior to January
1990.
[110] Article: "Guns in America: Part II:
Texas Massacre, fear of crime spur
concealed-gun laws." By Ralph Winingham,
San
Antonio Express News, 1997.
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/guns/part2/gunside1.html
"In January 1996, a law took effect allowing
Texans to carry loaded handguns if they
obtain a license and complete a safety
course."
[111] Texas Law Chapter 411, Subchapter H:
"License to Carry a Concealed Handgun."
Accessed August 31, 2010 at
http://law.justia.com/texas/codes/gv/004.00.000411.00.html
Section 411.172: "Eligibility"
(a) A person is eligible for a license to
carry a concealed handgun if the person:
(1) is a legal resident of this state for
the six-month
period preceding the date of application
under this subchapter or
is otherwise eligible for a license under
Section 411.173(a);
(2) is at least 21 years of
age;
(3) has not been convicted of a
felony;
(4) is not charged with the commission of a
Class A or Class B misdemeanor or an offense
under Section 42.01, Penal Code, or of a
felony under an information or indictment;
(5) is not a fugitive from justice for a
felony or a Class A or Class B misdemeanor;
(6) is not a chemically dependent
person;
(7) is not incapable of exercising sound
judgment with respect to the proper use and
storage of a handgun;
(8) has not, in the five years preceding
the date of application, been convicted of a
Class A or Class B misdemeanor or an offense
under Section 42.01, Penal Code;
(9) is fully qualified under applicable
federal and state law to purchase a handgun;
(10) has not been finally determined to be
delinquent in making a child support payment
administered or collected by the attorney
general;
(11) has not been finally determined to be
delinquent in the payment of a tax or other
money collected by the comptroller, the tax
collector of a political subdivision of the
state, or any agency or subdivision of the
state;
(12) has not been finally determined to be
in default on a loan made under Chapter 57,
Education Code;
(13) is not currently restricted under a
court protective order or subject to a
restraining order affecting the spousal
relationship, other than a restraining order
solely affecting (14) has not, in the 10
years preceding the date of application,
been adjudicated as having engaged in
delinquent conduct violating a penal law of
the grade of felony; and
(15) has not made any material
misrepresentation, or failed to disclose any
material fact, in an application submitted
pursuant to Section 411.174 or in a request
for application submitted pursuant to
Section 411.175. ...
(g) Notwithstanding Subsection (a)(2), a
person who is at least 18 years of age but
not yet 21 years of age is eligible for a
license to carry a concealed handgun if the
person:
(1) is a member or veteran of the United
States armed forces, including a member or
veteran of the reserves or national guard;
(2) was discharged under honorable
conditions, if discharged from the United
States armed forces, reserves, or national
guard....
Section 411.174: "Application"
(a) An applicant for a license to carry a
concealed handgun must submit to the
director's designee described by Section
411.176: ...
(7) a handgun proficiency certificate
described by Section 411.189....
Section 411.188: "Handgun Proficiency
Requirement"
(a) The director by rule shall establish
minimum standards for handgun proficiency
and shall develop a course to teach handgun
proficiency and examinations to measure
handgun proficiency. The course to teach
handgun proficiency must contain training
sessions divided into two parts. One part of
the course must be classroom instruction and
the other part must be range instruction and
an actual demonstration by the applicant of
the applicant's ability to safely and
proficiently use the category of handgun for
which the applicant seeks certification. An
applicant may not be certified unless the
applicant demonstrates, at a minimum, the
degree of proficiency that is required to
effectively operate a handgun of .32 caliber
or above. The department shall distribute
the standards, course requirements, and
examinations on request to any qualified
handgun instructor.
(b) Only a qualified handgun instructor may
administer a handgun proficiency course. The
handgun proficiency course must include at
least 10 hours and not more than 15 hours of
instruction on...
[112] Calendar Year Report: "Active License
Holders and Instructors 2009." Texas
Department of Public Safety, Regulatory
Licensing Service, Concealed Handgun
Licensing Bureau.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/...
Active License Holders = 402,914
[113] Calculations performed with data from
the citation above and the dataset:
"Estimates of the Resident Population by
Selected Age Groups for the United States,
States, and Puerto Rico: July 1, 2009." U.S.
Census Bureau, June 2010.
http://www.census.gov/popest/states/asrh/SC-EST2009-01.html
Texas population:
18 years and older = 17,886,333
18-24 years = 2,523,258
CALCULATIONS:
a)
Estimate of Texas population, 21 years and
older: 17,886,333 – (3/7 × 2,523,258) =
16,804,937 people
b)
402,914 active licensees / 16,804,937 people
= 0.024
[114] Graph constructed with data from:
a) Dataset: "Uniform Crime Reporting
Program, Texas, 1960-2008." Federal Bureau
of Investigation, Criminal Justice
Information Services Division. Data supplied
to Just Facts on June 15, 2010. Data
available upon
request.
b) Dataset: "Uniform Crime Reporting
Program, United States, 1960-2008." Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice
Information Services Division. Data supplied
to Just Facts on June 15, 2010. Data
available upon
request.
[115] Calculated with data from the footnote
above.
NOTE: The averages were calculated by
averaging the murder rates from all years in
which the ban was effective for at least 6
months of the year.
[116] Michigan Law Section 28.421a:
"Firearms, Concealed pistol licenses;
issuance; creation of standardized system."
Accessed September 2, 2010 at
http://law.justia.com/michigan/codes/mcl-chap28/mcl-28-421a.html
"It is the intent of the legislature to
create a standardized system for issuing
concealed pistol licenses to prevent
criminals and other violent individuals from
obtaining a license to carry a concealed
pistol, [and] to allow law abiding residents
to obtain a license to carry a concealed
pistol. ... Effective July 1, 2001."
[117] Michigan Law Section 28.422: "License
to purchase, carry, or transport pistol;
issuance; qualifications; applications...."
Accessed September 2, 2010 at
http://law.justia.com/michigan/codes/mcl-chap28/mcl-28-421a.html
Section 2:
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a
person shall not purchase, carry, or
transport a pistol in this state without
first having obtained a license for the
pistol as prescribed in this section. ...
(3) The commissioner or chief of police of a
city, township, or village police department
that issues licenses to purchase, carry, or
transport pistols, or his or her duly
authorized deputy, or the sheriff or his or
her duly authorized deputy, in the parts of
a county not included within a city,
township, or village having an organized
police department, in discharging the duty
to issue licenses shall with due speed and
diligence issue licenses to purchase, carry,
or transport pistols to qualified applicants
residing within the city, village, township,
or county, as applicable unless he or she
has probable cause to believe that the
applicant would be a threat to himself or
herself or to other individuals, or would
commit an offense with the pistol that would
violate a law of this or another state or of
the United States. An applicant is qualified
if all of the following circumstances exist:
(a) The person is not subject to an order or
disposition for which he or she has received
notice and an opportunity for a hearing, and
which was entered into the law enforcement
information network pursuant to any of the
following....
(b) The person is 18 years of age or older
or, if the seller is licensed pursuant to
section 923 of title 18 of the United States
Code, 18 USC 923*, is 21 years of age or
older.
(c) The person is a citizen of the United
States and is a legal resident of this
state.
(d) A felony charge against the person is
not pending at the time of application.
(e) The person is not prohibited from
possessing, using, transporting, selling,
purchasing, carrying, shipping, receiving,
or distributing a firearm under section 224f
of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL
750.224f.
(f) The person has not been adjudged insane
in this state or elsewhere unless he or she
has been adjudged restored to sanity by
court order.
(g) The person is not under an order of
involuntary commitment in an inpatient or
outpatient setting due to mental illness.
(h) The person has not been adjudged legally
incapacitated in this state or elsewhere.
This subdivision does not apply to a person
who has had his or her legal capacity
restored by order of the court.
(i) The person correctly answers 70% or more
of the questions on a basic pistol safety
review questionnaire approved by the basic
pistol safety review board and provided to
the individual free of charge by the
licensing authority. If the person fails to
correctly answer 70% or more of the
questions on the basic pistol safety review
questionnaire, the licensing authority shall
inform the person of the questions he or she
answered incorrectly and allow the person to
attempt to complete another basic pistol
safety review questionnaire. The person
shall not be allowed to attempt to complete
more than 2 basic pistol safety review
questionnaires on any single day. The
licensing authority shall allow the person
to attempt to complete the questionnaire
during normal business hours on the day the
person applies for his or her license.
* NOTE: This refers to a federally licensed
firearms dealer:
United States Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter
44, Section 923: "Licensing." Current as of
February 1, 2010. Accessed September 2, 2010
at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_...
"(a) No person shall engage in the business
of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in
firearms, or importing or manufacturing
ammunition, until he has filed an
application with and received a license to
do so from the Attorney General."
[118] Graph constructed with data from:
a) Dataset: "Uniform Crime Reporting
Program, Michigan, 1960-2008." Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice
Information Services Division. Data supplied
to Just Facts on June 15, 2010. Data
available upon
request.
b) Dataset: "Uniform Crime Reporting
Program, United States, 1960-2008." Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice
Information Services Division. Data supplied
to Just Facts on June 15, 2010. Data
available upon
request.
[119] Calculated with data from the footnote
above.
NOTE: The averages were calculated by
averaging the murder rates from all years in
which the ban was effective for at least 6
months of the year.
[120] Dataset: "20 Leading Causes of
Unintentional Injury Deaths, United States,
2007." U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control. Accessed September
1, 2010 at
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html
NOTES:
- Data from 2007 was the most recent
available on September 1, 2010.
- Data available
upon request.
- This top-20 list stops at item number 19,
suggesting this covers all such deaths. Just
Facts doubled-checked the data on total
accidental deaths from another source to
ensure this is the case.
[121] Dataset: "20 Leading Causes of
Unintentional Injury Deaths, United States,
2007." U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control. Accessed September
1, 2010 at
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html
NOTES:
- Data from 2007 was the most recent
available on September 1, 2010.
- Data available
upon request.
- This top-20 list stops at item number 19,
suggesting this covers all such deaths. Just
Facts doubled-checked the data on total
accidental deaths from another source to
ensure this is the case.
- "Other Spec., classifiable" = Other
Specified, classifiable
- "Other Spec., NEC" = Specified, not
elsewhere classified
[122] Dataset: "20 Leading Causes of
Unintentional Injury Deaths, United States,
2007." U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control. Accessed September
1, 2010 at
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html
NOTES:
- Data from 2007 was the most recent
available on September 1, 2010.
- Data available
upon request.
- This top-20 list stops at item number 19,
suggesting this covers all such deaths. Just
Facts doubled-checked the data on total
accidental deaths from another source to
ensure this is the case.
[123] Dataset: "Unintentional Firearm
Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries, 2007,
Disposition: All Cases." U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
Accessed September 1, 2010 at
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html
Firearm = 15,698
NOTE "Disposition" is defined as "Where the
injured person went when released from
emergency department"
[124] Dataset: "Unintentional All Nonfatal
Injuries, 2007, Disposition: All Cases."
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control. Accessed September
1, 2010 at
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html
Number of injuries = 27,731,818
NOTE: "Disposition" is defined as "Where the
injured person went when released from
emergency department"
[125] Dataset: "20 Leading Causes of
Nonfatal Unintentional Injury, United
States, 2007, Disposition: Hospitalized."
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control. Accessed September
1, 2010 at
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfilead2001.html
Firearm = 5,045
[126] Dataset: "Unintentional, All Injury
Causes, Nonfatal Injuries, 2007,
Disposition: Hospitalized." U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
Accessed September 1, 2010 at
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html
Total hospitalizations = 1,420,190
[127] Constructed with data from the
following sources:
a) Dataset: "20 Leading Causes of Nonfatal
Unintentional Injury, United States, 2007,
Disposition: Hospitalized." U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
Accessed September 1, 2010 at
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfilead2001.html
NOTE: Data available
upon request.
b) Dataset: "Unintentional, All Injury
Causes, Nonfatal Injuries, 2007,
Disposition: Hospitalized." U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
Accessed September 1, 2010 at
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html
Total hospitalizations = 1,420,190
[128] Ruling: District Of Columbia v.
Heller. U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 2008.
Case 07-290. Decided 5-4. Majority: Scalia,
Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito. Dissenting:
Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=...
Opinion: "Justice Breyer, with whom Justice
Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice
Ginsburg join, dissenting." Section IV, A,
1.
[129] Report: "Firearms control regulations
act of 1975, Council act no. 1-142 : hearing
and disposition before the Committee on the
District of Columbia, House of
Representatives, Ninety-fourth Congress,
second session on H. Con. Res. 694." August
25, 1976.
http://www.archive.org/stream/firearmscontrol00colugoog/...
[130] Paper: "Estimating intruder-related
firearm retrievals in U.S. households,
1994." By Robin M. Ikeda and others.
Violence and Victims, Winter 1997.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354
Page 363:
To estimate the frequency of firearm
retrieval because of a known or presumed
intruder, the authors analyzed data from a
1994 national random digit dialing telephone
survey (n = 5,238 interviews). ... National
projections based on these self-reports
reveal an estimated 1,896,842 (95% CI
[confidence interval] = 1,480,647-2,313,035)
incidents in which a firearm was retrieved,
but no intruder was seen; 503,481 (95% CI =
305,093-701,870) incidents occurred in which
an intruder was seen, and 497,646 (95% CI =
266,060-729,231) incidents occurred in which
the intruder was seen and reportedly scared
away by the firearm.
Page 364: "A specified random selection
procedure was used to ensure that
approximately one half of respondents were
male and one half were female. If more than
one eligible individual was in the selected
gender category, the interviewer asked for
the respondent with the most recent
birthday. Households occupied by minorities
were oversampled to ensure adequate minority
representation and then weighted to adjust
for unequal selection probabilities."
[131] Calculated with data from the
following sources:
a) Dataset: "Unintentional Firearm Gunshot
Nonfatal Injuries, 2001, Disposition: All
Cases." U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control. Accessed September
1, 2010 at
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html
Number of injuries = 17,696
NOTE: "Disposition" is defined as "Where the
injured person went when released from
emergency department"
b) Dataset: "Unintentional Firearm Deaths,
2001." U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control. Accessed September
1, 2010 at
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
Number of Deaths = 802
CALCULATION: 17,696 + 802 = 18,498
[132] As of September 1, 2010, CDC's
"Web-based Injury Statistics Query and
Reporting System"
(http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/) has
accidental death rates from 1994 (the year
that would be ideal to compare to the CDC
survey regarding the number of Americans who
use guns to frighten away intruders who are
breaking into their homes). However, it does
not have nonfatal, accidental injury rates
for any earlier than 2000, and the 2000 data is
not reliable: "Annualized national estimates
are based on emergency department visits
from 7/1-12/31 2000. Therefore, estimates
may be affected by seasonality." Thus, Just
Facts is using the earliest year possible, which is 2001.
[133] CALCULATION: 498,000 / 18,498 = 26.9
NOTE: In keeping with Just Facts'
Standards of Credibility, we are giving
preferentiality to figures that are contrary
to our viewpoints by citing all gun-related
accidents (within and outside the home) for
comparison with the D.C. council committee's
claim that, "[fo]r every intruder stopped by
a homeowner with a firearm, there are 4
gun-related accidents within the home."
[134] Adapted from the NRA, a firearms
safety course, and the article: "So You've
Bought Yourself a Gun." By Sunni Maravillosa.
Sierra Times, November 27,
2001.
http://www.sunnimaravillosa.com/guns/boughtagun.html
[135] Web page: "Gun Rights: Long-Term
Contribution Trends." Center for Responsive
Politics. Accessed September 2, 2010 at
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2010&ind=Q13
NOTE: The data presented is from the Federal
Election Commission and is current as of
August 22, 2010.
[136] Web page: "Gun Control: Long-Term
Contribution Trends." Center for Responsive
Politics. Accessed September 2, 2010 at
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2010&ind=Q12
NOTE: The data presented is from the Federal
Election Commission and is current as of
August 22, 2010.
[137] Web pages: "Top Industries Giving to
Members of Congress, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002,
2000 Cycles." Center for Responsive
Politics. Accessed September 5, 2010 at
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php
Who's got the most juice on Capitol Hill?
Here's a list of the top industries
contributing to members of the 111th
Congress during the 2009-2010 election
cycle. The first list shows the overall 50
biggest industries. The other two highlight
the top 25 industries giving to members of
each of the two major parties. In all cases,
the Top Recipient listed is the individual
member of the 111th Congress who received
the most from the industry. Totals shown
here include only the money that went to
current incumbents in Congress.
NOTE: Neither gun rights nor gun control
interest groups appear in these lists for
any of the years.
[138] Web page: "Gun Rights: Long-Term
Contribution Trends." Center for Responsive
Politics. Accessed September 5, 2010 at
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2010&ind=Q13
2008 Total Contributions = $2,397,743
NOTE: The data presented is from the Federal
Election Commission and is current as of
August 22, 2010.
[139] Web page: "Lawyers / Law Firms:
Long-Term Contribution Trends." Center for
Responsive Politics. Accessed September 5,
2010 at
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2010&ind=K01
2008 Total Contributions = $233,916,242
NOTE: The data presented is from the Federal
Election Commission and is current as of
August 22, 2010.
CALCULATION: $2,397,743 / $233,916,242 =
0.010
[140] Web page: "Gun Control: Long-Term
Contribution Trends." Center for Responsive
Politics. Accessed September 5, 2010 at
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2010&ind=Q12
2008 Total Contributions = $57,919
NOTE: The data presented is from the Federal
Election Commission and is current as of
August 22, 2010.
CALCULATION: $57,919 / $2,397,743 = .024
[141] "2008 Republican Party Platform."
Republican National Committee, September,
2008.
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/
Page 51:
We uphold the right of individual Americans
to own firearms, a right which antedated the
Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by
the Second Amendment. We applaud the Supreme
Court's decision in Heller affirming that
right, and we assert the individual
responsibility to safely use and store
firearms. We call on the next president to
appoint judges who will similarly respect
the Constitution. Gun ownership is
responsible citizenship, enabling Americans
to defend themselves, their property, and
communities.
[142] "2008 Democratic Party Platform."
Democratic National Committee, August 25.
2008.
http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html
Page 48:
We recognize that the right to bear arms is
an important part of the American tradition,
and we will preserve Americans' Second
Amendment right to own and use firearms. We
believe that the right to own firearms is
subject to reasonable regulation, but we
know that what works in Chicago may not work
in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact
and enforce common-sense laws and
improvements – like closing the gun show
loophole, improving our background check
system, and reinstating the assault weapons
ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands
of terrorists or criminals. Acting
responsibly and with respect for differing
views on this issue, we can both protect the
constitutional right to bear arms and keep
our communities and our children safe.
[143] Constitution of the United States.
Signed September 17, 1787. Enacted June 21,
1788.
http://justfacts.com/constitution.asp#Constitution
Article 2, Clause 2, Section 2: "[The President] with the Advice and Consent
of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors,
other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges
of the supreme Court…."
[144] Report: "Filibusters and Cloture in
the Senate." By Richard S. Beth & Stanley
Bach. Congressional Research Service.
Updated March 28, 2003.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30360.pdf
Summary (page 2 in pdf):
The filibuster is widely viewed as one of
the Senate's most characteristic procedural
features. Filibustering includes any use of
dilatory or obstructive tactics to block a
measure by preventing it from coming to a
vote. The possibility of filibusters exists
because Senate rules place few limits on
Senators' rights and opportunities in the
legislative process. …
Senate Rule XXII, however, known as the
"cloture rule," enables Senators to
end a filibuster on any debatable matter the
Senate is considering. Sixteen Senators
initiate this process by presenting a motion
to end the debate. The Senate does not vote
on this cloture motion until the second day
after the motion is made. Then it usually
requires the votes of at least three-fifths
of all Senators (normally 60 votes) to
invoke cloture. Invoking cloture on a
proposal to amend the Senate's standing
rules requires the support of two-thirds of
the Senators present and voting.
Page CRS-10:
Invoking cloture usually requires a
three-fifths vote of the entire
Senate—"three-fifths of the Senators duly
chosen and sworn." If there are no
vacancies, therefore, 60 Senators must vote
to invoke cloture. In contrast, most other
votes require only a simple majority (that
is, 51%) of the Senators present and voting,
assuming that those Senators constitute a
quorum. In the case of a cloture vote, the
key is the number of Senators voting for
cloture, not the number voting against.
Failing to vote on a cloture motion has the
same effect as voting against the motion: it
deprives the motion of one of the 60 votes
needed to agree to it.
There is an important exception to the
three-fifths requirement to invoke cloture.
Under Rule XXII, an affirmative vote of
two-thirds of the Senators present and
voting is required to invoke cloture on a
measure or motion to amend the Senate rules.
This exception has its origin in the recent
history of the cloture rule. Before 1975,
two-thirds of the Senators present and
voting (a quorum being present) was required
for cloture on all matters. In early 1975,
at the beginning of the 94th Congress,
Senators sought to amend the rule to make it
somewhat easier to invoke cloture. However,
some Senators feared that if this effort
succeeded, that would only make it easier to
amend the rule again, making cloture still
easier to invoke. As a compromise, the
Senate agreed to move from a maximum of 67
votes (two-thirds of the Senators present
and voting) to a minimum of 60 votes
(three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen
and sworn) on all matters except future
rules changes, including changes in the
cloture rule itself.11
[145] "Standing Rules of the Senate: Rule
XXII: Precedence Of Motions." Accessed
September 9, 2010.
http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RuleXXII
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II
or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate,
at any time a motion signed by sixteen
Senators, to bring to a close the debate
upon any measure, motion, other matter
pending before the Senate, or the unfinished
business, is presented to the Senate, the
Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction
of the Presiding Officer, shall at once
state the motion to the Senate, and one hour
after the Senate meets on the following
calendar day but one, he shall lay the
motion before the Senate and direct that the
clerk call the roll, and upon the
ascertainment that a quorum is present, the
Presiding Officer shall, without debate,
submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote
the question:
"Is it the sense of the Senate that the
debate shall be brought to a close?" And if
that question shall be decided in the
affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators
duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure
or motion to amend the Senate rules, in
which case the necessary affirmative vote
shall be two-thirds of the Senators present
and voting -- then said measure, motion, or
other matter pending before the Senate, or
the unfinished business, shall be the
unfinished business to the exclusion of all
other business until disposed of.
Thereafter no Senator shall be entitled to
speak in all more than one hour on the
measure, motion, or other matter pending
before the Senate, or the unfinished
business, the amendments thereto, and
motions affecting the same, and it shall be
the duty of the Presiding Officer to keep
the time of each Senator who speaks. Except
by unanimous consent, no amendment shall be
proposed after the vote to bring the debate
to a close, unless it had been submitted in
writing to the Journal Clerk by 1 o'clock
p.m. on the day following the filing of the
cloture motion if an amendment in the first
degree, and unless it had been so submitted
at least one hour prior to the beginning of
the cloture vote if an amendment in the
second degree. No dilatory motion, or
dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane
shall be in order. Points of order,
including questions of relevancy, and
appeals from the decision of the Presiding
Officer, shall be decided without debate.
After no more than thirty hours of
consideration of the measure, motion, or
other matter on which cloture has been
invoked, the Senate shall proceed, without
any further debate on any question, to vote
on the final disposition thereof to the
exclusion of all amendments not then
actually pending before the Senate at that
time and to the exclusion of all motions,
except a motion to table, or to reconsider
and one quorum call on demand to establish
the presence of a quorum (and motions
required to establish a quorum) immediately
before the final vote begins. The thirty
hours may be increased by the adoption of a
motion, decided without debate, by a
three-fifths affirmative vote of the
Senators duly chosen and sworn, and any such
time thus agreed upon shall be equally
divided between and controlled by the
Majority and Minority Leaders or their
designees. However, only one motion to
extend time, specified above, may be made in
any one calendar day.
[146] Constitution of the United States.
Signed September 17, 1787. Enacted June 21,
1788.
http://justfacts.com/constitution.asp#Constitution
Article III, Section 1: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior
Courts, shall hold their Offices during good
Behaviour…."
Article II, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil
Officers of the United States, shall be
removed from Office on Impeachment for, and
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other
high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Article I, Section 2, Clause 5: "The House of Representatives shall chuse
their Speaker and other Officers; and shall
have the sole Power of Impeachment."
Article I, Section 3, Clause 6: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try
all Impeachments. … And no Person shall be
convicted without the Concurrence of two
thirds of the Members present."
[147] Ruling: District Of Columbia v.
Heller. U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 2008.
Case 07-290. Decided 5-4. Majority: Scalia,
Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito. Dissenting:
Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=...
[148] Web page: "Shifting Median: An Obama
Supreme Court." Wall Street Journal.
Accessed September 5, 2010 at
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/scotus_...
NOTE: Stevens was appointed by Ford. Scalia
and Kennedy were appointed by Reagan. Thomas
and Souter were appointed by G.H. Bush.
Ginsburg and Breyer were appointed by
Clinton. Alito and Roberts by were appointed
by G.W. Bush.
[149] Article: "McCain Promises Judges Like
Roberts, Alito." Associated Press, May 6,
2008.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/06/politics/main4073792.shtml
"Obama, on the other hand, voted against
Roberts and Alito."
[150] Article: "Obama, McCain talk issues at
pastor's forum." By Ed Hornick. CNN, August
17, 2008.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/16/warren.forum/index.html
"Neither candidate shied away from a question
about which current Supreme Court justice
they would not have nominated. Obama's reply: Clarence Thomas."
[151] Article: "Obama: I Would Not Have
Nominated Clarence Thomas." By Sam Stein.
Huffington Post, August 16, 2008.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/16/...
[Quoting Obama:] "I would not have nominated
Justice Scalia…."
[152] Article: "Obama, McCain talk issues at
pastor's forum." By Ed Hornick. CNN, August
17, 2008.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/16/warren.forum/index.html
"McCain said he would have never nominated
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen
Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens."
[153] Web page: "Associate Justice of the
U.S. Supreme Court - Sonia Sotomayor."
United States Senate. Accessed September 5,
2010 at
http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/SupremeCourt/SotomayorIndex.cfm
"On May 26, 2009, President Obama announced
that he would nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor
to be an Associate Justice of the United
States Supreme Court."
[154] Vote Number 262: "Confirmation of
Sonya Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice
of the Supreme Court." United States Senate,
August 6, 2009.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/...
[155] Article: "Senate confirms Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court."
CNN, August
06, 2009.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-06/politics/sonia.sotomayor_...
"Sotomayor was easily confirmed in a 68-31
vote. Nine Republicans joined a unanimous
Democratic caucus in supporting her
nomination."
[156] Ruling: McDonald v Chicago. U.S.
Supreme Court, June 28, 2010. Case 08–1521.
Decided 5-4. Majority: Alito, Roberts,
Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas. Dissenting:
Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZS.html
Breyer dissent
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZD1.html):
Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Ginsburg
and Justice Sotomayor join, dissenting. ...
The Court ... asks whether the Second
Amendment right to private self-defense is
"fundamental" so that it applies to the
States through the Fourteenth Amendment.*
...
... the use of arms for private self-defense
does not warrant federal constitutional
protection from state regulation....
In sum, the Framers did not write the Second
Amendment in order to protect a private
right of armed self-defense.
NOTE: Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States. Ratified
July 9, 1868.
http://justfacts.com/constitution.asp#Amendment14
"Section 1. ... No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws."
[157] Web page: "Associate Justice of the
U.S. Supreme Court – Elena Kagan." United
States Senate. Accessed September 5, 2010 at
http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/SupremeCourt/KaganIndex.cfm
"On May 10, 2010, President Obama nominated
Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be an
Associate Justice of the United States
Supreme Court."
[158] Article: "Kagan Was 'Not Sympathetic'
as Law Clerk to Gun-Rights Argument." By
Greg Stohr and Kristin Jensen. Bloomberg,
May 13, 2010.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPI35t8uR6Gs
Elena Kagan said as a U.S. Supreme Court law
clerk in 1987 that she was "not sympathetic"
toward a man who contended that his
constitutional rights were violated when he
was convicted for carrying an unlicensed
pistol.
Kagan, whom President Barack Obama nominated
to the high court this week, made the
comment to Justice Thurgood Marshall, urging
him in a one-paragraph memo to vote against
hearing the District of Columbia man's
appeal.
NOTE: A copy of the memo can be seen at
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Kagan_guns.pdf?tag=...
[159] Vote Number 229: "Confirmation of
Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of
the Supreme Court." United States Senate,
August 5, 2010.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_...
[160] Second Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States. Ratified December 15,
1791.
http://justfacts.com/constitution.asp#Amendment2
[161] Web page: "The Second Amendment: No
Right to Keep and Bear Arms." Violence
Policy Center, 1998. Accessed September 4,
2010 at
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/secondfs.htm
"The purpose of the Second Amendment is to
guarantee the states' ability to maintain
independent militias composed of state
residents available to be called upon to
defend the country should its security be
threatened."
[162] Article: "Appeals Court Says Gun Ban
Violates 2nd Amendment." By Adam Liptak,
New
York Times, March 9, 2007.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=...
"Most federal appeals courts have said that
the amendment, read as a whole, protects
only a collective right of the states to
maintain militias — in modern terms, the
National Guard."
[163] Ruling: Silveira v Lockyer. United
States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit,
December 05, 2002. Case 01-15098. Before:
Reinhardt, Magill, and Fisher, Circuit
Judges.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1464183.html
In any event, it is clear that the drafters
believed the militia that provides the best
security for a free state to be the
permanent state militia, not some amorphous
body of the people as a whole, or whatever
random and informal collection of armed
individuals may from time to time appear on
the scene for one purpose or another. ...
The debates of the founding era demonstrate
that the second of the first ten amendments
to the Constitution was included in order to
preserve the efficacy of the state militias
for the people's defense -- not to ensure an
individual right to possess weapons.
Specifically, the amendment was enacted to
guarantee that the people would be able to
maintain an effective state fighting force
-- that they would have the right to bear
arms in the service of the state.
[164] Article: "A Primer on the
Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms."
By Nelson Lund. Virginia Institute for
Public Policy, June 2002.
http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/primer_on_const.php
"The Second Amendment unambiguously and
irrefutably establishes an individual right
to keep and bear arms. This conclusion,
which is dictated by the language of the
Constitution, is confirmed by an abundance
of historical evidence. Nor is it
contradicted by anything yet discovered in
the Constitution's legislative history or in
the historical background that illuminates
the intentions of those who adopted the Bill
of Rights."
[165] Ruling: United States v Emerson.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth
Circuit, October 16, 2001. Case 99-10331.
Decided 3-0. Before: Garwood, Demoss, and
Parker, Circuit Judges.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1332436.html
"We reject the collective rights and
sophisticated collective rights models for
interpreting the Second Amendment. We
hold, consistent with Miller, that it
protects the right of individuals, including
those not then actually a member of any
militia or engaged in active military
service or training, to privately possess
and bear their own firearms...."
[166] Book: The Bill of Rights and the
States: The Colonial and Revolutionary
Origins of American Liberties. Edited by
Patrick T. Conley & John P. Kaminski.
Madison House Publishers, 1992. Pages
461-514: "The Bill of Rights: A
Bibliographic Essay." By Gaspare J.
Saladino. Page 484:
The best historical treatments of the
legislative history of the Bill of Rights in
the first federal Congress are… [six works
mentioned]. All agree that James Madison,
against considerable odds, took the lead in
the House of Representatives, and that
without his efforts there probably would
have been no Bill of Rights. Madison's
amendments, a distillation of those from the
state conventions (especially Virginia's)
were, for the most part, those that the
House eventually adopted.
[167] Article: "Madison, James."
Contributor: Robert J. Brugger (Ph.D.,
Editor, Maryland Historical Magazine,
Maryland Historical Society). World Book
Encyclopedia, 2007 Deluxe Edition.
Madison, James (1751-1836), the fourth
president of the United States, is often
called the Father of the Constitution. He
played a leading role in the Constitutional
Convention of 1787, where he helped design
the checks and balances that operate among
Congress, the president, and the Supreme
Court. He also helped create the U.S.
federal system, which divides power between
the central government and the states.
[168] The Federalist Papers. By Alexander
Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison.
October 27, 1787- May 28, 1788.
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext98/feder10a.txt
Federalist Paper 1: "General Introduction."
By Alexander Hamilton. From the Independent
Journal. October 27, 1787.
"Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that,
after having given it an attentive
consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is
your interest to adopt it. I am convinced
that this is the safest course for your
liberty, your dignity, and your happiness."
[169] Book: "The Federalist." Edited with an
introduction and notes by Jacob E. Cooke.
Wesleyan University Press, 1961.
Page xi: "The Federalist, addressed to the
People of the State of New York, was
occasioned by the objections of many New
Yorkers to the Constitution which had been
proposed…. [T]he pages of New York
newspapers were filled with articles
denouncing the new frame of government. …
The decision to publish [the] series of
essays… was made by Alexander Hamilton."
Pages xiv-xv:
The first edition, printed by J. and A.
McLean and corrected by Hamilton, is the
source from which most editions of The
Federalist have been taken. … McLean, having
observed "the avidity" with which the
"Publius" essays had been sought after by
politicians and persons of every
description," announced plans for the
publication of "The FEDERALIST, A Collection
of Essays, written in favour of the New
Constitution, By a Citizen of New-York,
Corrected by the Author, with Additions and
alterations. [The first 36 essays were
collectively published in a book dated March
22, 1788. On May 28 of the same year, the
rest of the essays that appeared in
newspapers were published in book form along
with eight more written by Hamilton. These
last eight essays were subsequently
published in newspapers.]
[170] The Federalist Papers. By Alexander
Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison.
October 27, 1787- May 28, 1788.
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext98/feder10a.txt
Federalist Paper 46: "The Influence of the
State and Federal Governments Compared." By
James Madison. From the New York Packet,
January 29, 1788.
The only refuge left for those who prophesy
the downfall of the State governments is the
visionary supposition that the federal
government may previously accumulate a
military force for the projects of ambition.
The reasonings contained in these papers
must have been employed to little purpose
indeed, if it could be necessary now to
disprove the reality of this danger. That
the people and the States should, for a
sufficient period of time, elect an
uninterrupted succession of men ready to
betray both; that the traitors should,
throughout this period, uniformly and
systematically pursue some fixed plan for
the extension of the military establishment;
that the governments and the people of the
States should silently and patiently behold
the gathering storm, and continue to supply
the materials, until it should be prepared
to burst on their own heads, must appear to
every one more like the incoherent dreams of
a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged
exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than
like the sober apprehensions of genuine
patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition
is, let it however be made. Let a regular
army, fully equal to the resources of the
country, be formed; and let it be entirely
at the devotion of the federal government;
still it would not be going too far to say,
that the State governments, with the people
on their side, would be able to repel the
danger. The highest number to which,
according to the best computation, a
standing army can be carried in any country,
does not exceed one hundredth part of the
whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth
part of the number able to bear arms. This
proportion would not yield, in the United
States, an army of more than twenty-five or
thirty thousand men. To these would be
opposed a militia amounting to near half a
million of citizens with arms in their
hands, officered by men chosen from among
themselves, fighting for their common
liberties, and united and conducted by
governments possessing their affections and
confidence. It may well be doubted, whether
a militia thus circumstanced could ever be
conquered by such a proportion of regular
troops. Those who are best acquainted with
the last successful resistance of this
country against the British arms, will be
most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which
the Americans possess over the people of
almost every other nation, the existence of
subordinate governments, to which the people
are attached, and by which the militia
officers are appointed, forms a barrier
against the enterprises of ambition, more
insurmountable than any which a simple
government of any form can admit of.
Notwithstanding the military establishments
in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are
carried as far as the public resources will
bear, the governments are afraid to trust
the people with arms. And it is not certain,
that with this aid alone they would not be
able to shake off their yokes. But were the
people to possess the additional advantages
of local governments chosen by themselves,
who could collect the national will and
direct the national force, and of officers
appointed out of the militia, by these
governments, and attached both to them and
to the militia, it may be affirmed with the
greatest assurance, that the throne of every
tyranny in Europe would be speedily
overturned in spite of the legions which
surround it. Let us not insult the free and
gallant citizens of America with the
suspicion, that they would be less able to
defend the rights of which they would be in
actual possession, than the debased subjects
of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs
from the hands of their oppressors. Let us
rather no longer insult them with the
supposition that they can ever reduce
themselves to the necessity of making the
experiment, by a blind and tame submission
to the long train of insidious measures
which must precede and produce it.
[171] Article: "A History of D.C. Gun Ban."
Compiled by Meg Smith and Leah Carliner.
Washington Post, June 26, 2008.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/...
June 1976: [T]he D.C. Council votes 12 to 1
in favor of a bill restricting city
residents from acquiring handguns. The law
exempts guards, police officers and owners
who had registered their handguns before it
took effect. Under the bill, all firearms
(including rifles and shotguns, which were
not restricted by the law) must be kept
unloaded and disassembled, except those in
business establishments.
September 1976: Attempts in Congress to
block the District law fail, clearing the
way for it to go into effect.
[172] Legal brief 07-290: "District of
Columbia and Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of the
District Of Columbia, Petitioners, v. Dick
Anthony Heller, Respondent. In the Supreme
Court of the United States." By Linda Singer
(Attorney General for the District of
Columbia) and others. January 4, 2008.
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/...
Pages 1-2:
Relevant portions of the D.C. Code provide:
§ 7-2502.02. Registration of certain
firearms prohibited.
(a) A registration certificate shall not be
issued for a:
(1) Sawed-off shotgun;
(2) Machine gun;
(3) Short-barreled rifle; or
(4) Pistol not validly registered to the
current registrant in the District prior to
September 24, 1976, except that the
provisions of this section shall not apply
to any organization that employs at least 1
commissioned special police officer or other
employee licensed to carry a firearm and
that arms the employee with a firearm during
the employee's duty hours or to a police
officer who has retired from the
Metropolitan Police Department.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prevent a
police officer who has retired from the
Metropolitan Police Department from
registering a pistol.
§ 7-2507.02. Firearms required to be
unloaded and disassembled or locked.
Except for law enforcement personnel
described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each
registrant shall keep any firearm in his
possession unloaded and disassembled or
bound by a trigger lock or similar device
unless such firearm is kept at his place of
business, or while being used for lawful
recreational purposes within the District of
Columbia.
[173] Ruling: District Of Columbia v.
Heller. U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 2008.
Case 07-290. Decided 5-4. Majority: Scalia,
Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito. Dissenting:
Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=...
[174] First Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States. Ratified December 15,
1791.
http://justfacts.com/constitution.asp#Amendment1
[175] Fourth Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States. Ratified December 15,
1791.
http://justfacts.com/constitution.asp#Amendment4
[176] Ruling: Barron v Baltimore. U.S.
Supreme Court, January Term, 1833.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=...
The plaintiff in error contends, that it
comes within that clause in the fifth
amendment to the constitution, which
inhibits the taking of private property for
public use, without just compensation. He
insists, that this amendment being in favor
of the liberty of the citizen, ought to be
so construed as to restrain the legislative
power of a state, as well as that of the
United States. If this proposition be
untrue, the court can take no jurisdiction
of the cause.
The question thus presented is, we think, of
great importance, but not of much
difficulty. The constitution was ordained
and established by the people of the United
States for themselves, for their own
government, and not for the government of
the individual states. Each state
established a constitution for itself, and
in that constitution, provided such
limitations and restrictions on the powers
of its particular government, as its
judgment dictated. The people of the United
States framed such a government for the
United States as they supposed best adapted
to their situation and best calculated to
promote their interests. The powers they
conferred on this government were to be
exercised by itself; and the limitations on
power, if expressed in general terms, are
naturally, and, we think, necessarily,
applicable to the government created by the
instrument. They are limitations of power
granted in the instrument itself; not of
distinct governments, framed by different
persons and for different purposes.
If these propositions be correct, the fifth
amendment must be understood as restraining
the power of the general government, not as
applicable to the states.
[177] Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States. Ratified
July 9, 1868.
http://justfacts.com/constitution.asp#Amendment14
[178] Supplemental materials for Brest,
Levinson, Balkin, Amar and Siegel, Processes
of Constitutional Decisionmaking (5th ed.
2006): "Senator Jacob Howard, Speech
Introducing the Fourteenth Amendment."
Speech delivered in the U.S. Senate, May 23,
1866.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/conlaw/...
[Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan was a
member of the Joint Committee on
Reconstruction that drafted the Fourteenth
Amendment. He was the floor manager for the
Amendment in the Senate. In this speech, he
introduces the Amendment on the floor of the
Senate and explains its purposes.]
I can only promise to present to the Senate,
in a very succinct way, the views and the
motives which influenced th[e] committee, so
far as I understand those views and motives,
in presenting the report which is now before
us for consideration, and the ends it aims
to accomplish. ...
The first section [of the 14th Amendment]
... relates to the privileges and immunities
of citizens of the several States, and to
the rights and privileges of all persons,
whether citizens or others, under the laws
of the United States. ...
To these privileges and immunities, whatever
they may be—for they are not and cannot be
fully defined in their entire extent and
precise nature—to these should be added the
personal rights guarantied and secured by
the first eight amendments of the
Constitution; such as the freedom of speech
and of the press; the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the
Government for a redress of grievances, a
right appertaining to each and all the
people; the right to keep and to bear arms;
the right to be exempted from the quartering
of soldiers in a house without the consent
of the owner; the right to be exempt from
unreasonable searches and seizures, and from
any search or seizure except by virtue of a
warrant issued upon a formal oath or
affidavit; the right of an accused person to
be informed of the nature of the accusation
against him, and his right to be tried by an
impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the
right to be secure against excessive bail
and against cruel and unusual punishments.
Now, sir, here is a mass of privileges,
immunities, and rights, some of them secured
by the second section of the fourth article
of the Constitution, which I have recited,
some by the first eight amendments of the
Constitution; and it is a fact well worthy
of attention that the course of decision of
our courts and the present settled doctrine
is, that all these immunities, privileges,
rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution
or recognized by it, are secured to the
citizen solely as a citizen of the United
States and as a party in their courts. They
do not operate in the slightest degree as a
restraint or prohibition upon State
legislation. States are not affected by
them, and it has been repeatedly held that
the restriction contained in the
Constitution against the taking of private
property for public use without just
compensation is not a restriction upon State
legislation, but applies only to the
legislation of Congress.
Now, sir, there is no power given in the
Constitution to enforce and to carry out any
of these guarantees. They are not powers
granted by the Constitution to Congress, and
of course do not come within the sweeping
clause of the Constitution authorizing
Congress to pass all laws necessary and
proper for carrying out the foregoing or
granted powers, but they stand simply as a
bill of rights in the Constitution, without
power on the part of Congress to give them
full effect; while at the same time the
States are not restrained from violating the
principles embraced in them except by their
own local constitutions, which may be
altered from year to year. The great object
of the first section of this amendment is,
therefore, to restrain the power of the
States and compel them at all times to
respect these great fundamental
guarantees....
[179] Ruling number 1-95-1779:
Hunt v
Daley. Appellate Court of Illinois, First
District, Third Division, February 19, 1997.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1056110.html
This proceeding involves the 1982 Chicago
Weapons Ordinance, passed by the Chicago
City Council on March 19, 1982 … rendering
certain firearms unregisterable in the City
of Chicago. Under that ordinance, several
categories of firearms, including handguns,
became unregisterable in the City of
Chicago. … However, pursuant to a
grandfathering provision provided in the
1982 ordinance, handgun owners whose
handguns were validly registered prior to
the effective date of the handgun ban could
continue to re-register their handguns. …
The 1982 ordinance also required that such
re-registration take place every two years.
... [It was] ... amended and recodified in
1994 to require annual re-registration....
The failure to re-register firearms every
two years after the enactment of the 1982
ordinance rendered such firearms permanently
unregisterable, and thereby caused handgun
owners to forfeit their right to possess
such firearms within the City of Chicago.
[180] Ruling number
83-1431: Sklar v
Byrne. United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit, February 8, 1984 (as
amended April 17, 1984).
http://openjurist.org/727/f2d/633
On March 19, 1982, the Chicago City Council
passed an ordinance amending Chapter 11.1 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Chicago
which regulates the sale, possession and
registration of firearms and ammunition. The
ordinance requires that all firearms in
Chicago be registered with the city. ... The
ordinance also classifies some firearms as
"unregisterable," thus making illegal their
possession in the City of Chicago. Among the
categories of "unregisterable" firearms are
"Handguns, except those validly registered
to a current owner in the City of Chicago
prior to the effective date of this
Chapter."... The effective date of the
Chapter was April 10, 1982.
[181] Case file: McDonald v Chicago.
Plaintiff's complaint. Filed June 26, 2008.
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/...
"Chicago Municipal Code § 8-20-200 provides:
(a) Every registrant must renew his
registration certificate annually.
Applications for renewal shall be made by
such registrants 60 days prior to the
expiration of the current registration
certificate. (b) The application for renewal
shall include the payment of a renewal fee
as follows: 1 firearm ... $20.00…."
[182] Ruling: McDonald v Chicago. U.S.
Supreme Court, June 28, 2010. Case 08–1521.
Decided 5-4. Majority: Alito, Roberts,
Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas. Dissenting:
Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZS.html
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v.
Heller ... we held that the Second
Amendment* protects the right to keep and
bear arms for the purpose of self-defense,
and we struck down a District of Columbia
law that banned the possession of handguns
in the home. The city of Chicago (City) and
the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb,
have laws that are similar to the District
of Columbia's, but Chicago and Oak Park
argue that their laws are constitutional
because the Second Amendment has no
application to the States. ... Applying the
standard that is well established in our
case law, we hold that the Second Amendment
right is fully applicable to the States.
NOTE: *
Second Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. Ratified December 15, 1791.
http://justfacts.com/constitution.asp#Amendment2
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right
of the people to keep and bear Arms shall
not be infringed." |
No comments:
Post a Comment