Introduction
Lawful concealed carry is consistently growing in popularity amongst citizens within the United States. According to CBS News, a report by the Crime Prevention Research Center in 2007 claimed that there were around 4.5 million concealed carry permits issued nationwide, and by 2014 that number increased to around 11.1 million (“Report: Number of Concealed Carry Permits Surges as Violent Crime Rate Drops”, 2014). Just a year later, in 2015, that number was estimated to be 12.8 million, and in 2016 the Crime Prevention Research Center estimated that there were over 14.5 million concealed handgun permits (“Annual Report on Number of Concealed Handgun Permits”, 2018). The latest report issued by the Crime Prevention Research Center in 2017 estimated that there are now over 16.3 million concealed handgun permits in America (“Annual Report on Number of Concealed Handgun Permits”, 2018). Over the last few years, due to gun-related incidents, there have been many opposing political views regarding gun control policies on concealed handguns in the United States. The current concealed carry laws are inconsistent across all fifty states, which leaves public policy and public attitudes towards concealed carry laws difficult to solidify.
Although policies regarding concealed carry are difficult to solidify, it is important to understand why concealed carry permits and handguns are available to citizens. In order to protect our individual liberties, the founding fathers of the United States placed limits on the federal governments’ powers within the first ten amendments. They were ultimately concerned with the fact that a national standing army could pose threats to security within separate states. This led them to implement the second amendment of the Bill of Rights, which gave citizens the right to bear arms. The second amendment states, “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” (Strasser, 2017). However, the language in which the Amendment was written brings about considerable debates surrounding the intended wording and scope of the Amendment. Some people believe the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” gives citizens an individual constitutional right. Due to this wording, they argue that the Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting the possession of firearms, and at the very least it says restrictive legislation on firearms is unconstitutional (Strasser, 2017). This is also known and referred to as the “individual right theory.” Others argue that the wording “a well-regulated Militia” was intended by the founders to restrict Congress from enacting restrictive legislation for a state’s right to self-defense and that citizens do not have the right to possess firearms and legislative bodies may pass laws to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right (Strasser, 2017). This is often referred to as the “collective rights theory.” Both of these theories have been used in Supreme Court cases.
In 1939, the case United States v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 was brought to the Supreme Court. From this case, the court looked to the collective rights theory to determine if Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun. In the majority’s statement, they found that the Framers included the second amendment to ensure the military’s effectiveness, and the evidence did not show the shotgun had any relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a “well-regulated Militia.” This case stood precedent for over 70 years until the Supreme Court decided to hear another case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which deals specifically with handguns. Heller, the respondent, challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. ban on handguns, which had been a statute for 32 years. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the second amendment did indeed establish a right for citizens to possess firearms which determined D.C.’s handgun ban violated citizens’ rights. The Court also determined that it would not disallow regulations that prohibited the mentally ill and criminals from obtaining firearms. In 2010 another Supreme Court case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, also challenged the constitutionality of a handgun ban in Chicago. In the case, the Court ruled 5-4 that the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment held that the second amendment was applied to the states through incorporation doctrine. However, the case left many concurring opinions about which clause within the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right for citizens to bear arms for self-defense, which added to the uncertainty regarding a unified policy.
Policy Environment
Existing Policies
Every state within the United States allows citizens the right to concealed carry in some form, including the District of Columbia, according to an article posted by Mark Hardy from American Concealed Handgun Safety and Practical Training (Hardy, 2016). With a consistently increasing number of people purchasing firearms, one of the most asked questions is: which states currently allow concealed carry and which allow open carry? Currently, forty-two of the states require citizens to acquire a state-issued concealed carry permit to carry in public, which is also known as a CCW permit. The other eight states (Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming) do not generally require citizens to have a CCW permit to concealed carry (Hardy, 2016). This inconsistency amongst states leads to many un-informed citizens and also leads to many potential safety hazards from the confusion, such as citizens illegally carrying concealed handguns without a permit.
Although background checks are required to possess a gun, oftentimes they do not correctly assess a person’s mental health due to legal issues, which leads to other potential safety hazards. There are also loopholes in the background check system, specifically dealing with gun sellers such as gun shows, private sellers, and even the illegal black market. Regardless of these loopholes, states that do not require a permit to concealed carry put the safety of the public, and the owner of the handgun at risk.
In an article written by economic professors, Alan Grant and Linda Ghent, in the Social Science Quarterly, the relationship in Missouri between public voting on the right to carry concealed weapons and the demand for concealed carry permits were discussed. Their study was conducted by a weighted logit analysis of the public’s vote and the number of people who have a concealed carry permit (Ghent & Grant, 2015). Their evidence suggested that voters do not vote on the right to carry a concealed handgun based on their desire to carry concealed weapons (Ghent & Grant, 2015). Instead, the evidence suggests voters may vote for the right to conceal carry based on moral or philosophical reasons, or they are relying on others to conceal carry (Ghent & Grant, 2015). The results also show that crime rates may be positively correlated to citizen’s votes, but they do not seem to play a factor in a person’s decision to carry (Ghent & Grant, 2015). This shows that people’s beliefs play a huge role in determining their political stance on guns.
North Carolina is an excellent state to examine factors associated with concealed carry permits due to the vast three different regions: Coastal, Piedmont, and the Appalachian Mountains; as well as the demographic diversity and the ranges socioeconomic statuses. In an article posted in the Criminal Justice Review, written by Joel Thompson and Ronald Stidham, the rates in which people apply for and are actually issued concealed carry permits within North Carolina is discussed. Their data consisted of looking into connections of obtaining a concealed carry permit through theories in response to crime, demographic/geographic factors, and also social learning theories (Thompson & Stidham, 2010). Through their research, they also provide background information on concealed carry permit studies and additional information on North Carolina and its concealed carry permit laws within the state. In conclusion to their research, they propose that socialization into hunting and gun-owning cultures and also political conservatism are important in explaining the issuance of concealed carry permits instead of socioeconomic variables (Thompson & Stidham, 2010).
Problematic Conditions
As shown above in the previous paragraphs, one of the most problematic conditions of public policy regarding handguns is the loosely fitted definition of the second amendment. Without a specific definition for defining handgun policies and without knowing the so-called “true” intention of the Framers, grey areas are frequently discussed when deciding upon policies measures that should be put into place across states. John Paul Stevens, an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010, proposed adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment in order to make it ‘unambiguously’ conform to the framers original intent (Stevens, 2014). He suggested revising the amendment to read, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed” (Stevens, 2014). However, this suggestion and many others similar to it are not likely to happen due to the many opposing viewpoints, previous court case rulings, and American’s overall perception of guns.
Another problematic condition is the inconsistency amongst states regarding concealed handgun policies, which leads to confusion amongst citizens. This confusion amongst citizens is used as a fear tactic by anti-gun campaigns, which in turn creates more fear and unnecessary panic towards the use of firearms in America. The inconsistency amongst states also leads to loopholes for citizens who should not possess firearms, which is likely a reason citizens are afraid of others obtaining concealed handguns.
Although many states have age requirements of being twenty-one and being able to pass background checks, many supporters of gun control argue that twenty-one-year-olds lack the maturity to possess a firearm and that background checks are not as stringent as they appear to be. According to an article from the University of Rochester Medical Center, the teen’s rational part of the brain is not developed until around twenty-five or so (“Understanding the Teen Brain”, 2018). Research from various sources has concluded that adult and teen brains do in fact work very differently. An adult tends to use the prefrontal cortex which is the rational part of the brain, while teens use the amygdala to process information which is the emotional part (“Understanding the Teen Brain”, 2018). Teen brains are still developing within the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala until their late twenties, and this process does not necessarily occur at the same rate.
Key Holders
There are lots of interested stakeholders in this highly controversial subject of concealed carry. The National Rifle Association, Congress, gun manufacturers, and even technically every American citizen are considered interested stakeholders. The National Rifle Association is an American non-profit organization that was founded in 1871. It is one of the largest certifying organizations for firearm safety, and they have a specific interest in firearms because they believe that citizens have a protected right under the second amendment to own firearms. To put it into perspective, there are over 5 million NRA members who are in fact American citizens. Congress and their constituents, from all political sides, have also voiced their interests in the second amendment and gun control. Gun manufacturers also have a specific interest in the second amendment and gun control because it can affect their bottom line. The reason every American citizen is considered an interested stakeholder is that no matter what side of the argument they are on, they still have an interest in the second amendment and/or gun control due to its broad scope.
Ambiguities, Conflicts, Problems, and Contradictions
Solving the issue of discrepancies amongst public policy regarding concealed carry is of high public interest because gun rights and gun control have an overwhelming scope of people it affects (being every citizen in America). It’s also of high public interest, due to the safety concerns that are being discussed throughout the country right now. In today’s society citizens’ rights to purchase firearms are being targeted at very alarming rates, partly due to fear and panic over mass shootings. Even though these shootings are conducted with semi-automatic weapons, the true agenda behind many political campaigns is to completely strip away all gun rights, including concealed carry. This is highly unnecessary and needs to be stopped and discussed before further policymaking completely destroys second amendment rights for law abiding citizens or leaves mentally ill people and criminals easier access to firearms. In contradiction to gun control advocate belief’s, Nadia Nedzel, offers the solution of concealed carry in an effort to discourage mass school shootings after highlighting and analyzing past school shootings before 2014 in her article (Nedzel, 2014). She describes the irony behind “gun-free” zones in schools, which actually gives school shooters more of an incentive to target schools instead of other public spaces (Nedzel, 2014). This sheds some light on suggesting all citizens should have access to concealed carry as a way to deter horrendous crimes.
Concealed carry should be of particular interest to all citizens because concealed carry allows citizens the opportunity to defend themselves from others looking to cause harm in various situations such as theft, murder, abuse, and more. Another reason why the problem of inconsistency amongst state lines, concerning concealed carry, is a problem worth addressing is due to the public safety hazard that it creates. Gun control and gun rights are always a problem of public interest because of the many positions that people take regarding the issue of gun control and gun rights. Lawmakers discuss concealed carry quite often due to the nature of the topic and how it affects all citizens. So, this is definitely a policy that needs to be addressed thoroughly amongst all fifty states.
Policy Alternatives
Policy Suggestion One
Americans are closely divided on guns, which oftentimes leaves the suggestion of keeping gun laws the same even if they do not necessarily work as well as a new policy would. Clearly, this is not the most reasonable option, because both sides continue to disagree over the issue with one another. However, even if one side were to conform to some of the other sides ideals, it is likely that within the next five years one of the sides would come up with another issue with gun policy that needed to be addressed, which would lead to more and more division. We have seen this recently with the United Kingdom’s strict gun policies and now their move to ban knives.
Policy Suggestion Two
Another suggestion is to move toward gun laws similar to those in Australia, Venezuela, United Kingdom, and France. This is likely not going to be an option anytime soon due to the second amendment. For example, in Australia, the reason for ‘self-protection’ is not a justifiable reason for owning a gun (Beck, 2017). However, in America, the second amendment specifically allows citizens the right to self-protection. Australia requires citizens to go through twenty-eight-day waiting periods, thorough background checks, and they must present a ‘justifiable reason’ for owning a firearm (Beck, 2017). Although it would be nice to have lengthier background checks and waiting periods, a significant difference in the United States and Australia is the speed of government action. Having fifty states makes it extremely difficult to solidify and agree on legislation, then if it were just left up to the executive branch to act alone and quickly. However, this is exactly why we have the system of checks and balances, so that no branch of government oversteps their boundaries.
Policy Suggestion Three
The strengthening of background checks, increasing the age limit, and mandatory concealed permits to obtain a handgun would be the best option to put in place across all fifty states. Background checks are quite easy to process when it comes to convicted criminals. According to Fawn Johnson ninety-five of the public and over seventy-four percent of the National Rifle Association members support a background check system that checks gun buyers to see if they are in fact felons (Johnson, 2013). However, there are many things to take into consideration when advocating for background checks, like being able to track drug abusers and mental health patients. It’s not necessarily clear who qualifies as an addict or mentally unstable under federal law, because even with cases where a patient was admitted to a mental institution involuntarily, listing their name in the database could have severe legal consequences due to health privacy laws (Johnson, 2013). The easiest way to address this issue is to make it easier for healthcare professionals to accurately report cases of mentally unstable clients without the fear of legal repercussions. Washington could also easily address the private-sale loophole that bypasses background checks by requiring all gun shops and sellers to be federally licensed (Johnson, 2013).
Increasing the age limit to twenty-five would likely solve the issue of immaturity, however, some twenty-five-year-olds are immature to have a gun regardless but it would still be a step towards unifying gun control. Adding the extra four years would not be as difficult to amend given that in 1984 Congress was able to pass the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. Clearly, this proves that there seems to be some consensus as far as requiring age limits on things involving adult activities. Mandatory concealed permits also are helpful since they require a lengthy training and allows citizens the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the handgun before purchasing it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the best scenario regarding handgun policy within the United States would be to strengthen background checks, raise the age limit, and require a mandatory concealed permit. By doing all of these things, criminals would be far less likely to obtain a gun legally. It would also by far be the most reasonable and obtainable goal that all pro-gun owners and anti-gun owners can agree on. In a study conducted by Gary Mauser and John Lott, economists and criminologists who have had experience publishing peer-reviewed empirical research were surveyed. Their study found that overwhelmingly economists from the United States and Canada believe that gun ownership makes people safer, as compared to countries like Sweden and Australia who question whether owning guns makes people safer (Mauser & Lott, 2016). Their results also found that amongst criminologists, opinions were far more divided when talking about legal access to firearms (Mauser & Lott, 2016). When combining their results, it shows that researchers collectively believe that guns are used more often in self-defense than in crime, “gun-free” zones attract more criminals, guns within homes do not increase suicide risk, concealed handgun carriers are more law-abiding, and murder rates are lower with permitted concealed handguns (Mauser & Lott, 2016).
On the other hand, David Fortunato, a political science professor at the University of California, Merced, used data in regards to the perceived number of citizens with concealed carry across the country and compared that to a hierarchical regression model (Fortunato, 2015). The model was used in order to assess the impact of concealed carry policies on the perception and argument that concealed carry can have an impact on deterring crime within the United States. His research suggests that there is no relationship between the public’s perceptions on the perceived number of concealed carry holders and concealed carry policies, which leads him to believe easing policies on concealed carry will not lead to deterring crime (Fortunato, 2015).
Obviously, there are varying opinions amongst even highly regarded researchers, which makes coming to a conclusion all the more difficult. However, both political parties working together to come up with a unified solution is needed, because currently around 30,000 people die in the United States every year from firearm incidents, and many of them involve handguns (Stevens, 2014). Teamwork and a unified agreement is the best option to solidify public opinion regarding guns. Strengthening background checks, raising the age limit, and requiring mandatory concealed permits lessens the restriction of law-abiding citizens from legally owning guns which would likely go over well with both parties, and lead America on the path to a mutually agreeable solution.