TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:But I'm entitled to my opinion, right?

Of course, as long as you recognize that others' are equally valid. .

All opinions are not equally valid. Their validity is related to how well they correspond to facts and/or internally consistent theoretical models.

jimlongley wrote: And if the local gang banger sees more benefit in carrying his "mm" he won't even think twice about laws against it. .

You know this? For all gangbangers, everywhere, all the time? What is the source for this knowledge? It appears to border on the supernatural.

On the other hand, it could just be a convenient assumption that fits your overall argument.

I don't pretend to know what all gangbangers would do. I just think that in line with the principles of economics, that is, the principles of individual and group human behavior, SOME gangbangers will not get guns if it is difficult enough, and SOME gangbangers will not carry them if the penalty is severe enough, and the likelihood of getting caught is great enough.

How many? I don't know that either. Just some number less than would do so in the absence of barriers and sanctions.

jimlongley wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:If you make something harder, at margin, people will choose to do less of it.

But more background checks don't make it that much harder, we have 40 plus years of history to demonstrate that.

How much is "that much"?

One thing background checks certainly do is take criminals out of gun stores and drive them into the black market.

I'm not saying this makes it hard for them to get guns. Just harder than it would be if they could just walk into a store like you or I can. This is just simple common sense.

If it's harder, at the margin, they will do less of it.

jimlongley wrote: It's time to give up trying to make it harder for criminals to get guns, it doesn't work, and make the risk very real, which has been demonstrated to work.

Just because something isn't completely effective doesn't mean that it "doesn't work".

And how do you make the risk "very real" with VT style carry? In that case, if LE encounters an individual, they would either have to run an "instant check" on the spot or simply assume that they were OK, since having a gun wouldn't constitute "reasonable suspicion" for any sort of action.

So you could have a repeat violent felon who has served his time, walk into a gun store, buy a gun with no background check, carry that gun everywhere, and if they get stopped for speeding, say in another state, as long as they had no active warrants they would be home free.

Sure, felons carry guns now, but I see no reason to make it that easy for them.

jimlongley wrote: Thus my argument. Go to Vermont style carry nationally and establish extreme penalties for criminal possession of a weapon. Establish those boot camps, and chain gangs, and see to it that felons realize that they are truncating, if not completely forfeiting, ALL civil rights, for life, except in VERY unusual circumstances. That way we infringe upon law abiding citizens way less.

The only trouble is that with no background checks and VT style carry, they would never think they would get caught. So they would carry anyway.

jimlongley wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Background checks make it harder for criminals to buy guns, while having almost no effect on LAC's.

I don't see that as being particularly self evident.

See above.

jimlongley wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:But fewer of them will do so than without background checks. And the selection of guns available to them will be smaller.

Hasn't been true so far, and I see no reason for that to change with more infringement.

How do you know this? Do you have statistics on how many guns criminals WOULD HAVE BOUGHT if there were no background check requirement?

Because if you don't, our only recourse is to rely on economic theory, and you already know where that goes.

jimlongley wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:And "infringement"? Remember, it doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law.....". It could have. Why do you think the Founders wrote it the way they did, instead of writing something like, "Congress shall make no law limiting in any way the right of the people to purchase, possess, and carry arms either in defense of themselves or of the state. Such activity is the exclusive domain and individual right of the people, who may buy possess and carry arms at any place, at any time, and in any manner, as they, individually, see fit."

Because "shall not be infringed" takes the standard higher than "congress shall make no law . . ." The original was much closer to what you suggest, but got whittled down for brevity and elegance. Shall not be infringed means just that, no rules, no laws, no confiscation (which they had lived through) no registration, nothing.

1) I'm not a lawyer, but can you cite one, or a court, that has held that "shall not be infringed" is a higher standard than "Congress shall make no law..."? Heck, for most of the last century the courts mostly held that the 2A was a STATES' right.

2) How do you know it was whittled down for "brevity and elegence"? Maybe it was worded the was it was intentionally, because that was the precise nuance of meaning that they developed a consensus around.

3) If "shall not be infringed" means "no rules, no laws..." etc., then you're saying people could and should carry on commercial airliners, even if it became commonplace that squads of suicidal jihadists would board planes and engage the other passengers and crew in shootouts in the skies? Because they would you know.

Would you take your grandchildren on a cross country flight under those conditions?

You see, that's the trouble with your argument. Because that's where it goes. I fly a lot, and so does my daughter's family, including my baby granddaughter when they come to TX to visit - which is as often as possible. I don't want them flying on a plane with a bunch or armed jihadists. Heck, I wouldn't want to be onboard myself, armed or not.

Basically, I divide so-called "gun control" laws into three catagories.

One category consists of laws who's major effect is on criminals. These would be background checks, laws requiring LAC status to either buy or carry guns. Since I am an LAC, none of these laws infringe my RKBA. If someone gets denied because they got in a bar fight 30 years ago, it just means that the standard may need to be adjusted, not that the principle is flawed.

A second catagory are laws that limit the ability of LAC's to either buy or carry guns. These laws ARE infringements in my opinion, and should either be rendered void by the courts or repealed. There are many such laws here in TX and across the country. There's a lot of work to do.

A third catagory are laws or rules that establish so-called "sterile areas" such as commercial aircraft and various other locations where EVERYONE is subject to search and armed security is provided. While it is arguable as to whether or not these places constitute infringements, it seems like a reasonable tradeoff to me.

And I am very sure that any court hearing a matter of this kind will agree with me.

jimlongley wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Jim,

ECON101 applies to nearly everything we do that involves choices. Economics is just the study of both individual and aggregate human behavior, and how we judge the various tradeoffs we encounter in life.

Sorry, I just don't see it a some sort of law, it's a course taught by an instructor who may be biased, from a textbook that may be biased, and "nearly" just doesn't cover everything. .

If you don't think that the principles of economics apply to individual and aggregate human behavior in general, my only suggestion, with all due respect, is to revisit the subject more thoroughly than you may have in the past.

Also, check out some of Jonathan Lott's books. He is an economist by training who has applied economic principles to analyzing the effects of various gun laws. He authored "More Guns Less Crime" and other books that generally support our position. FWIW, his conclusions are closer to yours than to mine. But I'm entitled to my opinion, right?

I still maintain (and Lott agrees) that humans make choices considering cost-benefit and risk-benefit factors. If you make something harder, at margin, people will choose to do less of it. The degree to which you will see a change in behavior for a given change in "input" is called the "elasticity" of the demand for the behavior. Different groups of people may exhibit different elasticities for the same thing. For instance, carrying a gun might be more important to a gangbanger than to the typical LAC. If carrying is banned, some (many?) gangbangers will still carry because it is very important to them, while many LAC's will not carry because their lives would be ruined by an arrest. So the desire to carry is MORE ELASTIC for LAC's than for gangbangers, for instance.

But if you have two groups that are doing something at whatever rates, and you make it harder or more risky or more penalized for one group while not changing the constraints on the other group, the first group will do it as some lesser rate than before while the second group will not change their behavior.

Background checks make it harder for criminals to buy guns, while having almost no effect on LAC's. Sure many criminals will still buy them. Their "demand" is less elastic than that of LAC's. But fewer of them will do so than without background checks. And the selection of guns available to them will be smaller.

And "infringement"? Remember, it doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law.....". It could have. Why do you think the Founders wrote it the way they did, instead of writing something like, "Congress shall make no law limiting in any way the right of the people to purchase, possess, and carry arms either in defense of themselves or of the state. Such activity is the exclusive domain and individual right of the people, who may buy possess and carry arms at any place, at any time, and in any manner, as they, individually, see fit."

Do you think they were stupid, or naive? Do you think I could come up with this formulation off the cuff, and yet it somehow eluded the drafters of one of the greatest documents in human history?

I think they wrote it the way they did for good reason, because it said exactly what they wanted it to say.

And if we all live to be 200 years old, you will never see a court throw out a background check requirement on the grounds that it is an "infringement".

The DC gun ban, essentially a total prohibition, was just recently ruled to be an infringement. But go read the decision. See if you find anything in it saying that licensing of owners or registration of guns would be an unconstitutional infringement.

Note: I DO NOT FAVOR THESE THINGS. I'm merely pointing out an example, in the legal world, of the meaning of the word infringement.

Liberty wrote: I really don't know, but my gut feeling is that crime is higher since the 60s, because there are just more laws to break. I don't think violent crime is any higher but I'm still looking.

Try these links to FBI UCR data.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/95CRIME/95crime2.pdf

These go back to 1976.

I can't find data for earlier periods at the moment. In the late 50's and early 60's, crime, and violent crime, was much lower - even a bit lower than today.

Liberty wrote:

seamusTX wrote: How can you explain that overall rates of violent crime have been higher since 1969 (the beginning of modern gun control) than before, despite increased restrictions on firearms sales, harsher penalties for crime, and more effective law-enforcement technology?

Are violent crime rates higher today? As I understand it Although crime rates rose in the 70s there have had some periods where they have dropped. I thought violent crime rates have been dropping in this country for the most part.

I think they rose starting sometime in the late 60's (as what I call "the toxic culture" started to take hold), continued rising thorugh the 70's and early 80's, and sometime in the late 80's began trending downwards.

Partly this was due to population swings in the number of males in their high crime years, the waning of the "cocaine epidemic", higher incarceration rates, and (maybe) "the emergence of "shall issue".

Crime continued to trend downwards through the 90's and the first years of the 21 century. Very recently, there has been a small uptick - again (coincidently?) traceable to more crime age males and some dirtballs who were locked up in the 90's completing their sentences and getting out.

But since I am not the absolute ruler of our society, I am not responsible for crime rising or falling. No matter what it does, I want to be able to protect myself and family against whatever social stupidity happens to hold sway at any given moment.

seamusTX wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:ECON101 applies to nearly everything we do that involves choices....

If you make something harder, people do less of it.

How can you explain that overall rates of violent crime have been higher since 1969 (the beginning of modern gun control) than before, despite increased restrictions on firearms sales, harsher penalties for crime, and more effective law-enforcement technology?

Because there are dozens of social factors at work here, not just gun availability.

seamusTX wrote: Aside from weapons issues, the country is wealthier on average than it was then, and better-educated.

I have a theory: more boys are growing up without stable parental guidance. Mostly they are being raised by single mothers or other family members, or in foster care.

I am not saying that all or even most children of single parents turn out to be criminals. I am saying that if you look at criminals, most of them were not raised by responsible fathers.

- Jim

Absolutely, the factors you cite above are major contributors.

Crime is committed by criminals. A society afflicted by more socially pathalogical conditions will "socialize" (i.e. "create") more criminals than one having fewer social pathologies.

This is why there is more crime in the "underclass" regions of many of our major cities than there is in VT, ND, or SD. The social environment in which young people are raised in these regions has many more toxic features than the social environment in VT, ND, or SD. So it produces proportionately more criminals.

In the 60's, the old institutions of family, God, integrity, and virtue were thrown under the bus and replaced by a toxic culture of fatherless children, "tolerance" (of anything toxic), and atheism.

Personally, I don't care if my being able to carry a gun will reduce crime. If society does some new toxic thing, and crime goes up, I still want to be able to carry a gun. I carry a gun to protect myself and my family should the need arise - not for any "social benefit".

Why should I have to get robbed, injured, or killed because society didn't listen to me and found some new way to mess up?

NcongruNt wrote: While I agree with most of what you've said, I have a couple of points to disagree on.

No one HAS TO sell you a gun. It's up to the discretion of the business whether they sell you anything. It would be more accurate to say that the FBI cannot deny you without a very specific reason.

+1

NcongruNt wrote: I don't see California going shall issue in 20 years. I just don't think it will happen. There is such an embedded misconception about guns in the mind of so many people there that I do not believe can be eroded in a span of 20 years.

You may be right. But 20 years is a long time. Long enough for many people now alive to retire from positions of power and to pass on, and long enough for many people not yet born to reach voting age.

What we have seen in the last 20 years is an increasing momentum for shall issue. At this point, we are down pretty close to the hard core of "rejectionist" states. But we've picked off some liberal states, like MN, in recent years and have come within an eyelash of getting WI. With each new state, the rejectionists' task becomes harder, because the shall issue side can say, "How come LAC's in all these other states can carry and not us? What's wrong with us? Are you saying that we, the LAC's of this state, are more stupid, more violent, or more irresponsible than the LAC's in all those other states?"

20 years ago, a rejectionist in IL, NY, or CA could say, "Those people in FL are crazy. Watch and see what happens."

They can't say that anymore.

Also, violent crime can be expected to increase in CA over the years as the number of illegals continues to rise. (I am pessimistic about achieving border security.) At some point, it will become apparent to the LAC's that the police CANNOT protect them, and that the government has, in essence, thrown in the towel.

When this "tipping point" is reached, the LAC's of CA may well DEMAND the right to carry.

Things change fast in CA. The same state that elected Reagan twice now has two radical left senators. The state that gave us hot rods and muscle cars is now the most restrictive state regulating automobiles (and banning many performance-enhancing modifications).

And don't leave the Supreme Court out of the picture. While I do not think we will get a decision saying that concealed (or open) carry of handguns is a fundamental right, (Note: I might believe it is, but I do not think the SC will rule that broadly.) it is likely that at some time in the future, ANY gun control law will have to pass a test akin to "strict scrutiny". So how can a discretionary CHL law pass such a test, when 40 or more states have shall issue CHL without problems?

As I said, you may be right, but let's see what happens.

Jim,

ECON101 applies to nearly everything we do that involves choices. Economics is just the study of both individual and aggregate human behavior, and how we judge the various tradeoffs we encounter in life.

Look at shall issue CHL laws. Before such a law is passed, LAC's either couldn't get permits or could get them with great difficulty. So few carried. (Most obey the law, right?) Of course criminals couldn't get permits either before or after shall issue is passed. So the obstacles to them carrying were not changed. But passing shall issue lowered the barriers for LAC, and as a result more of them (usually many more) choose to carry.

If you make something harder, people do less of it. If you make it easier, they will do more of it. If you have two groups of people, say LAC's and criminals, and you make it easier for one while making it harder (or not changing it) for the other, more of the beneficiary group will do the thing compared to an equal or lower number of the non-beneficiary group.

Now it's true that a background check requirement (for a CHL) cannot stop someone from carrying if they are determined to do so. If that's your point, point taken.

But I can just as well argue, why have ANY laws against carry, even for criminals? They'll just break the law anyway, right? But we DO have laws against criminal carry, and for good reason. It gives us an ADDITIONAL serious crime to charge them with when we catch them doing something ELSE. So we can lock them away for a longer time.

From ECON101, we want it to be easy for LAC's to carry, while making it hard for disqualified persons (criminals, those adjucated incompetent, etc.). So we pass a law against criminals carrying. To make the biggest difference possible, we make the sanction severe. (Note: In most states, the penalty for a criminal carrying is greater than that for an unlicensed non-criminal.) The penalty for the disqualified person becomes greater, while the "benefit" of carrying stays the same. So fewer disqualified persons can be expected to carry.

(FYI, in economics the phrase, "at the margin" refers to the change in output (carrying in this case) that you get for an incremental change in input (obstacles to or penalties for carrying).)

Now let's move to the street. Absent a CHL, how is an LEO to know whether someone they encounter is legally carrying or not? Do they run a full NICS check on everybody they contact? Not sure if that's practical. And what if the computer is "down"?

A CHL is a handy way of establishing that you're a good guy. And to the criminal, since he doesn't have it, his chances of bluffing or fast talking his way through a situation are reduced. His risks are incrementally greater so at the margin, he may be less likely to do it.

Another thing that background checks for gun buyers certainly do is put an additional obstacle in the path of the disqualified person. (The system didn't pick up Cho, but that's just a detail. It could be tweaked, or not.) As I stated, you or I can buy any gun we want, any time we want. So the "barrier" for us is low. The criminal (because he will fail the background check) is forced into the black market. So the barrier the criminal faces is higher than ours - quite a bit higher.

So for a criminal, a background check requirement makes it more difficult to buy a gun than if they could just walk into a store like we can. And it doesn't change the "benefit" they get from owning it at all. So at the margin, fewer of them can be expected to do it.

As for VT, they and certain other states (the Dakotas for instance) have a low crime rate because they have a very peaceful population. I have spent a lot of time in VT, and I can tell you that the ability to freely carry guns has nothing to do with it. The cultural environment there seems to produce very few violent types.

For all that VT is held up as an ideal RKBA state, very few (non-LEO) people there actually carry guns on any kind of regular basis. I would say far fewer than is normal here in TX.

I come from a "discretionary" state. Believe me, living in "shall issue" TX is A MILLION TIMES BETTER.

As long as they HAVE TO sell me the gun when I pass the background check, and as long as they HAVE TO issue me a CHL when I meet the requirements, I'm good with it. ANY non-criminal, non-lunatic, non-quadriplegic can meet the requirements. The slippery slope argument doesn't apply as long as these things don't change.

And point of fact, it's the Brady Bunch that is all frothed up about slippery slopes these days. Look at how far shall issue has come in 20 years - something like 40 states now. And many states, like TX, continue to improve their laws, removing silly restrictions that may have been needed in the initial compromise (to get shall issue passed) but are now seen to be meaningless.

From the Bradys' perspective, give it 20 more years on THIS slippery slope, and EVERY state will probably be shall issue. They'll feel like vampires locked out of their crypts facing a sunrise.

txinvestigator wrote: Background checks do nothing, except keep the state from spending money on a piece of plastic for those who cannot qualify. They have no real effect on who carries.

Look up the results of "Project Exile" in Richmond, VA.

Background checks might not keep criminals from carrying, but they DO keep them from LEGALLY carrying - because they can't pass the background check needed to get a CHL. (I'm comparing this to a situation where either, 1) no background check was required for a CHL, or 2) no CHL was required to legally carry.)

They also make it more difficult for people who can't pass them to buy guns.

You or I can walk into a store and buy whatever we want, WHENever we want. Criminals can't do that. With no background checks, they could. Sure, they'd have to lie on a form, but so what?

ECON101 - you make something harder to do (or more of a hassle), and at the margin, fewer people will do it. It holds true in every other field of human endeavor, so I see no reason why it wouldn't hold true in this one as well.

Aw heck. Consider this guys (and gals!).

Basic economics. You make something more difficult and AT THE MARGIN fewer people will do it.

Basic principal 1 - in an ideal world, no violent criminal or deranged maniac would ever be able to get their hands on a gun.

Basic principal 2 - in an ideal world, any LAC who wants to should be able to buy and carry the gun of their choice, wherever they want and whenever they want.

Since we do not live in an ideal world, we need to find the "sweet spot".

So we should try to make it as hard as possible for criminals & nuts to get guns, while making it as easy as possible for peaceable LAC's to get guns.

Yes, to some extent, a license turns a right into a privilege - but if getting the license itself is a right, the difference is small. So the burden on peaceable LAC's is minimal, while at the same time, the obstacles for the criminals and nuts are (relatively) large or at least larger.

You can buy any gun you want. The NICS check clears in a few minutes and you're all set. If you have a CHL, you don't even need the NICS check.

Now look at what the criminal or nut faces. He can't buy anything he wants. He has to buy whatever his black market connection HAS. Any idea why criminals often have so-called "junk guns"? A lot of the time, it's because it's the only gun they could get.

That's why I laugh when I hear the Brady people beat the drum to get rid of "junk guns". Because those are the guns I WANT the BG's to have. If I ever have to defend myself against a BG, I want him to have the junk, while I have a very nice powerful gun in perfect working order that I keep well maintained and practice with often.

Where can criminals and nuts go to practice? Fewer places than I can, so at the margin, they will practice less.

So in my view, licenses and background checks DO serve a useful purpose in that they make it harder for criminals to get guns, and more illegal for them to carry guns, while not impacting me at all.

Sure, some criminals will carry illegally. But that just increases the chance they will be taken off the streets and sent to jail the next time they run a red light or get into some other minor beef. One less dirtball out there for us to rub shoulders with.

Remember the success of "Project Exile" in reducing the homicide rate in Richmond, VA a few years back. Every felon caught illegally carrying a gun got an automatic 5 years at "Club Fed". A lot of the time, carrying was the only illegal thing they were doing (of note) when "contacted" by LE. So if carrying hadn't been illegal (for them), they would not have been put away.

The key thing is, AS LONG AS BUYING THE GUN AFTER PASSING THE BACKGROUND CHECK IS A RIGHT, AND AS LONG AS GETTING A CHL IS A RIGHT, I have no problem with the requirements and in fact, I believe they serve a useful purpose.

Remember ECON101. "At the margin....."

As for open carry, I have no problem with it if someone wants to. I think a CHL should allow it. I open carry all the time on my ranch. But when I'm out in public, I much prefer concealed carry. I do not like retention type holsters, and with some experience carrying openly in PHX I can say that carrying concealed is much more comfortable. Tactically, it gives the advantage of surprise.

But if open carry floats your boat, it's fine by me.