Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Review: John Lott’s “The War on Guns”

Review: John Lott’s “The War on Guns”

A conversationally written, masterfully researched book on guns, public policy & propaganda

For those of us in the gun rights and concealed carry community (and old enough to have been around) the 1990s was a pivotal decade.

When it began, there were only 15 states that would issue concealed carry permits to private citizens based on objective criteria and just one that required no permit at all to carry concealed. In contrast an almost identical number (14) that would not issue such permits under any circumstances. In 1992 Bill Clinton was elected President, and working with a largely Democrat Congress he managed to pass the infamous “Assault Weapons Ban” that also limited magazine capacities to 10 rounds.

America’s Resurgent Second Amendment

Fortunately, that was the high-water mark for the gun control movement in my lifetime, and things turned more favorably for the Second Amendment, and stayed that way, soon thereafter. In 1994 the Democrats lost control of both the House and Senate for the first time in some 50 years. The despised assault weapons ban, while still on the books, would automatically sunset after 10 years in 2004, with no meaningful effort being made to re-new. Even the Federal government was forced to concede that the law had no effect on reducing crime, largely because criminals do not use costly and cumbersome assault weapons to commit crimes.

On the concealed carry front, a sea-change was about to occur, with state after state adopting more liberalized concealed carry laws. Today there are a total of 42 states that allow concealed carry with either an objectively approved permit or no permit whatever (compared to 16 states that did so in 1990). In addition, there are literally no states-zero—that absolutely prohibit concealed carry (compared to 14 that did so in 1990).

Like all forms of fascism, of course, efforts at gun control will never cease, and so the fight to preserve our civil rights continues, and will continue forever. Nevertheless, it’s been a heck of a winning streak. Further, the recent election of a modestly pro-2A President Trump (whose adults sons are avid Second Amendment supporters), and who has promised to advocate for laws that would allow for concealed carry permits issued in any state to be recognized in all states, suggests further wins may be on the way.

1998: John Lott’s seminal book “More Guns, Less Crime”

How we got from the low of 1990 to today is too long a narrative for a simple blog post. Without question, however, much of the foundation for where we stand today is built on the strong civil rights and intellectual foundation that was established in that decade. One particularly notable stone in that early foundation was a book by Dr. John Lott, Jr., “More Guns Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws,” first published in 1998 and now in its 3rd Edition.

Prior to Lott’s book almost all “research” on guns and gun control was written by people firmly in favor of fewer guns and more control. The implicit premise was “guns bad” and “gun control good.” Dr. Lott shook that premise to its core by doing something remarkable for that time—looking at the actual data. What he found was that the reality ran very much contrary to the conventional wisdom. As the title of his book stated, the more armed law-abiding citizens were present, the lower crime rates tended to be.

Lott would follow “More Guns Less Crime” with a series of further books and research advancing these conceptual arguments as well as going on to establish the ground-breaking Crime Prevention Research Center, which is today the nation’s leading research organization dedicated to high-level research on guns and crime and related public policy. (I should mention that Lott has also written insightfully on other topics, including his 2013 book Dumbing Down the Courts, reviewed right here at Legal Insurrection.)

New for 2016: Lott’s “The War on Guns”

This past year, however, Dr. Lott has published a book that seems to me to be the clearest successor to that seminal work, “More Guns Less Crime.” This new book, “The War On Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies,” brings a new level of sophistication and insight, as well as a greater variety of social and economic perspectives, to the great civil rights debates that continue around the Second Amendment.

“The War on Guns” does more than just update and expand upon the research of the earlier book. It also takes a comprehensive and data based look at the increasingly sophisticated and well-funded propaganda efforts—the “gun control lies”—that continue to be targeted against the rights of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms for personal protection.

In full disclosure I was initially sent a review copy “The War on Guns” late this past summer, with the expectation that I would write a review of it at that time. I’ve been remiss in doing so for many reasons entirely independent of the book itself, including an unexpected increase in work and family demands, the frenzy of the Presidential election, and a major personal relocation from Boston to Denver. (Apologies, John!)

Tremendous Breadth & Depth, Yet Written in Plain English

The book, however, must also bear at least some of the responsibility for my delay. It’s breadth and depth is absolutely staggering, as is its thorough documentation (the book includes some 437 reference citations, roughly two for each substantive page). Frankly, each chapter of the book is worthy of an individual review in its own right, and being a wordy bastard I found it difficult to write a comprehensive review of the book that wouldn’t run roughly as many pages as the book itself.

Nevertheless, having finally found a brief oasis of calm in a hectic period of my life, I’m honored to finally be able to sit and the keyboard and acknowledge this fantastic piece of work and worthy successor to “More Guns Less Crime.”

The Fecklessness of “Public Health Experts” on Guns

“The War on Guns” begins with a couple of chapters that shine the spotlight on so-called “experts,” especially so-called “public health experts,” who engage in little more than advocacy “research” on the matter of private ownership of guns—and that advocacy is explicitly anti-private ownership. These early chapters also hoist the media on its own petard, exposing its explicit biases on the subject of guns. Re-reading these chapters in the context of today’s current Progressive rants about #Fakenews truly exposes the hypocrisy of the Left on Second Amendment civil rights.

The Big Lie of “Universal” Background Checks

The book goes on to focus on a pet-peeve of mind, which is the whole scheme of licensing and background checks for gun ownership and concealed carry. As pleased as I am at the progress that has been made in concealed carry since the 1990s, the simple fact is that no licensing should be required of any law abiding citizen to carry a defensive firearm on their person. We would never accept these kinds of restrictions casually imposed on the Second Amendment if an effort was made to impose them on the First or Fourth or Fifth Amendments.

Much the same is true of background checks, currently the forefront of the anti-Second Amendment fascists who (as always) claim they only want “common sense” background checks. This invariably means they want background checks that effectively make felons out of people with absolutely zero criminal intent. “Universal” background checks? I think not: bad guys don’t do background checks. This makes such checks utterly pointless as a public safety measure, and facially unconstitutional infringements on the Second Amendment.

Gutting Gun Control Propaganda

Lott also takes a close look at much of the current propaganda on gun control, including polling of “police” (invariably just the politically hired police administrators, not the street cops) as well as the public (invariably using leading questions and other biased polling techniques for the deliberate purpose of arriving at a pre-determined, anti-gun “answer”).

Several chapters are devoted to comparing US gun laws and crime rates, and their interaction, to those of other countries. Here Lott exposes yet more Progressive anti-gun propaganda in the gun-control narratives based on these misleading and often outright false comparisons.

“Stand-Your-Ground” as Pro-Minority Public Policy

Lott also takes a chapter to examine “Stand-Your-Ground” laws, which many of you will recognize as a particular interest of mine. Not only does Lott get the law right (something the media and Progressive activists have seemingly never been able to do) he points out in a robust, data-driven manner that not only is “Stand-Your-Ground” not “racist,” the evidence suggests strongly that its greatest beneficiaries are in fact minorities. This should come as a surprise to nobody, as minorities are far more likely (proportionately speaking) to be victims of violent criminal predation and thus the need to resort to the use of violence in lawful self-defense.

Conversationally Written and an Easy, Enjoyable Read

There is, of course, much more to the book, but I am again reminded of my tendency to write longer rather than shorter.

I do, however, want to emphasize that as well-researched and referenced as this book is, it is also written in plain English. Not only does one not need to be a PhD to fully enjoy this book, in my experience being a PhD is probably a counter-indication of being able to do so. The conversational style of Lott’s writing makes the book a joy to pick up and read a chapter or even a few pages at a time, and still be readily accessible and enjoyable to pick up again casually a day or two later and picking up were you left off. (If a roaring fire and a good single-malt Scotch also happen to be immediately available, all the better.)

A “Must-Have” Book for Yourself, Family, Friends

In conclusion, “The War on Guns” occupies a prized slot on the limited bookshelf space beside my desk, right alongside my 1st Edition copy of “More Guns, Less Crime” purchased way back in the dark ages of 1998. It deserves a similarly honored position on your own bookshelf, and would unquestionably be a prized holiday gift for any of your friends or family who have any interest in guns, our Second Amendment, or freedom generally.

Indeed, you can hardly call yourself informed on these issues and their public policy dynamics–whether you are pro or con private gun ownership and concealed carry–without having read “The War on Guns.”

You can order the book today from Amazon and have it in your gift-wrapping hands within a couple of days, or delivered directly to the intended recipient, by simply clicking here. (Naturally, a Kindle and an Audible version are each available as well.)

Finally, my personal apologies to John for the delay in getting this review written, and my heartfelt thanks to him for his lifetime of research and writing on the Constitutional Amendment nearest and dearest to my own heart.

–-Andrew


Andrew F. Branca is an attorney and the author of The Law of Self Defense, 3rd Edition, and a host on The Outdoor Channel’s TV show, The Best Defense.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

UnCivilServant | December 16, 2016 at 2:54 pm

Further, the recent election of a modestly pro-2A President Trump (whose adults sons are avid Second Amendment supporters), and who has promised to advocate for laws that would allow for concealed carry permits issued in any state to be recognized in all states, suggests further wins may be on the way.

Every time I hear people cherring national reciprocity, I keep wondering – after that what will be done to help those of us stuck in the backwater regressive states like New York which go out of their way to be punitive against the law-abiding gun owner? National reciprocity is great, but that means I have less rights in my own state than those who visit it. Please, does anyone have some ideas on how to legally help Upstate?

    Another Ed in reply to UnCivilServant. | December 16, 2016 at 10:31 pm

    This discussion of National Reciprocity or tweaking of current gun control legislation is attacking the problem in the wrong direction – moving us from limited liberty to less limited liberty instead of restoring full liberty and freedom.

    The logical solution to all this is for Congress to pass a law reiterating that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it states – that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Consequently, all Federal, state and local laws or executive orders that infringe shall be considered unconstitutional, unenforceable, null, void and explicitly revoked. Further, all those who do attempt to enforce these unconstitutional laws and orders shall be arrested and prosecuted in Federal courts under Section 242 of Title 18 – deprivation of rights under color of law.

    https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law

    In other words – no CCW licenses or peculiar weapons configurations needed in any states, territories or possessions of the United States, especially in those hotbeds of liberty like California, New Jersey, New York, Maryland and Massachusetts that would refuse to comply.

    Just think of how much money this will save the taxpayers of the United States by not twiddling away our resources creating an illusion of “safety” for those who refuse to acknowledge reality.

      “The logical solution to all this is for Congress to pass a law reiterating that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it states – that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      What, exactly, would THAT change? The Constitution is already superior to Congress. If the courts will ignore the Constitution, why would they respect the subordinate Congress?

      –Andrew

        Another Ed in reply to Andrew Branca. | December 16, 2016 at 10:51 pm

        What law? My suggestion strips law enforcement personnel at all levels of the authority to arrest people for “crimes” that are exercises of 2nd Amendment rights without fearing prosecution on a Federal civil rights charge. Think of it as a Federal version of Florida Statute 790.33 – “Field of regulation of firearms and ammunition preempted”.

        http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.33.html

          What law? YOU wrote THIS: ““The logical solution to all this is for CONGRESS TO PASS A LAW reiterating that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it states – that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

          THAT law.

          Oofah.

          –Andrew

          Another Ed in reply to Another Ed. | December 17, 2016 at 2:50 am

          OK. Let’s make two sentences into one for clarity’s sake, then add a list.

          “The logical solution to all this is for Congress to pass a law reiterating that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it states – that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and that all Federal, state and local laws or executive orders that infringe shall be considered unconstitutional, unenforceable, null, void and are explicitly revoked.” Include wording in the act comprehensively listing the current Federal laws that are revoked. Call it the Gun Uncontrol Act of 2017 (GUA 17).

          It’s not my job to un-mangle your grammar. Let us know when you’re done.

          –Andrew

          Another Ed in reply to Another Ed. | December 17, 2016 at 3:05 am

          The question “What law?” asks what law would the court be trying. It would be a Federal offense to enforce a state or local law that infringes on the 2nd Amendment. The states would be compelled to make a “states’ rights” argument that the states have a right to violate the U.S. Constitution, which should be resolved quickly.

    I posted this above but in case you didn’t read it.
    UnCivilServant, getting to this point hasn’t been easy. When I was a child (!970’s) the general feel was handguns, then rifles and shotguns would be “controlled”, then legislated out of existence. The NRA was NOWHERE on gun control law. It was NOT a great lobbying organization (Yet). It was a marksmanship and safety organization.
    DC and Chicago basically legislated self defense out of existence. No court stood against them. The actual last two big Supreme Court cases was the NFA Miller case in the 1930’s and the case (I forget what the case name was, sorry.) that got the screwball “Amnesty” and the 1968 Gun Control Act. NOTHING was decided besides that.
    The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 fixed some big problems with the Sixty Eight Gun Bill but the NRA threw the NFA under the bus when the Hughes Amendment go put in at the last second. Some civil suits basically said it is perfectly legal to basically outlaw NFA Machineguns.
    Then the “Brady Act” made the waiting period. WITHOUT the NRA fighting like a demon to make a background check and force the government to build the NICS System and end the stupid waiting periods Federally we would be waiting at least 3 days. No background check required. Then the got their “AW Ban”, the “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act” with they thought inconsequential expiration date.
    That, though they didn’t know it, was the high water mark of Gun Control at the Federal level. The growth of the licensed concealed carry movement was already poisoning the ground they thought they were going to grow on.
    In reality them making certain guns illegal actually made them seem much more “mysterious” and fascinating. Clinton (He eventually caught on but didn’t act) opened the door to hundreds of thousands of parts kits which people built into guns that had NO REGISTRATION or CONTROL. They are now referred to as “Ghost Guns” but they have been around since the ruling that building your own gun (Federally) was perfectly legal, as long as it wasn’t NFA and not made for sale at the time.
    Tons of guns with “Less Than 3 Features” were produced and sold briskly. Concealed Carry spread from state to state.
    Unlike when I was a child gun ownership was hunters, the occasional person with a handgun in the house, and “Gun Nuts”. Nobody had “Skin in the Game” because almost nowhere could you carry a gun without a license which almost always required connections or tons of money to get and the places it was easy to get were so rural usually your more likely to run into a rabid raccoon or maybe a bear.
    When someone has only an academic interest with something they never have contact with making it important to them is very hard. But now after riots and hurricanes or other disasters show people that “Big Scary Guns” have their place and people carry guns for their PERSONAL Protection. It’s not an academic issue any more. Taking things AWAY from people they have (The Right of Self Defense and actual guns they own) encounters a LOT MORE RESISTANCE than basically a thought exercise.
    Your sad proximity to a huge city whose population and deliberately obstructive licensing system that makes ANY gun ownership a nightmare, and handgun ownership almost impossible. Their power make your state laws oppressive.
    You need to realize that in 2005 EVERYONE thought “Heller” was a bad idea. It was “Going to get affirmed by the Supreme Court, enshrining Gun Control FOREVER”. But “Heller” was a big loss for the “Guns are ONLY for Militia” school of legal thought. “MacDonald” blew up Chicago’s gun control law and reaffirmed “Heller”. It’s still being hashed out the full implications and how far those rulings go.
    The current Supreme Court structure without Scalia is precarious and even Trump appointing a new justices is no guarantee a pro-gun justice will actually be appointed. Quite a few Presidents wonder what the hell they did in picks.
    Many Justices are in their seventies or eighties and will get sick or die (Like Scalia) sooner or later. If Trump goes only 4 years who knows what (he is 70 years old!) courts and cases will come up and precedents will be set. Plus who will the NEXT President appoint?
    If National Reciprocity passes eventually the courts will rule on cases. If I go a quarter mile into NY state my Pennsylvania Permit becomes null and void and I can face like 5 years and additional charges for each hi-cap magazine? A trip into NJ makes me carrying a 9mm pistol with three 15 round mags of hollow points you can face 5 years for the gun and 22.5 years (Six months for each hollow point bullet) for the ammunition? Eventually that will get litigated and decisions made.
    Hell NYC REFUSES to acknowledge NY State permits and actually FORCED NY State to go along with that. Eventually something is going to give if National Carry passes.
    Will it be quick? No. It will most likely require a person with a carry permit to be arrested and most likely convicted of a gun carry crime in one of those jurisdictions, THEN an appeal of it. That may (Or NOT) lead to a victory at the appellate court level, then the Supreme Court ruling in their favor.
    Just remember people win appeals at the lower level and the government walks away, no national precedent is set and the whole thing is mostly useless.
    Finding someone to go to trial, lose, most likely go to prison and wait out the many years to the appeal makes it’s way to the Supreme Court. Most people with no record just take a plea deal.
    I know of a case that the guy was offered NO deal and got convicted (Not a gun case), served 5 years of a 9 year Federal sentence before the appeal freed them. It was like 2 years between arrest and trial, on bond (luckily), then 5 plus years in jail. Most people aren’t going to risk it.
    So the right case has to come up, AND the court has to take a case civilly (Lawsuit, not criminal case) and THEN the court has to rule correctly. Most don’t seem understand civil lawsuit often get judged on “Preponderance of the Evidence”, not the stricter scrutiny of a criminal case. If a judge says in their opinion the preponderance of the evidence says they think a gun control law isn’t illegal or Unconstitutional (Maybe both?) that’s it. Higher court are loath to override lower courts” discretion, unless they are VERY off track or doing something illegal or unethical. Sometimes even then they won’t act!
    So then you need a case that ALSO has different levels of appeals course disagreeing on the law or a case. In NY State I hate to say the appeals court is most likely to NEVER agree a gun control law is wrong. So you are going to have to get a case outside NY (Or basically the Mid Atlantic Appeals courts) to rule against gun control laws, THEN get the Supreme Court to rule and set a precedent. The Supreme Court often doesn’t take cases without different opposing opinions at the appeals level(s)
    After all that, then the precedent needs to be forced on NY State.
    I hate to tell you but in DC these are still obstructing people having handguns at home, eight years later. Chicago basically falls under state law so I don’t believe are having as much trouble, but I’m sure they are still obstructing in every way, minor or major, because city officials will never penalize them (Issuing office personnel and leaders) for doing everything they can to stop people getting guns.
    So IF Trump appoints a couple (Not just one!) Supreme Court Justices and the TAKE a case you might get some relief. sadly in so many cases, especially gun and Second amendment cases the Supreme Court just refuses to hear case. They do that with all kinds of cases all the time.
    I’d bet that at least a dozen years minimum. On the plus side Pennsylvania is close by, and it takes less time to buy a gun AND get a carry permit than to fill out NY state’s crap to fill out just buy a handgun.
    In fact they closed the county permit office FOR THREE MONTHS where I live. On the second day it reopened it took me 48 minutes to get a permit. After the wait the PICS (Pennsylvania Instant Check) system and laminating the card were about tied for how long it took get the card.
    Also strangely that Obama’s BATFE had the CLEO Sign off for NFA items removed you can pretty much buy ANYTHING you can afford. I believe the state income tax is a lot lower and a hell of a lot easier to file.
    So like the signs say at the border; “Welcome to Pennsylvania”!!

Little typo Andrew.
The despised assault weapons ban, while still on the books, would automatically sunset after 10 years in 2014, with no meaningful effort being made to re-new.

The sunset ban ended in 2004 (insert smiley, not for typo but for my purchases of “assault” weapons that year).

    You beat me to it. The AWB of 1994 sunsetted 10 years later, in 2004.

    If it had expired in 2014, then it would have been a 20-year ban.

    I maintain that the sunset clause and a post-expiration requirement that an objective study be performed to determine the efficacy of the ban at its stated purpose of reducing crime, are two of the greatest long-term gift the GOP was able to spin out of the AWB abomination. That study, when published, found that it had no discernible effect at either reducing crime or reducing a criminal’s ability to procure firearms. IOW, the law was a failure in every way. 🙂

    Oops! Fixed. Thanks.

    –Andrew

Nice review, Andrew.

Seems you achieved a key objective of yours by leaving Massachusetts. Colorado’s gain is Massachusetts’ loss (not that many in Mass. would understand).

    I’m enjoying Colorado greatly, and have purchased many firearms since I’ve been here–including a new primary carry piece. Massachusetts can go screw. 🙂

    –Andrew

You live in Denver now? I’m in Englewood.Just bought the 3rd edition of your book. I read the first one and have it all marked up. I use it in the classes I teach. Great book.

Welcome, Colorado is in bad need of more sanity.

Ken Willis

    Actually, I’m in Castle Rock, but close enough to Denver. 🙂

    If you’re interested, we have a full-day CO-specific LEVEL 1 Class taking place in Westminster CO on April 2 and an identical LEVEL 1 Class taking place at Bristlecone Shooting Center in Lakewood CO on May 20. 🙂

    –Andrew

UnCivilServant, getting to this point hasn’t been easy. When I was a child (!970’s) the general feel was handguns, then rifles and shotguns would be “controlled”, then legislated out of existence. The NRA was NOWHERE on gun control law. It was NOT a great lobbying organization (Yet). It was a marksmanship and safety organization.
DC and Chicago basically legislated self defense out of existence. No court stood against them. The actual last two big Supreme Court cases was the NFA Miller case in the 1930’s and the case (I forget what the case name was, sorry.) that got the screwball “Amnesty” and the 1968 Gun Control Act. NOTHING was decided besides that.
The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 fixed some big problems with the Sixty Eight Gun Bill but the NRA threw the NFA under the bus when the Hughes Amendment go put in at the last second. Some civil suits basically said it is perfectly legal to basically outlaw NFA Machineguns.
Then the “Brady Act” made the waiting period. WITHOUT the NRA fighting like a demon to make a background check and force the government to build the NICS System and end the stupid waiting periods Federally we would be waiting at least 3 days. No background check required. Then the got their “AW Ban”, the “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act” with they thought inconsequential expiration date.
That, though they didn’t know it, was the high water mark of Gun Control at the Federal level. The growth of the licensed concealed carry movement was already poisoning the ground they thought they were going to grow on.
In reality them making certain guns illegal actually made them seem much more “mysterious” and fascinating. Clinton (He eventually caught on but didn’t act) opened the door to hundreds of thousands of parts kits which people built into guns that had NO REGISTRATION or CONTROL. They are now referred to as “Ghost Guns” but they have been around since the ruling that building your own gun (Federally) was perfectly legal, as long as it wasn’t NFA and not made for sale at the time.
Tons of guns with “Less Than 3 Features” were produced and sold briskly. Concealed Carry spread from state to state.
Unlike when I was a child gun ownership was hunters, the occasional person with a handgun in the house, and “Gun Nuts”. Nobody had “Skin in the Game” because almost nowhere could you carry a gun without a license which almost always required connections or tons of money to get and the places it was easy to get were so rural usually your more likely to run into a rabid raccoon or maybe a bear.
When someone has only an academic interest with something they never have contact with making it important to them is very hard. But now after riots and hurricanes or other disasters show people that “Big Scary Guns” have their place and people carry guns for their PERSONAL Protection. It’s not an academic issue any more. Taking things AWAY from people they have (The Right of Self Defense and actual guns they own) encounters a LOT MORE RESISTANCE than basically a thought exercise.
Your sad proximity to a huge city whose population and deliberately obstructive licensing system that makes ANY gun ownership a nightmare, and handgun ownership almost impossible. Their power make your state laws oppressive.
You need to realize that in 2005 EVERYONE thought “Heller” was a bad idea. It was “Going to get affirmed by the Supreme Court, enshrining Gun Control FOREVER”. But “Heller” was a big loss for the “Guns are ONLY for Militia” school of legal thought. “MacDonald” blew up Chicago’s gun control law and reaffirmed “Heller”. It’s still being hashed out the full implications and how far those rulings go.
The current Supreme Court structure without Scalia is precarious and even Trump appointing a new justices is no guarantee a pro-gun justice will actually be appointed. Quite a few Presidents wonder what the hell they did in picks.
Many Justices are in their seventies or eighties and will get sick or die (Like Scalia) sooner or later. If Trump goes only 4 years who knows what (he is 70 years old!) courts and cases will come up and precedents will be set. Plus who will the NEXT President appoint?
If National Reciprocity passes eventually the courts will rule on cases. If I go a quarter mile into NY state my Pennsylvania Permit becomes null and void and I can face like 5 years and additional charges for each hi-cap magazine? A trip into NJ makes me carrying a 9mm pistol with three 15 round mags of hollow points you can face 5 years for the gun and 22.5 years (Six months for each hollow point bullet) for the ammunition? Eventually that will get litigated and decisions made.
Hell NYC REFUSES to acknowledge NY State permits and actually FORCED NY State to go along with that. Eventually something is going to give if National Carry passes.
Will it be quick? No. It will most likely require a person with a carry permit to be arrested and most likely convicted of a gun carry crime in one of those jurisdictions, THEN an appeal of it. That may (Or NOT) lead to a victory at the appellate court level, then the Supreme Court ruling in their favor.
Just remember people win appeals at the lower level and the government walks away, no national precedent is set and the whole thing is mostly useless.
Finding someone to go to trial, lose, most likely go to prison and wait out the many years to the appeal makes it’s way to the Supreme Court. Most people with no record just take a plea deal.
I know of a case that the guy was offered NO deal and got convicted (Not a gun case), served 5 years of a 9 year Federal sentence before the appeal freed them. It was like 2 years between arrest and trial, on bond (luckily), then 5 plus years in jail. Most people aren’t going to risk it.
So the right case has to come up, AND the court has to take a case civilly (Lawsuit, not criminal case) and THEN the court has to rule correctly. Most don’t seem understand civil lawsuit often get judged on “Preponderance of the Evidence”, not the stricter scrutiny of a criminal case. If a judge says in their opinion the preponderance of the evidence says they think a gun control law isn’t illegal or Unconstitutional (Maybe both?) that’s it. Higher court are loath to override lower courts” discretion, unless they are VERY off track or doing something illegal or unethical. Sometimes even then they won’t act!
So then you need a case that ALSO has different levels of appeals course disagreeing on the law or a case. In NY State I hate to say the appeals court is most likely to NEVER agree a gun control law is wrong. So you are going to have to get a case outside NY (Or basically the Mid Atlantic Appeals courts) to rule against gun control laws, THEN get the Supreme Court to rule and set a precedent. The Supreme Court often doesn’t take cases without different opposing opinions at the appeals level(s)
After all that, then the precedent needs to be forced on NY State.
I hate to tell you but in DC these are still obstructing people having handguns at home, eight years later. Chicago basically falls under state law so I don’t believe are having as much trouble, but I’m sure they are still obstructing in every way, minor or major, because city officials will never penalize them (Issuing office personnel and leaders) for doing everything they can to stop people getting guns.
So IF Trump appoints a couple (Not just one!) Supreme Court Justices and the TAKE a case you might get some relief. sadly in so many cases, especially gun and Second amendment cases the Supreme Court just refuses to hear case. They do that with all kinds of cases all the time.
I’d bet that at least a dozen years minimum. On the plus side Pennsylvania is close by, and it takes less time to buy a gun AND get a carry permit than to fill out NY state’s crap to fill out just buy a handgun.
In fact they closed the county permit office FOR THREE MONTHS where I live. On the second day it reopened it took me 48 minutes to get a permit. After the wait the PICS (Pennsylvania Instant Check) system and laminating the card were about tied for how long it took get the card.
Also strangely that Obama’s BATFE had the CLEO Sign off for NFA items removed you can pretty much buy ANYTHING you can afford. I believe the state income tax is a lot lower and a hell of a lot easier to file.
So like the signs say at the border; “Welcome to Pennsylvania”!!

I recently moved to a small town in Tennessee. When I went to the utilities people and others to get service to my new residence started, they routinely demanded two picture IDs. Having only two with pictures on me, I handed them my driver’s license and my CC permit. None of them batted an eye and took the permit without question. I finally asked why they said nothing and they responded that they get this as a form of ID all the time. “You’re just one of us” they said. I really like it here.
>
As an aside, the standing joke around here is that when 5,000 rounds of ammunition was discovered at a house in California, it was described as an armory. Here that is described as a good start.

I wish people would stop hanging their firearms rights hat on the Second Amendment. Imagine Heller declared the 2nd A only protected the States’ right to a militia. Would that have meant there is no personal right to firearms ownership? No! It would only have meant the right isn’t to be found in the 2nd A. In fact, one shouldn’t look to the BOR for any right. The BOR is merely a reminder that the government doesn’t have certain authority – it is not the source of our rights (see the preamble to the BOR that explains its purpose). (If you insist on looking there, I’d start with the Ninth Amendment.)

National Review online today has an article titled “The Other Reciprocity Argument that Conservatives Should Make: Gun Rights”. The first sentence is “The Constitution may require states to recognize each other’s firearms permits.” The reason given is because of the constitutional right to travel from a SCOTUS decision over 40 years ago in Shapiro v. Thompson.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443143/gun-rights-reciprocity-constitution

Again, when does a state, territory or possession of the United States have the right arbitrarily to infringe your civil rights?

The TRUTH about the “supremacy clause” – our Constitution does not delegate to the national government authority to restrict our arms, ammunition, regulate firearms dealers, do background checks, etc. The national government may not lawfully circumvent this restriction by means of a treaty wherein the signatory governments agree to disarm their Citizens or Subjects.
https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/?s=The+TRUTH+about+the+%22supremacy+clause

Dear NRA…..
Stop “negotiating” excuses to INFRINGE on OUR RIGHTS.

If there must be background checks, let’s try this idea…
Are there any ‘legislators’ that are interested in a Constitutional Background Check?

Since SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means exactly that..

Let’s try a “Background Check” that DOES NOT INFRINGE on anybodies RIGHTS…
A FULL, IN DEPTH background check for ALL Politicians, Bureaucrats, and ALL government employees, and set
MINIMAL INTELLIGENCE, JOB SKILLS AND CHARACTER QUALITIES that must be met before they can run for office,
be appointed or hired.

That way, WE, THE PEOPLE, get a much better class of politicians and bureaucrats, as well as EMPLOYEES that can be trained to do the jobs they are being hired for.

Any bets on how hard the political class will fight to prevent it?

THAT would be a Background Check that nearly ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS will support and I don’t much care if the illegals and their sycophants don’t like the idea.

There are over 370 “mental disorders” listed in the latest version of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.) The list includes “Tobacco Addiction Disorder” among other equally mundane and ridiculous so-called “mental illnesses.”

If the DSM is the standard by which politicians wishes to remove our rights to own guns, then I’d guess 90% of the American people could probably be classified with a mental disorder of one kind or another.

BEWARE, BEWARE

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend