Available on SSRN. (This is the abstract page. To read the full brief, click “Download,” then on the new screen click the button for which city’s server you will use for the download.) The brief is filed on behalf of the two major police training organizations in the United States: the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA) and the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (IALEFI). Additional law enforcement amici are the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, Texas Police Chiefs Association, and Law Enforcement Alliance of America. The brief is also joined by the Congress of Racial Equality, the Claremont Institute, the Independence Institute, and several scholars.
The brief presents new empirical research, conducted by Prof. Carl Moody of William & Mary, about the criminological results of changes in handgun ban policies. In 1965, South Carolina repealed its 1902 ban on handgun sales. We show that, relative to the rest of the United States, South Carolina suffered no statistically significant increase in crime rates. In 1983, Chicago’s handgun ban went into effect. Chicago crime rates rose immediately and significantly. Post-ban Chicago is much more dangerous, relative to the 24 other largest U.S. cities, than it was before the ban. The differences are very large, and sustained, and the possibility that they are due only to random fluctuations in less than 1 in 100,000. During the 32 years studied, Chicago was the only top-25 city with a handgun ban during any part of the period.
Thanks to my hardworking intern Joshua Austin of Denver University Law School, the brief also presents data from 1996–2008 showing that Chicago’s rate of police homicides is 79% greater than the U.S. average, and that Chicago’s police homicide problem is the sixth-worst among large American cities.
The brief addresses various claims that were made by amici in the Seventh Circuit in support of the ban, including: that Chicago’s population density is a unique reason to ban handguns in the home; that enforcement of the Second Amendment would prevent the use of NYC-style stop-and-frisk tactics of gangsters who are carrying illegal guns; or that NY state case law supports handgun prohibition.
Part V surveys eleven Supreme Court cases, from 1893–1921, which expressly vindicated the right of armed self-defense.
Finally, Part VI, which relies on input from the police trainers, explains why handguns are often the superior choice for home defense, especially in an urban setting. As the brief explains, there is no perfect gun for every situation, and the choice of any particular gun necessarily involves trade-offs. First Amendment cases, as well as Meyer v. Nebraska, teach us that aldermen and similar officials do not have the authority to micro-manage how individual families choose to exercise their constitutional rights. “A fortiori, the decision of parents, and other law-abiding individuals, to choose the best tool to defend their lives and their families is an inherent, fundamental, and natural liberty.”
SunTzu's Nephew says:
Thank you very, very much for your fine work
Quote
November 23, 2009, 4:26 pmRoger says:
Isn’t there an inconsistency in saying that (1) repealing a ban on handgun sales made no difference in crime rates, but (2) imposing a ban on handgun sales increased crime rates? Isn’t the obvious resolution of the conflict to say that there is likely some other factor that caused one of the effects?
Quote
November 23, 2009, 4:41 pmEdward Lunny says:
A very impressive work,well thought out and supported by valid, demonstrable data. The only mistake that I see, a mistake common to all supporting arguments of the right of Americans to firearms possession, is presuming that those whom profess to “protect” the public by restricting possession, indeed ownership, of firearms by the public are in any fashion honest about their concerns or aims. Those whom profess concern for “public safety” invariably retain special rights for themselves and their allies. That Chicago aldermen are considered to be agents of law enforcement is just one instance, there are others. To reprise the comment above, yes, thank you very much for your, and your assistants efforts.
Quote
November 23, 2009, 4:43 pmJohnF says:
The submission of this sort of thing to the Court, not to mention its possible consideration of it, subverts the notion that fact-finding is for the tribunal that can hear cross-examination, can evaluate the expertise of the proponents of a study, can weigh their opinions against competing ones and can, generally, assess credibility. That is, the trial court.
It is regrettable that this has become commonplace in the Supreme Court, which will doubtless make overt and sub rosa fact findings throughout whatever opinion it issues, without those facts having been given the scrutiny that lower-court fact finding could provide.
Quote
November 23, 2009, 4:52 pmPatrick216 says:
I took a few economic classes from Carl Moody when I was at William & Mary. Great guy. Nice study.
JohnF–I agree that these kinds of briefs invite subrosa factfinding at the appellate level. But the problem is that it’s kind of a prisoner’s dilemma–the other side of the argument is going to file these kinds of things, so you better file your own.
Quote
November 23, 2009, 5:59 pmJoshCasts: Interview with Dave Kopel on McDonald v. Chicago | Josh Blackman's Blog says:
[...] and frequent blogger of the Volokh Conspiracy took a few minutes to chat with me about the amicus brief he filed in McDonald v. Chicago. Dave presents some fascinating empirical data about the effects of [...]
Josh Blackman says:
Check out my podcast with Dave Kopel about his amicus brief in McDonald. http://joshblackman.com/blog/?p=2540
Quote
November 24, 2009, 12:30 amValentino Rossi says:
JB, Thanks for the link; it was well done.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 6:10 amSayUncle » Boxers or briefs says:
[...] Dave Kopel [...]
Ed says:
JohnF and Patrick216, the trial court is best suited for determining the facts of the case. Statistics about crime in a different state — or even in the same city but unrelated to the crime charged — would be inadmissible at the trial court. Appeals courts, in deciding the constitutionality of laws and their application, are implementing (sometimes crafting) public policy. In that role, scholarly studies on, e.g., socio-economics are entirely appropriate, and are the raison d’etre of amici briefs. Finally, there is nothing “sub rosa” about it; the briefs are public records.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 10:17 amJohnF says:
Ed,
First, statistical work is routinely admitted at trials, if the conclusions of the statistical studies have any relevance to the issues at hand.
Second, the “sub rosa” reference was to the Court’s use of facts, not to the briefs.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 10:42 amFederal Farmer says:
Great work, as usual, Dave!
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:49 pmLarryA says:
It’s the position of the anti gun folks that if bans are relaxed crime will increase, and that bans lead to reduction in crime. The two studies show that neither is true.
Are there other factors involved? Undoubtedly. And gun control, like any quack cure, can result in the other factors being disregarded. The result can be that policies and programs that could make a difference won’t get implemented, as politicians squander resources on the politically correct policy even after it’s proven ineffective.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 10:37 pmWhat’s that Smell? « Conservative Libertarian Outpost says:
[...] David B. Kopel The Volokh Conspiracy November 23, 2009 http://volokh.com/2009/11/23/kopel-brief-in-mcdonald-v-chicago/ [...]