Students for Concealed Carry on Campus v. Regents of the University of Colorado. Decided this morning by the Colorado Court of Appeals (a three-judge panel of Colorado’s intermediate appellate court). In brief: Colorado’s licensing statute for carrying a concealed handgun for lawful protection is explicitly preemptive. The University of Colorado bans concealed carry anyway, arguing that there is an implicit exception applicable to CU. The Mountain States Legal Foundation brings a suit on behalf of SCCC. The trial court dismisses for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals unanimously reverses the dismissal, and remands the case for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals holds that: 1. The statutory claim under the Concealed Carry Act should not have been dismissed, because there is no exemption for the University of Colorado. 2. The constitutional claim under the Colorado Constitution’s right to arms provision should not have been dismissed; the proper standard of review, under Colorado case law, is “reasonableness”, which is a higher standard than rational basis. The Court of Appeals expresses no opinion on the merits of the constitutional claim.
Congratulations to MSLF attorney Jim Manley!
UPDATE: Since the comments thread is mostly a discussion of empirical/policy issues, it is perhaps worth mentioning that the Court of Appeals opinion cites the two major relevant works on either side of the issue: the Brady Center’s monograph, and my article in Connecticut Law Review. The court adds that such questions are irrelevant to its decision-making, which seems to be the proper approach for a case that (for purposes of the Court of Appeals decision) involves statutory interpretation, plus articulation of the standard of review for the Colorado Constitution right to arms. Since the statutory interpretation issue basically resolves the case conclusively in favor of Students for Concealed Carry, the trial court on remand probably will not even need to reach the constitutional question. If for some reason the trial court does need to make a constitutional decision, then the court would need to consider empirical evidence and policy issues, as does any court applying any heightened form of review.
ruuffles says:
So much for voting with your feet, huh.
April 15, 2010, 1:19 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Why would anyone leave instead of fighting UC in the court?
All three branches of state government supported carry rights, the carry law passed the Leg, was signed by the Gov and, now, was upheld by the Court.
The school was in the wrong in acting as if they had an exception not present in statute, they deserve to get corrected.
April 15, 2010, 1:30 pmChris Travers says:
What do you mean? this seems like a great example of allowing state Constitutions to allow people to vote with feet…
April 15, 2010, 1:44 pmFederal Farmer says:
The grapes are especially sour this season. Going to be even more sour by July.
April 15, 2010, 1:50 pmOpenVolokh says:
This may be good law, but it is bad policy. I personally would not be inclined to get in a heated academic debate with someone I knew was carrying a gun. I certainly would not have my kids attend CU after this decision given the increased risk of self censorship and stifling of free debate.
But, carving out an exception to the statute for CU should be left to the democratic process.
April 15, 2010, 1:58 pmMike says:
Really, you would be that much more intimidated by someone you knew had a gun? It’s a poor analysis that would lead to that. In general, conceal carry license holders are several times less likely to commit a felony than the average person. They are more law abiding than men of the church or police officers according to all records and across all states that have allowed carry.
Do you worry about getting into heated debates in class because a student is more muscular than you, or more skilled at martial arts? Are you that concerned that your fellow academics have such poor control over themselves as to *kill* someone and go to jail for the rest of their lives over a debate? Because they already have it quite within their power to beat the snot out of you if they had such poor impulse control.
And in any case, the entire point of concealed carry is that you don’t know who has a gun, you just know that everyone might. Society can continue along as normal without alarming those who are afraid of tools.
April 15, 2010, 2:05 pmAbdul Abulbul Amir says:
I OTOH would be more likely to send my precious children there. As we have seen at Virginia Tech, Columbine, et al, a gun free zone only makes it safe for the mass murderer.
April 15, 2010, 2:08 pmSGD says:
We have had concealed carry on campus for a number of years here in Utah, and none of the prophesied massacres, intimidation and other problems have materialized.
Concealed guns on campus don’t stifle debate; the PC commissars do that. My liberal arts college in NY was the most closed minded environment I have ever experienced.
April 15, 2010, 2:09 pmcboldt says:
– I personally would not be inclined to get in a heated academic debate with someone I knew was carrying a gun. –
April 15, 2010, 2:10 pmYou must be an awesome debater, to put your opponents in fear for their lives.
Matthew Carberry says:
That’s a fine first impression, but the facts don’t support it.
First, there’s no way to tell if the person you are in a heated discussion anywhere in CO, on or off campus, is armed or not right now. If you aren’t currently stifled or self-censoring now at that thought, you simply aren’t considering the issue. Why would you suddenly be any more concerned on campus?
If the UC policy is anything like UAlaska’s (almost exact same policy of banning with no legal authority to do so) the only penalty is expulsion. Do you really think that someone who is likely to shoot you in an academic argument is currently deterred from having a gun handy to do so by the mere risk of losing credit hours or tenure? That’s the magic spell currently preventing someone deranged enough to flip out and shoot you over what the Categorical Imperative demands?
The evidence on lawful carry is overwhelming, such “shootouts over (insert minor incident)” simply don’t occur in any statistically significant form by lawful carriers. The idea that the risk of them occuring will increase on a campus, by the same exact lawful carriers who aren’t doing them now off campus, is nonsensical.
Finally, this is hardly novel, there are many Universities, public and private, in this country that currently, and historically, allow lawful carry by students and staff. Astonishingly they have reported no problems like the stifling of free exchange of ideas or shootouts over the proper deconstruction of Melville.
The burden is, as always, on those who would restrict rights to show the restriction is necessary and will work. There is no evidence or sound logic available to support banning lawful carry on campus, especially where it is allowed off campus by the same students and staff.
April 15, 2010, 2:16 pmWPZ says:
A remarkable assessment of a situation that doesn’t exist.
April 15, 2010, 2:17 pmCitizen carry on campus is not prohibited in a number of states and at many colleges. Where are there “heated debates” that result in shootings?
For goodness’ sake, why not be even more fearful (and regulatory) of USPSA action pistol matches, where everyone is not only armed, but extremely capable of using their firearms? Yet, I attend scores of them, officiate at them, and not once has there ever been a “heated debate” shooting, nor did I ever fear to make a penalty call because the competitor was armed.
We get this sort of thing about “Wild West shootouts” and “rage” shootings here in Chicago frequently, and it serves to illustrate the level of disinformation on the topic of carry.
It doesn’t happen. It’s not happening.
Interestingly, the people I hear this argument from are all significantly leftist.
Ought we be afraid to be around lefties due to their violent proclivities and inadequate anger management? Judging by the constant suggestion of imminent violence being precipitated by the mere presence of a firearm, perhaps I shall have to do more to avoid the University of Chicago campus in the course of business!
Matthew Carberry says:
Nah WPZ, the gun ban in Chicago will protect you from all firearms violence on campus, just like it does out in town.
Heck, there it’s even backed by jail time, not just an violation of policy hearing and possible expulsion.
April 15, 2010, 2:25 pmMissing Reagan says:
Your bigotry is showing. As others have pointed out, CCW holders are statistically far less likely to commit a violent crime than a non-CCW holder. (Seven times less likely if I recall correctly.)
April 15, 2010, 2:27 pmMatthew Carberry says:
In any event, from reading the ruling,
it looks like all the SCCC originally was after was possession and carry in vehicles.
As this was remanded will they be able to amend to include actual on-body carry or will that take another challenge?
If so, since the Univ. has been put on notice that their policy is not legally supportable, is it more likely they will just cave at this point and say, as they should have at the beginning, “state law applies”?
April 15, 2010, 2:29 pmJMA says:
I was going to make some comment on Open’s statement, but I think by now it would be just piling on. No further questions, your Honor.
April 15, 2010, 2:33 pmJardinero1 says:
OTOH I support gun rights, OTOH I also support the right of property owners to regulate the manner in which others may enter and use their property. The Univ of Col is a state university but it is effectively private property. Those entrusted with care, custody and control of said property should be allowed to prohibit guns if they so wish.
What’s next? I won’t be allowed to prohibit someone concealing a weapon from entering my home if I object to his weapon.
April 15, 2010, 2:37 pmBruce Hayden says:
Not surprised at one level. This is, of course, the PRB (People’s Republic of Boulder – ok, I know there are other campuses, been on all of them, and have attended UCD).
April 15, 2010, 2:39 pmShelbyC says:
Going by the length of some of your posts on another thread, I can certainly understand why. :-).
April 15, 2010, 2:41 pmPhatty says:
The plaintiffs here simply wanted to carry in their cars while driving on the public roads that crossed through the campus, so the whole pseudo-private property argument wasn’t even at issue.
April 15, 2010, 2:47 pmOrenWithAnE says:
You overstate the ruling. The University’s policy has not be ruled unsupportable, only that it must be reevaluated under a stricter standard of review.
April 15, 2010, 2:51 pmwill says:
college campuses are no place for weapons. I simply don’t understand why ordinary people living in ordinary neighborhoods feel like they need to carry everywhere to be safe. It is just not that unsafe out there. Especially not on college campuses. Contain your fear; its unsightly.
April 15, 2010, 2:52 pmDave Lloyd says:
Everyone should be carrying. That way no one’s left unarmed in the event one of the armed students starts shooting at the other armed students. Perhaps bullet-proof desks are in order, too.
April 15, 2010, 2:57 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Why? Can’t you have a discussion (heated, academic or other) without resorting to violence?
After all, the people who decide to carry firearms, go through the permitting process, etc statistically are far LESS likely to do someone harm than your average citizen – or off duty LEO
April 15, 2010, 3:00 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
As a cursory reading of the decision showed, the law allows private property owners to prohibit carrying firearms.
Your assertion that a state-owned university is ‘effectively private property’ is … delusional. It’s state owned property.
And finally, the law offers a method to allow restriction on the carriage of firearms: Metal detectors and security guards AT ALL ENTRANCES, and secure storage for temporarily securing firearms while the owner is inside the building. If the university doesn’t (or can’t) meet that requirement, boo-hoo.
April 15, 2010, 3:06 pmCarl from Chicago says:
Why? Because of the last clause of the CO state right to arms amendment? It is interesting to consider whether that amendment is congruent with the federal amendment.
At any rate, one might argue the opposite of your suggestion, in that such a thing is foreclosed to the democratic process.
April 15, 2010, 3:07 pmMatthew Carberry says:
I don’t think the parallel holds.
If UC is anything like UA they are not considered “private”. Any ability for the Univ Board of Regents to restrict anything beyond what any other public agency can do, including access, must be laid out in their Charter as an expressed power granted them by the Legislature. In the case of all public universities of which I am aware the law-abiding general public must be allowed on campus and in any area accessible to students (libraries, sports facilities and the like).
University regulations are usually promulgated under a general authority in the Charter to “enact such regulations necessary for the good order and functioning of the university” or some such. The burden is thus properly on the University to clearly demonstrate that a carry restriction, beyond that allowed in state statute, is necessary for such function.
Given the facts they will likely find that hard to do.
Your right to bar carry on your private property is either explicit in the carry statute or covered under your ability to trespass people for remaining unlawfully on your property after being instructed to leave for any other valid reason you discover after the fact.
In the case of a public university, if carry is lawful, even if against policy, carry may (should) not be an unlawful act sufficient to allow the university to trespass a member of the public. Note that all the Univ claims to be able to do is apply academic sanctions to those who violate the policy, not arrest.
April 15, 2010, 3:09 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
It certainly would have made the outcome at VT, Columbine and many other places different, all right.
April 15, 2010, 3:13 pmBob Langenbach says:
will says:
college campuses are no place for weapons. I simply don’t understand why ordinary people living in ordinary neighborhoods feel like they need to carry everywhere to be safe. It is just not that unsafe out there. Especially not on college campuses. Contain your fear; its unsightly.
Do you wear your seatbelt? Have smoke alarms? There aren’t many accidents or fires so obviously you don’t need these tools either. You should try containing your own personal fear of lawful firearm carriers.
April 15, 2010, 3:16 pmMatthew Carberry says:
All we’re doing is carrying an inanimate object harmlessly around with no effect on you in awareness of a statistically unlikely yet still possible “worst case”. The same type of reason I carry a fire extinguisher and first aid kit in my car.
The only “fear” I see in these kind of complaints is fear of said inanimate object.
How rational is fear of an inanimate object?
Especially given the research on the subject, which makes it clear that you are at the same or less risk from that lawfully carried firearm as you are from one carried by a police officer.
My gun does nothing to you, keep your fear off my body.
April 15, 2010, 3:17 pmFederal Farmer says:
Darn tootin’! All those coeds gettin’ raped on campus were just askin’ for it! They shouldn’t go to college if they don’t want to get raped!
April 15, 2010, 3:17 pmChris Travers says:
Funny. I have had plenty of heated academic debates while I was carrying a sword or a fighting knife like a scramasax with an 8-inch blade. You must be unusual, either in that you associate heated debates with violence (I don’t) or you are very easily intimidated…..
April 15, 2010, 3:21 pmMike says:
I don’t understand why ordinary people living in ordinary houses feel that they need smoke detectors and fire extinguishers. I mean, most houses just aren’t that likely to catch on fire. There’s less than a third of a percent chance that your house is going to catch on fire, and most of those are only old nasty houses with bad wiring. People need to stop being so paranoid and fearful.
The fire department gets called to roughly 400,000 fires every year, in which about 2,700 people die. Compare this to the roughly 16, 000 murders, 89,000 rapes, 441,000 robberies, and 834,000 assaults and tell me whether a gun or a fire extinguisher is more paranoid.
A gun is a tool, it is insurance. Just because you have one, doesn’t mean you need to use it, it just leaves more options open. More concealed has not lead to more shootings – in fact, there have been many more people killed in areas that disallow guns than have been killed by concealed carry permit holders.
If people were dying all the time due to people with carry licenses losing their tempers, or if they were being arrested for threatening people, then we could have an argument on the pros of personal protection versus the cons of people acting dangerously with weapons. However, since that has not happened with concealed carry, at all, it comes down to one person’s right to protect himself versus another’s right to be afraid of an inanimate object.
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Fire-Prevention/fires-factsheet.html
April 15, 2010, 3:22 pmhttp://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_01.html
Matthew Carberry says:
Thank you for the clarification.
I need to be more precise.
April 15, 2010, 3:24 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Will, it’s your fear showing. After all, with CCW, the W is Concealed….
You might seek professional help about your neurosis and phobias
April 15, 2010, 3:27 pmJardinero1 says:
Let me restate it, if you don’t have care custody or control over a place; then you have no right to dictate the terms by which you may enter a place. It’s not trespass to tell you to disarm yourself before you enter private property. You can choose not to enter if you don’t like the terms. Universities are private property; they may restrict who enters. The fact that they let the general public enter at will doesn’t mean they can’t prohibit the genreral public from entering or dictating the terms of entry. Universities are not equivalent to public streets or sidewalks or other places you may carry.
April 15, 2010, 3:34 pmPhatty says:
And you are understating the ruling. There were two claims being made in the complaint — one for violation of the Concealed Carry Act and the other for violating the state constitution. The appellate court held that the university must comply with the CCA. On the constitutional question, the appellate court did not make a finding on whether the university’s policy was constitutional, but did articulate the standard to apply on remand.
“In this case of first impression, we consider whether the Concealed Carry Act (CCA), sections 18-12-201 to -216, C.R.S. 2009, applies to universities. Because the statute expressly applies to “all areas of the state,” we conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under the CCA. We further conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under Colorado Constitution article II, section 13, which affords individuals the right to bear arms in self-defense.”
“Thus, we conclude plaintiffs’ allegations that the individual students have met the CCA’s permit requirements, when accepted as true, state a claim for relief that the policy violates the CCA.”
April 15, 2010, 3:42 pmMatthew Carberry says:
You may be right, but, given that no state university in my experience has such restrictions, I’d want to see the express enumeration of authority in the Charter before I could accept the BofR has the power to restrict access to the campus for the general public (not to mention put in a wager how long such a proclamation would last before the Leg. made it clear they were overstepping).
https://www.cu.edu/regents/Laws/article-02.html
Is a little vague, read widely they can do whatever they want, which surely isn’t what happens in reality.
April 15, 2010, 3:57 pmDanInAustin says:
How are college campuses any different than anywhere else?
The ones who need to contain their fear are the people calling for universities to be treated differently than other public places.
As for it not being that unsafe out there: tell that to the students at Virginia Tech
April 15, 2010, 4:00 pmwhit says:
we’ve had legal carry on college campuses in WA state with no (i am aware) of problems.
i see the typical arguments from those that would infringe on rights… “i simply don’t understand why ordinary people… feel like they NEED”…
nobody has to justify the exercise of their rights by demonstrating a NEED
that goes for speech, right to refuse consent searches, right to remain silent, etc
April 15, 2010, 4:10 pmPintler says:
I’ll grant the point. How about people who aren’t ordinary, e.g. the policeman’s wife/student, after receiving credible threats to harm the officer’s family, or the prosecutor who is moonlighting teaching a night class? What do you propose to do to ensure their safety?
Bearing in mind our prosecutor and officer’s spouse, should a university be able to ban seeing eye dogs? It’s the same argument – some people are in special circumstances and need special accommodations. If you have a policy that accommodates our wife and prosecutor – that works in the real world, not ‘you can ask the police chief but she always says no’ – we can talk about the details, but I just don’t see how a blanket ban is conscionable.
Your house, of course, is your business – you can exclude the officer’s wife, the prosecutor, or the guy with the seeing eye dog at your whim.
April 15, 2010, 4:12 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
And as I already mentioned, the CCA provides the university a method (the same method available to all other state buildings) to restrict CCW. They can post security guards, metal detectors and secure firearms storage lockers at each entrance.
The university can no more make up a special law (restricting CCW) than they can impose a special income tax on all citizens of Colorado: The law simply doesn’t allow it.
April 15, 2010, 4:28 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Very good point. Also, my smoke detectors fail (go off when the amount of smoke is not indicative of a fire) at an appalling rate: My personal defense firearms have NEVER gone off accidentally.
April 15, 2010, 4:31 pmOrenWithAnE says:
I don’t understand either. Nevertheless, my fellow citizens ought to be entitled to make their own decisions, even in cases where their rationale is not convincing to me.
April 15, 2010, 4:45 pmKazinski says:
Isn’t there a doctrine that Universities are sovereign just like Indian tribes so state law doesn’t apply there? From what I can tell freedom of speech, freedom of association, and due process are all subject to administrative override on all campuses, public or private. Why should RKBA, and concealed carry be considered special rights, with special protection on University campuses? I think they should have the same status with all other rights on a University and be subject to Administrative and mob veto whenever they are inconvenient.
April 15, 2010, 4:46 pmgreat unknown says:
ruuffles says:
So much for voting with your feet, huh.
Sometimes voting with your feet includes applying a foot to the
fundament of a pietistic lawbreaker. It’s also very cathartic.
In fact, it may be so therapeutic that it may qualify for reimbursement
under Obamacare.
I hereby propose a corollary to Godwin’s Law:
a blog discussion involving civil rights will eventually mention Obamacare.
Jardinero1′s arguments are much more insidious. Based on that logic, CU could
also supress the students’ First Amendment rights. Indeed, many so-called
educated, intellectually honest leaders of such institutions attempt that
regularly. Fortunately, as readers of this blog should be aware, they get
slapped down just as regularly.
Unfortunately, they are apparently handicapped in such a way as to be incapable
April 15, 2010, 4:54 pmof learning.
David M. Nieporent says:
Restating it doesn’t make it any more true. Public universities (which is what we’re discussing) are, by definition, not private property. The fact that with respect to certain places the government may sometimes restrict access by the general public (e.g., you can’t wander into the White House whenever you want) does not make those places “private property.”
Moreover, even assuming that a public university can prohibit the general public from entering campus, the fact that it can does not mean that it can condition access on impermissible grounds. (A state university can’t tell members of the general public, e.g., that they must refrain from criticizing Obama if they wish to enter the campus.)
In any case, this policy was not limited to members of the “general public,” and more importantly, whether you think it would be a good policy to allow public colleges to ban concealed carry misses the point; Colorado law doesn’t permit it.
April 15, 2010, 5:01 pmOrenWithAnE says:
[ As an aside, I don't think the scorn heaped on Will here is appropriate. He doesn't understand the motivation to CCW, that's fine by me. It seems perfectly normal that an individual might not appreciate the reasons that another individual acts.
I can say without a doubt that the rationale for much of what my fellow citizens do is often baffling.
April 15, 2010, 5:09 pm]
Chris Travers says:
I don’t know of any such doctrine in the USA, and indeed courts have held that students have normal Constitutional rights on school campuses. However, you might be getting confused about in loco parentis (that the school acts in place of the parents) which is largely dead as a doctrine and might lead to absurd results, such as allowing the college to furnish alcohol to underage students if parental exceptions to state laws governing alcohol consumption are in place).
April 15, 2010, 5:36 pmwhit says:
chris travers…
methinks your sarcasm meter is broken
April 15, 2010, 5:50 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Will can be as puzzled as he will over our motivation…but calling us cowards? Sorry, not when he’s the one suffering PSH.
April 15, 2010, 6:26 pmLarryA says:
So if
Wow. So if I’m concerned about the possibility that a violent criminal will attack me (an event that is likely enough that colleges have police forces to investigate incidents and keep statistics which they are reluctant to release) I’m paranoid, and should “contain my fear.” But it’s perfectly reasonable for you to be scared of concealed handgun license holders, one of the most peaceful groups in the country.
Cognitive disconnect.
BTW, in my CHL class I cite three cases where someone carrying concealed stopped a violent criminal attack, and one case where someone could have had carrying been legal. All four venues are places where almost everyone would feel safe, including a white-collar office, an upscale shopping mall, a family restaurant, and a church.
I don’t carry everywhere. In fact, I only carry to places where I feel safe and don’t think I’ll need a gun. The places which I consider dangerous, I avoid.
April 15, 2010, 6:36 pmDavid Newton says:
Where the public have a right of way then it is ridiculous to say that the university can ban the carrying of concealed weapons where state law does not allow it. Looking at a map of the downtown campus of the University of Colorado at Denver it is apparent that a light railway line crosses the campus and has stops there. There are also major streets which cross the campus. Looking at the Boulder campus again at least one major street crosses the campus. Looking at the entrance to one of those streets on Google Street Map it is apparent that there are no barriers across the road denoting restricted access.
Move off the street and the university might have more of a point. Still their status as a state agency should restrict them more than private university. As a matter of policy I would strongly disagree with those who are paranoid about concealed weapons being carried on campus. Where they are not carried massacres tend to have a higher chance of happening. Witness Virginia Tech and Fort Hood. Where they are carried those carrying them are considerably less likely to cause trouble than the average citizen.
There is no doubt that many anti-gun campaigners are afraid of firearms. That has been demonstrated in this thread by such comments as, “I personally would not be inclined to get in a heated academic debate with someone I knew was carrying a gun.” and, “college campuses are no place for weapons. I simply don’t understand why ordinary people living in ordinary neighborhoods feel like they need to carry everywhere to be safe. It is just not that unsafe out there. Especially not on college campuses. Contain your fear; its unsightly.” The second comment is especially ironic as it is the author who is displaying an unhealthy case of fear and paranoia.
The thing to fear is not a firearm. A firearm is an inanimate object. It cannot do anything of its own volition. In the wrong hands it is extremely dangerous but so is a car. I have never been endangered by a firearm but I most certainly have been endangered by a car: I was nearly run over whilst standing on someone’s doorstep talking to them. The standards for possessing a car in public are an awful lot lower than possessing a firearm in public and yet in many ways a car is much more dangerous. It is a great deal more easy to drive into a crowd of people and kill and injure a great many people than it is to fire into a crowd and people and kill and injure the same number of people. The hypocrisy is stunning.
April 15, 2010, 6:51 pmOrson Buggeigh says:
“Nah WPZ, the gun ban in Chicago will protect you from all firearms violence on campus, just like it does out in town.
Heck, there it’s even backed by jail time, not just an violation of policy hearing and possible expulsion.”
Bugs Moran’s boys are still unavailable for comment regarding the effectiveness of the Chicago gun ban and jail time for violators. And Capone still ain’t talkin’, see?
April 15, 2010, 7:27 pmmariner says:
I disagree. He deserves every bit of the scorn he’s getting. If we had been more vigilant and willing to heap scorn on nonsense like his, it would never have become conventional wisdom in our society.
April 15, 2010, 7:40 pmElliot says:
Well, let me help out a bit. There are about forty states with CCW. You are in danger in all of those states if you get in a heated academic debate. Do you realize that? And God only knows what would happen if somone saw you with a copy of the NYT.
The even bigger problem is that you don’t know who is carrying a concealed weapon in these states. I would recommend presuming everyone is armed.
I’d suggest US News add a column to their ratings so we know at exactly which universities vibrant academic debate has been stifled so we can make sure our kids stay away. Protecting our academics is everyone’s job.
April 15, 2010, 7:48 pmOpenVolokh says:
At least someone understands!
Normal people probably don’t have to worry about bringing out the homicidal tendencies in people.
More seriously, I could be wrong about concealed carry on campus. But I don’t like the idea, because in my experience people are not completely rational.
Whether the threat of violence is real or imagined, I wonder if people really WOULD debate in the same manner and as openly with someone they knew was carrying a gun. Even subconsciously, the idea that this person could end your life very quickly and easily on a whim seems like it could very easily enter the picture.
But, if actual experience shows that this would not have a tendency to intimidate people (whether their concerns are rational or not!) then I don’t see the problem of concealed guns.
By the way. I am a gun owner and I do like shooting. I don’t think their should be heavy burdens on gun ownership and I think certain regulations on “assault rifles” were both arbitrary and irrational.
Those of you who think they can infer gun owning status based on the opinion that maybe having guns in the context where irrational heated feelings are likely are showing your own bias.
April 15, 2010, 7:58 pmOpenVolokh says:
Maybe I am an unusually violent person. The idea of physically attacking someone during debate has crossed my mind. But, I think I may be an unusually vicious outlier.
April 15, 2010, 8:03 pmcboldt says:
– I wonder if people really WOULD debate in the same manner and as openly with someone they knew was carrying a gun. –
April 15, 2010, 8:23 pmIt depends. Cops probably argue like hell in the office, guns all around. Same in the military. Might even come to blows from time to time.
But by your own admission, you are intimidated by arms, and would not be as much of an asshole in argument, as you would be with an unarmed person. Go figure – unless you appear to be life threatening, the armed person would probably defuse your argument by suggesting you calm down, or by peaceably leaving your vicinity so you could rant at somebody who cared.
OpenVolokh says:
The tone of this post to me is not very nice. What have I done to you?
April 15, 2010, 8:42 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Indeed? Why is that? Unable to control your base instincts? Perhaps society as a whole would be better if you were not around impressionable younger minds….you could go off (no pun intended) at the slightest provocation.
Lawful CCW’rs are just that: Very, very law-abiding. Far more so than the public at large (despite the leavening effect of the CCW’rs), or even law enforcement officers. An armed society is a polite society, after all.
I know that when I carry I make extra special efforts to stay out of trouble – avoiding even something as innocuous as cursing under my breath someone who gets my parking spot.
April 15, 2010, 8:51 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Outlier or not, you are clearly not (by your own admission) safe to have working in as stressful occupation as academe. Perhaps a life of quiet contemplation as a monk would be better for you.
April 15, 2010, 8:57 pmcboldt says:
– The tone of this post to me is not very nice. What have I done to you? –
April 15, 2010, 9:16 pmDon’t take it personally. I was just making an inference from your self description. You would reject a situation that deprived you of the ability to engage in heated argument, said heated argument being of such character that you anticipate your opponent might be aroused in anger or other emotion to the point they would literally obtain an impulsive urge to kill you.
AlanDownunder says:
A major legal win, and a hopefully minor life and limb loss.
April 15, 2010, 9:20 pmcboldt says:
– The tone of this post to me is not very nice. What have I done to you? –
April 15, 2010, 9:27 pmIn the alternative to you anticipating provoking your opponent to anger to the point of being in a murderous rage (i.e., you don’t know when to shut your trap); perhaps you yourself are inclined to get physical when in a heated argument. You suggest this is the case.
Either way, my remark about you being inclined to be less like that when the other guy is armed seems, to me, to justify the label “asshole.”
Maybe you aren’t really like that in person – all I have to go by is your self description and whatever reasonable inferences can be drawn from them.
Silent Majority says:
I have a 23 year-old with a CCW permit and I sure as hell would want him to have a fighting chance against a would be maniac, armed to the teeth, who was trying to kill innocent and unarmed students on his campus.
What did all those “NO FIREARMS ALLOWED” signs accomplish at Virginia Tech? Just maybe someone with a concealed carry may have been about to prevent some or all of those killings. Even one life saved.
April 15, 2010, 9:30 pmStephen Lathrop says:
When you have a statistical class from which felons have been systematically excluded, such as concealed carry licensees, what do you really learn by pointing out that members of that class are statistically less likely to be felons? Seems true by definition, but not very helpful in answering the salient question: who among the non-felons is more likely to commit his first gun crime, the guy with the gun or the guy without one? It would be interesting to see demographically matched statistical results for that one.
April 15, 2010, 9:35 pmPavePusher says:
Jardinero1 wrote:
“The Univ of Col is a state university but it is effectively private property.”
There is no “effectively” about it. It is either State (public) property, or it is private property, there is no “grey” zone there.
April 15, 2010, 9:38 pmOpenVolokh says:
cboldt,
May I offer a suggestion. Don’t be so quick to make negative inferences about others. You don’t know me. I don’t know you. I was responding to a comment by ShelbyC who joking suggested that based on the length of my comments on another thread, he understood my concern about debate provoking violence. I was just going along with his attempt at humor, which I appreciate.
I hope we can lighten up and approach these issues with a sense of humor, at least occasionally.
Actually, my concern about self-censorship, in reality, more comes from people anticipating that others might behave irrationally (not justifiable) in the heat of the moment. Whether such concerns are actually justified or not, such concerns could lead to concealed carry on campus having the unintended consequence of stifling debate.
I will admit that this is speculation and is entirely dependent on how people behave in practice. I also am emphatically not an anti-gun person and believe that concealed carry or really openly carrying would be useful in some situations such as the massacre at Virginia Tech. That concealed carry has benefits does not mean it does not have costs.
A final point. I will admit that I have been provoked by words directed at me before. That I have fantasized about resolving such disputes with violence. That I have said mean things to others designed purposely to inflict emotional distress that I later regretted. I am not perfect. I just try my best to be better and learn from my mistakes.
Another thought comes to mind. Back in the so-called Wild West (and yes I know that gunfights were the exception, not the rule at that time — I would be interested in the per capita number concerning the percentage of people who would engage in such behavior), there was an interesting gun culture, and it was not totally uncommon for disputes to be resolved with violence. There was also a culture of honor and dueling. I think such culture is ridiculous and resulted in the death of my favorite founding father, namely Alexander Hamilton, due to his own flaws, namely pride and hubris, at the hands of the traitorous Aaron Burr. Maybe it is far-fetched to think that actual modern people with easy and constant access to firearms would ever revert to such behavior. Maybe not.
I think in practice, maybe very few students will exercise their rights to concealed carry on the CU campus anyway. So maybe this is really a “who cares” sort of issue. I hope that is right.
April 15, 2010, 9:42 pmcboldt says:
– not very helpful in answering the salient question: who among the non-felons is more likely to commit his first gun crime, the guy with the gun or the guy without one? It would be interesting to see demographically matched statistical results for that one. –
April 15, 2010, 9:44 pmSharpen that question a bit. The way you’ve presented it, the answer is obvious, because a person w/o a gun cannot commit a gun crime.
PavePusher says:
will says:
“college campuses are no place for weapons. I simply don’t understand why ordinary people living in ordinary neighborhoods feel like they need to carry everywhere to be safe. It is just not that unsafe out there. Especially not on college campuses. Contain your fear; its unsightly.”
Every college campus I know of is a crime hot-spot on the police blotters (Check your local police website…). Why would you render people less capable of defending themselves against criminals? And why would a person who is capable of safely bearing arms on one side of a street considered unsafe to do so on the other side of the street. I certainly hope you didn’t get a passing grade in Logic 101.
April 15, 2010, 9:46 pmwhit says:
raises hand…
April 15, 2010, 9:58 pmcboldt says:
– May I offer a suggestion. Don’t be so quick to make negative inferences about others. …
April 15, 2010, 10:01 pmI have said mean things to others designed purposely to inflict emotional distress … –
I’m not clear on whether you are asserting that my inference was incorrect, or correct.
– I think in practice, maybe very few students will exercise their rights to concealed carry on the CU campus anyway. –
Probably well under 5%, and chances are this would be the mild-tempered end of the spectrum.
cboldt says:
– Don’t be so quick to make negative inferences about others. –
April 15, 2010, 10:06 pmYou should take that advice and apply it to your bias against people who choose to go armed.
Sun Tzu's Nephew says:
Not exactly the correct question. Who is more likely to commit a crime, a law-abiding citizen or a criminal?
Clearly, criminals don’t care about ‘gun free zones’ and the like. The law abiding, otoh, are concerned enough to defend themselves and society as a whole.
April 15, 2010, 10:36 pmOpenVolokh says:
I am not biased about people going armed. As long as they act within the law and in a civil manner, I support them in the exercise of their rights.
My concern is not about judging individual people. I am just wondering whether the effects of such a law will be good or bad. And if the facts show that the good effects outweigh the bad, then my concerns are unfounded. I would positively prefer my concerns to be unfounded. If my apprehension is right and the bad effects of the law outweigh the good, that isn’t the fault of people who lawfully exercise their rights under the law in a civil manner.
I wouldn’t even blame the drafters of the law, who surely believe that the effects will be positive. The only question for me is whether those effects will in fact be positive or negative, taken as a whole.
I think here you are letting your passions concerning this particular issue lead you to inferences that are not correct.
April 15, 2010, 10:39 pmOpenVolokh says:
Me either. If you think the fact that there have been times in my life where I was really pissed and even irrational makes me some sort of bad guy, that is your opinion. Even if I think it is a little extreme.
April 15, 2010, 10:41 pmcboldt says:
– If my apprehension is right and the bad effects of the law outweigh the good … –
April 15, 2010, 11:07 pmThat’s an aggregate negative inference. The concern you express is that one must tiptoe around armed people, otherwise the armed person will use deadly force.
You say the same thing a few different ways, but that’s where your bias (apprehension, if its correct) ends up. You have no experience (that you know of) and no evidence to support your apprehension.
– If you think the fact that there have been times in my life where I was really pissed and even irrational makes me some sort of bad guy … –
There’s a difference between being a bad guy, and acting like an asshole. I don’t think you are a bad guy. But based on your self description, I think you argue like an asshole. Not saying you are doing so in this thread, you aren’t. But if you think that in a “reasonably heated argument,” one side or the other is going to get physical to the point of use of deadly force, I just have to disagree that the action is in the realm of reasonable disagreement. And again, that you think an armed person is more likely to become that agitated, compared with an unarmed person, that’s your bias.
Gray Peterson says:
That doctrine does not exist, and it is a mere figment of your imagination.
April 15, 2010, 11:07 pmElliot says:
Does anyone have knowledge of academic debates on campus that evolved into physical assault? Murder? Who engages in such assaults? Students? Professors? What weapons were used? What schools?
I never heard of it in undergrad or grad school, but perhaps I didn’t travel with the nuanced crowd. Maybe it’s a law school thing?
April 15, 2010, 11:23 pmOpenVolokh says:
cboldt,
You have a lot made a lot of inferences that just aren’t true. I would suggest more caution. I don’t care if you say I act like an asshole sometimes. It happens to be true. But not in this thread. I don’t think anything I said in this thread really justified your tone, but you should make your own mind on that.
I did not say that someone with a gun is more likely to commit violence. I never said that and I never even thought it.
Even if that person was not even merely equally likely to commit violence, but instead much less likely to be violent, the consequences of them being violent are more extreme. At least if they use their gun. (Obviously, it is possible for someone who is armed to be violent without using their weapon.)
You can have 100 fist fights and that would not have the same impact as one gun fight. And I trust other people to some degree. I am sure the vast majority of people who would wield a gun on campus would do so in a completely responsible manner. But I simply do not trust that everyone would.
Look, if you are realistic, you have to realize that there will exist at least 1 gunfight sometime in the next 100 years that would not have occurred because of such policies. That emphatically does not mean that the benefits of allowing concealed carry on campus do not outweigh the costs. The issue is not whether there will be one incident. The issue is whether the number of incidents prevented are greater than the number of incidents caused and whether or not the policy will increase or decrease the freedom of debate on campus.
Who ever said anything about reasonable? People aren’t always reasonable. Obviously.
And that is also a problem. Even if carrying guns on campus decreased the statistical risk of danger on campus, it is POSSIBLE that it would still stifle debate. Precisely because people are neither fully informed nor fully rational.
Look, I am all for this in Colorado. Let it be a laboratory of democracy. Let us see what happens. When the sky fails to fall and people debate in an equally vigorous manner, I will happily say my apprehension (and you are right that it is a bias) is wrong. I am perfectly happy to be wrong. That does not mean that the concern is invalid.
April 15, 2010, 11:28 pmcboldt says:
– You have a lot made a lot of inferences that just aren’t true. –
April 15, 2010, 11:52 pmThat is certainly possible. But I didn’t make the inferences without having a basis.
– I did not say that someone with a gun is more likely to commit violence. I never said that and I never even thought it. –
You said, “I personally would not be inclined to get in a heated academic debate with someone I knew was carrying a gun.”
Why not?
cboldt says:
– I am all for this in Colorado. Let it be a laboratory of democracy. –
April 15, 2010, 11:56 pmAnother laboratory. See remark above on Utah. I know some of my classmates were packing heat, and not in Utah. Non-issue, doesn’t diminish the intensity of argument or disagreement in the least.
Matthew Carberry says:
Open,
Colorado doesn’t HAVE to be “the laboratory”, multiple states and multiple campuses have either allowed carry on campus for years or never denied it. Net problems? Zero.
The “experiment” is pretty much done. All that remains is for people to make themselves aware of that and to use their reason to overcome their initial, ignorent-of-the-facts, emotion driven response. Universities being temples of reason and all.
What gets me is this insistence so many people have that just because they are unaware of the facts on a particular issue, those facts don’t exist. Strangely, they just keep pontificating and “being concerned” and never bother to bestir themselves to actually research the issue.
Look, lawful concealed carry is a settled non-issue safety and crime wise, it effectively causes no problems (statistical revocations for both criminal and non-criminal reasons remain at <.01%, yes, percent, of permits issued across every state that allows carry).
None of the "concerns" raised when shall-issue laws first came into being have manifested, anywhere. None of the (strangely identical) concerns brought up when restrictions are later loosened or even (as in AK) removed entirely manifested either.
At what point are folks going to quit being "concerned" about what might happen and just look at the examples we already have, which cover the spectrum from no background check required, no training requirement, able to CC handguns at 18 and even OC at as low as 16, having no restriction on drinking a beer or two (but not being above the legal limit), etc., etc.?
There is no possible carry law scenario anyone can think of that isn't already in place in one state or another. In none of them have they caused enough problems to lead to repeal.
Many of us who care about the issue seem frustrated because we are.
April 16, 2010, 12:14 amOpenVolokh says:
Because the consequences if that person happened to be a little off (even if the probability of that person being off is much less likely than for the average citizen) would be much more extreme than if someone who isn’t carrying a gun happens to be a little crazy and you set them off.
It is like this. Would you prefer a 50% chance of losing $1 dollar or a 1% chance of losing $1,000,000 dollars? Well, the expected cost of a 1% chance of losing $1,000,000 is $10,000 and the expected cost of a 50% chance of losing $1 dollar is only .50 cents. So, if you are rational, you prefer a 50% chance of losing $1 dollar even though the 1% chance of losing $1,000,000 is much less likely.
April 16, 2010, 12:21 amMatthew Carberry says:
What potential “experimental” carry concerns do you have?
CCW / OC with no background check?
CCW / OC with no training requirement?
CCW / OC without permit?
CCW / OC at age 18?
OC at 16?
Carry into bars and able to drink below legal limit?
Carry on campus?
Carry into K-12 schools?
In every above listed case there are one or more states that have had that policy in place, with no significant problems leading for calls for its repeal.
The “experiments” are over, carry by lawful persons is simply a non-issue.
April 16, 2010, 12:22 amMatthew Carberry says:
As far as odds go, across the board the rate of revocation for all reasons, criminal and administrative, of concealed carry permits remains at <.01% for every state reporting.
That's 0.0001 of permit holders and revocation doesn't necessarily even mean that they actually committed a crime; that number includes those that had a non-injurious accident, or forgot to renew in a timely fashion or simply had a name that resembled someone prohibited or any number of other innocuous reasons.
Given those odds I'd rather go to a university made up solely of armed permit holders. It'd likely be safer than any current campus extant and, on the odd chance something went wrong, I'd at least have a fighting chance.
April 16, 2010, 12:37 amcboldt says:
– Because the consequences if that person happened to be a little off … –
April 16, 2010, 12:40 amUsing deadly force without being in fear of ones own life of limb is a “little” off?
What you are saying is that you believe a basically sane person might use force upon provocation consisting of heated academic debate; and an armed “used to be sane” person can cause more damage.
Of course there are insane people, see shooters (students and professors) on campus now. It’s impossible to identify and disarm ALL of them. See the UK for what the nuts do when the supply of guns runs low.
OpenVolokh says:
Wow. You really are parsing my words.
I was thinking of someone who is off, but where you may not be able to tell right away superficially. Not every mental disease is completely obvious. Or at least that is what I suppose, knowing nothing at all about it really.
I will plead total ignorance. I don’t know how “off”‘ someone has to be to resort to deadly force. If you say that they have to be more than a “little” off, I will take your word for it. You are probably more expert than me.
Of course, I agree that there are really insane people who are going to cause damage with guns on campus no matter what and that it is inappropriate to try to make them relevant to this particular policy discussion. (Whether concealed weapons are allowed on campus is not a policy that will have any impact on whether mentally unstable people have access to guns.)
April 16, 2010, 12:49 amJudge Tosses Challenge to University of Colorado Campus Gun Ban says:
[...] Volokh Conspiracy __________________ James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq. Attorney, The Law Offices of James M. Mullins, Jr., PLLC Founder and Past President, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. [...]
April 16, 2010, 1:04 amColorado Court of Appeals Affirms Right to Carry on Campus says:
[...] Volokh Conspiracy __________________ James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq. Attorney, The Law Offices of James M. Mullins, Jr., PLLC Founder and Past President, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. [...]
April 16, 2010, 1:07 amOrenWithAnE says:
If he finds himself brave enough to walk South Chicago at night without a piece, that’s for him. I have no problem being called a coward nor commending his (perhaps foolish) bravery.
Yes, the value of contrary (even foolish) opinions was never respected in our society.
To be fair, most of those crimes are either victimless (usually of the intoxicating variety) or not the kind that a gun would be helpful (loud parties, vandalism).
April 16, 2010, 1:16 amGaleH says:
I am not an impartial observer of comments on this thread.
But I must say, this has been a great read of arguments between pro RKBA and the antis. Logic, fact, and law vs. feelings.
Well done, all. Thank you for your work.
To Whit @ 9:58 pm: Ha, ha. Been there. Done that. Wrote the after action reports. No shots fired.
April 16, 2010, 3:02 amOpenVolokh says:
Hey! You gotta a problem with feelings!?
April 16, 2010, 3:15 am=)
Stephen Lathrop says:
Not saying that is made up, exactly, but I don’t believe it. Or maybe it is true, and shows that the administrative ability to revoke a concealed carry permit is non-existent. Or possibly that permits do get revoked in some way that doesn’t make it into the statistics.
Here’s the problem. Leaving everything else out of the picture, domestic violence is highly prevalent, and normally includes as a consequence the suspension of gun rights. Nobody is going to convince me that there is something about carrying concealed weapons that makes the men who do so far less likely to beat their wives. Note that I am not saying that carrying guns makes domestic violence more likely, just that it can’t reasonably be regarded as a cure.
Questionable assertions seem to me to stoke anti-gun sentiment more than to allay it. When someone says he wants to carry a concealed gun, and then cites some astounding, basically incredible social statistic in support of that, then cautious people are likely to wonder. That kind of concern tends to generalize. It works against respect for gun owners, and undermines support for gun rights.
April 16, 2010, 5:31 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Speaking of “some astounding, basically incredible social statistic,” what about anti-gun people who say things like “domestic violence is highly prevalent”?
April 16, 2010, 7:33 amcboldt says:
– Note that I am not saying that carrying guns makes domestic violence more likely, just that it can’t reasonably be regarded as a cure. –
I don’t know of a single person or study that asserts or even suggests that violent tendencies, and in particular, the willingness to use deadly force, is curbed by obtaining possession of a gun.
On the other hand, I have often read a suggestion that possession of a gun causes otherwise peaceable people to obtain an increase in violent tendencies – or if not an increase rate in tendencies, and increased rate of executing the use of deadly force (i.e., insinuating that depriving a person of a gun results in loss of capability to perpetrating a serious injury).
– Questionable assertions seem to me to stoke anti-gun sentiment more than to allay it. When someone says he wants to carry a concealed gun, and then cites some astounding, basically incredible social statistic in support of that … –
That swings both ways. The anti-gunners have earned a reputation of creating and citing misleading statistics. Like gun in the home = 43 times as likely to suffer a violent accident or attack (or whatever the claim was), of the number of “children” killed or injured by gunfire (where “children” includes criminal gangbangers).
April 16, 2010, 7:50 amAs far as any given individual, I think nearly all people who contemplate a decision to go armed do so with appropriate consideration of their own temperament, situation, etc. The same goes for people who contemplate getting behind the wheel of an automobile or truck.
It’s my belief that most people who choose to go armed end up being LESS likely to participate in any escalation; and even less likely to initiate an escalation.
cboldt says:
“It’s my belief that most people who choose to go armed end up being LESS likely to participate in any escalation; and even less likely to initiate an escalation.”
April 16, 2010, 8:02 amThat was meant to refer to a before/after (or armed/not armed) comparison of a single individual.
I think it also applies to a comparison of two populations (w/CCW, wo/CCW), and statistical studies bear that out beyond a reasonable doubt.
cboldt says:
To reconcile the apparently contradictory statements …
April 16, 2010, 8:13 am“most people who choose to go armed end up being LESS likely to participate in any escalation” vs.
“I don’t know of a single person or study that asserts or even suggests that violent tendencies, and in particular, the willingness to use deadly force, is curbed by obtaining possession of a gun”
… the second group was, in my mind, the miscreants who have anger management issues and don’t regulate their resort to violence. I don’t know of a study that claims people who lack self control, can be cured and obtain self control via possession of a gun. This is a different segment of the population than MOST people, as MOST people are able to and in fact do maintain self-control – moreso at the threshold of use of deadly force than at lower thresholds.
Jardinero1 says:
Universities have long been allowed to restrict other rights especially freedom of assembly on their campuses using basically the argument I have put forth.
April 16, 2010, 8:32 amMike says:
I don’t think that guns make people act more cautiously. I think that a combination of the background checks involved and something about the culture surrounding those who currently choose to carry results in these ridiculously low statistics.
It is *incredibly* easy to revoke a concealed carry permit. It happens automatically at the commission of anything that would have prevented carrying (specifically, any felony, or any serious or even non-serious firearms violations.)
I think you have a confluence of several factors:
People who do not care about the law will just carry concealed illegally without the permit.
People who do not care about a duty toward self-defense and defense of others will not carry at all.
People who are both inherently law-abiding and feel some sort of duty to their own defense and the defense of those around them will get the permit.
Concealed carry isn’t fun. The guns are heavy, the gear is expensive, you have to go through training, and you have to worry about all sorts of weird laws and regulations that can make you an accidental felon. While I’m sure there are a significant minority of people who get one just because they want to feel cool with their gun, that’s not the general mindset in the community by any means.
That seems like it combines to produce a very lawful subset of the population. If gun culture becomes more mainstream, this could possibly change, but so far the numbers don’t show it.
The statistics are real, no matter how improbable they seem if you haven’t looked at them before. CCW license holders are more lawful than the general population of people who have not committed a felony, more lawful than off duty police officers (who also, I’m pretty sure, would not be in this group if they had a rap sheet). When Florida first started their program, they were very concerned about how dangerous their CCW people would be, and kept a special tracking database for whenever one of them got caught in a crime. They shut down the separate tracking after a few years because there were just so few entries in it.
I’m perfectly fine if you don’t feel you need to carry a gun, or understand why others do. I have my license, but I don’t actually personally carry right now. The important thing is to realize that while you may feel uncomfortable, there is no evidence backing this discomfort, which makes it a poor motivation for setting policy.
April 16, 2010, 9:13 amMartha says:
Actually, this issue is one on which reading VC over the years has changed my mind. I used to be very opposed to CCW on campus but reading the arguments/evidence on the other side has persuaded me.
I don’t own a gun–in order to feel safe about having a gun with small kids in the house, it would need to be so inaccessible that it wouldn’t do any good in an emergency anyway. Plus, training & upkeep are a big responsibility that I’m not sure I could keep up with right now. I don’t think that means I “don’t care about a duty toward self-defense and defense of others.”
April 16, 2010, 10:24 amPintler says:
People aren’t randomly assigned to carry/noncarry study groups. In my experience, people self select into the carry group precisely because they are predisposed towards having a great deal of appreciation for the future consequences of present actions. Thus they not only have carry permits, their spare tires are properly inflated, their smoke detector batteries are fresh and so on. IMHE, it is that appreciation of future consequences that tends to make permit holders as a group very law abiding.
I’m not maintaining that having a permit is evidence of sainthood – the permit holder crime rate is not zero – but as a class, people with the foresight to get a permit tend to also have the foresight to not misuse it.
I’ll be the first to admit that the number of twitchy hotheaded permit holders is non zero, but if that was a significant fraction of the group, we wouldn’t see the very low permit holder crime rate that we do.
Moreover, even if you did randomly assign people to carry/noncarry study groups, it wouldn’t surprise me if being assigned to the carry group didn’t lower the chances of being involved in many kinds of crimes. All of us will occasionally be angered by someone else’s behavior – the jerk who almost causes a crash, the street people who make suggestive remarks when you walk by with your wife, and so on. Before you have a permit, you might give in to anger – giving the finger to the reckless driver or harsh words to the winos. Getting a permit, though, opens your eyes to where those kinds of actions could lead, and that kind of petty venting becomes a luxury you can’t afford, both because if things do escalate it is legally important that you did everything you could to avoid the confrontation, and because you realize that since you are carrying, anyone else might be as well. IMHE, it’s a very sobering thing. Instead of making you feel omnipotent, carrying makes you realize how quickly and badly things can go bad. It makes you, IMHE, more careful, not less.
April 16, 2010, 10:32 amStephen Lathrop says:
Where did I say anything “anti-gun?” I have owned nine guns of various sorts, with which I have hunted cottontails, Hungarian partridge, pheasant, chukar partridge, blue grouse, spruce grouse, sage grouse, deer and elk.
And domestic violence isn’t highly prevalent? That will be welcome news indeed, but it does imply some major problems with the record keeping down at my county courthouse.
Do you think that statistic is an honest representation of even-handed law enforcement, followed by efficient process, implying as it does that fewer than one in ten-thousand Florida gun permit carriers has been found to be a wife beater (plus all other felonies, plus even minor drug convictions)? My point is that when gun rights advocates make claims that seem peculiar, people tend to think gun rights advocates are themselves peculiar. That can’t help.
April 16, 2010, 10:41 amPintler says:
What mechanism do you think would tend to artificially lower the number of revocations? That police, confronted with a fact set that would ordinarily lead them to make a domestic violence arrest, will instead find out the suspect has a permit and decide to sweep the incident under the rug? Or that judges or prosecutors will tilt the scales in some way?
April 16, 2010, 10:49 amcboldt says:
– Plus, training & upkeep are a big responsibility that I’m not sure I could keep up with right now. I don’t think that means I “don’t care about a duty toward self-defense and defense of others.” –
April 16, 2010, 10:56 amSeems to me that you have a normally healthy attitude toward the duty of self-defense and defense of others. You don’t want to take on the chore (beyond keeping hazards out of the precious little hands and minds that are in your care) until you are ready and able to commit time to it.
Read Mike’s comment for the reverse proposition: “People who get the permit are both inherently law-abiding and feel some sort of duty to their own defense and the defense of those around them.” Many people who feel a duty of care are uninterested or otherwise don’t bother with learning to carry.
cboldt says:
– Do you think that statistic is an honest representation of even-handed law enforcement, followed by efficient process, implying as it does that fewer than one in ten-thousand Florida gun permit carriers has been found to be a wife beater (plus all other felonies, plus even minor drug convictions)? –
April 16, 2010, 11:09 amAt first blush, the stat does seem incredible, but bear in mind that one would have to start “outside” of the group of “wife beater, felon, etc.”; then get a permit (and learn that you will lose it on domestic violence misdemeanor); then move to inside that group, in order to make a revocation statistic.
As it is, a woman married (or living with) to a police office is more likely to be a victim of domestic violence, than a woman married or living with a CCW holder.
It may be that those who find gun rights advocates peculiar are unreasonably biased.
Stephen Lathrop says:
I note that information provided on Florida gun law mentions right up front that revocation can be avoided if a crime record is sealed or expunged. I’m guessing that Florida prosecutors and judges use that freely both to encourage plea bargains and in deference to privacy. If so, the statistic we have been discussing is useless.
April 16, 2010, 11:27 amPintler says:
I’m confused – are you asserting that prosecutors and judges use their discretion preferentially in favor of permit holders, giving them breaks they would deny to non permit holders? Or is you objection that permit holders are treated the same as everyone else?
April 16, 2010, 11:56 amcboldt says:
Utah’s rate of revocation (about 0.25%) and suspension (also about 0.25%) is greater than Florida’s. Looking at 4thQ of 2009: Alcohol violations and moral turpitude together comprise about half of the revocations. Protective orders plus domestic violence comprise about a fifth of the revocations.
Utah Department of Public Safety – Statistical Information
April 16, 2010, 12:03 pmElliot says:
I think there are many anti-CCW arguments which were once plausible, but are now discredited. Before Florida enacred CCW (1995?) it was reasonable to suggest CCW would lead to more violence. However, after 40 states enacted CCW, and we see no problems, that argument is no longer valid.
I’m reminded of the Kansas City Star when Missouri was debating CCW. Everyday they ran front page stories highlighting the carnage that would ensue. CCW passed in Missouri and nothing of the sort happened.
A few years later Kansas took up the issue. (The state border cuts the KC metro area.) To their credit, the KC Star was silent on the issue. Nobody needed their wise leadership. People could just look around and see no problems from CCW.
We have had the laboratories, we have had the experiments, and we have had replication in forty states. Al Gore would call it settled science.
April 16, 2010, 12:08 pmKirk Parker says:
whit,
You need to re-post your item about the fighting culture in Maui. :-)
April 16, 2010, 12:20 pmMike says:
I did not mean to imply that *only* people with a sense of duty would carry. My apologies. As I said before, I don’t actually carry myself, I just believe that everyone should have the ability to do so.
April 16, 2010, 12:45 pmMartha says:
Thanks, Mike. After cboldt provided a different way to understand your statement, I realized that I was reading too much into it. It’s very thoughtful of you to apologize.
April 16, 2010, 1:06 pmStephen Lathrop says:
My objection is that the statistic is useless, because it clearly gives no realistic picture of how permit holders behave, and therefore no picture of how they are treated, legally or administratively.
Would that be annual rate? Or what?
April 16, 2010, 1:16 pmcboldt says:
– Would that be annual rate? Or what? –
From the linked report, those appear to be annual revocation rate figures for 2009. Other years have different rates. These figures are total valid permits at the end of the year, and number of revocations for the year. The causes are varied, I didn’t check to see if the 50% for alcohol and moral turpitude, 20% for protective order plus domestic violence was roughly consistent over the period. And too, these are just the revocations.
2009: 409 out of 214,403 (0.19%)
2008: 298 out of 142,462 (0.20%)
2007: 290 out of 108,100 (0.27%)
2006: 103 out of 80,235 (0.13%)
2005: 180 out of 70,185 (0.26%)
2004: 257 out of 61,931 (0.41%)
2003: 247 out of 57,044 (0.43%)
2002: 179 out of 51,564 (0.35%)
2001: 184 out of 44,173 (0.42%)
2000: 256 out of ??
1999: 75 out of ??
1998: 58 out of ??
1997: 42 out of ??
1996: 13 out of ??
1995: 1 out of ??
1994: 5 out of ??
The 2001 4th Quarter Report summarizes the reasons for the 70 total revocations from 1994 to 2001. 4 homicides, w/firearm, 1 w/car, 1 attempt.
April 16, 2010, 2:13 pmcboldt says:
“70 total revocations” is 70 total FELONY revocations.
April 16, 2010, 2:14 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
The police, and justice systems are predisposed to revoke licenses, not to keep them in place.
April 16, 2010, 3:46 pmPintler says:
I followed CBoldt’s links to the Utah data. That gives, by quarter, the total number of permits and a summary of revocations. For each year, I averaged the number of permits across the quarters and multiplied that by the Utah murder rate to get the number of homicides you would expect from that number of people.
Next I wanted to determine the actual number of homicides committed by permit holders. You can’t determine that number exactly. They list the number of felony revocations, and the types of felonies (specifically, the most serious charge if there are more than one), but the list can say 3 total felony revocations, types were homicide and tax evasion. That leaves you guessing whether there were two homicides and one tax evasion, or vice versa, so I report that as ’1 to 2′ homicides.
Year NumPermits HomRate Predicted Actual
2003 55365 2.6 1.44 0
2004 60305 1.9 1.14 1 to 2
2005 66760 2.2 1.46 0
2006 76879 1.8 1.38 0
2007 92074 2.2 2.02 0
2008 128194 1.4 1.79 0
2009 186088 1.4* 2.60 2 to 8
So between 2003 and 2009 Utah permit holders committed between 3 and 10 homicides**. If you picked the same number of people at random, you would expect them to commit 1.44+1.14+1.46+…=11.83 murders. Permit holders seem to be at worst a little less likely, and probably much less likely, to commit homicide than the general public.
*my source didn’t have a 2009 rate; I reused the 2008 number
April 16, 2010, 4:07 pm**the 2009 quarter that had the most homicides listed a dozen odd crimes; there could only have been 8 homicides if there were 8 homicides and every other crime was only committed once.
anne whalen gill says:
there were 2 legal issues: whether the University could pre-empt the state wide CCW Act, which determines whether the University could ban otherwise legal CCW on campus; and the Colorado Constitution issue of driving on or through campus with a gun legally in the car. As one who contributed to drafting the pre-emption bill, I know we deliberately put in the state wide concern language which the court relied upon heavily on the pre-emption issue.
As a practical matter, the Univeristy has been plagued with serious crimes of assualt and sexual asssualt. Reasonable people can reasonably expect a higher cirme rate on the campus than elsewhere in the metro areas.
April 16, 2010, 6:59 pmChris Travers says:
There are times when I want to try to shake some sense into debate opponents. But attack with a weapon? No way……
April 18, 2010, 1:27 amChris Travers says:
Whit:
Unfortunately there seems to be a trend in the last decade in Washington State of trying to ban weapons on college campuses. I think this is Unconstitutional and the sooner it is challenged and reverted back to the way it was before the better.
April 18, 2010, 1:28 am