Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:37 am
Time: 12:37 am
Results for gun control policy
30 results foundAuthor: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Gun Control: Sharing Promising Practices and Assessing Incentives Could Better Position Justice to Assist States in Providing Records for Background Checks Summary: From 2004 to 2011, the total number of mental health records that states made available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) increased by approximately 800 percent—from about 126,000 to 1.2 million records—although a variety of challenges limited states’ ability to share such records. This increase largely reflects the efforts of 12 states. However, almost half of all states increased the number of mental health records they made available by fewer than 100 over this same time period. Technological, legal, and other challenges limited the states’ ability to share mental health records. To help address these challenges, the Department of Justice (DOJ) provides assistance to states, such as grants and training, which the 6 states GAO reviewed reported as helpful. DOJ has begun to have states share their promising practices at conferences, but has not distributed such practices nationally. By disseminating practices that states used to overcome barriers to sharing mental health records, DOJ could further assist states efforts. The states’ overall progress in making unlawful drug use records available to NICS is generally unknown because of how these records are maintained. The vast majority of records made available are criminal records—such as those containing arrests or convictions for possession of a controlled substance—which cannot readily be disaggregated from other records in the databases checked by NICS. Most states are not providing noncriminal records, such as those related to positive drug test results for persons on probation. On May 1, 2012, DOJ data showed that 30 states were not making any noncriminal records available. Four of the 6 states GAO reviewed raised concerns about providing records outside an official court decision. Two states also noted that they did not have centralized databases that would be needed to collect these records. DOJ has issued guidance for providing noncriminal records to NICS. DOJ has not administered the reward and penalty provisions of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 because of limitations in state estimates of the number of records they possess that could be made available to NICS. DOJ officials were unsure if the estimates, as currently collected, could reach the level of precision needed to serve as the basis for implementing the provisions. The 6 states GAO reviewed had mixed views on the extent to which the reward and penalty provisions—if implemented as currently structured—would provide incentives for them to make more records available. DOJ had not obtained the states’ views. Until DOJ establishes a basis for administering these provisions—which could include revising its current methodology for collecting estimates or developing a new basis—and determining the extent to which the current provisions provide incentives to states, the department cannot provide the incentives to states that were envisioned by the act. Nineteen states have received federal certification of their programs that allow individuals with a precluding mental health adjudication or commitment to seek relief from the associated firearms prohibition. Having such a program is required to receive grants under the 2007 NICS act. Officials from 10 of the 16 states we contacted said that grant eligibility was a strong incentive for developing the program. Reductions in grant funding could affect incentives moving forward. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2012. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 16, 2012 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592452.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592452.pdf Shelf Number: 125631 Keywords: Background ChecksGun Control (U.S.)Gun Control PolicyMental Health Records |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Gun Control: States' Laws and Requirements for Concealed Carry Permits Vary across the Nation Summary: The number of states allowing concealed carry permits is increasing, and states broadly differ in eligibility requirements and the extent to which they have reciprocity agreements. In June 2002, 7 states and the District of Columbia prohibited the concealed carry of handguns. As of March 2012, individuals can carry concealed handguns in all but 1 state (Illinois) and the District of Columbia. “Shall-issue” states—in which issuing authorities are required to issue a permit to an applicant that fulfills the objective statutory criteria— generally issue more permits than states with greater discretion in granting permits (“may-issue” states). Because of differing eligibility requirements, some states would issue a permit to an applicant, while others would not. For example, some states define what constitutes a disqualifying felony differently or have different firearms training requirements. As of March 2012, 39 states that issue permits and Vermont (permits not required) recognize concealed carry permits from other states. Of the 9 states that do not grant reciprocity, 8 are may-issue states. Issuing authorities from all 9 states included in GAO’s case study stated that they take action to confirm an individual’s continued eligibility to hold a permit as part of the permit renewal process; and issuing authorities from 8 of these 9 states reported using mechanisms to monitor resident permit holders’ continued eligibility between issuance and renewal. In these 8 states, issuing authorities told GAO that they are notified if a permit holder commits a disqualifying act within their state through law enforcement or state databases. After detecting a disqualifying criminal offense or other disqualifying factors, each of the 9 states begins the revocation process by notifying the permit holder. The states have varying retrieval processes, and 3 of them have authority to impose a penalty for failure to surrender a revoked permit or continuing to possess one. Law enforcement in the 9 case study states that issue permits told GAO that when encountering permits, such as during routine traffic stops, they visually check them and can take additional steps, such as checking state databases, as needed, to determine whether the permits are current and valid. Law enforcement in the 9 case study states that issue permits told GAO that when encountering permits, such as during routine traffic stops, they visually check them and can take additional steps, such as checking state databases, as needed, to determine whether the permits are current and valid. According to state reporting to GAO, there were at least 8 million active permits to carry concealed handguns in the United States as of December 31, 2011. States and local authorities control the issuance of concealed carry permits. Applicants who wish to obtain such permits are required to meet certain state eligibility requirements, such as minimum age and the lack of a felony conviction. States also decide which other states’ permits to honor. Typically, states enter into reciprocity agreements that establish which out of- state permit holders can carry concealed firearms within each state. In recent years, Members of Congress have introduced legislation that would require each issuing state to recognize any permit. GAO was asked to provide information on the status of concealed carry permitting. This report describes (1) the extent to which states allow concealed carry permits, and how select states’ eligibility requirements and recognition of other states’ permits differ, (2) what processes select states use to help ensure they revoke permits when holders no longer meet eligibility requirements, and (3) how law enforcement officials in select states determine whether permits they encounter are current and valid. GAO gathered information on the number of permits, laws, issuing authorities, and reciprocity agreements for 50 states and the District of Columbia, and conducted a case study on 9 states that issue permits. GAO selected these states to reflect differences among states’ eligibility requirements, state reciprocity of permits, and permit issuing processes; the results cannot be generalized across all states but provide a broad understanding of the different requirements and processes states utilized in issuing permits. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2012. 90p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-12-717: Accessed July 18, 2012 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf Shelf Number: 125663 Keywords: Concealed Carry PermitsGun Control (U.S.)Gun Control LegislationGun Control PolicyGuns |
Author: Nobles, Matthew Robin Title: Evaluating Philadelphia's Gun Court: Implications for Crime Reduction and Specialized Jurisprudence Summary: We evaluated the City of Philadelphia's specialized problem-solving gun court. The gun court program began in 2005, and features mandatory treatment elements in addition to enhanced processing celerity and intensive supervision protocols, with the ultimate goal of impacting aggregate levels of gun violence in Philadelphia. Although gun policy research from criminology and other fields has examined a variety of gun violence interventions with different levels of success, to date there are no peer-reviewed evaluations of a gun court program in the literature. Meanwhile, gun courts continue their expansion into jurisdictions of all sizes with varying levels of social problems, from Providence, Rhode Island (home to the nation's first gun court in 1994) to relatively newer programs including New York City (2003) and Boston (2006). This study first describes Philadelphia’s Gun Court program, reviews deterrence theory broadly implicated in anti-crime programs, and recounts what works and what’s promising in anti-gun interventions. It then presents an interrupted time series analysis to determine whether there are statistically significant treatment effects observed in Philadelphia after the intervention. The analysis includes a comparison site (Pittsburgh) and non-gun crime series while implementing the proper controls for autocorrelation, seasonality, and non-stationarity. Results indicate that there are no statistically significant declines in the aggregate rates of four gun-related crime categories in Philadelphia in the 24 months after the introduction of the court program, although this finding does not necessarily preclude individual-level effects for offenders processed through gun court. Implications for gun policy and problem-solving courts are discussed. Details: Tallahassee, FL: University of Florica, 2008. 122p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed September 13, 2012 at: http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0022084/nobles_m.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0022084/nobles_m.pdf Shelf Number: 126326 Keywords: Gun Control PolicyGun Courts (Philadelphia)Gun ViolenceGunsProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Violence Policy Center Title: Gun Deaths Outpace Motor Vehicle Deaths in the DMV in 2010 Summary: Firearm-related fatalities exceeded motor vehicle fatalities in the DMV (District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia) in 2010, the most recent year for which data is available for both products. Firearm-related deaths include homicide, suicide, and unintentional fatal injuries (see chart below).1 Gun deaths outpaced motor vehicle deaths not only in the region as a whole, but in each of the three jurisdictions that comprise the DMV. In 2010, gun deaths in the DMV totaled 1,512 while motor vehicles deaths totaled 1,280. The statistics in the DMV offer a stark illustration of a public health emergency that often receives scant attention from policymakers. Firearms remain the only consumer product not regulated by a federal health and safety agency, while the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has overseen automobile safety since 1966. Nationally, firearm fatalities almost equal motor vehicle deaths despite the fact that roughly three times as many Americans own automobiles as own firearms. The tolerance for such a high level of gun death is even harder to comprehend when the relative utility of the two products is taken into account. Unlike guns, motor vehicles are essential to the functioning of the U.S. economy. Details: Washington, DC: Violence Policy Center, 2012. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2013 at: http://www.vpc.org/studies/dmv.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.vpc.org/studies/dmv.pdf Shelf Number: 127574 Keywords: Firearms and CrimeGun Control PolicyGun Violence (U.S.)Homicides |
Author: Frandsen, Ronald J. Title: Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2010 - Statistical Tables Summary: Over 118 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were subject to background checks from the inception of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 on March 1, 1994, through December 31, 2010. During this time period, about 2.1 million applications, or 1.8%, were denied (table 1). In 2010, 1.5% of the 10.4 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were denied by the FBI (approximately 73,000) or by state and local agencies (approximately 80,000). The denial rate for applications checked by the FBI (1.2%) was lower than the rate for checks by state and local agencies (1.8%) (table 2). The data in this report were developed from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Firearms Inquiry Statistics (FIST) program, which collects information on firearm background checks conducted by state and local agencies and combines this information with the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) transaction data. This report presents the overall trends in the estimated number of applications and denials for firearm transfers or permits since the inception of the Brady Act and describes background checks for firearm transfers conducted in 2010. Data include the number of firearm transaction applications checked by state and local agencies and the FBI, the number of applications denied and the reasons for denial, and estimates of applications and denials by each type of approval system. Statistical tables also provide data on appeals of denied applications and arrests for falsified documents. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2013. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 13, 2013 at: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/bcft10st.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/bcft10st.pdf Shelf Number: 127608 Keywords: Brady ActFirearms (U.S.)Gun Control PolicyGun OwnershipGuns |
Author: Stachelberg, Winnie Title: Blindfolded, and with One Hand Tied Behind the Back How the Gun Lobby Has Debilitated Federal Action on Firearms and What President Obama Can Do About It Summary: It is no secret that annual appropriations bills are often used as a vehicle for moving through discrete legislative measures unrelated to funding the government. Because appropriations bills are often considered to be “must pass” pieces of legislation, packaging nonfunding policy provisions into these bills can be an effective way to ensure passage of measures that might not pass if submitted through the regular legislative process in the House and Senate. The use of appropriations riders to enact policy changes, however, has reached new heights in the area of firearms. Beginning in the late 1970s and accelerating over the past decade, Congress, at the behest of the National Rifle Association, or NRA, and others in the gun lobby, began incrementally chipping away at the federal government’s ability to enforce the gun laws and protect the public from gun crime. The NRA freely admits its role in ensuring that firearms-related legislation is tacked onto budget bills, explaining that doing so is “the legislative version of catching a ride on the only train out of town.” Inserting policy directives in spending bills bypasses the traditional process, which allows for more careful review and scrutiny of proposed legislation. Appropriations bills are intended to allocate funding to government agencies to ensure that they are capable of fulfilling their missions and performing essential functions. But the gun riders directed at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, do exactly the opposite and instead impede the agency’s ability to function and interfere with law-enforcement efforts to curb gun-related crime by creating policy roadblocks in service to the gun lobby. As a group, the riders have limited how ATF can collect and share information to detect illegal gun trafficking, how it can regulate firearms sellers, and how it partners with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. Details: Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2013. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 25, 2013 at: http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/GunRidersBrief-7.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/GunRidersBrief-7.pdf Shelf Number: 128119 Keywords: Firearms (U.S.)Gun Control PolicyGun Violence |
Author: American Bar Association. National Task Force on Stand Your Ground Laws Title: A Review of the Preliminary Report & Recommendations Summary: In 2013, the National Task Force on Stand Your Ground Laws was convened by the American Bar Association entities identified below, to review and analyze the recently enacted Stand Your Ground laws in multiple states and their impact on public safety and the criminal justice system. The ABA sponsors of the Task Force include the Coalition on Racial & Ethnic Justice, the Center for Racial and Ethnic Diversity, the Commission of Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Profession, Council for Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Educational Pipeline, the Section on Individual Rights & Responsibilities, the Criminal Justice Section, the Young Lawyer's Division, the Standing Committee on Gun Violence, and the Commission on Youth at Risk. The Task Force members are a diverse array of leaders from law enforcement, government, public and private criminal attorneys, public and private health, academic experts, and other legal and social science experts. Further, the Task Force's membership includes appointees from the above co-sponsoring ABA entities and strategic partners, including the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, the Urban Institute, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children. Additionally, the Task Force has an Advisory Committee of leading academic and other legal and social science experts as well as victims' rights advocates. The Task Force has conducted a comprehensive legal and multidisciplinary analysis of the impact of the Stand Your Ground laws, which have substantially expanded the bounds of self-defense law in over half of the jurisdictions in the United States. The study detailed herein is national in its scope and assess the utility of previous, current, and future laws in the area of self-defense across the United States. In examining and reporting on the potential effects Stand Your Ground laws may have on public safety, individual liberties, and the criminal justice system, the Task Force has: 1. Examined the provisions of Stand Your Ground statutes and analyzed the potential for their misapplication and their risk of injustice from multiple perspectives, e.g. the individual's right to exercise self-defense, the victim's rights, and of the rights of the criminally accused. 2. Analyzed the degree to which racial or ethnic bias impacts Stand Your Ground laws. Particular attention was paid to the role implicit bias. First, the analysis focuses on how implicit bias may impact the perception of a deadly threat as well as the ultimate use of deadly force. Second, it looks at how implicit bias impacts the investigation, prosecution, immunity, and final determination of which homicides are justified. 3. Examined the effect that the surge of new Stand Your Ground laws had on crime control objectives and public safety. 4. Reviewed law enforcement policy, administrative guidelines, statutes, and judicial rulings regarding the investigation and prosecution of Stand Your Ground cases. 5. Conducted a series of regional public hearings to learn about community awareness, perceptions of equality in enforcement and application, opinions concerning the utility of the laws, and reactions to individualized experiences involving interactions with Stand Your Ground laws. 6. Prepared a final report and recommendations. Details: American Bar Association, 2014. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 9, 2014 at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/racial_ethnic_justice/aba_natl_task_force_on_syg_laws_preliminary_report_program_book.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/racial_ethnic_justice/aba_natl_task_force_on_syg_laws_preliminary_report_program_book.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 133195 Keywords: Crime ControlGun Control PolicyGun ViolenceGuns (U.S.)HomicidePublic SafetySelf-DefenseStand Your Ground Laws |
Author: Gerney, Arkadi Title: Assault Weapons Revisited: Policy Options for Regulating Rifles, Shotguns, and Other Firearms 20 Years After the Passage of the Assault Weapons Ban Summary: 20 years after President Bill Clinton signed the federal assault weapons ban into law in September 1994 and a decade after Congress allowed that law to lapse - the question of whether and how to regulate particularly lethal firearms is no longer the primary focus of the national gun debate. While the question of what to do about the proliferation of certain military-style rifles - so-called "assault weapons" - remains open, advocates for stronger gun laws have recently focused on the question of who may possess guns, rather than which type of guns should receive heightened regulation. In the wake of the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, President Barack Obama, congressional leaders, and gun-violence prevention advocates alike made deterring dangerous people from accessing guns the top legislative priority with a proposal for comprehensive background checks for all gun sales. In April 2013, while the Senate also considered a new assault weapons ban that only mustered 40 votes, the Manchin-Toomey bill to expand background checks garnered 55 votes. This shift in focus to prevent dangerous people from accessing guns is appropriate: A broad set of research suggests that such measures are effective in reducing gun violence. Additionally, there is overwhelming support in opinion polls for expanding background checks and similar measures aimed at restricting dangerous people from accessing guns. But the debate persists about whether and how to best regulate assault rifles and other types of firearms that may pose heightened risks to public safety. For more than 20 years, there has generally been only one policy solution offered in this debate: a ban on assault weapons. This report considers how gun laws have evolved to address different classes of firearms and looks more broadly at how federal and state laws treat rifles and shotguns differently than handguns and whether all of those distinctions continue to make sense. It also examines data on the changing nature of gun violence and the increasing use of long guns and assault rifles by criminals, with a focus on Pennsylvania as a case study. Additionally, this report offers a new framework for regulating assault weapons and other special categories of guns that balances the desire of law-abiding gun owners to possess these guns with the need to protect public safety from their misuse in dangerous hands. These policies include: - Require background checks for all gun sales - Require dealers to report multiple sales of long guns - Equalize interstate sales of long guns and handguns - Require federal firearms licenses for individuals that manufacture guns using 3D printers - Bar possession and use of machine guns by individuals under the age of 16 - Require a permit for possession of assault weapons Twenty years after the successful passage of the federal assault weapons ban and 10 years after its expiration, the push for a federal ban on these guns seems stuck in neutral. But much more can be done to strengthen regulation of particularly dangerous guns and to ensure that laws regulating handguns and long guns make sense in today's context. Details: Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2014. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 18, 2014 at: http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/AssaultWeapons-report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/AssaultWeapons-report.pdf Shelf Number: 133375 Keywords: Assault WeaponsFirearmsGun ControlGun Control PolicyGun LawsGun-Related Violence (U.S.)Guns |
Author: Barnhizer, David Title: Gun Control Hysteria Summary: The call to ban guns does not make sense from an effective regulatory perspective. Nor do gun control proposals representing an irrational fear of weapons satisfy Constitutional analysis whether that analysis proceeds under either a strict interpretation or "evolving document" analysis. The irony is that the "living and evolving document" approach to Constitutional interpretation, under current real-world threats and conditions, actually requires affirmative protections of Second Amendment rights. A key determinant of how rights and duties should be adapted to the "new normal" of serious and escalating risks of decentralized and distributed violence pursuant to the "living" US Constitution is that it must now be adjusted to the higher and "threat levels" we are experiencing. This means that the fundamental right to bear arms for defense of self and family must be given greater weight and deference under either a strict interpretation or evolving document approach. In terms of effective regulation, every gun control measure proposed or enacted since the Clinton administration has either failed or must fail when tested against the real world. Regulatory flops such as the Clinton "assault weapons" ban target firearms only rarely used in crime. Proposals or actual programs for firearms registries tug at the heartstrings of those who believe in the ability of the state to properly manage and control social interactions, but in practice fail to solve crimes, do not deter criminal conduct, nor make law-abiding citizens safer in any meaningful respect. Over and over, proposed firearm-restrictive "solutions" are only words on paper, inevitable and expensive regulatory "flops" with no hope of working and typical expressions of cynical politicians' public relations strategies aimed at garnering votes from the uninformed. Anti-gun advocates - at least those acting in good faith and not from purely cynical political motives - are convinced that any views contrary to their own are products of "barbarism", ignorance or some form of malicious social "psychosis". Whether a gun owner possesses weapons for reasons of self-defense, from a desire to defend local and national community if needed, or simply because the individual enjoys target shooting, hunting or being part of a "gun culture" such motivations are entirely incompatible with the belief systems of anti-gun activists who exist in secure "cocoons". Moreover, and remarkably, such regulations fail to conform to good faith Constitutional analysis under either an "originalist" or a "living constitution" type of analysis. While the Court itself has resolved the question of individual rights to firearm ownership in Heller and MacDonald, an honestly-applied "living constitution" analysis also requires the state to recognize and promote individual rights to firearm ownership and defense of self and others. Specifically, "living constitutionalists" claim that the text of the Constitution adopts different meanings depending upon perceived needs, morals, or other socio-political-contextual factors. In analyzing the perceived needs, morals, or other socio-political-contextual factors that define modern culture, an inescapably dominant reality is that the "threat climate" of the US has escalated significantly. This includes increasing sectarian strife, inadequate "after the fact" law enforcement, and the burgeoning rise in terroristic threats. Repeated ominous warnings from governmental actors charged with defending us indicate the risks we face are significant and becoming worse. We are being inundated with warnings from our officials that terrorist organizations are guaranteed to launch attacks in the United States. Some of the attackers will be long-time residents or newly radicalized citizens who seem to spring out of nowhere - as in the San Bernardino murders. We will be living with "lone wolf" attacks for several decades and must be prepared to deal with them. Unlike Supreme Court justices and presidents, the vast majority of Americans do not have personal guards or the resources needed to live in a secure suburban environment or gated community. Those who live in America's cities and in scattered rural areas with little police presence legitimately feel a greater need to be able to defend self, family and property from human predators. In such a context no one should disagree that the first obligation of a political community - local and national - is to provide security against crime and military assaults. Recognition that local and national communities are at a steadily increasing risk of violent attacks - whether from criminals or terrorists - has led a number of law enforcement officials to urge those who are legally eligible to do so to carry weapons and be prepared to react to violent assaults, ironically an urging to prepare to be able to act as a sort of "militia". The fact that experienced law enforcement officials see the need for defense of self, others and community against terrorist threats or to counter emotionally disturbed people intent on killing helpless people in "soft target" situations indicates strongly that our culture has changed in a fundamental way. The "new normal" of American culture involves the increased risk of violent attacks from foreign and homegrown sources - virtually none of which is comprised of actors who are legal owners of guns. Details: Cleveland, OH: Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University, 2016. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Cleveland-Marshall Legal Studies Paper No. 295 : Accessed March 26, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2744879 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2744879 Shelf Number: 138425 Keywords: Gun ControlGun Control policyGun ViolenceGun-Related ViolenceRight to Bear ArmsSecond AmendmentSelf Defense |
Author: Rosenthal, Lawrence Title: The Constitutional Case for Limiting Public Carry Summary: Perhaps the single most important question arising in the wake of the Supreme Court's holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, even for purposes unrelated to service in an organized militia, is whether the Constitution permits limitations on the ability to carry firearms in public. For high-crime, unstable urban neighborhoods, an absolute constitutional right to carry firearms would likely cripple the type of problem-oriented, preventative policing that has successfully driven guns and drugs off of many urban streetscapes and has produced concomitant reductions in violent crime. This Issue Brief addresses the constitutional status of laws that endeavor to facilitate preventative policing by limiting the right to carry firearms in public. Details: Washington, DC: American Constitution Society, 2014. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Brief: Accessed May 5, 2016 at: https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Rosenthal_-_The_Constitutional_Case_for_Limiting_Public_Carry_.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Rosenthal_-_The_Constitutional_Case_for_Limiting_Public_Carry_.pdf Shelf Number: 138954 Keywords: Gun ControlGun Control PolicyGun LawsPreventative policingSecond Amendment |
Author: Everytown for Gun Safety Title: Beyond Gridlock: How White House Action on Gun Violence Can Save Lives Summary: In the wake of the horrific shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon - the 18th mass shooting of 20151 - President Obama spoke to the nation, lamenting that gun violence has grown so routine in America and deploring Congressional inaction. But the President also issued a powerful call to action, and recommitted his administration to exploring its authority to take executive action and enforce the laws already in place. He asked whether there were steps his administration could take to prevent these "tragic deaths from taking place." This report answers the President's call, and offers five life-saving measures that the Administration could advance - today - to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. These five critical - and simple - steps would: keep dangerous people with guns out of our schools; crack down on gun trafficking and curb the sale of guns without background checks; ensure that law enforcement identifies and prosecutes the most dangerous criminals who try to illegally obtain guns; help states to enforce their own background check laws; and ensure that all convicted domestic abusers are prohibited from possessing guns. A comprehensive list of these and other recommended executive actions is set forth in the appendix to this report. Details: Everytown for Gun Safety, 2015. 18p. Source: Internet Resource Accessed May 13, 2016 at: https://everytownresearch.org/documents/2015/10/beyond-gridlock-white-house-action-gun-violence-can-save-lives.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://everytownresearch.org/documents/2015/10/beyond-gridlock-white-house-action-gun-violence-can-save-lives.pdf Shelf Number: 139016 Keywords: Gun ControlGun Control PolicyGun ViolenceGun-Related ViolenceHomicideViolenceViolent Crime |
Author: Kleck, Gary Title: Does Gun Control Reduce Violent Crime? Summary: Do gun control laws reduce violence? To answer this question, a city-level cross-sectional analysis was performed on data pertaining to every U.S. city with a population of at least 25,000 in 1990 (n=1,078), assessing the impact of 19 major types of gun control laws, and controlling for gun ownership levels and numerous other possible confounders. Models were estimated using instrumental variables regression to address endogeneity of gun levels due to reverse causality. Results indicate that gun control laws generally show no evidence of effects on crime rates, possibly because gun levels do not have a net positive effect on violence rates. Although a minority of laws seem to show effects, they are as likely to imply violence-increasing effects as violence-decreasing effects. There were, however, a few noteworthy exceptions: requiring a license to possess a gun, and bans on purchases of guns by alcoholics appear to reduce rates of both homicide and robbery. Weaker evidence suggests that bans on gun purchases by criminals and on possession by mentally ill persons may reduce assault rates, and that bans on gun purchase by criminals may also reduce robbery rates. Details: Unpublished paper, 2016. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 17, 2016 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2807634 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2807634 Shelf Number: 145073 Keywords: Gun ControlGun Control PolicyGun OwnershipGun-Related Violence |
Author: DeBacco, Dennis Title: State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Fugitives from Justice Summary: Under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (Brady Act), being a fugitive from justice prohibits a person from possessing or purchasing firearms. The Code of Federal Regulations defines a "fugitive from justice" as any person who has fled from any state to avoid prosecution for a felony or a misdemeanor; or any person who leaves the state to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceeding. The term also includes any person who knows that misdemeanor or felony charges are pending against such person and who leaves the state of prosecution. Following passage of the Brady Act, the Department of Justice provided guidance for applying this prohibition. Accordingly, individuals with qualifying or prohibiting outstanding warrants in any state or federal database searched as a part of a firearms background check are ineligible to receive firearms from Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs). As noted in this guidance, the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Section is not an adjudicative agency. Rather, it is tasked with making immediate administrative determinations about proposed firearm transfers in circumstances that do not permit the in-depth research necessary to determine whether the proposed transferee has fled a state. In order to meaningfully implement the Congressional mandate, the NICS Section relies on valid criminal warrants found in its supporting databases as a prima facie basis to apply a fugitive from justice prohibitor. When a firearm transfer request is submitted to the NICS Section, NICS queries its supporting databases. If the transferee's identification information matches a warrant record, the NICS Section does further research to confirm that the warrant is still active and that it is for either a criminal felony or non-traffic misdemeanor. If both these conditions are met, then NICS denies the transaction. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2017. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 16, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/250533.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/250533.pdf Shelf Number: 146981 Keywords: Criminal Background ChecksFugitivesGun Control policy |
Author: Greenspan, Owen Title: State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Fingerprint Processing Advances Improve Background Checks Summary: Technology advances in criminal record exchange systems and fingerprint processing continue to produce significant improvements in the quality and availability of information critical to making sound firearm-related background check decisions. The volume and speed with which fingerprints are transmitted from booking stations in local agencies to a state criminal records repository enables rapid updating and availability of criminal record information. The National Instant Criminal Background Check system (NICS) check utilizes records from several Federal databases and of these the Interstate Identification Index (III) houses fingerprint-based records. Improving fingerprint reporting, storage, and processing increases the timeliness and accuracy of background checks for the purpose of determining eligibility for firearms ownership. In 2015, the III was able to effectively and reliably respond to more than 22.2 million firearm-related search requests, an average of more than 63,000 per day. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2016. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 20, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/250275.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/250275.pdf Shelf Number: 141116 Keywords: Criminal Background Checks Fingerprints Gun Control Policy |
Author: Stewart, Peter A. Title: Middle Ground on Gun Control Summary: Each tragic shooting incident that the American news media covers highlights the problem of gun violence in the United States. However, the focus of this reporting is rarely on the largest component of total gun deaths: suicides. Suicides make up two-thirds of all gun deaths. Limiting access to firearms for individuals with suicidal tendencies could cause a significant reduction in the total number of casualties included in gun violence statics. This thesis examines the efficacy of adding more mental health information to the FBI's database of persons who are prohibited from gun purchases, and also compares U.S. gun laws to the National Firearms Agreement in Australia, which is widely accepted as an effective gun control measure. This research finds that mental health information on clinical depression and schizophrenia can be a strong predictor of suicidal tendencies, and reporting of this information could be improved in order to reduce overall gun violence. Improved mental health reporting must be a matter of federal law, because current state laws on guns vary widely and have limited effectiveness Details: Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, 2016. 83p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed March 4, 2017 at: https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=798872 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=798872 Shelf Number: 141333 Keywords: Background ChecksCriminal Background ChecksGun ControlGun Control PolicyGun ViolenceGun-Related ViolenceMental Health |
Author: B.C. Task Force on Illegal Firearms Title: Illegal Firearms Task Force: Final Report Summary: British Columbia continues to experience troubling and highly dangerous incidents of firearms violence that have resulted in numerous deaths and injuries. Highly public and brazen acts, often linked to organized crime and gangs, place innocent members of the public at risk, create fear, hardship and tragedy for the individuals and communities affected, and impose substantial burdens on public resources. The Government of B.C., in an enhanced provincial strategy to combat guns and gangs, convened an Illegal Firearms Task Force to make recommendations for action to the B.C. Minister of Public Safety & Solicitor General. The Task Force, consisting of provincial experts with a wide range of experience in managing illegal firearms and organized crime, reviewed and analyzed the existing published research, interviewed numerous individuals and organizations, and conducted community consultations around B.C. It reviewed the information presented and developed recommendations addressing both specific issues that had been identified and broad strategic approaches. Four themes - The recommendations fall into four themes: Theme #1: Strategic Approaches Coordinating and focussing the efforts of the diverse agencies that work to reduce crime and enhance public safety will ensure the most effective use of resources and the greatest impact in limiting the availability and use of illegal firearms. Action categories include: - An illegal firearms-focussed approach - Alignment of existing and enhanced resources in order to improve outcomes relative to illegal firearms trafficking, their availability to criminals and the manner in which they are used by organized crime - Road safety and illegal firearms - Road safety initiatives to reduce the incidence of illegal firearms possession in motor vehicles and the concurrent use of illegal firearms and motor vehicles to carry out organized crime violence - Provincial Tactical Enforcement Priority - Leveraging the innovative and unique capabilities of the Provincial Tactical Enforcement Priority model to maximize intelligence, disruption and enforcement of illegal firearms traffickers and the targeting of those who use firearms to support violent organized crime activity - Firearms tracing hub and labs - The enhanced and timely analysis of all recovered firearms and the determination of their potential association with crime to provide investigative information and strategic intelligence - Alignment of law enforcement policy - The alignment and modernization of law enforcement policy with the education of law enforcement officers and Crown prosecutors to realize strategic objectives related to illegal firearms trafficking and the use of illegal firearms in violent crimes - "Bar Watch" programs - Expansion of a successful Vancouver program to deter and mitigate gang and firearms violence within licenced liquor establishments throughout the province Theme #2: Legislative Initiatives Firearms possession and the criminal use of firearms are primarily governed by federal legislation. The Task Force has made several recommendations related to the enhancement of federal legislation and the creation of provincial legislation in order to reduce the risks of illegal firearms use. Action categories include: - Quebec's mass shooting and firearms violence mitigation: A model for provincial actions - Legislation that enhances the ability of law enforcement and partner agencies to identify and prevent firearms violence through the timely sharing of information - Imitation firearms - Legislation to control the access and use of readily available imitation firearms; to limit their risk to communities, first responders and those who possess them; and to disrupt early patterns of illegal firearms use by youth - Straw purchasers and point-of-sale record-keeping - Legislation requiring sellers to keep records of firearms sales (not a central registry), enhancing the ability of judicially authorized law enforcement to trace crime guns, collect firearms trafficking intelligence and deter firearms traffickers - Manufacture of untraceable firearms - Legislation to prohibit access to unmarked firearms parts and parts that can be assembled into illegal firearms Theme #3: Education and Prevention Focussed efforts by a wide range of stakeholders and agencies working with the public, industry and communities will create awareness, build resilience and reduce the acquisition, availability and use of illegal firearms in B.C. communities. Action categories include: - Safe schools, student and parent education - Leveraging existing school-based programs to disrupt potentially violent antisocial behaviour, including the use of firearms, and to ensure the understanding of educators and parents on the factors and indicators related to violence prevention - Community-based programs - Rural and First Nations communities - Tailored community-based strategies designed to recognize the specific risks associated with communities in which firearms are readily available and which experience violence and organized crime involving firearms - Canadian Firearms Program compliance strategies - Enhancing compliance efforts pursuant to the firearms regulations designed to prevent and deter illegal firearms trafficking - Registration issues from the former Restricted Weapons Registration System - Initiatives to reduce the large number of restricted and prohibited firearms that are not in compliance with current registration requirements and no longer under the oversight of the Canadian Firearms Program Theme #4: Data Collection and Information Sharing The purposeful collection of intelligence from a variety of sources will inform prevention, enforcement and disruption efforts by all stakeholders against the trafficking, possession and use of illegal firearms. The Task Force has made recommendations in two action categories, including: - Intelligence and data quality - Assigning a lead intelligence agency and data warehouse to coordinate all intelligence collection, assure data quality and facilitate analysis related to the trafficking, possession and use of illegal firearms - PRIME-BC access by all key stakeholders - Providing necessary access to B.C.'s own Police Record Information Management System (PRIME-BC) to key agencies engaged in illegal firearms prevention, enforcement and disruption Details: Victoria, BC: Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General of British Columbia, 2017. 138p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 29, 2017 at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminal-justice/police/publications/government/iftf_final_report_pdf.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Canada URL: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminal-justice/police/publications/government/iftf_final_report_pdf.pdf Shelf Number: 148534 Keywords: GangsGun Control PolicyGun ViolenceGun-Related ViolenceHomicidesIllegal FirearmsMurdersOrganized CrimeTrafficking in Firearms |
Author: Dantinne, Michael Title: Transnational study on the link between the possession of a firearm and the rate of homicides by firearms Summary: The aim of this article is to examine the link between the rate of homicides by firearms, the possession of a firearm and the severity of legislation with regard to firearms. The construction of our research as well as the different variables selected are based on elements taken from reference works on the subject of mortality by a firearm referred to in scientific literature. Method The statistical design of the study has an ecological approach based on a number of countries (N=52), not including the USA. It integrates a set of confounding variables (economic, social, demographic and criminogenic) through bivariate correlations and multiple regressions with the aim of examining the presence of a significant link between the rate of homicides by firearms (dependent variable), the possession of firearms and the severity of legislation. Results The results observed seem to indicate no significant link between our dependent variable and our variables of interest. However, the different analyses repeatedly underlined the presence of a strong link between one of our confounding variables, the infant mortality rate and the rate of homicides by firearm in the countries included in our sample. Conclusion Much more than the possession of firearms or the severity of legislation, it seems that child mortality is one of the most important predictors in understanding the variations in the rates of homicides by firearm between countries, thus paving the way towards greater attention to the socio-economic conditions in the apprehension of criminal phenomena linked to firearms but also to reorientation of the policies applied in this area. Details: University of Liege in Belgium, 2017. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 7, 2017 at: https://ssaa.org.au/assets/news-resources/research/Transnational_study_on_the_link_between_the_possession_of_a_firearm_and_the_rate_of_homicides_by_firearms.pdf Year: 2017 Country: International URL: https://ssaa.org.au/assets/news-resources/research/Transnational_study_on_the_link_between_the_possession_of_a_firearm_and_the_rate_of_homicides_by_firearms.pdf Shelf Number: 148757 Keywords: Firearms Gun Control PolicyGun-Related Violence Homicides Murders Poverty Socioeconomic Conditions and Crime |
Author: Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Title: Keeping Illegal Guns Out of Dangerous Hands: America's Deadly Relinquishment Gap Summary: Americans overwhelmingly agree that it's common sense to prevent dangerous people from accessing deadly weapons-yet there's a dangerous gap in our laws that makes it easy for armed felons and violent criminals to illegally keep their guns after they're convicted. In our new report, Keeping Illegal Guns Out of Dangerous Hands: America's Deadly Relinquishment Gap, we researched relinquishment laws in all 50 states and identified a series of best practices lawmakers can adopt to save lives from gun violence and close this deadly loophole. An essential step to keeping Americans safe from gun violence is to ensure that armed individuals convicted of serious crimes simply turn in, sell, or otherwise rid themselves of their weapons after conviction. In California, law enforcement reported that in 2014 alone, more than 3,200 people illegally kept their guns after a new criminal conviction, many of whom went on to commit crimes with those guns. Relinquishment laws would help prevent this. California, which has the most progressive gun violence prevention laws in the nation, has acted to close this gap in one important way-the state has enacted a law that lays out clear, mandatory procedures for the relinquishment of guns by domestic abusers under a restraining order. Importantly, this law has teeth: it requires these abusers to provide receipts to a judge verifying that they sold or transferred their guns as required. But, the state hasn't extended this best practice to the criminal context, even for people convicted of domestic abuse crimes. Our research on gun relinquishment also revealed: States often rely on the honor system to manage the relinquishment process, trusting violent criminals and other prohibited people to voluntarily turn in their weapons. It costs taxpayers millions of dollars each year - $285 million in California alone-when prohibited people like violent felons are picked up on weapons charges and subsequently incarcerated, and many return to prison because they kept their guns illegally. Only five states provide any statutory process for disarming people prohibited from having guns-Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania The firearm relinquishment gap puts Americans in all 50 states at grave risk. Keeping Illegal Guns Out of Dangerous Hands aims to address the challenge of relinquishment and to encourage lawmakers to establish best practices and mandatory procedures to stem the tide of illegal weapons in our communities. We hope this report will help provide a path to effective gun violence prevention for lawmakers, so fewer Americans fall victim to heartbreaking, preventable shootings. Details: San Francisco: The Center, 2016. 85p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 23, 2018 at: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Keeping-Guns-Out-of-Dangerous-Hands.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Keeping-Guns-Out-of-Dangerous-Hands.pdf Shelf Number: 148909 Keywords: Gun Control PolicyGun PolicyGun ViolenceGun-Related ViolenceGunsIllegal Guns |
Author: Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Title: Confronting the Inevitability Myth: How data-driven gun policies save lives from suicide Summary: Suicide affects a large and growing number of American families. But these tragedies are preventable. Most people who attempt suicide without a gun survive in both the short and long term-90% of survivors do not die by suicide. But those who reach for a gun rarely have a second chance. Though most people who attempt suicide are struggling with mental illness, suicide attempts are usually impulsive responses to acute crisis. People who reach for guns in these moments of crisis are unlikely to survive. Guns are used in only 5% of suicide attempts, but because guns are uniquely lethal, they are responsible for over 50% of suicide deaths. This is why states with immediate, unrestricted access to guns have much higher suicide rates. And it's why gun safety reform must be part of a comprehensive policy response. Details: San Francisco: The Center, 2017. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 23, 2018 at: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Confronting-The-Inevitability-Myth.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Confronting-The-Inevitability-Myth.pdf Shelf Number: 148911 Keywords: Gun Control PolicyGun Policy Gun Violence Gun-Related Violence Suicides |
Author: White House (President Obama) Title: Now is the time: the President's plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence Summary: Our nation has suffered too much at the hands of dangerous people who use guns to commit horrific acts of violence. As President Obama said following the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, "We won't be able to stop every violent act, but if there is even one thing that we can do to prevent any of these events, we have a deep obligation, all of us, to try." Most gun owners are responsible and law-abiding, and they use their guns safely. The President strongly believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. But to better protect our children and our communities from tragic mass shootings like those in Newtown, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Tucson, there are common-sense steps we can take right now. While no law or set of laws will end gun violence, it is clear that the American people want action. If even one child's life can be saved, then we need to act. Now is the time to do the right thing for our children, our communities, and the country we love. Details: Washington, DC: The White House, 2013. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2018 at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/node/193271 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/node/193271 Shelf Number: 149294 Keywords: Gun Control Gun Control PolicyGun Violence Gun-Related Violence |
Author: Everytown for Gun Safety Title: A Census of Domestic Violence: Gun Homicides in Arizona Summary: On December 20, 2012, after months of escalating harassment and violent threats, Joseph Leroy Francis approached his ex-girlfriend Ashley Hicks in the parking lot of her apartment building in Tucson, Arizona. He grabbed her arm and asked to talk to her. When she resisted, he shot her seven times, killing her. Afterwards he drove to Ashley's parents home, told them he had killed their daughter, and then went home and shot himself. The incident was tragic, and it also might have been prevented, since there was ample evidence that Joseph posed a danger to Ashley. On August 17, 2012, four months before the murder, Joseph assaulted Ashley in a grocery store. That same day, she obtained an order of protection against him. The court that issued the order had the power to require Joseph to turn in his firearms- but chose not to, even though it is well established that a gun in the hands of a batterer increases five-fold the risk of homicide for his partner. Fifteen states mandate that people subject to domestic violence protection orders turn in their firearms, but Arizona is not one of them. In the last months of Ashley's life, Joseph repeatedly violated the order of protection. He broke into her home by punching through a window. He threw a motorcycle helmet at her and smashed her phone after she called the police. He brandished a knife and threatened to kill her with it. He visited her workplace. Police received notification of the violations but Joseph was never charged. Ashley's story is devastating and, unfortunately, not unique. Domestic violence homicides in Arizona are, to a significant degree, a problem of gun violence. According to an Everytown for Gun Safety analysis of the last five years of FBI data, 62 percent of women killed by intimate partners in Arizona were shot to death. All told, the rate of intimate partner gun homicides in Arizona is 45 percent higher than the national average. To better assess the dynamics of domestic violence gun homicides in Arizona, Everytown collaborated with the Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence (ACESDV) to closely examine intimate partner gun homicides in Arizona between 2009-2013. This research-the first and most comprehensive of its kind for the state-yielded the following findings: In total, Everytown identified 105 homicides in Arizona between 2009-2013 in which someone was murdered with a firearm by a current or former intimate partner. In 89 percent of the cases, the victim was a woman. Perpetrators also shot 32 other victims - neighbors, friends, family members, and children - killing 25 of them, 11 of whom were children. There were ample indications that the perpetrators posed a risk to their partners. One in seven shooters (13 percent) was prohibited from possessing firearms due to their criminal history or an active order of protection. Furthermore 41 percent of the shooters had a previous arrest or conviction or had been under an order of protection at one time. Offenders under an active order of protection were rarely required to turn in their firearms. A person under an active order of protection is prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law,11 but of the perpetrators identified in this census that were under an active order of protection, only one in six has been affirmatively required to turn in their firearms. The shootings occurred across the state but, controlling for population, the domestic violence gun homicide rate in Coconino, Mohave, and Yavapai counties is more than double that of the state as a whole. Firearms were used far more frequently to murder an intimate partner than to kill an abuser in self-defense. Out of 105 incidents, only one perpetrator claiming to have used the firearm in self-defense had that claim upheld by a court. In at least four additional incidents, the victim had purchased a gun for self-defense prior to the incident but was not able to use it or worse, had it used against them. The incidents documented in this report, and the data drawn from them, vividly illustrate that Arizona needs an improved approach to addressing the threat gun violence poses for victims of domestic violence. Details: New York: Everytown For Gun Safety, 2015. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2018 at: http://archive.azcentral.com/persistent/icimages/news/Everytown-AZDV%20Report_0504_vFINAL-web%20(4).pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://archive.azcentral.com/persistent/icimages/news/Everytown-AZDV%20Report_0504_vFINAL-web%20(4).pdf Shelf Number: 149295 Keywords: Domestic ViolenceGun Control PolicyGun ViolenceGun-Related ViolenceHomicidesIntimate Partner ViolenceProtection Orders |
Author: Mardeusz, Julia Title: An Intractable Issue? Gun Control in America, 1968-Present Summary: In my thesis, I investigate the factors that contribute to the seeming lack of federal legislative response to gun control to determine how and if there is a way forward to pass more effective gun laws on the federal level in the future. Chapter One explains three of the most substantive federal gun control policies: The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Law, which was signed into law in 1993, and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. These three laws are instructive if one wishes to understand why federal gun control policy emerges from Congress without many of the provisions that the American public supports. Chapter Two identifies prominent interest groups on both the pro-gun-control and pro-gun-rights side of the debate and the factors behind their influence, or lack thereof, on gun control policy on the federal level. Chapter Two also explains certain theories in public policy that contribute to the difficulty of enacting strong gun control legislation on the federal level. Chapter Three examines public opinion polling and how it may be interpreted. Although the majority of the American public supports a considerable number of mild to moderate gun control measures, as public opinion polling can attest, this is often a silent majority. Chapter Three provides an in-depth explanation for why public opinion polling might not be reflective of who is the most concerned about the issue of gun control. Lastly, Chapter Four summarizes recent policy initiatives regarding gun control. In January 2016, President Obama announced an executive order that took some steps to combat gun violence, but this executive order has met with backlash from Congress. Chapter Four also details potential policy solutions that could work around the stasis seen in Congress on gun control. Details: Hartford, CT: Trinity College, 2016. 133p. Source: Internet Resource: Senior Thesis: https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1595&context=theses Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1595&context=theses Shelf Number: 149301 Keywords: Gun Control Gun Control Policy |
Author: Bogus, Carl T. Title: The Hard, Simple Truth about Gun Control Summary: Gun control can be extremely effective at significantly reducing homicides, suicides, and gun-related robberies, assaults, and injuries. There is substantial evidence supporting that conclusion. However, the simple, hard truth is that only one form of gun control has been shown to be effective - namely, anything that significantly reduces the number of handguns in general circulation. The implications of that argument are enormous. In 2008, the United States Supreme Court held that individuals have a constitutional right to have handguns in their homes, and therefore a system of regulation designed to reduce the number of handguns in American homes would be unconstitutional. Gun control advocates faced political obstacles before that ruling. Rather than acknowledge the simple, hard truth, they opted instead to advocate so-called common sense measures, even though there is little evidence suggesting modest measures are likely to be effective. That strategy led to Pyrrhic victories. The strategy was counterproductive for public opinion over the long run, and it may well have misled Supreme Court justices into believing that their Second Amendment decision had no adverse public health consequences. It is, therefore, important to be clear about the choice before us. The choice is not whether America will have effective gun control today. It can't. The choice is whether America will have effective gun control in the future. While public opinion, politics, and constitutional law currently bar the way, all three are malleable. The public, politicians, and judges can all be educated. That must begin, however, with telling the simple, hard truth about gun control. Details: Boston: Roger Williams University, School of Law, 2017. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Roger Williams Univ. Legal Studies Paper No. 178: Accessed March 8, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3067366 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3067366 Shelf Number: 149408 Keywords: Gun Control Gun Control PolicyGun Violence Gun-Related Violence Homicides Second Amendment |
Author: Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Title: Protecting the Parkland Generation: Strategies to Keep America's Kids Safe from Gun Violence Summary: Since 2000, more than 150,000 Americans were killed or injured by a gun before their 18th birthday. These children deserved to grow up and grow old, free to live and learn, and free from fear. But our nation failed them. As complicated as gun policy can often seem, there are some very simple truths that help explain this uniquely American phenomenon. There is simply no other high-income nation on earth that has let gunmakers and gun extremists write its gun safety laws. No other high-income nation on earth makes weapons of war available-immediately, with no questions asked-to un-vetted buyers intent on mass murder. No other high-income nation on earth has to routinely bury children gunned down in their classrooms and movie theaters and churches and parks. It doesn't have to be this way. It's been tempting for some people to turn away from the pain and shame of these tragedies, or to give in to the cynical lie that this violence can't be prevented. But not anymore. This year, America's young people are demanding change and building a movement for gun safety reform. We have watched in awe as young students emerged from bullet-ridden classrooms in Parkland, Florida, and exclaimed Never again. We have witnessed their courage and eloquence as they stood up on national television to US Senators and NRA celebrities, demanding action, answers, and accountability. This generation-the future leaders of our country-understands that gun violence is not inevitable. And they know that the Second Amendment is not under threat. We are. Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence presents this report as a tool for this new generation of activists. It provides data about the scope of the gun violence problem facing America's youth and offers concrete recommendations for evidence-based policies that save lives. Our goal is to support the Parkland students and the thousands of young people they have inspired, as well as the lawmakers who hear their call for action and want to work together to make a change. Despite the brutal pain that follows each tragic shooting in our country, the courage of our nation's youth shines a brighter light on our future. Details: San Francisco: Gifford's Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 2018. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 13, 2018 at: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Protecting-Parkland-Generation_3.9.18.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Protecting-Parkland-Generation_3.9.18.pdf Shelf Number: 149448 Keywords: Gun ControlGun Control PolicyGun ViolenceGun-Related ViolenceHomicidesViolence Prevention |
Author: Parsons, Chelsea Title: Virginia Under the Gun: 4 Measures of Gun Violence and Gun Crime in Virginia Summary: In some respects, gun violence in Virginia is typical of that in much of the nation. For example, Virginia ranked 28th of the 50 states for the overall rate of gun deaths from 2004 to 2013-right in the middle of the states. On the other hand, Virginia has been the scene of some of the most horrific, high-profile acts of gun violence in recent memory: the massacre at Virginia Tech in 2007 and the on-air execution of reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward in August 2015. In fact, in the eight and a half years since the mass shooting at Virginia Tech, approximately 7,173 Virginians have died by gunfire. These appalling incidents; Virginia's proximity to the nation's capital; and the fact that the National Rifle Association, or NRA, is headquartered in Virginia have made the commonwealth a national bellwether for the debate over gun laws. In recent years, the gun issue has been vigorously contested in political races across the state. For example, during the 2013 statewide elections, the NRA and two gun violence prevention groups-Americans for Responsible Solutions, a group founded by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), and Independence USA, a political action committee created by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I)-collectively spent close to $4 million attempting to influence the outcome. That year, all three of the winning candidates for statewide office-Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam (D), and Attorney General Mark Herring (D)-took strong positions in favor of strengthening gun laws, opposed the NRA, and explicitly campaigned on their support for common-sense gun laws. Despite the success that gun violence prevention groups enjoyed in the 2013 elections, efforts to strengthen gun laws in the state legislature have remained stalled. The Virginia legislature even failed to act on legislation to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers-a law that passed with broad bipartisan support in a number of other states-despite its successful passage in the state Senate in 2014 after a 29-6 vote. With elections for all seats in the state General Assembly and Senate scheduled for November 3, 2015, the issue of gun violence is once again on the minds of many Virginia voters. Gov. McAuliffe has continued to focus on this issue, recently announcing six new executive actions to address gun violence in the state, including creating a joint task force to prosecute gun crimes, implementing a crime gun tipline, and providing training for judges and prosecutors to encourage domestic abusers to surrender firearms. Gov. McAuliffe has also pledged to continue pushing the state legislature to enact common-sense gun laws in the upcoming legislative session. This issue brief provides additional context about what is at stake as Virginia voters consider which leaders they want to represent them in Richmond. It discusses four aspects of gun violence and gun-related crime in Virginia that are exceptional, unique, or above the national average: More Virginians are killed annually by gunfire than in car accidents. Virginia is one of the top exporters of crime guns. Women are killed with guns by intimate partners at a high rate in Virginia. Virginia has been disproportionately affected by mass shootings. The 2007 Virginia Tech massacre remains the deadliest mass shooting in American history. In its wake, then-Gov. Tim Kaine (D) acted to ensure that more mental health records were accessible to the gun background check system-after the gap led directly to the Virginia Tech shooting. Since then, the rate at which Virginia submits mental health records has grown substantially, and the state now ranks third in the nation: To date, 224,079 records have been submitted to the background check system. Yet efforts to continue building on that progress and strengthen Virginia's laws and policies to address gun violence have been largely stymied by the state legislature. With 86 percent of Virginians supportive of legislation that would require background checks for all gun sales, the issue of gun violence prevention is certainly on many voters' minds as they head to the polls. 1. More Virginians are killed annually by gunfire than in car accidents For decades, more Americans have been killed annually in motor vehicle accidents than by gunfire. In response to the tens of thousands of car accident deaths every year, elected officials, policymakers, and the car industry have taken a number of steps to improve motor vehicle safety, including gathering and analyzing car death data, enhancing car design, implementing better technology, and improving road safety. As a result of this comprehensive approach to this public safety issue, the number of deaths from car accidents across the country has significantly declined. While there were 40,965 car accident deaths nationwide in 1999, that number dropped to 33,804 by 2013, a 17 percent decrease. Virginia has followed a similar trend: From 1999 to 2013, car accident deaths in the state declined 15 percent. By contrast, few national resources have been devoted to understanding gun violence and developing a comprehensive, evidence-based approach to reducing gun deaths. The NRA has effectively blocked public health research into gun deaths through limiting amendments to annual appropriations bills for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, and the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, and many legislative bodies have lacked the political will to strengthen gun laws. During the same period that U.S. deaths due to car accidents were declining, deaths by gunfire were rising: While there were 28,874 gun deaths nationwide in 1999, that number increased to 33,636 by 2013, a 16 percent increase. As a result of the disparate approaches to these two serious public health issues, the gap between gun-related and vehicle-related deaths has shrunk significantly in recent years. While the number of U.S. motor vehicle accident deaths was 42 percent higher than gun-related deaths in 1999, this difference had decreased to less than 0.5 percent by 2013. A number of studies have concluded that these lines will cross sometime this year, when gun deaths outpace deaths due to car accidents. A 2014 report by Generation Progress and the Center for American Progress projected that 2015 will also be the year that guns become the leading cause of death of young people in the United States. Virginia is one of 17 states, along with the District of Columbia, where these lines have already crossed. In 2009, guns accounted for the deaths of more Virginians than car accidents for the first time. In 2013, the most recent year for which data are available, gun deaths were 17 percent higher than car accident deaths. If current trends continue, the number of gun deaths in Virginia will be 24 percent higher than the number of car accident deaths by the end of the next assembly's term in 2017 and 31 percent higher by the end of the next Senate's term in 2019. VAguns-brief-webfig1 2. Virginia is one of the top exporters of crime guns When a gun is recovered at a crime scene, one of the first challenges for investigators is determining from where the gun came. Restrictions on record keeping for gun purchases that are codified in federal law limit this inquiry to determining where the gun was first sold at retail and the identity of the first retail purchaser. To answer these questions, local law enforcement turns to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, which can trace guns from manufacturer through the first point of sale. Part of the tracing process involves identifying whether a gun crossed state lines before being used in a crime. A significant number of crime guns do move from state to state: From 2012 to 2014, 29 percent of guns recovered in crimes and traced were first purchased at retail in another state. Virginia is one of the top source states for guns recovered in crimes in other states. Due in part to the state's weak gun laws and the rise of Interstate 95 as a popular corridor for gun traffickers, Virginia exports a substantial number of crime guns. From 2012 to 2014, Virginia had the nation's ninth highest rate of crime guns exported to other states, with a rate 61 percent higher than the national average. Moreover, with more than 7,700 firearms purchased in Virginia and later recovered at crime scenes in other states, the state ranked third in terms of the absolute number of crime gun exports. Only Georgia and Texas exported a higher number of crime guns-9,134 and 8,103, respectively. VAguns-brief-webfig2 The movement of guns across state lines from states with weaker gun laws, such as Virginia, undermines other states' efforts to enact strong gun laws and curb gun violence. From 2012 to 2014, 60 percent of crime guns traced back to Virginia were either recovered in the District of Columbia or in one of the 10 states with the strongest gun laws, according to a ranking of state gun laws provided by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. An analysis of crime guns recovered in New York City in 2011 revealed that 90 percent came from out of state, with more crime guns coming from Virginia than from any other state. 3. Women are killed with guns by intimate partners at a high rate in Virginia American women face unique challenges when it comes to gun violence. Studies show that while they are killed less frequently than men, they are much more likely to be murdered by someone they know. In the majority of these cases, the aggressor is an intimate partner. According to information from the FBI, 34 percent of women murdered in the United States from 2004 to 2013 were killed by an intimate partner; 55 percent of those murders were committed with a firearm. The risk of intimate partner gun homicides against women is even higher in Virginia. From 2004 to 2013, 37 percent of female murder victims in Virginia were killed by an intimate partner, and approximately 60 percent of those murders were carried out with a firearm. The state's rate of intimate partner gun homicides of women during this period was 21 percent higher than the national average. Additionally, Virginia ranks 16th worst in the nation for the rate of intimate partner gun murders of women. Many perpetrators of intimate partner homicide in Virginia have a history of domestic violence. A recent study by the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence found that more than one-third of perpetrators of intimate partner homicides in the state in 2014 had a history of violence or threats against the victim and that of those perpetrators, 74 percent used a gun to commit the murder. VAguns-brief-webfig3 4. Virginia has been disproportionately affected by mass shootings The FBI defines mass shootings as incidents in which four or more victims are killed with a firearm. While they constitute a small portion of overall gun violence in the United States, mass shootings receive the bulk of the media's attention and tend to have a profound impact on the population. Moreover, research from the Harvard School of Public Health shows that the rate of mass shootings in the United States has tripled since 2011. Virginia ranks ninth among all of the states for the highest rate of victims killed in mass shootings. This is driven in large part by the Virginia Tech massacre, in which 32 people were murdered-the worst mass shooting in American history to date. Virginia has also experienced a number of family-related mass shootings that contribute to this ranking. These include a 2014 incident in Culpeper, Virginia, in which a man fatally shot his wife and three daughters before taking his own life. In a 2011 case, a man involved in a custody dispute fatally shot his two children, their mother, and another man before killing himself. When considering the raw number of victims of fatal mass shootings, Virginia ranks fourth highest overall, with 56 people killed in these incidents from 2006 to October 2015. Overall, 1 in every 20 victims of fatal mass shootings in the United States from 2006 to 2015 were killed in Virginia. Conclusion Over the next four years, an estimated 3,540 people will be killed with guns in Virginia if current trends continue. Gun violence is an urgent public health issue that demands attention and action from the state's leadership. There is much more that can be done to both strengthen Virginia's laws to prevent gun deaths and reduce the illegal flow of guns across state lines into other communities being ravaged by gun violence. Upon beginning their term in January 2016, the newly elected members of the next Virginia legislature should take up legislation that would address key weaknesses in the state's gun laws, including requiring universal background checks, prohibiting domestic abusers and stalkers from buying and possessing guns, and ensuring surrender of guns by all prohibited individuals. Details: Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2015. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2018 at: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/reports/2015/10/27/124132/virginia-under-the-gun/ Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/reports/2015/10/27/124132/virginia-under-the-gun/ Shelf Number: 149602 Keywords: Gun Control Gun Control Policy Gun Violence Gun-Related Violence Homicides |
Author: Everytown for Gun Safety Title: Danger in the Land of Enchantment: Investigating online gun sales in New Mexico Summary: In October 2016, a violent felon from Deming tried to buy a gun. He had recently served time in prison for three felonies related to a domestic violence incident: armed with a revolver, he choked his fiancee, told her he would break her neck, and tried to force her into the trunk of her car.1 His felony convictions made it illegal for him to buy or possess firearms - but now he was online and actively shopping for a Glock handgun. If he had tried to buy one at a licensed dealer, where background checks are legally required, his felony convictions would have blocked the sale. Instead, he turned to online ads - where, because of a loophole in the law in New Mexico, gun sales can be arranged with no background check required. Policymakers have long recognized that it's dangerous for people with a felony conviction, a history of domestic abuse, or serious mental illness to have guns.2 People with such records, like the man described above, are legally prohibited from buying or possessing guns. That's why licensed gun dealers - Walmart, Dick's Sporting Goods, or any of the hundreds of local gun stores across New Mexico - are legally required to contact the background check system to run a check on every buyer. When someone who is not allowed to have a gun attempts to make a purchase, the background check blocks the sale. But there's a problem with this system. In New Mexico, because of a dangerous loophole in the law - referred to as the background check loophole - background checks are not required when guns are sold by individuals who are not licensed dealers.3 These sales are called "unlicensed" gun sales, and they aren't just taking place between friends or neighbors - they're taking place on the internet. Websites like Armslist.com, the "Craigslist for guns," provide a platform for unlicensed gun sales to be arranged online, between strangers. Because of the background check loophole, criminals can turn to these online unlicensed sales to arm themselves illegally, no background check required, no questions asked. To understand how often criminals in New Mexico take advantage of the background check loophole to buy guns in unlicensed online sales, Everytown investigators (1) examined the size of the state's unlicensed online sale market, and (2) posted for-sale ads online, tracking how many responses were from New Mexicans prohibited by law from buying or possessing firearms. Details: New York: Everytown for Gun Safety, 2017. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2018 at: https://everytownresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/EGS-031-NewMexico_5a_020817.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://everytownresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/EGS-031-NewMexico_5a_020817.pdf Shelf Number: 149787 Keywords: Background ChecksFirearmsGun Control PolicyIllegal Guns |
Author: Williams, Morgan C., Jr. Title: Gun Violence in Black and White: Evidence from Policy Reform in Missouri Summary: The role of state-level background check requirements for private firearm sales in reducing gun violence remains controversial in both the empirical literature and gun control policy debate. On August 28, 2007 the Missouri General Assembly repealed an 86 year-old "permit-to-purchase" (PTP) law requiring that handgun purchasers possess a permit, and subsequently undergo a background check, for all sales. The vast racial disparities in firearm homicide within Missouri raises important questions concerning the disproportionate impact of the repeal on Black communities throughout the state. Using generalized synthetic control estimation, this paper finds that the PTP repeal led to a modest increase in county-level gun ownership in addition to substantial evidence of increased firearm homicide in the early years of the 2007-2013 post-repeal period. In particular, state-level effects suggests that overall Black firearm homicide increases on average by an additional five deaths per 100,000 while the same rates for Black victims ages 15-24 rise by 29 deaths per 100,000. County-level estimates also show considerable increases in firearm homicide in Black communities within the more urban regions of the state. Treatment effect estimates for state-level Black firearm homicide translate into approximately an additional 260 deaths attributable to the change in the law over the 2007-2013 period. Details: New York: CUNY Graduate Center, Department of Economics, 2018. 85p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 19, 2018 at: http://morganwilliamsjr.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/WilliamsJr_Morgan_WP_April_2018.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://morganwilliamsjr.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/WilliamsJr_Morgan_WP_April_2018.pdf Shelf Number: 149856 Keywords: Gun Control PolicyGun ViolenceGun-Related ViolenceHomicidesRace and Crime |
Author: Lund, Nelson Title: Fourth Circuit Shootout: 'Assault Weapons' and the Second Amendment Summary: Severe restrictions on so-called assault weapons and large-capacity magazines have long been an important agenda item for organized proponents of gun control. For just as long, gun rights activists have accused their opponents of a kind of bait and switch. The main targets of these restrictions have been rifles that look like M16s, AK-47s, and other military rifles, but operate differently. Since 1934, civilians have been required to undergo a costly and burdensome federal licensing process in order to possess fully automatic weapons, commonly referred to as machineguns. Such weapons, which include military rifles, are now rare and expensive because the federal government froze the civilian supply in 1986. The rifles at which more recent laws are aimed, such as the AR-15 and AR-10, have a superficial resemblance to military weapons but use a semi-automatic operating system like those found in many ordinary hunting guns, as well as in a very large proportion of modern handguns. These semi-automatics are now called "modern sporting rifles" by their defenders, who hope to discourage the public from being fooled into mistaking them for machineguns. The debate about this issue assumed national prominence in 1994, when Congress enacted a statute that restricted the sale of semi-automatic rifles with a military appearance and all magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. Although the statute contained a grandfather clause exempting weapons already in civilian hands, it provoked a firestorm of criticism, and the Democratic Party promptly lost control of both Houses of Congress for the first time in four decades. When the law expired by operation of a sunset provision ten years later, President Bush advocated its renewal. The Republican Congress ignored him, and the Democrats failed to revive the measure after they regained control of Congress and the presidency in 2009. Evidently regarding such legislation as politically toxic, neither party has enacted a major gun control law at the national level for almost a quarter of a century. Several states, however, have enacted laws that are modeled on the 1994 federal statute. Maryland's version was recently upheld by the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, in Kolbe v. Hogan. This decision offers a useful lens through which to view the landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized a constitutional right to keep a handgun at home for self defense. In Kolbe, the majority concluded that the Second Amendment has no bearing on the Maryland statute. The dissent went almost to the opposite extreme by arguing that the statute should be subjected to strict scrutiny. Both the majority and the dissent went to great lengths to argue that their opposing conclusions were dictated by Justice Scalia's Heller opinion, and both of them are demonstrably wrong about that. Taken as a whole, the Heller opinion is exquisitely equivocal about issues like the ones raised in Kolbe. The large doctrinal space left open by Heller is inevitably being filled according to the policy views of judges on the lower courts. Those views are no doubt influenced to some extent by judges' opinions about the desirability of the gun control regulations they review. In a distinct and more important sense, the approach of the judges is determined by their views about the value of the Second Amendment and the right it secures. Heller contains a lot of rhetoric supporting those, like the Kolbe dissenters, who place a high value on Second Amendment rights. But that rhetoric is undermined by a series of pro-regulation dicta in the opinion. The Supreme Court has declined to back its rhetoric up with any decisions actually rejecting the dismissive approach adopted by the Kolbe majority and many other courts. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia and now by Justice Gorsuch, has strongly objected to the Court's passive acceptance of such decisions, but there is no sign yet that the Court is prepared to recognize any Second Amendment rights beyond the narrow holding in Heller. Details: Fairfax, VA: George Mason University School of Law, 2017. Source: Internet Resource: George Mason Legal Studies Research Paper No. LS 17-13: Accessed April 25, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3029650 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3029650 Shelf Number: 149890 Keywords: Assault WeaponsGun Control PolicyGun-Related ViolenceGuns and CrimeSecond Amendment |
Author: Webster, Daniel W. Title: Effects of Missouri's Repeal of Its Handgun Purchaser Licensing Law on Homicides Summary: In the United States, homicide is a leading cause of death for young males and a major cause of racial disparities in life expectancy for men. There is intense debate and little rigorous research on the effects of firearm sales regulation on homicides. This study estimates the impact of Missouri's 2007 repeal of its permit-to-purchase (PTP) handgun law on states' homicide rates and controls for changes in poverty, unemployment, crime, incarceration, policing levels, and other policies that could potentially affect homicides. Using death certificate data available through 2010, the repeal of Missouri's PTP law was associated with an increase in annual increase in firearm homicides rates of 1.09 per 100,000 (+23%), but was unrelated to changes in non-firearm homicide rates. Using Uniform Crime Reporting data from police through 2012, the law's repeal was associated with increased annual murders rates of 0.93 per 100,000 (+16%). These estimated effects translate to increases of between 55 and 63 homicides per year in Missouri. Details: Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2013. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 14, 2018 at: https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/_pdfs/effects-of-missouris-repeal-of-its-handgun-purchaser-licensing-law-on-homicides.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/_pdfs/effects-of-missouris-repeal-of-its-handgun-purchaser-licensing-law-on-homicides.pdf Shelf Number: 150179 Keywords: Gun Control PolicyGun ViolenceGun-Related ViolenceHomicidesMurders |
Author: Vars, Fredrick E. Title: Slipping Through the Cracks? The Impact of Reporting Mental Health Records to the National Firearm Background Check System Summary: Both sides of the contentious debate over firearm regulation agree that some people with mental illness should be prohibited from purchasing firearms. This consensus exists despite limited empirical support. Such support will be essential to courts deciding the prohibition's constitutionality. We assess the impact on homicide and suicide of states reporting mental health records to the national firearm background check system. Using panel data and a difference-in-differences methodology, we find that upon adding mental health records to the national system, states experienced a 3.3-4.3% decrease in firearm-related suicides with no evidence of substitution to non-firearm suicides. Our findings suggest that mental health restrictions on gun sales do effectively reduce suicide but not homicide. Details: Unpublished paper, 2018. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: U of Alabama Legal Studies Research Paper No. 3127786: Accessed May 16, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3127786 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3127786 Shelf Number: 150244 Keywords: Firearm Background ChecksGun Control PolicyHomicidesMentally Ill PersonsSuicides |