Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) relies heavily on the CPRC work
Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) relied very heavily on the research from the CPRC.
Massie’s former staffer is our Executive Director, Nikki Goeser. Her recent testimony before the US Senate is available here.
Information on safe storage laws is available here.
When it comes to voting, Democrats see free ID cards as too burdensome on the poor.
In DC, it costs $125 for a background check to privately transfer a gun. To make things worse, the check is done per gun, not on the people involved in the transaction. If I were to give another member of the committee four guns, you would think that since the same two people are involved in transferring the guns at the same point in time that the total cost of the background checks would be $125. But the law requires four separate background checks for a total cost of $500. Many other states with Universal background checks have the same set up per gun. The result is that only the affluent can defend themselves. Democrats must surely realize this.
But the problem isn’t just high fees. Eight heavily Democratic states and DC only offer concealed handgun permits on a “May-Issue” basis, requiring demonstration of need to a local public official.
But only a small number of wealthy, politically well-connected people tend to get these permits. Compared to the 42 states that let people carry once certain objective criteria are met, not only are fewer permits are issued, but those getting them are much less diverse.
New York City permit holders have included Arthur O. Sulzberger (chairman of the New York Times), union heads, Donald Trump, Laurence Rockefeller, Howard Stern, and Robert De Niro.
The poor, even if they are willing to pay the over $800 in fees, need not apply.
In Los Angeles County, where you have to demonstrate a need to defend yourself to a public official before you are given a permit to carry, by contrast, as of January 2017 there were 226 permits for almost eight million adults. Only the political elite get them: judges, reserve deputy sheriffs and a small group of very wealthy, well-connected individuals. As of 2012, Hispanics made up almost half the county, but they only got about 6.5% of the permits. Women got about 7%, and blacks 5%. Nationwide where people who want to get a permit without having to demonstrate such a need almost 30% of permit holders are women and 13% are black.
Where officials decide who gets permits, explicit death threats often aren’t enough for a law-abiding person to get one. Living in high-crime neighborhoods is considered irrelevant.
Research has demonstrated that the two groups that benefit the most from carrying guns are the likeliest victims of crime (poor blacks in high-crime urban areas) and people who are physically weaker (women and the elderly). Dozens of published peer-reviewed studies find similar results.
Consider two neighboring states: Illinois and Indiana. Given that the total costs of obtaining a permit is $400 to $450 in Illinois and is $12.95 in Indiana, it isn’t too surprising that in 2000 Illinois had 3.4% of the population holding permits while Indiana had 20% (Crime Prevention Research Center, 2020). Illinois has other restrictions that make it difficult for the poor to get a permit, such as not allowing any training facilities in Chicago and banning permitted concealed handguns on public transportation. The costs of obtaining a permit affect the number of people who get permits as well as the mix. Lower costs imply that poor people who live in high-crime urban neighborhoods are more likely to get a permit. In that case, one might expect a greater reduction in crime because criminals would be more likely to encounter potential victims who were able to defend themselves. This would also tend to raise crime rates in the late-adopting states relative to all the other states.
The cops can’t be everywhere at once. The police know themselves that they almost never respond to live crime scenes. As officers know, the only solution is to let people protect themselves.
Over two-thirds of published, peer-reviewed studies by criminologists and economists have found that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime in the US. Not a single such study has found that right-to-carry causes an increase in murder, rape or robbery.
If a criminal attacks, having a gun provides the safest course of action. This is backed up by sources such as the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey.
But gun control advocates seem to think that the poor should be satisfied with dialing 911 and hoping for the best.
Democrats have also been behind nationwide efforts to ban the production of inexpensive handguns. These guns tend to be smaller and lighter, making them convenient for concealed carry.
Though the preferred weapons of some criminals, they are also favored by many permit holders — especially ones on tight budgets.
With the debate in Congress heating up over concealed handgun permit reciprocity, so permits will be recognized in other states just as car driver’s licenses are, the question of who Democrats want to stop carrying guns is central.
Democrats want votes from poor, urban minorities, but they aren’t really looking out for them. These are the most likely victims of violent crime — so why not let them defend themselves and their families?
The result of the hefty fees is that only well-off people will have that protection.
The post Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) relies heavily on the CPRC work appeared first on Crime Prevention Research Center.