P. 1


|Views: 0|Likes:
Published by Marcus Gilmer

More info:

Published by: Marcus Gilmer on Dec 11, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





1977–2006,” 6 Econ. J. Watch 218, 224 (2009). But it has

not been shown that those increases persist.

Of another, similar paper by Ayres and Donohue, “Shoot-

ing Down the ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ Hypothesis,”


Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788

55 Stan. L. Rev. 1193, 1270–85 (2003), it has been said

that if they “had extended their analysis by one more year,

they would have concluded that these laws

[laws allowing concealed handguns to be carried

in public] reduce crime.” Carlisle E. Moody & Thomas B.

Marvell, “The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws,” 5 Econ. J.

Watch 269, 291 (2008). Ayres and Donohue disagree

that such laws reduce crime, but they admit that

data and modeling problems prevent a strong claim

that they increase crime. 55 Stan. L. Rev. at 1281–82, 1286–87;

6 Econ. J. Watch at 230–31.

Concealed carriage of guns might increase the death

rate from assaults rather than increase the number

of assaults. But the studies don’t find that laws

that allow concealed carriage increase the death

rate from shootings, and this in turn casts doubt on

the finding of an increased crime rate when concealed

carriage is allowed; for if there were more confrontations

with an armed criminal, one would expect more shootings.

Moreover, there is no reason to expect Illinois

to impose minimal permit restrictions on carriage

of guns outside the home, for obviously this is not a state

that has a strong pro-gun culture, unlike the

states that began allowing concealed carriage before Heller

and MacDonald enlarged the scope of Second Amendment


Charles C. Branas et al., “Investigating the Link

Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault,” 99 Am. J.

of Pub. Health 2034, 2037 (2009), finds that assault

victims are more likely to be armed than the rest

Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788


of the population is, which might be thought evidence

that going armed is not effective self-defense. But

that finding does not illuminate the deterrent effect

of knowing that potential victims may be armed.

David Hemenway & Deborah Azrael, “The Relative

Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Uses:

Results from a National Survey,” 15 Violence & Victims

257, 271 (2000), finds that a person carrying a gun

is more likely to use it to commit a crime than

to defend himself from criminals. But that is like saying

that soldiers are more likely to be armed than civilians.

And because fewer than 3 percent of gun-related

deaths are from accidents, Hahn et al., supra, at

40, and because Illinois allows the use of guns in hunting

and target shooting, the law cannot plausibly be defended

on the ground that it reduces the accidental

death rate, unless it could be shown that allowing guns to

be carried in public causes gun ownership to increase,

and we have seen that there is no evidence of that.

In sum, the empirical literature on the effects

of allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establish

a pragmatic defense of the Illinois law. Bishop,

supra, at 922–23; Mark V. Tushnet, Out of Range: Why the

Constitution Can’t End the Battle over Guns 110–11

(2007). Anyway the Supreme Court made clear

in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear

arms depend on casualty counts. 554 U.S. at 636.

If the mere possibility that allowing guns to be carried

in public would increase the crime or death rates

sufficed to justify a ban, Heller would have been

decided the other way, for that possibility was as great

in the District of Columbia as it is in Illinois.


Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788

And a ban as broad as Illinois’s can’t be upheld

merely on the ground that it’s not irrational. Ezell

v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 701 (7th Cir.

2011); United States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681, 683 (7th

Cir. 2010) (per curiam); see also Heller v. District of Colum-

bia, supra, 554 U.S. at 628 n. 27; United States v. Chester,

628 F.3d 673, 679–80 (4th Cir. 2010). Otherwise

this court wouldn’t have needed, in United States v.

Skoien, 614 F.3d 638, 643–44 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc),

to marshal extensive empirical evidence to justify the

less restrictive federal law that forbids a person “who

has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime

of domestic violence” to possess a firearm in

or affecting interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).

In Skoien we said that the government had to make a

“strong showing” that a gun ban was vital to

public safety—it was not enough that the ban was “ratio-

nal.” 614 F.3d at 641. Illinois has not made that

strong showing—and it would have to make a stronger

showing in this case than the government did

in Skoien, because the curtailment of gun rights was

much narrower: there the gun rights of persons convicted

of domestic violence, here the gun rights of the entire law-

abiding adult population of Illinois.

A blanket prohibition on carrying gun in public

prevents a person from defending himself anywhere

except inside his home; and so substantial a curtailment

of the right of armed self-defense requires a

greater showing of justification than merely that the

public might benefit on balance from such a curtailment,

though there is no proof it would. In contrast,

Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788


when a state bans guns merely in particular places, such

as public schools, a person can preserve

an undiminished right of self-defense by not

entering those places; since that’s a lesser burden, the

state doesn’t need to prove so strong a need. Similarly,

the state can prevail with less evidence when, as

in Skoien, guns are forbidden to a class of

persons who present a higher than average risk of misus-

ing a gun. See also Ezell v. City of Chicago, supra, 651 F.3d

at 708. And empirical evidence of a public safety concern

can be dispensed with altogether when the ban is

limited to obviously dangerous persons such as felons

and the mentally ill. Heller v. District of Columbia,

supra, 554 U.S. at 626. Illinois has lots of options for protect-

ing its people from being shot without having to eliminate

all possibility of armed self-defense in public.

Remarkably, Illinois is the only state that maintains

a flat ban on carrying ready-to-use guns outside

the home, though many states used to ban

carrying concealed guns outside the home, Bishop,

supra, at 910; David B. Kopel, “The Second Amendment

in the Nineteenth Century,” 1998 BYU L. Rev. 1359,

1432–33 (1998)—a more limited prohibition than Illi-

nois’s, however. Not even Massachusetts has so flat a ban

as Illinois, though the District of Columbia does, see D.C.

Code §§ 22-4504 to -4504.02, and a few states did

during the nineteenth century, Kachalsky v. County

of Westchester, Nos. 11-3642, -3962, 2012 WL 5907502, at

*6 (2d Cir. Nov. 27, 2012)—but no longer.

It is not that all states but Illinois are indifferent to

the dangers that widespread public carrying of guns


Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788

may pose. Some may be. But others have decided

that a proper balance between the interest in self-defense

and the dangers created by carrying guns in public is

to limit the right to carry a gun to responsible persons

rather than to ban public carriage altogether, as Illinois

with its meager exceptions comes close to doing. Even

jurisdictions like New York State, where officials have

broad discretion to deny applications for gun

permits, recognize that the interest in self-defense

extends outside the home. There is no suggestion

that some unique characteristic of criminal activity

in Illinois justifies the state’s taking a different approach

from the other 49 states. If the Illinois approach

were demonstrably superior, one would expect at least

one or two other states to have emulated it.

Apart from the usual prohibitions of gun ownership

by children, felons, illegal aliens, lunatics, and in

sensitive places such as public schools, the propriety

of which was not questioned in Heller (“nothing in

this opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding

prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons

and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying

of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and

government buildings,” 554 U.S. at 626), some

states sensibly require that an applicant for a

handgun permit establish his competence

in handling firearms. A person who carries a

gun in public but is not well trained in the use of firearms

is a menace to himself and others. See Massad

Ayoob, “The Subtleties of Safe Firearms Han-

dling,” Backwoods Home Magazine, Jan./Feb. 2007, p.

Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788


30; Debra L. Karch, Linda L. Dahlberg & Nimesh

Patel, “Surveillance for Violent Deaths—National

Violent Death Reporting System, 16 States, 2007,” Morbidity

and Mortality Weekly Report, p. 11,

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5904.pdf (visited Oct.

29, 2012). States also permit private businesses and

other private institutions (such as churches) to ban

guns from their premises. If enough private

institutions decided to do that, the right to carry a

gun in public would have much less value and might

rarely be exercised—in which event the invalidation of

the Illinois law might have little effect, which opponents of

gun rights would welcome.

Recently the Second Circuit upheld a New York state

law that requires an applicant for a permit to carry

a concealed handgun in public to demonstrate

“proper cause” to obtain a license. Kachalsky v. County

of Westchester, supra. This is the inverse of laws

that forbid dangerous persons to have handguns;

New York places the burden on the applicant to show

that he needs a handgun to ward off dangerous persons.

As the court explained, 2012 WL 5907502, at *13, New

York “decided not to ban handgun possession, but to

limit it to those individuals who have an actual

reason (’proper cause’) to carry the weapon. In this

vein, licensing is oriented to the Second

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->