Lawson for Congress

I had an English teacher one time who told me whenever I was writing a speech or a paper a good introductory technique might be to hit the reader with a witty or powerful quote — something that would really grab them and make them think. Over the years, with considerable experience attempting to make boring subjects not-so boring, I have come to regard that technique as vastly overused. After all, John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill only said so many things. Therefore, on the issue of gun control and the history of gun crimes in the United States I will attempt to avoid the urge to quote everyone and everything, and indeed make only a minor reference to the 18^th century French playwright who once stated that “facts….are stubborn things.”

And it is facts that we shall be dealing with today — they shall be the (I hesitate to use the word) “ammunition” with which my arguments are made. Specifically, these facts concern the effects of “concealed carry” laws on gun crimes in the United States, and on a larger scale the very nature of gun crimes in themselves.

To begin, I will invoke an intensive study published in the University of Chicago’s Journal of Legal Studies in 1997 by Dr. John R. Lott Jr. and David B. Mustard. These two investigators sought to determine whether or not allowing American citizens to be issued “concealed carry” permits for handguns would deter violent crime or actually encourage it. A detailed discussion of their methodology is beyond the scope of this post, as well as many readers’ patience, but their research used county-level data across all states with laws for obtaining concealed carry permits from 1977 through 1992. Those so motivated can read the entire report here.

The conclusion reached at the end of their research was that once concealed carry laws went into effect, violent crimes decreased in individual counties by an average of 7.65 percent for murders and between 5 and 7 percent for rapes and aggravated assaults. The study estimated that had the rest of the states adopted concealed carry laws similar to the ones then active in 31 states, a yearly average of approximately 1400 murders, 4000 rapes, 11,000 robberies and 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been prevented.

Furthermore, a related survey of inmates in 10 correctional systems came to the same obvious conclusion told to them by the criminals themselves; not surprisingly, people are less willing to barge into a home with a potentially armed resident.

In fact, the only negative effect of such laws seemed to be a noticeable increase in property crimes, which might be expected as criminals attempted to turn to less invasive crimes where they might be less likely to be shot. While it would be absurd to argue that one type of crime might be more tolerable than another it is still worthwhile to mention that the overall cost of this change in crime was actually less because it did not as frequently involve medical bills, long term mental anguish or most importantly, the value of a human life.

A recent example of this study is the small town of Kennesaw, Georgia. In 1982, in response to a town in Illinois banning handguns, Kennesaw residents passed an ordinance requiring every resident to own a firearm and keep ammunition for it on hand. While the ordinance was not enforced (or enforceable — it was simply meant as a statement in favor of property protection), since that time and despite a significant population increase there has not been a single murder in the town, and their crime rate stands proportionally lower than the national average:

Conversely, the Illinois town with the handgun ban has suffered a minor population decrease but close to a 16 percent increase in crime. Again, the logic seems simple — allow an overwhelming majority of US citizens who are law-abiding to own firearms, and those who choose to break the law tend to think twice before committing violent crimes.

Going down a slightly different path, there is also the question of whether or not guns obtained legally through such programs as concealed-carry permits still make up a significant percentage of weapons used in violent crimes. The Lott and Mustard study briefly touched on this question with statistics from Florida:

221,443 licenses were issued between October 1, 1987, and April 30, 1994, but only 18 crimes involving firearms were committed by those with licenses. While a statewide breakdown on the nature of those crimes is not available, Dade County records indicate that four crimes involving a permitted handgun took place there between September 1987 and August 1992, and none of those cases resulted in injury.

While gun crime in America is certainly nothing to marginalize or push aside, the facts support allowing trained and law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms and serve as a useful deterrent to violent crime. If criminals are worried about attacking someone who may be armed, and such criminals have most likely obtained their weapons illegally anyway, it is tough to argue that not allowing our citizens to be armed legally would help solve the problem.

After all, this might actually put the very people in danger strict gun-control advocates are fighting to protect. Or as my grandfather used to say, it’d be like letting the fox protect the hen house.

By now if you are a citizen concerned about the protection of your civil liberties or indeed pay cursory attention to the major news outlets, you have probably heard about the District of Columbia vs. Heller Supreme Court case involving the debate over the right to individually own firearms.  I must admit that although I am a supporter of the 2^nd amendment I let this case slip under my radar until it had already been decided.

The Supreme Court ruled last week in a 5-4 majority that the 2^nd amendment does indeed protect an American’s right to possess an operational firearm in their home for the purposes of self-defense, defeating a minority of judges who felt the amendment only guaranteed the right of Americans to do so under the auspices of state militia service.  However, despite the fact the ruling ended up confirming a right we as Americans have had since the very genesis of the countries founding, we only came one vote away from losing it.  That’s too close.

Therefore, as a concerned citizen (and also faced with the prospect of an otherwise uneventful 4 hour flight yesterday morning) I printed off the 157 page decision and prepared myself to figure out what exactly had gone on here.  Now granted most people don’t read Supreme Court cases just for kicks, but believe it or not the reading actually went by efficiently and by the time I’d finished there were several serious thoughts floating in my head (one of which being that this is probably why lots of girls don’t return my calls).

On a more serious note though, I thought it interesting that Justice Scalia in his majority opinion seemed almost stunned that the rather explicit wording of the 2^nd amendment had been so badly distorted by the minority judges.  Citing a plethora of historical precedents as well as applying a common sense test to the Constitution which was written as he says referencing another case “to be understood by the voters…distinguished from technical meaning” he made the point that the right to keep arms has never been only associated with the militia service and at one point refers to the minority’s reasoning on the matter as “bizarre.”

On this occasion, Scalia noted that Stevens had tried to argue that because the framers had used the wording “to keep and bear arms” as opposed to “to keep and to bear arms” they simply meant that militiamen were allowed to wield the arms which they had been granted and that this did not apply to the people as a whole.  Now I’m no Supreme Court justice nor am I an expert on advanced logical debate; but to this humble writer typing from a beat up laptop with a left clicker that only works with persuasion it is shall we say mildly upsetting to think (whether dealing with a controversial subject such as firearms or not) that an explicit and Constitutionally protected right can be nearly overturned in part by such word games. Our Bill of Rights was designed to use clear and precise language to lay down the rights of its citizens and protect them from being harassed in their persons and property by a prying and heavy-handed government (which I might add the framers knew a little something about).

In final summation, the majority concluded the right to bear arms was and still is one of these rights, allowing Americans to protect themselves as long as the right is exercised responsibly and free from laws such as the D.C. ordinances.  The law in question, the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 had made it impossible to not only register and possess guns in the city, but also said that even if a special one-year license was granted to keep a gun it had it be disassembled or disabled via a trigger lock while inside the home.  There was no comment on what use a disassembled firearm would be in a self-defense situation, but one must imagine it might present a considerable obstacle should such an occasion arise.  Thankfully though, despite the narrow and concerning margin of the vote the D.C. vs. Heller case was interpreted correctly and has in fact turned out to be an important victory for those who espouse the authority of the Constitution, the protection of civil liberties for all Americans and conservative small-government.

Let us hope such a victory is the first of many….

Seth is a senior at UNC, double majoring in Political Science and American History.  He is a policy intern with Lawson for Congress.

Change is in the air at the North Carolina GOP Convention. We elected a change-oriented national committeewoman, physician and fellow Congressional candidate Dr. Ada M. Fisher. Dr. Fisher literally came out of nowhere — she nominated herself from the floor, and gave a great speech focused on reaching out and growing the party in true service to our communities and nation.

Dr. Fisher’s election was, I believe, historic. Not only is she the first Black national committeewoman from North Carolina, but she nominated herself from the floor and won the voting overwhelmingly. The establishment’s candidate is a nice lady with an impressive political resume, but her speech was largely limited to her political and civic accomplishments — as such, it talked about the past. Dr. Fisher’s speech talked honestly about the challenges our nation faces, her efforts to bring about positive social change in her community, and where our party needs to go in the future. For most attendees, the contrast between past and future could not have been clearer.

During the business meeting’s Platform Committee report, I proposed a reasonable amendment stating our desire to eliminate North Carolina’s capricious statewide “no-carry” zones that disarm trained, law-abiding concealed carry permit holders:

Since criminals do not obey laws, we support eliminating North Carolina’s capricious statewide “no-carry” zones that disarm law-abiding and duly licensed Concealed Carry permit holders.

Of course, if a private property owner wants to put a “No Firearms” sign on his premises, he does and should always have that right. But if I own a bank and want to allow my trained and licensed customers to carry concealed, I don’t have that right - the state has arbitrarily declared that all financial institutions are “no carry” zones. Rep. Paul Stam, chair of the Platform Committee, recommended against the amendment, but it passed overwhelmingly. I approached him after the session to try and understand his objection to the amendment, but he didn’t offer an explanation. First he endorses my poorly-vetted primary opponent from his position as minority leader of the General Assembly, then he supports disarming certified and trained concealed carry permit holders.

Things got a bit nasty around the delegate nomination process, with an unfortunate parliamentary food fight that was completely unnecessary and avoidable if Chairman Linda Daves or her staff had shown some common courtesy to Gary Hardee and the Ron Paul campaign leading up to the convention. Instead, the party ignored their good faith attempts to reach out and put legitimate Ron Paul delegates on the slate, and further decided to reduce the number of Ron Paul delegates entirely based upon their interpretation of “proportional allocation”.

Even more amusing, Chairman Daves then got up on stage and blatantly lied to the entire auditorium about how the Paul supporters were “arguing among themselves” and that the party’s selection of Ron Paul delegates was “discussed with B.J. Lawson”. It was tragic comedy, as their actions effectively discredited them and alienated a large bloc of activists. Ultimately, Chairman Daves effectively squandered what would have been a “kumbya moment” after a fantastic unifying speech by our newly re-elected national committeeman Rep. David Lewis.

The final move was calling quorum. Both based upon the delegate fiasco, and the fact that a number of duly-debated resolutions passed in District conventions were not presented to the State convention because they didn’t make it through the Resolution Committee (ironically chaired by my openly-hostile district chair Martha Jenkins), most liberty-minded folks left early and someone had the good sense to call for a quorum. Not enough delegates were left, so they had to end the convention early and were unable to pass all the approved resolutions, including one in support of John McCain.

I should note that liberty supporters were not that well organized, however. I would have much preferred for a quorum call at the beginning of the Resolution Committee report, so that no resolutions would have been passed, and none would be singled out. As it happened, folks trickled out gradually before quorum was called, and quorum was called right before a resolution honoring our troops. That timing was unfortunate, as everyone I know firmly supports our troops — there is just honest disagreement on foreign policy, and many, like me, want our courageous troops home immediately. To the extent that the timing of the quorum call was perceived as a slight to the troops, there may have been some collateral damage.

I then spent much of Saturday evening at a hospitality suite hosted by the minority outreach committee. That was a great event, as I had the opportunity to meet some fantastic people, as well as candidates for the General Assembly who are interested in advancing positive social change. I really enjoyed meeting Pearl Floyd (running in HD 110) and Dempsey Miller (HD 99) - they are both strong candidates in their respective districts.

Our campaign also hosted a hospitality suite on Friday evening, and had a fantastic time talking with new friends from throughout the state as well as longtime supporters. We advertised our suite by giving out a $50 gas card every hour from 9pm until midnight, and kept the party going until 2:30 am. Our motto, “We can’t afford the Price”, highlighted our desperate need for a Constitutional federal government, as oil conveniently rocketed up almost $11 to a new record close of $138 on Friday. When will our government realize that we cannot afford to borrow and print $1-3 billion per day, and make our dollars worth less as a result?

So here are my personal conclusions:
- It’s important to stay involved, and there are individuals and candidates within the party that deserve wholehearted support. Activists should seek out and meet our local candidates and find out if they are principled supporters of the rule of law, limited government, and freedom — if so, we need to help them as much as possible.

- The party itself, however, remains unfortunately myopic. While we should support our local auxiliaries and work to obtain party leadership positions going forward, the current state party apparatus remains elitist and disconnected from the problems facing our state and nation. It must be changed from within, which will take time and continued effort identifying others who are honestly concerned about our future.

I also have one additional conclusion that may be controversial, but I believe to be important:

- In order to take back our state, we need to remove state funding for political parties. Right now, North Carolina taxpayers are funding the Democrat and Republican parties based upon “checkoff funds” of $3 per taxpayer that can be allocated from your state income tax return. It’s not a real political contribution, since the money has ALREADY been taken from you in taxes — the state just gives you the option of allocating $3 of STATE FUNDS to a political party, instead of schools or new roads.

Our political parties should not steal from our children, or our roads. I strongly believe that political parties must honestly earn the financial support of their members. No political party deserves welfare from the state.

How to Make Friends and Influence People, according to Mike Huckabee:

Reckless and irresponsible remarks such as those by Mike Huckabee at the NRA’s national convention add nothing to civil discourse, and distract from Sen. Obama’s record opposing Americans’ fundamental right to self-defense. Such comments only encourage the gun control lobby to disarm and render defenseless law-abiding citizens.

Mr. Huckabee, please apologize for your remarks. I’m a fan of satirical humor, and have overstepped the limits of propriety on more than one occasion, so I understand what it’s like to say that I’m sorry. Your comments went beyond poor taste, however, and work against the interests of gun owners everywhere.

Update: Mr. Huckabee did apologize, as shown here:

Needless to say, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and as a Congressional candidate disagree strongly with our 11-term incumbent on this important issue.

It seems redundant to clarify that position, given that my entire Congressional campaign is based upon the Constitution as our nation’s framework for federal governance. But given my upbringing and background in neurosurgery, I didn’t arrive at a true appreciation for the Second Amendment until later in life. Here’s an email I exchanged on this topic:

For the record, historically I was never a “gun person”. I was raised in a gun-free home, and as a surgical resident, I only saw the ugly side of firearm violence. It wasn’t until the Virginia Tech shootings that I began to question and research my nominally anti-gun beliefs. How could a homicidal madman remain completely uncontested for such a long time? If I was in that situation, would I want to be a victim?

Once I began looking at the issues rationally, it became clear that armed, law-abiding citizens and common-sense measures like concealed carry permits have net positive effects. Permit holders are much more likely to defend themselves, or others, than to engage in gun violence (see this summary, or Crime, Deterrence and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Lott and Mustard).

More importantly, criminals by definition don’t obey laws.

The fact that our North Carolina campuses are “gun free zones” creates an illusion of security, and prevents those students and faculty 21 years of age and older (who can and may already have a permit to conceal off-campus) from potentially averting tragedy on-campus. Furthermore, since the penalties for carrying in a gun-free zone are so severe, if a permit holder’s travels might include campus on a particular day, that person just doesn’t carry at all (thus negating the value of the permit).

You might find this Web site interesting:

http://www.concealedcampus.org/

If 1% of the population is quietly and unobtrusively armed, criminals tend to think twice before they assume they have a defenseless victim.

The good news is that responsible gun ownership and a citizen’s right to self-defense is not a partisan issue in North Carolina. Here are some well-reasoned comments from a thread in the state Democratic blog:

http://bluenc.com/north-carolina-senator-supports-allowing-firearms-in-national-parks#comment-76315

We have a good concealed carry educational curriculum and licensing process in North Carolina:

http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/11/18/guidelines-for-the-use-of-deadly-force/

However, we need to enlighten our state legislators so we can remove the capricious, arbitrary, and counterproductive “no-carry zones” that disarm law-abiding citizens and leave criminals with an absolute advantage. For a summary of North Carolina gun laws, including no-carry zones, visit the NRA-ILA’s Gun Laws page and click “North Carolina”.

Regardless of whether you own a weapon, every American should take a gun course that includes guidelines for when Deadly Force may be legitimately used in self-defense. While taking such a course recently, I was struck by the obvious parallels between personal defense, and national defense.

At least in North Carolina, there are four conditions that all must be present to justify use of Deadly Force in self-defense:

• There must be an real and immediate threat of death, serious injury, or sexual assault such that a normal person believes Deadly Force is necessary.
• The threat must be otherwise unavoidable.
• You cannot instigate the dispute: “If you start a fight, you lose your rights.”
• You cannot use excessive force.

These four criteria have interesting implications. First, regarding the immediacy of the threat: a history of violence and/or a fear of future violence do not justify the use of Deadly Force. For example, a repeatedly battered wife who chooses to kill the abusive husband between assaults is not justified in using Deadly Force. The husband must be physically threatening/attacking her for Deadly Force to be justified.

Regarding the concept of “avoidability”, in North Carolina there is a “Duty to Retreat” such that you must attempt to avoid or exit the hostile situation if possible. An important exception to the Duty to Retreat is if you are on your own property. In that case, obviously, you are in your “retreat” and can use Deadly Force if the other conditions exist.

Here’s an interesting case study, however. You’re an armed citizen awakened by a noise downstairs. You and your shotgun peek around the corner and see someone pulling silver out of the dining room cabinet. Are you justified in using Deadly Force at that time? Perhaps surprisingly, you are not. Deadly Force can only be used in defense of life or physical harm. It is not justified in defense of property. If the thief tries to surrender or escape when he hears the action on your shotgun, you cannot fire. But if he starts running towards you, you are more justified in using Deadly Force.

Even more interesting: You’re an armed citizen awakened by a noise downstairs. You and your shotgun peek around the corner and see someone forcing his way in through the back door. Are you justified in using Deadly Force at that time? Thanks to something called the “Castle Doctrine”, you are. While your castle’s perimeter is being violated, you are justified in using Deadly Force. Once the trespasser is inside, however, he must be a real and immediate threat to your life or physical safety.

Another important point is that you are justified using Deadly Force in defense of an innocent victim, but only if all four criteria above are met and the victim would have been justified in using Deadly Force him/herself. Especially important is the third criterion, or identifying the true instigator in the fight. Are you justified in defending an elderly lady being beaten by a group of muggers? How about walking into a convenience store and seeing two men struggling on floor, when one man reaches for a knife? In the first case, the true victim is fairly obvious. In the second case, however, it’s impossible to know who instigated the conflict. In other words, there’s no “Defense of Innocents” if you stumble onto a fight between the Hatfields and McCoys. In that case, as a citizen, diplomacy is the only solution.

Is it reasonable to think that the our guidelines limiting use of Deadly Force for citizens and law enforcement officials would also apply to us as a sovereign nation, and “global citizen”?