Concealed Carry Types and Crime
We love Gun Facts readers. They ask some interesting questions.
The Mega Warning
Do not consider this to be rigorous analysis. There are a multitude of confounding variables, and the Gun Facts project does not have the funding to tackle an exhaustive review. But we can present a quick acid test.
The biggest variable is the type of concealed carry policy (“CCW” herein for brevity’s sake). There are currently three primary types:
- May-Issue: This is where local legislation allows local authorities to issue or not issue CCWs. California is the poster child for this, with a small number of county sheriffs having a “shall issue” policy, but most places issuing permits only to the well connected.
- Shall-Issue: This is where the government will issue any adult a CCW if they lack a criminal background. That being said, some states have few requirements and others require training, additional background checks, live-fire qualifications, permission from your first-grade teacher, the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time…
- Permitless: No permit required as long as you are not a prohibited person. Some in the pro-gun community call this “constitutional carry,” which may be an accurate description, but the Gun Facts project has to remain agnostic and thus use a neutral term.
The first two items would cause a serious headache for a full analysis. Not only would we have to weigh the rigors of the shall-issue states, but we would also need to evaluate the may-issue states for rates of actual issuance. For now, we’ll cringe and treat them as homogenous categories.
Violent Crime Rates
Recently someone emailed us and asked, “What are the crime stats in states with different types of concealed carry laws?” And, we were quite surprised to discover we had not done a recent cross-sectional review, as there are products like the best carry jacket that is concealed that help in this purpose.
For homicides (guns or not-guns), we see statistically significant declines in homicide rates when CCWs are either given on demand or not required. Indeed, the homicide rate for Shall-Issue states is 13% lower than for May-Issue states, and 22% lower for states requiring no permits. The BIG gotcha here is that most of the May-Issue states in 2016 – California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York – are also home to cities with major street gang infestations. Hence, the homicide rates for May-Issue states may be skewed a little high.
We see even more impressive declines in robbery rates (the FBI defines robbery as “the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear.” The uncertainty principle – well documented in criminology academia – may be the primary factor in Shall-Issue states (44% less frequent) and Permitless states (66% less). Since many robberies are outdoor events (muggings, carjackings, etc.) public carry can be a deterrent.
Rape, however, is primarily an indoor crime and typically between people who know one another. This is why those columns are dimmed on the chart – CCWs come into play in public settings, not private. It is intriguing that rates of rape are higher in more liberalized CCW states.
Finally, being armed in public appears to not materially change the rate in which people will try to beat you up (aggravated assault). It might change the outcomes, but not the rates of incidences.
Property Crime Rates
Property crimes are a bit tricky. Many, perhaps most, property crimes do not happen in public. In 2016, larceny-theft accounted for 71% of all property crimes, burglary 19% percent and motor vehicle theft 9.7%.
Of these three major categories, burglary is an indoor crime, much as rape is. We expected CCWs to not be a factor and were slightly surprised to see the rate of burglary increase 43% in Shall-Issue states and 44% in Permitless states. It has often been theorized in criminology circles that criminals, being opportunistic, adapt to specific types of crime given the local cost/benefit options. The theory states that if the odds of getting shot while performing muggings is high in your state, you might decide to become a breaking-and-entering specialist. Burglary rates appear to conform to this theory.
Motor vehicle theft – “theft or attempted theft of a motor vehicle” – includes all forms, from hotwiring to carjacking. Hence, predicting how CCWs might affect the rate of motor vehicle thefts is mainly guesswork without a better breakdown of the numbers. In Shall-issue states, the rate is basically unchanged from May-Issue states. The rate drops 25% for Permitless states, but so many of the Permitless states in 2016 had low population densities, and auto theft tends to be a more urban affliction (about three times more frequent in major metro areas than suburban).
Larceny – “the unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession or constructive possession of another” – is the most frequent property crime, but has no statistical variation between CCW type states. This makes sense given that most larceny is based on stealth, stealing when nobody is looking. Thus, having a gun on you when you bicycle is swiped while you are inside the store makes no difference.
Caveats and Conclusions
Again, this little review is not robust, multivariate, statistically detailed research. But it gives us a rough, ballpark understanding that public carry appears to deter two major categories of violent crime … though not much else.
I really take exception to the term “Constitutional Carry”, considering the FACT that it is NOT “Constitutional”.
If it were truly “Constitutional” there would be NO INTERFERENCE by the “government” …. I often wonder, just exactly, what part of “shall not be infringed” is being to totally mis-understood, ot totally IGNORED.
The Second Amendment is a GUARANTEE that our “government” will not interfere with out PRE-EXISTING, GOD-GIVEN, RIGHT to go armed, at all times, in defense of self, family, society, and country. According to our Founders, the “militia” is, “the whole of the people, well-trained to arms”.
According to the Constitution, any, and all, “gun-control legislation” is NOT “Law” since it breaches the GUARANTEE of the Second Amendment.
Also, any, and all, State legislation regarding “gun control” is, likewise, NOT “Law” since the matter is covered by the Second Amendment and the Tenth Amendment only allow the States to deal with those things NOT covered by the Constitution.
According to the supreme court – “any legislation, abhorrent to the Constitution, is NOT LAW and NEED NOT BE OBEYED.
Unfortunately, “they” have more guns, bigger guns, and are much more willing to use them than we are.
Perhaps add a sentence up top emphasizing that the bar graphs are ALL instances of crime in the selected state — not crime BY ARMED CITIZENS in those states. Those graphs were beginning to worry me until I realized I was misinterpreting them.
The key question is: Do the laws of the State of X concerning carry “infringe” on the right to bear arms?
Arguably, the laws of VT do not infringe, at least not much. Sixteen-year-olds carry without a permit, either openly or concealed. They may only carry to school for school-sponsored events. All in all, not bad.
Those of May-Issue states DO infringe; at least to the extent that a permit is denied to one who has not lost his 2A rights by due process of law. (And, assuming that the issue addressed is Constitutional, e.g. a felony conviction.)
Those of Shall-Issue states are debatable. In PA, the fee is $21/5-years and there is no test or live-fire qualification performance. The word “infringe” in the 18th Century meant “to break” as in “breach of contract”. What would infringe/break have meant regarding firearms laws? We have to think about that. Do PA’s laws go so far as to “break” my right to bear arms? I think it’s really difficult to persuade an audience that such is the case.
Conversely, DC has (likely) the most stringent Shall-Issue law. High fee; extensive training, testing and qualification. Do DC’s Shall-Issue prerequisites go so far as to “infringe” – that is to “break” – the right to bear arms? Arguably, they don’t go so far as to “break”, but they DO “bend” the right beyond the point where the 2A ought to apply.
To be pragmatic, I doubt that SCOTUS would rule that DC’s Shall-Issue law is “infringing”. SCOTUS would rather NOT hear a case because it would be forced to rule on something that it does NOT WANT to rule on; e.g., that a cost of $X is too high or that it is NOT TOO HIGH. The scoring on the live-fire qualification is too stringent; or, that it is NOT TOO STRINGENT. SCOTUS is simply NOT LIKELY to take the case and so it will remain (for the foreseeable future) that DC’s law will survive.
If we are to make ANY progress on discovering the metes and bounds of carry laws it will most likely be in challenging May-Issue laws that are tantamount to Won’t-Issue. There are cases in HI, NY and NJ that are pretty ripe for SCOTUS. Any of these cases – IF TAKEN – would strike-down the idea that a state can delegate to an officer/judge discretion to issue. I think that SCOTUS would insist that the grounds to refuse a permit be spelled-out in black letter law by the legislature. And, that such law withstand judicial scrutiny. E.g., you must be denied a permit if you beat your dog. Were you convicted of beating your dog? Is beating your dog a Constitutional impediment to carrying a gun? NOT merely because an officer/judge of the state thinks you beat your dog and that this is a good reason to deny your permit.
If we can’t get SCOTUS to strike-down May-Issue then we can’t get SCOTUS to do anything whatsoever to uphold the right to arms.
If we CAN get SCOTUS to strike-down May-Issue then carry will begin to be liberated in: CA, NY, NJ, MD, MA, RI, CT, and HI. The numbers of 2A supporters in those states will rise – over a decade or two – which will strengthen popular support for the 2A.
These states will simply NEVER adopt Constitutional carry.
Nor will SCOTUS EVER mandate Constitutional carry.
Therefore, the question is:
– Will you accept NOTHING short of your IDEAL? Or,
– will you work toward defense of the 2A on a path with some potential for success.