Do Legally Owned Firearms Increase The Number Of Murders?

If you read the national mainstream media, you have seen the claim over and over again - more guns equals more murders.  Anyone who dares to question this "fact" is accused of lying.  In big cities, government and private left wing groups sponsor gun "buy backs" or exchanges - the aim being to reduce the number of guns in the community and thus reduce violence.  However, one thing they never do is compare the rate of LEGAL firearms ownership to the murder rate - and that is exactly what we are going to do here and now.

Murder rates are easy to obtain from FBI reports.  Since the U.S. does not have national gun registration, there are no figures for legal gun ownership.  There is, however, a way to approximate the legal gun ownership rate: The number of FBI background checks run on guns purchased.  This is done through the National Instant Check System, or NICS for short.  It isn't a perfect gauge of gun ownership because NICS checks are also done for CCW permits and some states require them on private sales while others do not.  In some states, many legal sales are done without checks.  Furthermore, a few illegal purchases by prohibited persons will slip through.  Never the less, it is a good indicator of legal gun ownership - in fact, it is the best we have.

If there is a relationship between the rate of legal gun ownership and the rate of homicides, then there should be a somewhat consistent ratio between legal sales and the number of homicides.  If there is no such relationship, than it is clear that the rate of legal gun ownership has no bearing on the murder rate.

First, let's look at the national, 50 state figures.  The homicide rate in the U.S. is 4.7 per 100,000 population.  The average of all 50 states background checks is 8245 per 100,000 population (Utah and Kentucky were excluded because they do recurring checks on CCW holders - boosting their NICS check totals.)  

So, we can index the number of NICS checks and homicides:

NICS Checks/Murder rate = number of NICS checks per murder

Nationally, it looks like this:

8245 NICS Checks per 100k/4.7 Murders per 100k = 1755 NICS Checks per Murder

Of course the number of legally owned firearms per murder is much, much higher because people don't replace their guns every year.  I have a legally owned handgun that hasn't been sold at retail in over 100 years.  Still, it's a good indicator of the level of firearms ownership in a state.

So, if more legal guns equals more murders than we should see a fairly consistent ratio of murders to NICS checks - except that is not what the data shows.

For instance, New Hampshire has a very low murder rate of 1.1 per 100k - and a very high rate of firearms ownership, resulting in a ratio of 9598 NICS checks per murder.  At the other end of the spectrum, New Jersey has a murder rate slightly below the national average (4.4 per 100k) and the lowest NICS rate in the nation, resulting in a ratio of 234 NICS checks per murder.

Consider these charts - if the anti-gun rights activists are correct and more guns cause more murders, than the bars should be close together.

Number of NICS Checks per Homicide

All states above have slightly lower than average homicide rates of 3.1 - 4.5 per 100k

What about states with high murder rates?  Is there a relationship there?

Number of NICS Checks per Homicide

All states above have higher than average homicide rates of 6.0 per 100k or above

Again, no relationship is seen between legal gun ownership and homicides - even in states with the highest murder rates.  There is, however, one area of consistency:

Number of NICS Checks per Homicide

All states above have lower than average homicide rates of 1.8 per 100k or below

When we look at states with the lowest murder rates - we find a very high rate of NICS checks per murder - every state in the bottom six has a high rate of legal firearms ownership.  In fact, comparing the states with the highest homicide rate to those with the lowest rates, every state with a high homicide rate has a low rate of legal gun ownership. In fact, they have an index ratio of below 2,000 and in 6 of 9 cases the ratio was below the national average - meaning there are actually fewer, not more legal guns in these states.  In contrast, as a result of very high legal gun ownership rates, all but one of the low homicide rate states has a ratio of above 4,000!

The bottom line: If there is any relationship between murder rates and legal gun ownership it is the reverse of the anti-gun rights claims - more legally owned guns are associated with lower, rather than hugher murder rates.

John Lott is right: More guns does equal less crime.

Full data is below:

State	2012	NICS per 100k	NICS per Homicide
Utah	1.8	46898	26054.44
Kentucky	4.5	78703	17489.56
New Hampshire	1.1	10557	9597.27
Montana	2.7	16888	6254.81
Wyoming	2.4	13986	5827.50
Idaho	1.8	10261	5700.56
Iowa	1.5	8524	5682.67
Minnesota	1.8	9730	5405.56
Vermont	1.3	6728	5175.38
Maine	1.9	8629	4541.58
South Dakota	3	13624	4541.33
West Virginia	3.9	15718	4030.26
Alaska	4.1	14616	3564.88
North Dakota	4	13952	3488.00
Oregon	2.4	8287	3452.92
Colorado	3.1	10208	3292.90
Kansas	2.9	9176	3164.14
Washington	3	8785	2928.33
Wisconsin	3	8676	2892.00
Nebraska	2.9	5758	1985.52
Oklahoma	5.7	11279	1978.77
Massachusetts	1.8	3500	1944.44
Connecticut	4.1	7906	1928.29
Arkansas	5.9	11150	1889.83
Indiana	4.7	8691	1849.15
Tennessee	6	10889	1814.83
Illinois	5.8	9831	1695.00
Virginia	3.8	6387	1680.79
Pennsylvania	5.4	8781	1626.11
Texas	4.4	7060	1604.55
Missouri	6.5	10228	1573.54
Alabama	7.1	11070	1559.15
New Mexico	5.6	8589	1533.75
Nevada	4.5	6583	1462.89
Ohio	4.3	6274	1459.07
Mississippi	7.4	10035	1356.08
North Carolina	4.9	6178	1260.82
South Carolina	6.9	7765	1125.36
Arizona	5.5	5934	1078.91
Georgia	5.9	5934	1005.76
Florida	5.2	5212	1002.31
Louisiana	10.8	9500	879.63
Michigan	7	5596	799.43
Rhode Island	3.2	2496	780.00
California	5	3611	722.20
Hawaii	2.1	1359	647.14
Delaware	6.2	3876	625.16
New York	3.5	2172	620.57
Maryland	6.3	2738	434.60
New Jersey	4.4	1030	234.09

NICS check data obtained from this article

Murder rates from FBI stats for 2012

The Massive Media Double Standard - Mocking Christians Is Always OK

Earlier this week I wrote about the Duck Dynasty controversy.  Today, I would like to ad some additional thoughts.

One of the things happening as a result of this uproar is that people are taking note of all of the attacks upon Christianity and Christians by media figures - and noticing that absolutely nothing is ever done about it.  Some examples:

Saturday Night Live kicked of Lent this year by mocking the Risen Christ - portraying Him as full of vengeance as he comes back to life, only to kill those who oppose Him.

Ask yourself, if a prominent gay person - living or dead - were mocked in this way, would that be acceptable?

But that is not Saturday Night Live's only offensive mockery of Jesus and Christains:

Where was the uproar over this tasteless skit?  Of course, there was none.

The there's Bill Mahr, who almost never misses a chance to attack Christians:

Of course, Mahr was not disciplined in any way - in spite of protests and requests that he be disciplined by the Catholic League.

Then there is Mahr's rant on this occasion:

Again, no one suspended Mahr for his attack upon Christians. By the way, I happen to know lots of Conservative Christians who not only give, but work to help the poor, the sick and the addicted - as a matter of fact, until I become disabled every job this conservative Christian held involved doing just that.

Then there MSNBC's Ed Shultz - who said this: “What do Christian values mean to Republicans,  It's just a stepping stone, a footstool, to get exactly what they want in the political arena. They hide behind their plastic Jesus”   How nice that Mr. Shultz can judge every Christian Republican and label them as hypocrites.  Here's the video:

I think that's enough examples to make it clear that Christians who are conservative in either politics or theology or both are fair game to all facets of the media.  They can be mocked, lied about and attacked with falsehoods with absolutely no consequences.

Am I saying that these people should be suspended or fired?  Absolutely not.  If what they are saying offends you, change the channel.  If enough people do this, they will notice.  Censorship - be it imposed by government, church or pressure groups is a bad idea.

What I am saying is that it is hypocritical in the extreme for the left and gay activists to call for Phil Robertson suspension, while saying nothing when Christians are mocked and slandered.

The same rules should apply to everyone - and right now the clearly do not.

What Everyone Has Missed In Phil Robertson's Statement

If you have read many of my blog and/or Facebook posts, you probably know that I am both an Evangelical minister and a conservative/libertarian/constitutionalist.  What you may not know is that for my entire life I have had gay friends.  One of my closest childhood friends died of AIDS.  When I worked in EMS, I had several openly gay partners - working partners that is.  We worked 24 hour shifts.  I got to know several well.  Later, as a pastor, gay people continued to cross my path.  In every case, I treated them with dignity, love and respect.  Like everyone else they, were and are, of infinite value - because Christ died for them.  I don't use, or let others use in my presence, any kind of gay slur.  God being my helper, I practice real tolerance by not requiring people to live as I do, believe as I do or endorse the choices I make, in order to be respected and loved by me.

Politically, I do not support laws that prevent people from living as they wish, provided that they cause no harm to others.  In regards to marriage, I believe that this is a religious and cultural institution which government should stay out of as much as possible.  My faith requires much more of me in regards to my marriage than government does.  I think people should be permitted to write their own marriage contracts.  In regards to supporting laws that compel non-Christians to behave as if they are Christians, I oppose them.    In fact, in my last sermon, I made the point that by focusing upon politics, the Evangelical church has neglected its' primary mission of loving others and presenting the live changing Gospel of Christ.  I believe that everyone has the right to be equally considered for most jobs be they gay or straight, Christian or atheist.  I would only make exceptions for religious institutions who have moral objections to the gay lifestyle.  I support the right of all Americans to serve in the armed forces.

So, all that said, what do I think about the uproar over Phil Robertson?  Well, I have to say that I am extremely concerned.  You see, he was not caught on Camera using a gay slur (like Alec Baldwin).  He was not accused of refusing to hire a qualified gay person in his business.  He did not even seek an opportunity to opine upon the moral issues surrounding homosexuality.  What was his sin, for which he has now been suspended?  He was stupid enough to actually be truthful regarding his sincerely held religious beliefs.

I'm sure that the folks at A&E don't realize it yet, but his beliefs are far from unusual among serious Christians.  Some of this things he said were direct quotes from the New Testament:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  (1 Cor 6:9-10 NIV)

What everyone so far has missed is this: By his own admission, prior to coming to faith, Phil Robertson was both sexually immoral AND a drunkard.  He was not placing himself above gays - even in a Christian context - he was placing himself in the very same category.  If you are not a Christian, please let that sink in.  Remember that a key doctrine of the Christian faith is Grace.  We believe that when we come to faith in Christ, he cleans us up.  There is no room for self-righteousness - we can take no credit for it.  There is, however, also no room for us to change God's Word.  Not to justify our behavior or the behavior of others.  Those who are asking him to change his beliefs are asking him to deny the Lord who gave him the strength to sober up and the grace to save his marriage.  They are asking him to deny a truth that has transformed his life for the better.  I highly doubt that he will do this.

There is another truth about the Christian faith that most outside and many inside the church do not understand: The Christian life is not about claiming what you believe to be your rights - it is about surrendering them to God.   This is why Jesus told his followers to "count the cost" of following Him.  The Bible is abundantly clear in regards to the sexual ethics required of those who choose to follow Christ.  Written in a culture in which both heterosexual and homosexual sex outside of heterosexual marriage was the norm, the New Testament only permits sex in heterosexual marriages.  It is not only the New Testament that has held this position - the entire Christian church - Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant - held this position for 1,950 years.   Every Saint and hero of the faith held it.  It was unquestioned.  Worldwide and in the US, the majority of Biblical Christians still hold it.

Is that fair if you happen to be gay?  No it isn't.  Life in this broken world is NOT FAIR.  Ask a returning, disabled vet if what happened to him is "fair".  Ask a widowed mother if life is "fair".  Ask anyone who - like me - lives with daily, severe pain if life is "fair".  Life isn't fair for any of us - but God is good.  He offers Grace and mercy to all, and purpose too.

Of course, the immediate response was, "He's judging, Jesus said not to judge".  Check the context.  This is in the Sermon on the Mount, (Matthew 7:1ff) the reference is to religious leaders who JUDGED AND SHUNNED people, while ignoring their own sins.  Think for a moment.  Judging involves a determining of guilt and the pronouncing of a sentence.  Only God can do that - and that is why Pope Francis was right to say, "Who am I to judge?"  However, IT IS NOT JUDGING TO ANSWER A QUESTION REGARDING THE LAW.   We are supposed to know what it is.  We are not supposed to pass sentence upon, hate or reject those who choose not to follow it.  That is judging.

Sadly, the response has been much worse than that.  He has been called every vile name possible in online forums.  Spokespeople for the LBGT community have stated that anyone with such an opinion has no place in the public life of the nation.  Others have commented that he "cannot be allowed to hide behind the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion" and "He cannot be allowed to hide behind Christianity."

Then there is this from MSNBC: "GLAAD jumped on Robertson’s comments Wednesday. 'Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,' spokesman Wilson Cruz said in a statement provided to msnbc."  WOW, TALK ABOUT JUDGING.  When did Wilson Cruz become the final authority as to what all "true Christians" believe?  What gives him the authority to make that determination for millions of sincere Christians?  What gives him the right to sit in judgment of Phil Robertson and his faith?

I thank God, that not everyone in the Gay community would agree with Wilson Cruz.  Most gay people I have known just want to be treated with respect.  They don't force others to agree with them by coercion. Sadly, many on the left, both gay and straight, want to do exactly that.

What concerns me more than anything else is the contempt for religious freedom and the historic Christian faith that many on the left are pushing.  I am a Christian who lives in the cultural bubble of California - but I have spent time in other states.  Outside the "blue state bubble" there are lots and lots of people who agree with Phil Robertson.  There are even quite a few in the "blue states".  Not just a few "extremists" - but millions of religious people of many faiths - Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon - as well as theologically conservative Jews and Muslims.  Add those groups up and you easily have over 100 million Americans.  Just how do those condemning Phil Robertson intend to keep these people out of the "public life of the nation"?

Just how are we who dare to hold on to the historic Christian faith to be kept out of public life?  What rights are to be removed in order to accomplish this?  How are we to be identified?  I know, Christians could be made to wear a yellow cross at all times - just like the Jews.  Hitler actually used homosexuals in the SA to oppose and subdue the Christians in Germany.  After he didn't need them any more he threw those he didn't kill into the same concentration camps as the Christians who refused to bow to his twisted cross.  I'm not calling gays NAZIS, I am appealing to them and everyone else to stop marginalizing other Americans - because chances are it won't end well for any of us.  We need to be truly tolerant of each other - we need to reject the false tolerance of political correctness before it's too late. 

Were Phil Robertson's comments crudely presented?  Yes, they were.  Like the politically liberal Christian - and fellow recovering addict - Bob Beckel, his past sometimes shows through.  He may owe many an apology for that, but not for his sincerely held religious beliefs.  Is his theology Biblical?  Absolutely.  Were his comments hateful?  Absolutely not.  Sadly, the same cannot be said of those who were so quick to attack him.  Their comments were not only hateful, they were and are just as un-American as those on the signs of Westboro Baptist Church. 

Note: I wrote more about the hypocrisy of the left and gay activists in ignoring or supporting attacks upon Christians HERE

Examining The States With The "Weakest" Gun Laws - Why Brady's Ratings Don't Add Up

One of the nation's leading gun control advocacy group, the Brady Campaign, rates every state's gun laws.  Until recently, you could view the state rankings (1-50) on their website.  They have now taken them down, for reasons that will become apparent in this article.

If gun control advocates are correct, than states with the most stringent gun laws should have the lowest murder rates and those with the "worst" or "weakest" gun laws should have the highest murder rates.  The chart below compares the 10 worst states, according to Brady, ranked from 50th down to 41st place - with their ranking in 2012 FBI homicide statistics (1 being lowest, 50 being highest).

If "weak gun laws" are a significant factor in homicides, than the worst homicide rates should be in the states with these so called "weak" laws.  In the above chart, this would result in the colored bars being close together.  In fact, this is not the case.  In fact, only one of Brady's "worst 10 states" has a homicide rate in the top ten: Louisiana.

Here are the state by state figures:

State                           Brady Rating                     FBI Homicide Rating (Low is worse)

Utah                                50th                                   28th

Alaska                             49th                                   26th

Arizona                            48th                                   15th

Oklahoma                        47th                                   12th

North Dakota                    46th                                   30th

Montana                           45th                                   39th

Louisiana                          44th                                   1st

Kentucky                          43rd                                   22nd

Idaho                               42nd                                   46th

Wisconsin                         41st                                   35th

Additionally, only three of Brady's so-called worse states are even in the 20 worst states.  If Brady's ratings are meaningful, than most of their "10 worst states" should be in the 20 worst states for homicides.  It's clear that Brady's ratings have no meaningful relationship to crime, or as they are falsely saying nowadays - gun safety.

If so called weak gun laws do in fact result in more crimes, as Brady claims, than we would expect to see several of the above states listed among the 10 worst homicide rates.  In fact, we see only one state listed in both Brady's "10 worst" and the FBI's 10 worst homicide states.  Even more significant is the average.  The average ranking of Brady's 10 "worst" states?  25.4  If gun control advocates are correct, these "weak gun law" states should average well above the average of all states.  Again, this is not the case.  They average slightly below the average ranking of all states.

In reality, gun laws seem to have little effects upon the criminal use of firearms.  In fact, in places like Chicago and Washington DC, the most restrictive gun laws in the nation have done nothing to reduce the worst gun violence in the nation.  Brady's ratings simply do not add up.  Remember that the next time some "talking head" on the news cites them as reliable.

Brady's ratings: http://www.deseretnews.com/top/1429/10/Utah-10-states-with-the-most-lenient-gun-laws-.html

FBI homicide rankings: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRalpha 

Planning A Safe Overseas Vacation

A recent blog got me thinking about travel plans and personal safety.  How do gun control laws and the rate of legal firearms ownership relate to vacation safety?

Pack your bags and your body armor before departing for some of the nations with the most strict gun control laws in the world: Honduras (64.8 per 100,000 firearm homicide rate) … or Jamaica (39.4 per 100,000) … or Brazil (18.1 per 100,000).

Better yet, have a stay-cation next year and tour the U.S.A. - the country with the highest rate of firearms ownership in the world - and a fairly low rate of firearms homicides, 2.97 per 100,000. To stay on the safest side, consider one of these states with a strong "gun culture".  Perhaps Idaho (1.3 per 100,000), Iowa (1.2 per 100,000), Maine (1.8 per 100,000), Montana (2.1 per 100,000), North Dakota (1.3 per 100,000) or even Oregon (2.0 per 100,000).

If you must travel to a foreign country, may I suggest lovely Switzerland.  Mountains, skiing (in Winter) clean air and the strongest "gun culture" outside the US.  Virtually every home has firearms, soldiers can take their guns home and upon leaving the military can purchase their personal weapons (most do), and the government subsidizes both firing ranges and ammunition costs for any citizen who wishes to practice rifle marksmanship, as part of its' defense program.  The Swiss firearms murder rate is .77 per 100,000, even though it has the 3rd highest rate of firearms ownership in the world.  Finland has the 4th highest ownership rate and the firearms homicide rate is .45 per 100,000.  (Yemen is #2 in firearms ownership, no homicide figures are available.)  So the nations with the top three rates of legal firearms ownership in the world, actually have some of the lowest rates of firearms murders.  What about other nations with high firearms ownership rates?

Safest Places to Vacation

Rank in Worldwide Legal Gun Ownership     Firearms Murder Rate per 100,000

1st - Untied States ----------------------------------------- 2.97

3rd - Switzerland -------------------------------------------- .77

4th - Finland ------------------------------------------------- .45

5th - Serbia -------------------------------------------------- .46

6th - Cyprus ------------------------------------------------- .46

9th - Uruguay ----------------------------------------------- 2.8

10th - Sweden ---------------------------------------------- .41

11th - Norway ---------------------------------------------- .05

12th - France ----------------------------------------------- .06

13th - Canada ---------------------------------------------  .51

Average firearms murder rate in the nations with the top 10 gun owning nations for which data is available - .894 per 100,000.  Conclusion: A high rate of legal firearms ownership is a good predictor of safety.

Note: No homicide figures available for Yemen (2nd), Saudi Arabia (7th) or Iraq (8th)

Countries to Avoid

Rank in Worldwide Legal Gun Ownership     Firearms Murder Rate per 100,000

88th - Honduras -------------------------------------------- 68.43

92nd - El Salvador ----------------------------------------- 39.9

74th - Jamaica ---------------------------------------------- 39.4

59th - Venezuela ------------------------------------------- 38.97

49th - Guatemala ------------------------------------------ 34.81

129th - Trinidad and Tobago --------------------------- 27.31

91st - Colombia -------------------------------------------- 27.09

62nd - Belize ----------------------------------------------- 21.82

75th - Brazil ------------------------------------------------ 18.1

50th - South Africa --------------------------------------- 17.03

Of the ten most dangerous countries on earth NOT ONE ranks higher than 50th in gun ownership.  Conclusion: Strict gun laws and low rates of legal firearms ownership are not a reliable indicator of a nation's safety.

Sources:
http://www.calgunlaws.com/24892/
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

What Gun Laws Are Compatible With The Second Amendment?

Last week, a long term gun writer and gun rights activist, Dick Metcalf, walked into a buzz saw of criticism when he wrote a column in Guns and Ammo magazine in which he discussed what limitations government may place upon the possession, carrying and use of firearms without violating the 2nd Amendment.  In the wake of this he was fired from the magazine and the editor resigned.  To his credit, he refused to be interviewed by media outlets that were likely to twist his words to support gun restrictive gun laws, limiting his replies to a column in Outdoor Wire and an appearance on Tom Gresham's "Gun Talk" radio program.

As anyone who knows me, or has read what I wrote, knows I am a strong gun rights supporter.  So what is my reaction to Metcalf's article?  Well, in short, I largely agree with his conclusions, while almost totally disagreeing with how he reaches those conclusions.  A full explanation of my position follows.....

1) The 2nd Amendment provides an extremely high level of protection for gun rights

In recent years, gun rights supporters have won to decisive victories in the Supreme Court (also known as SCOTUS) establishing that the 2nd Amendment protects a personal right to own firearms (Heller 2008) and that this right also restricts state and local government (McDonald 2010).  While not explicitly stating that the 2nd Amendment right should be accorded the highest level of protection (strict scrutiny), the decision states more than once that the 2nd Amendment right is "fundamental to our system of ordered liberty", strongly suggesting that this is indeed the case.  

Furthermore, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the State of Illinois to set up a system of citizen concealed carry, ruling that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of citizens to carry firearms outside the home.  While other courts have ruled differently, these rulings seem to be politically motivated and/or the courts seem to be awaiting specific direction from SCOTUS.  The fact that the state of Illinois chose not to appeal the 7th Circuit's decision to SCOTUS, instead choosing to comply with it, speaks volumes about how they think SCOTUS will eventually rule on the issue of citizen carry.

Finally, there is a huge unanswered question regarding the level of protection accorded the 2nd Amendment: Does the unique phrase "shall not be infringed" confir even greater protection upon it, or does it simple reinforce its' position in the "top tier" of constitutional rights?  If the 2nd Amendment is given a newer and higher standing above other constitutional rights, many more laws are going to be struck down.

2) The Heller decision itself allows some specific restrictions on the use and possession of firearms

a) The "common use" test

Justice Scalia wrote in Heller: "Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

And:

"The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."

So, in the Heller decision, SCOTUS established a "common use" test.  If the people chose to own and use a particular kind of firearm in sufficient numbers as to be considered "common", that category of firearm cannot be banned.  This is true even if that category of firearm is especially dangerous or commonly used in crimes.

So, AR and AK pattern semi-automatic rifles - so called assault rifles - pass this test, and we will likely see bans on them invalidated.  Sawed off shotguns, cane guns and - sorry full auto enthusiasts - machine guns, do not meet this test and laws controlling them are likely to be found constitutional.

b) Restrictions on who can possess firearms

Again, from the Heller decision:

"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill......."

So, states and the federal government MAY prohibit some people from possessing firearms - provided they are accorded due process of law - such as the right to a criminal trial or the right to a mental commitment hearing.

c) Restrictions on where firearms may be carried

Continuing the above quote from Heller:

"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions .......or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings....."

So, there are some very sensitive places where government MAY (not must) prohibit the carrying of firearms.

d) Licensing of firearms dealers

Again, from Heller:

"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on........laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

e) Restrictions on concealed carry

Also from Heller:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues"

So, does this mean that states can prohibit concealed carry?  It would seem so - but this does not mean that government can prohibit ALL CARRYING OF FIREARMS.  So, in practical terms, as we saw in Illinois, they must allow a legal form of carry and, in most areas, concealed carry just makes more sense.  So in practical terms, they really cannot prohibit concealed carry, because they then must allow open carry and most states do not want to deal with that.

We will address additional constitutionally possible restrictions on concealed carry later. 

3) Justice Scalia - the author of both the Heller and McDonald decisions - has stated that there are further limits consistent with the 2nd Amendment.  

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, he stated that:

"We'll see. I mean, obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to keep and bear. So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be -- it will have to be decided."

So, the good Justice - who is a strong 2nd Amendment supporter - makes it clear that there is, in his opinion, another test to determine if a weapon is protected: Can it be carried by one person?

So, at least in his opinion, any weapon that cannot be carried by an individual is not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

4) Other constitutional rights on equal footing with the 2nd Amendment can be restricted under very narrow circumstances.

Let me share an example or two:

The 4th Amendment prohibits warrant-less searches - but SCOTUS has held that in "exigent circumstances", police may conduct them.  So. if probable cause exists to search a home for a kidnapped child such a search may be conducted without a warrant.  If police enter the home and do not find the child, but see drugs in plain view, those drugs can be used as evidence in court, and to obtain a warrant for further searching in the home.  However, if, in the course of searching the home, the police start rifling through desk drawers and find drugs, that search is illegal - because it exceeds the purpose of the exemption - and nothing found is admissible in court.

Another example is the regulation of parades.  Even though the content of parades is protected by the 1st Amendment, and cannot be controlled, government can require a permit for them.  What they cannot do is only allow parades that support the government or set fees so high as to discourage this form of expression.

Even though abortion is now a constitutional right, government can still require that they be performed by licensed medical professionals.

These are but a few examples of how some constitutional rights are restricted in very limited ways.

5) The full scope of 2nd Amendment protections, and what limited restrictions are constitutional, has yet to be determined. 

The gun rights community has won some very important victories - greatest of which are the Heller and McDonald decisions.  Never the less, there are many unanswered questions.

In many, many cases, the answer is obvious.  Waiting periods, arbitrary restrictions on certain firearms (such as California's "approved list" of handguns), and many other restrictions designed solely to discourage people from owning firearms are clearly illegal.

On the other hand, some laws may be constitutional - such as the requirement that gun buyers pass a brief safety test, given at the gun store, prior to buying a gun.  Or instant background checks at gun dealers.  Or the requirement for training in order to obtain a CCW permit.

Only as these issues are brought to the court and litigated will we know for sure what the answers to these questions are.

6) Accepting the reality that the 2nd Amendment right is not unlimited does not make one a traitor to the gun rights cause, nor does it open the door to unlimited restrictions.

This perhaps is the greatest criticism of Dick Metcalf and in my opinion it is unfair.  Yes, the article's title is terrible - but he didn't write that.  Yes, his idea that the founders envisioned gun laws because they included the phrase "well regulated" is just plain wrong - but concluding that he is opening the door to unlimited regulation just isn't true.  To understand why, we have to ask this question: What has to be true for a law regulating a constitutional right, protected by strict scrutiny, to be found constitutional?

As I understand it - and I would welcome comments from lawyers - in order for any regulation of such rights to be permitted, two things must both be true:

1) The regulation must serve a compelling purpose

AND

2) The method used to meet this purpose must be the least intrusive possible.

Before you read any further, please note that I AM NOT ARGUING THAT ALL OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.  I am arguing that if they are, this does not mean greater regulation therefore is constitutional.  I am also not arguing that gun control advocates are not out to get rid of our right to keep and bear arms, and indeed all privately held guns.  I actually believe that many, though not all, want to do just that.  What I am saying is that just because some gun laws are constitutional, that does not mean that we lack strong constitutional protections against that ever happening.

So, with this in mind, let's address some of the objections brought against Disk Metcalf and against some gun laws that MAY be unconstitutional and apply this two fold test.

1) If you have to "ask permission" by obtaining a permit, than it is not a right, it's a privilege.

In several states - at least for now - this is true.  We call these kind of laws "may issue", and I live under one of these laws in California.  However, the legal handwriting is on the wall for these kind of laws, that require proof of "good cause" for the issuance of a permit.  Indeed, the Sheriff of Sacramento County decided to settle a lawsuit by granting permits for simple self defense.  Other counties, including mine, have become "virtual shall issue", meaning that in practice anyone passing the background check, training and the interview will be granted a permit by the sheriff.   Why?  Simple, they see what is coming.  They know that "may issue" is doomed legally.  Assuming the open carry method of bearing arms is closed, "may issue" absolutely violates the 2nd Amendment.

That said, let's consider the much more common CCW law: "Shall issue".  Think about that for a minute.  Shall issue laws affirm the right of citizens to bear arms.  The presumption is that you have a right to the permit.  I would argue that passing a background check and completing minimum training is not "asking permission" - it is complying with minimal requirements to exercise a constitutionally protected right.

Is that an infringement?  Maybe, maybe not - but either way, it's not "asking permission" because the presumption is that you are entitled to the permit.

2) If there are any requirements for concealed (or open) carry, the 2nd Amendment is infringed.

I would argue that legally, the presumption is that it is indeed an infringement, but that unless the 2nd Amendment is accorded even more protection than other constitutional rights accorded strict scrutiny, this presumption is rebuttable.   In other words, if government can prove that the law passes the two fold test of compelling purpose and least intrusive method, than requiring a permit is constitutional and not an infringement.

So, first of all, is there a compelling purpose for requiring a permit and each requirement to obtain said permit?

Well, those who believe that there is would point to the compelling need to screen those authorized to carry firearms to prove they are not felons nor insane AND to insure that those carrying firearms do so safely and know the laws regarding the use of deadly force.  Chances are, agree or disagree, SCOTUS will probably find that these reasons are indeed compelling - and that therefore government MAY (not must) regulate the carrying of firearms to insure these compelling requirements are met.

3) If there are any requirements for obtaining a permit there is nothing stopping government from making them so burdensome that the average person could never meet them.

Those who make this argument ignore the second requirement - that any regulation of a right protected by strict scrutiny must be the least intrusive possible that will still meet the compelling need.  What does this mean?  What protection does this offer us?

Well, it certainly means that any requirement designed to discourage people from obtaining permits is unconstitutional.  So there is no way they can require 50-100 hours of training (or more), or refuse to recognize equivalent training from the police or military. 

So, what is the maximum they could require?  Well the last time I looked, the minimum standard for police firearms training (POST) was 40 hours - so there is no way that could be exceeded.  Furthermore, citizens do not need to know everything police are taught in order to carry a firearm because they have no duty to intervene.  Additionally, the state of California only requires 14 hours of training for armed guards. 

The reality is that, if a concealed carry law were to be challenged, the state would have to justify every aspect of the required training.  How much could they justify, how many hours could they rack up?  In my opinion, Metcalf is probably correct that 16 hours could be justified, but much more would be very hard.  This is probably one of the reasons Illinois did not require more hours. 

So, now that you have read this - how far off the mark was Dick Metcalf on the issue of concealed carry?

What about other gun laws?  What other laws may be permissible under the 2nd Amendment?

OK, let's consider some laws that are popular with the other side:

Background checks: Well, Heller made it clear that felons and the mentally ill should not be allowed to possess firearms.  It can be argued that this is a compelling reason for background checks.  Moving to step two: How intrusive does this background check have to be?  Answer: Not very.  With the NICS system you can walk into a gun dealer and buy a gun and be out in an hour with the background check complete.  What about waiting periods and more intrusive background checks?  They fail the intrusive test for sure.  Waiting periods - especially for those who already own guns - also fail the "compelling purpose" test.

Registration of firearms: The answer here is a definite maybe.  Remember, we are fond of pointing out that the people are the militia - some organized, others, the bulk of the population, unorganized.  Many of us have pointed out that should we ever face a situation such as the UK faced after Dunkirk, our militia would not face the same grave lack of weapons the Home Guard faced, where they had to hunt down armed German pilots with nothing more than sticks and pitch forks.

In light of this, the only way I can see registration meeting a compelling purpose, would be registration as part of a pre-organization of the "unorganized militia".  Could this be required in time of peace?  Probably not.  In time of war?  Almost certainly yes.

As for other reasons given for registration, there are other, less intrusive ways to accomplish these purposes, even if there is a compelling purpose.  For instance, crime guns are tracked quite successfully now, without registration.

Edit: It should be noted that in October 2011, ruling in the follow on case to Heller known as "Heller II"  the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the concept of what it called the “basic” registration of handguns, but not a requirement for long guns, which it termed “novel,  not historic.”  And the court questioned whether any registration of rifles and shotguns is constitutional.

It is likely that the court considered the fact that long guns are infrequently used in crimes - while handguns are the most common murder weapon in the US.  My prediction, based on looking at previous ruling is that SCOTUS will likely find long gun registration unconstitutional and MAY find the fact that handguns are the number one murder weapon, sufficient cause to allow their registration.

Bans on so called "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines.  To begin with, as is so often the case, this is a meaningless term that gun control groups can change to mean whatever they want.  However, with few exceptions, most assault weapons bans are going to fail to pass review, if and when SCOTUS looks at them.  Here's why:

1) These firearms and magazines are "in common use" - they are the most popular guns in America.  If they are not protected by the 2nd Amendment, no firearm is.

2) In Heller, D.C. argued that handguns were so dangerous and were used in so many crimes, that there was a compelling need to ban them.  SCOTUS completely disagreed - stating that they were in "common use" and could not be banned - even though they are used in 60% of homicides.  It is inconceivable that they would rule that firearms used in less than 3% of homicides are so dangerous that there is a compelling need to ban them.

3) For decades, the gun control movement has preached the militia purpose of the 2nd Amendment.  Now, that comes back to bite them.  If one reason for the right of citizens to own firearms is that they may be called to serve in a state militia in times of extreme emergency, how can they be denied guns that are "too military"?

These are but three reasons why bans of most so called "assault weapons" as well as so called "high capacity" magazines, are likely to be struck down.

Does this mean that all guns now banned are likely to be legal? Are their any guns that can be banned?  Yes, there are: Any weapon not "in common use" can be banned.  The same probably goes for magazines.  In practical terms, this means that AR and AK platform rifles are on solid ground, but AR and AK pistols may not be - because it can be argued that this type of firearm is not "in common use",  just as sawed off shotguns are not in common use.

In regards to magazines, the same test applies: Is this type of magazine "in common use"?  Clearly, pistol magazines holding up to 20 rounds are, as are rifle magazines holding up to roughly 35 rounds.   There are magazines being sold, such as 100 round drums, that may very well fail this test, and thus might be subject to a ban - but most of the magazines gun control groups wish to ban are almost certainly protected.

Well that's it. Before you add me to your flame list, remember this: As we win more and more victories, we are eventually going to come up against the limit of the 2nd Amendment right.   The only way we are going to find that limit is by continuing to do what we are doing: Fighting in the courts.  I support such legal action 100%.

I often tell people who are in favor of sweeping gun laws and gun bans to read the Heller and McDonald decisions, to learn how wrong they are.  If you think that the 2nd Amendment protects an unlimited right to own any and every weapon, I urge you to do the same thing for the same reason.  We can argue all we want, but in the end, what those nine men and women in black robes say the constitution says, is what will be enforced.