FACT CHECK: Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s false statement on concealed carry reciprocity
In the wake of the worst mass shootings in modern American history, Congress is preparing to pass a bill that will weaken our gun laws and make us less safe. On Wednesday, November 29, the House Judiciary Committee advanced the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, which will force states with strong concealed carry laws to honor permits from states with weak or non-existent concealed carry laws. This proposal will endanger public safety and make it nearly impossible for law enforcement to enforce the laws of their state.
House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte’s opening remarks at the committee’s markup of the bill were straight out of the gun lobby’s playbook — and full of misleading information and outright lies. To set the record straight, we fact-checked Goodlatte’s remarks below.
CLAIM 1
Chairman Goodlatte wrote: The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Further, the Court concluded that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” and that “central to” this right is “the inherent right of self-defense.” Finally, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court ruled that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms” as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.
Goodlatte was close, but it’s not the whole story.
While it’s true that the Supreme Court in Heller ruled that the Second Amendment protected an individual right unconnected to militia service, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, explicitly held that the Second Amendment was “not unlimited” and that a variety of gun regulations were entirely consistent with the constitution. In particular, Justice Scalia wrote that, throughout history, the majority of American “courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment.”
Even after Heller, no court has held that the Second Amendment prohibits government from setting basic safety or training standards for concealed carry permits, and several circuit courts — the 1st, 2nd, 3nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th Circuits — have held in recent years either that there is no Second Amendment right to carry a hidden gun, or that the government has broad leeway to regulate the carrying of guns in public. While the DC Circuit recently ruled that the DC police cannot require a “good reason” as a qualification for getting a concealed-carry permit, that decision is a significant outlier: the 2nd, 3nd, 4th, and 9th Circuits all came to the opposite conclusion and upheld laws identical to the DC law struck down by the DC Circuit.
Put simply: the Constitution and Second Amendment do not justify — and certainly do not require — the dangerous race to the bottom of concealed carry standards that would result under the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.
CLAIM 2
Chairman Goodlatte wrote: H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, would ensure these time-honored rights extend to all law-abiding Americans. We know that citizens who carry a concealed handgun are not only better prepared to act in their own self-defense, but also in the defense of others.
Goodlatte missed the mark with this.
Although there are isolated anecdotes of defensive gun use, research suggests that self-defensive gun use is incredibly rare. A report by the FBI found that from 2000 to 2013, only 3% of active shooter incidents ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. In fact — unarmed citizens safely and successfully restrained the shooter in over 13% of active shooter incidents recorded by the FBI.
Additionally, the presence of concealed handguns during mass shootings and active shooter incidents may contribute to increased confusion and injury. It is difficult for armed civilians — or law enforcement themselves — to accurately determine who a true gunman is, particularly if there are many other armed civilians.
At the January 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona, for example, an armed civilian nearly shot an innocent man who had subdued the shooter. In a 2017 shooting at a shopping center outside of Denver, many civilians drew handguns in an effort to subdue the gunman, which law enforcement reported hampered their ability to determine the real suspect and act accordingly.
The training level of armed civilians varies dramatically — and in a life-or-death scenario, training counts. But even police officers who undergo rigorous training still in some instances shoot innocent bystanders by mistake, like in 2012 when nine bystanders were injured by stray bullets as police officers shot at a suspected gunman in New York City. Compared to their heavily trained law enforcement counterparts, it is likely that that armed civilians are at an increased risk of harming bystanders.
CLAIM 3
Chairman Goodlatte wrote: It’s not just anecdotal evidence that supports passing this important piece of legislation. A 2013 peer-reviewed study in Applied Economic Letters found that between 1980 and 2009, “states with more restrictive concealed carry laws had gun-related murder rates that were 10% higher.” A little over three years ago, amidst an increase in crime, Detroit Chief of Police Larry Craig said permitted concealed weapons are “a deterrent,” and “Good Americans with concealed permit licenses translates into crime reduction.” Also, a 2013 survey of 15,000 current and retired police officers found that more than 90% of them support the concealed carry of guns by civilians.
Goodlatte is wrong.
The most rigorous social science research shows that gun homicides and violence increase in states with more permissive concealed carry laws. A 2017 Stanford University study found that in states that adopted more permissive concealed carry laws, violent crime is 13 to 15 percent higher than it would have been had the state retained a more restrictive law. The study referenced by Goodlatte contained research flaws that the Stanford study was able to overcome by using a different, more robust methodology. Goodlatte’s cited study found similar results as prior research by John Lott showing that less restrictive concealed carry laws reduce crime — research that the National Research Council determined current evidence could not support.
Research also suggests that states with shall-issue concealed carry laws — where concealed carry permits must be issued to anyone who meets minimum standards — have higher homicide rates than states that give law enforcement discretion in issuing concealed carry permits. A 2017 study by researchers at Boston University found that states with shall-issue laws had 10.6% higher handgun homicide rates — consistent with the results of the Stanford study that more permissive concealed carry laws lead to more violent crime.
As for Goodlatte’s mention of law enforcement — law enforcement has been outspoken in its opposition to H.R. 38 due to the “unacceptable risks” it places on officers and concerns that the policy would “compromise public safety.” Seventeen Attorneys General called the bill “ill-conceived,” fearing concealed carry reciprocity would “become the next federal loophole lamented in the aftermath of a tragedy.”
CLAIM 5
Chairman Goodlatte wrote: H.R. 38 maintains the right of each state to determine permitting requirements but allows citizens who meet the qualifications for concealed carry in their home states to carry in any state they may be travelling in as long as they follow the local concealed carry laws.
Goodlatte is wrong.
H.R. 38 does not require a person to meet the qualification for concealed carry in their home states in order to carry in any state. Instead, the provisions of H.R. 38 would authorize a person to “shop around” for the state with the weakest laws and obtain a permit from that state in order to carry nationwide — including in their home state, where they may or may not qualify for the concealed carry permit. Some states issue permits to individuals with long criminal histories and no firearms training, and ten states issue permits to non-residents with no connection to those states. Nothing in H.R 38 would prevent a criminal from exploiting these state laws to obtain the most readily available permit and using it to carry nationwide.
CLAIM 6
Chairman Goodlatte wrote: Finally, I want people to remember that this bill will not arm criminals. If someone is a criminal who is prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm, nothing in this bill would allow that person to purchase or possess a firearm, let alone carry one in a concealed fashion. That is currently illegal and will remain illegal under this bill. I strongly believe the way to combat gun violence is not to infringe the rights of law-abiding citizens, but to enforce the laws against criminals. This bill is about the simple proposition that law abiding Americans should be able to exercise their right to self-defense even when they cross out of their state’s borders. That is their Constitutional right.
Goodlatte is wrong.
H.R. 38 would override more than 100 state laws that prohibit convicted criminals — individuals who are not already prohibited from gun possession by federal law, like those with convictions of misdemeanor stalking or DUI — from possessing and carrying firearms in those states. For example:
— 28 states prohibit convicted stalkers from carrying concealed guns
— 27 states prohibit people convicted of multiple violent misdemeanors from carrying concealed guns
— 35 states prohibit people convicted of abusing dating partners from carrying concealed handguns
— 27 states prohibit concealed carry by people recently convicted of multiple DUIs.
H.R. 38 would give these convicted criminals federal permission to carry concealed handguns nationwide, even in states where it would violate the law. Instead of enforcing the laws against criminals, H.R. 38 would tie the hands of law enforcement, prohibiting them from enforcing state law.
THE BOTTOM LINE:
H.R. 38 would allow more dangerous people to carry hidden, loaded guns in more places across the United States, making communities and law enforcement less safe. Preventing future tragedies can only happen when elected officials find the courage to stand up to the gun lobby and reject dangerous proposals — like H.R. 38 — that put public safety at risk.
For more information on concealed carry, see here:
- Giffords.org: Concealed Carry Reciprocity
- Busted! 7 Myths About Concealed Carry, Debunked
- Permitless Carry is Reckless Carry
- Law Enforcement Officers will Face Litigation Risks If the Federally Mandated Concealed Carry Bill Becomes Law
- The Weakest Link: Concealed Carry Reciprocity
- Fact Sheet: Federally Mandated Concealed Carry
- Fact Sheet: Permitless Carry
___
About Us: Led by former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and Captain Mark Kelly, Giffords amplifies courageous voices speaking out about gun violence in America.
