Concealed Weapons Letter to Obama

2008 November 12

by Matt Deaton

Prompted by the fears of my gun-clinging buddies, I emailed my first letter to president-elect Obama yesterday, encouraging him to explain and/or revise his position on a federal concealed weapons ban. Reprinted below, take a look and share your thoughts—on firearms regulation in general, and on concealed weapons permits in particular. As I told Obama (or rather, as I told the computer program that registered and automatically responded to my email), I’m familiar with the academic arguments on guns, but I’m interested in thinking through the issue here as well. And remember that I’m always open to good arguments, so don’t assume the guy holding the Glock won’t take your points seriously.

Teaching Firearms Safety

Mr. Obama,

First, congratulations on your big win! I’m excited about America’s future, and though I thought you and Mr. McCain were on the right side of different issues, I voted for you because of your stance on economic justice, healthcare, your obvious intelligence, and for your demonstrated ability and willingness to reason through the issues.

On that note, I have a quick question on the rumors that you favor a federal ban on concealed carry laws. Is this true, and if so, why?

A political philosophy and applied ethics PhD student at the University of [omitted to disassociate employer from personal website], I’ve studied and written about the ethics of firearms quite a bit. In the name of public safety, guns most certainly need to be regulated, but with intelligent filtering processes, why not empower those citizens worthy of the state’s trust with an effective way to defend themselves and others? We do the same for police, and in fact, the statistics I’ve looked at (compiled by John Lott) indicate that state-licensed concealed firearms holders are even less likely to use their weapon in the commission of a crime than an off-duty cop. If you’re unsatisfied with some states’ licensing standards, then maybe mandating raised standards is a better option than an all-out ban. Thorough background checks and safety training programs are already mandated, but given how dangerous guns are, perhaps in-depth psychological exams and one-on-one police interviews are in order as well.

I’ve studied the applied ethics literature on firearms quite extensively, and would be happy to help your administration in any way possible. I look forward to an America under your leadership, and especially to the elevated pubic discourse your example will encourage.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Matt Deaton, MA

Graduate Teaching Associate

University of [omitted]

May the discussion on guns and concealed weapons permits begin!

—Matt Deaton—

13 Comments leave one →

2008 November 12

Mel permalink

I really wonder if this is hype to increase gun sales.
Who knows?
My friend Bil just bought a nice semi-automatic something or other and a bunch of magazines. I asked him if he’d gotten Consumer Reports, I love that one! But, he never responded….

2008 November 12

Jeff permalink

I think the combination of Barack Obama and Joe-the-Biden is a dangerous combination for the gun community. Obama says he won’t take our guns, but with the support of Biden and Democratic Congress there could be a ban on assault rifles, high capacity mags, ammo taxes increased and other major issues of owning and practicing your firearms. If they hike up the taxes on ammo, this will make it harder to purchase and more of a demand. If you cannot afford ammo, then all you have to protect your home with is a phone call and patience.

On the other hand we do need to regulate who has carry permits. This does not mean make it more expensive to acquire a permit, but do more checks for mental stability and make sure that if you carry (man or woman) that you can hit a target. There should be more qualifications than just a one time class. This means if you got your permit when you were 21, but you never practice shooting then you could be more of a risk than a solution in a high stress situation. I think you should re-qualify every time you renew your license, which is every 5 yrs.

What do you think?

2008 November 12

Matteson permalink

If he contacts you for help with tackling gun-issues I’d be happy to consult as well!

I think I’m with you on the evaluations that we should do before handing someone a license to carry concealed. I would be unhappy with these sorts of restrictions on mere ownership, but they seem reasonable for a CCL.

I sure hope that someone talks to him about that “assault weapons” ban before he urges Congress to bring it back. It’s just so terribly unfounded.

2008 November 12

Liam permalink

Matt, you offer an interesting perspective. You’ve clearly thought more about this issue than I. However, I am intrigued by your underlying notion that concealed weapons are justified to “empower those citizens worthy of the state’s trust with an effective way to defend themselves and others.”

I would encourage you to step back and consider first what is the purpose of a concealed weapon? Is it simply a crime fighting function? Your letter presupposes that the only reason the state has to prevent concealed weapons is to prevent its use in a crime. At the same time you suggest that the reason it is needed is to prevent and defend against crime.

However, I would raise these issues:

1. Intimidation – can the mere presence of a weapon be used to intimidate others to undertake actions they wouldn’t otherwise support for fear of the use of the weapon? This isn’t a crime per say, but an active attempt to influence behaviour.

2. Vigilantism – could the holder of a concealed weapon not simply stop a crime, but dole out retribution as well? If so, doesn’t this affect the state’s role in determining justice and appropriate punishment?

3. Administering Clearance – could the clearance process you propose be too costly and too complex to actually administer? I would suggest you look at the experience of the Canadian Gun Registry as an example of administering more restrictive gun regulations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_gun_registry & http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/default_e.asp In this instance, is an all out ban more administratively feasible than restrictive ownership?

I think the state has more compelling reasons to limit gun position that simply the fear the gun might be used in a criminal act. Similarly, I think some people seek to possess a gun for more reasons that to protect themselves from crime. Also, there is the very delicate line that divides original intention and actual use. It is perhaps in these grey areas that an all out ban might be contemplated.

2008 November 13

Matt permalink

Alright! some juicy comments already

Mel, though I can’t say for sure that the gun industry is inciting panic to drive up demand, I’m pretty sure they’re not doing anything to quell it either. The recent SCOTUS ruling finally settled the individual vs. militia ambiguity in our 2nd Amendment, ruling that it indeed explicitly protects an individual right to keep guns in the home for self defense. However, the Justices made clear that much regulation is still constitutional. That means the Assault Rifles Ban could come back (which I don’t think led to much confiscation, but just banned the import of certain guns—driving up the prices of assault weapons already in country), magazine capacity could be capped at 10 or lower again, and concealed carry laws could be challenged. So while the Brady Campaign is limited in what it can achieve post that SC ruling, there’s still lots for gun owners to worry about. Consumer Reports… cheeky Mel.

Jeff—Obama and Biden are definitely more threatening than were Bush and Cheney, unless you’re worried about Cheney’s errant buck shot! But seriously, increased ammo tax is a worry too—one that could make effective self-defense the exclusive privilege of the rich. It’s a backdoor effort to lower gun crime favored by some, but I doubt its effectiveness, especially since I assume many criminals steal their ammo. Glad you support making permit licensing more stringent. Re-qualification every so often is a great idea! And it might also be good policy to require some firearms retention training, to reduce the risk that Robber Bob will take Granny’s gun and use it against her (or us). Ooh, and required ethics training too! “A group of apparently unarmed men approach you on the subway, asking for spare change. Should you a) dial 9-11 b) shoot them in the face c) tell them ‘no thanks’ d) wet your pants or e) all of the above?” Choose wisely, Jeff.

Matteson, you know I’d consult you should the feds come a callin’. Glad you’re on board with the psych exams too. I need to revisit the details of the Assault Weapons ban. As I recall, it discriminated against rifles with a threshold number of arbitrary features (pistol grip, bayonet mount, banana magazine, I think?). Besides the silliness of singling out those features, as if bayonet murders are on the rise, the real trouble with that thing is how few crimes are committed with AKs and AR-15s. The majority, from what I’ve read, are used for target practice by law-abiding enthusiasts. Dusted off half a dozen times a year, maybe shot in some marksmanship competition, then back in the gun safe. Also, even if they are unnecessary and impractical for self-defense in most situations, I think we can justify their ownership by appealing to our interest in retaining the ability to fight back, should the government ever become truly oppressive (and no, we’re not close to that point now!). Some have countered that this standard would require more than assault rifles—tanks and fighter jets too—stuff we’d like to prohibit in the name of public safety. But if the insurgency in Iraq has shown us anything, it’s how effective an organized resistance can be with common assault rifles and a few homemade bombs. And again, I DON’T expect we’ll need guns to fight the man anytime soon, but retaining some semblance of an ability to do so is a good idea, and generally healthy for a democracy.

Great points, Liam! Ah, the Canadians. When I first read that Wiki entry on your gun registry, I thought it required all guns to be registered AND made inoperable, not OR made inoperable! But to take your post in order, yeah, guns can certainly be used to intimidate. Simply flashing your firearm in a threatening manner is called “brandishing,” it’s a crime, and rightly so—no different that verbally threatening someone’s life. All the concealed carry permit holders I know take their responsibility very seriously, actually go to great lengths to ensure their weapon isn’t seen (many carry “appendix”—gun down the front of their pants, pointing at their you know what), and have little interest in intimidating others. I’m sure there are insecure people out there with shallow egos, but for those guys, we take away their permits. Same goes for vigilantism. Though the carriers I know would step in and prevent a violent assault to a 3rd party (as I hope I would have the courage to do), they’re not roaming the streets looking for trouble. I’m sure those guys are out there too, but again, we justifiably revoke their permits (should leave justice to the state, assuming it’s competent enough to administer it). That figure about concealed weapons permit holders being freakishly law-abiding (less likely to use their weapon in the comission of a crime—which includes brandishing and vigilantism—than an off duty cop) says a lot. And last, even if the appropriate amount of regulation is an administrative nightmare compared to a categorical ban, that’s not reason enough to prefer the latter. Vehicle registration is just as costly and cumbersome, if not moreso, but we do it anyway because our interest in personal transportation is worth the trouble. Similarly, our interest in personal security is stong enough to warrant the cost of registration, permit issuance, regulation, and enforcement. There are of course limits, but they don’t seem unreasonable, even in Canada.

Thanks to everyone for posting! Guns are my pet applied ethics topic—glad to get some quality conversation going.
—Matt—

2008 November 17

Mindy permalink

To be perfectly honest I was afraid that your blog would be well above my head but I have to say, I am enjoying it.

2008 November 17

Matteson permalink

Matt wrote: “Also, even if they are unnecessary and impractical for self-defense in most situations, I think we can justify their ownership by appealing to our interest in retaining the ability to fight back, should the government ever become truly oppressive (and no, we’re not close to that point now!).”

True that. The last part is what I was pushing you towards when you presented your last paper. The first part of the sentence is maybe a little loose. I don’t think we need to be able to justify their possession on practical grounds. I own plenty of stuff that is impractical and potentially dangerous, but it would be silly and unjustified for the gov to confiscate it for that reason. The right to bear arms might be removed from a person for some action they do, but guns shouldn’t be banned based on practicality for defense against home invasion or somesuch.

2008 November 17

Matt permalink

Thanks, Mindy! You should have known better… it’s just me

Matteson, I dunno. I think we probably do need a good reason to own stuff that’s potentially hazardous, just in the name of balancing your liberty and safety with the liberty and safety of all. Maybe you have good reasons to own a pile of plutonium, but I think the burden is on you to convince the community that a) you’re trustworthy enough to possess plutonium, and b) that you really do have a good reason to own it. Proving one or other isn’t enough, but proving both is. That’s called satisfying the “necessary and sufficient conditions”—a common philosophical strategy. (I say that for everyone else’s benefit, fellow philosopher.)

—Matt—

2008 November 18

Matteson permalink

The reason that sounds plausible is that you’re using plutonium as an example. Your questions work well there, but I don’t think that you want to argue that firearms and plutonium are analogous. Even if you “responsibly” own some plutonium it could kill you and your neighbors or whatever. Firearms don’t have the same sort of danger attached.

The first question might be a legit one for most things I could own. If I’m known to do harmful things with common products I should probably be locked away. If I do harmful things with guns I should be locked away and/or not allowed to buy them.

The second one (b) is problematic. Why should I have to legitimize my ownership with reasons? Perhaps I just want to own things. Why should I have to prove that I have a good reason?

Seems like you really only need (b) if you’ve failed (a).

2008 November 20

Matt permalink

Matteson,

I think both these conditions apply, but only to dangerous items (should have made that clear). If something is harmless, you don’t need to prove (a) or (b). Forcing you to do so would be an unnecessary constraint on your personal liberty—it’s just none of anyone else’s business what you do with harmless items. But in the case that something does pose a substantial threat to the safety of others, I think both requirements stand.

It’s true that plutonium is dangerous simply by virtue of laying around. If you’re close enough, it can screw with your DNA (I think…), which is a bad thing. Guns, on the other hand, require an agent to cause harm. So the two are dissimilar in that respect.

So maybe a better example for my purposes (borrowing it from guns philosopher Hugh Lafollette) would be dynamite. Under usual circumstances, dynamite requires the action of an agent for it to cause harm. But since the potential for harm is so great, I don’t think it’s too much for the broader community to ask you to explain why you’d like to possess it, and for you to be denied ownership if your reasons aren’t especially compelling. Given the harm it could cause (multiple deaths) if you flip out or if someone with malicious intent steals it, “I like the way dynamite smells” doesn’t seem to be reason enough—the threat to public safety is just too great. But, if you remove stumps for a living, and dynamite is essential to your livelihood, then we move to condition (a). Have you proven yourself a trustworthy dynamite handler? Have you completed dynamite safety training, underwent background checks (to ensure you’re not in cahoots with Bill Ayers ), been cleared of violent mental disorders? If so, take as much as you need to get the job done.

The same seems to be appropriate with all highly dangerous items, including guns. The compelling reason is easy to establish—guns are the most effective defensive tools on the market, and we all have a strong interest in personal security. But given how guns can be misused to cause great harm, requiring potential owners to undergo safety training, background checks and psychological screening seems the best way to promote the personal security of all.

—Matt—

2009 January 21

Debi permalink

Liam, I have to argue the statement about whether the simple act of carrying a concealed weapon would be intimidating. I think we often forget that these weapons are not on clear display. In fact, rarely have I know when someone was legally carrying a concealed weapon because it was never exposed or announced. Therefore I believe a threat simply from having it would not exist.

Also, regarding administration costs. I greatly respect keeping government small and that pretty much anything the government does they will find a way to do it more expensively and wasteful than any other entity. But I do not think we can assign a specific dollar amount on the freedom to legally carry a weapon. The dollar value assigned to your personal beliefs to manage this may be different from my assigned moral value to be able to carry a weapon. How do we quantify these two values to the point we can balance the appropriate answer?

2009 January 23

Matt permalink

Hi Debi! Welcome to the conversation.

You’re right about most concealed weapons carriers concealing their weapons. Being part of that culture, most go to great lengths to make sure no one can tell they’re packing. Many a time have I asked my wife, “Can you see it now? How about when I bend over? Now?” So that shouldn’t be too much of a worry, except for the occasional gun nut who really does want to intimidate everyone and carry cowboy style. Openly carrying is a bad idea all around, I think, because apart from the tension it creates, it probably invites as many assaults as it deters (can always sneak up on someone openly carrying, knock them in the head and take their wallet AND their gun).

Great job arguing that some things are worth the cost. I don’t think regulating arms puts too much of a dent in local, state or federal budgets. But whatever it is, I agree that it’s worth it. Liam’s intent was pure though. Pretty reasonable about guns, especially for a Canadian

—Matt—