Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Understanding the Complexities of Gun Policy: A Geographic Approach, Study notes of Human Rights

The complexities of gun policy in the US, focusing on the different dimensions of gun control and gun rights. It challenges the conventional wisdom that gun grabbers and gun nuts are neatly divided along political lines, and emphasizes the importance of considering the spatial nature of gun views and use. The document also discusses the impact of gun policy on crime rates and the challenges of estimating variables like gun ownership and defensive gun uses.

Typology: Study notes

2021/2022

Uploaded on 09/27/2022

globelaw
globelaw 🇬🇧

4.2

(43)

323 documents

1 / 31

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
171
The Origins of Gun Policy in U.S. States
Geoff Dancy, Mirya Holman and Kayden McKenzie*
INTRODUCTION
In 2015, the U.N. Human Rights Council’s (“HRC”) periodic review of
the United States confronted the country’s gun violence problem. Among
other things, Iceland’s delegation recommended that the U.S. government
“take necessary measures to reduce gun violence,” as the delegation was
“concerned at the large number of gun-related deaths and injuries, which
disproportionately affect members of racial and ethnic minorities.”1 This
proposal is nice in theory. In reality, large-scale national action on gun
violence has always been unusual in America, and Congress remains in a
decades-long stalemate on gun regulations. Furthermore, federal efforts
like the National Criminal History Improvement Programmeant to
improve electronic records related to criminal backgrounds of
purchasershave undergone gradual defunding.2 If the HRC is calling on
the U.S. federal government to act, it is looking in the wrong place.
Though gun violence is a problem of national concern, gun policy
decisions have mostly devolved to state and local governments.3
In fact, American states are amid a gun legislation bonanza. Between
1991 and 2016, state legislatures made 609 changes to existing firearms
law provisions, an average of 23.4 per year. In 2015 alone, state
legislatures introduced 795 pieces of gun-related legislation for
consideration.4 Within this supercharged policy environment, state
legislatures end up enacting laws that pull in different directions. In thirty-
three states, there was a net increase in restrictive laws meant to prevent
firearms injuries since 1991; sixteen other states in the same time period
* Geoff Dancy, Assistant Professor, Tulane University; Mirya Holman, Associate Professor,
Tulane University; Kayden McKenzie, Research Assistant.
1. Hum. Rights Council, Rep. Working Grp. on Universal Periodic Rev., U.N. Doc. A/HRC/30/12
at 27 (2015).
2. WILLIAM J. KROUSE, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., RL3284 2, GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION 30-31
(2012).
3. See Michael P. O’Shea, Federalism and the Implementation of the Right to Arms, 59
SYRACUSE L. REV. 201, 203 (2008).
4. Michael Siegel et al, Firearm-Related Laws in All 50 US States, 19912016, 107 AM. J. PUB.
HEALTH 1122 (2017). See also infra Table 1.
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff
pf12
pf13
pf14
pf15
pf16
pf17
pf18
pf19
pf1a
pf1b
pf1c
pf1d
pf1e
pf1f

Partial preview of the text

Download Understanding the Complexities of Gun Policy: A Geographic Approach and more Study notes Human Rights in PDF only on Docsity!

The Origins of Gun Policy in U.S. States

Geoff Dancy, Mirya Holman and Kayden McKenzie*

INTRODUCTION

In 2015, the U.N. Human Rights Council’s (“HRC”) periodic review of

the United States confronted the country’s gun violence problem. Among

other things, Iceland’s delegation recommended that the U.S. government

“take necessary measures to reduce gun violence,” as the delegation was

“concerned at the large number of gun-related deaths and injuries, which

disproportionately affect members of racial and ethnic minorities.”^1 This

proposal is nice in theory. In reality, large-scale national action on gun

violence has always been unusual in America, and Congress remains in a

decades-long stalemate on gun regulations. Furthermore, federal efforts

like the National Criminal History Improvement Program—meant to

improve electronic records related to criminal backgrounds of

purchasers—have undergone gradual defunding.^2 If the HRC is calling on

the U.S. federal government to act, it is looking in the wrong place.

Though gun violence is a problem of national concern, gun policy

decisions have mostly devolved to state and local governments.^3

In fact, American states are amid a gun legislation bonanza. Between

1991 and 2016, state legislatures made 609 changes to existing firearms

law provisions, an average of 23.4 per year. In 2015 alone, state

legislatures introduced 795 pieces of gun-related legislation for

consideration.^4 Within this supercharged policy environment, state

legislatures end up enacting laws that pull in different directions. In thirty-

three states, there was a net increase in restrictive laws meant to prevent

firearms injuries since 1991; sixteen other states in the same time period

  • Geoff Dancy, Assistant Professor, Tulane University; Mirya Holman, Associate Professor, Tulane University; Kayden McKenzie, Research Assistant.
  1. Hum. Rights Council, Rep. Working Grp. on Universal Periodic Rev., U.N. Doc. A/HRC/30/ at 27 (2015).
  2. WILLIAM J. KROUSE, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., RL32842, GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION 30 - 31 (2012).
  3. See Michael P. O’Shea, Federalism and the Implementation of the Right to Arms , 59 SYRACUSE L. REV. 201, 203 (2008).
  4. Michael Siegel et al, Firearm-Related Laws in All 50 US States, 1991– 2016 , 107 AM. J. PUB. HEALTH 1122 (2017). See also infra Table 1.

172 Journal of Law & Policy [Vol. 60:

experienced a net change toward laws expanding gun possession and use.^5

This result is a national patchwork of firearms regulations that varies

dramatically across time and space.

Because most legislative action in the United States occurs at the state

level,^6 mastery of state lawmaking is key to lessening gun violence and its

racialized components, as the HRC suggests. However, the scholarly

community currently knows very little about the determinants of state

firearms legislation. Commentators often simplify by attributing patterns

in firearms policy to competing conceptions of rights. Some Americans,

“gun grabbers,” think of firearms primarily as threats to their rights to life

and personal security.^7 Others, “gun nuts,” treat the right to bear arms

itself as a fundamental human right.^8 Conventional wisdom holds that

these groups sort neatly across the country: gun grabbers in blue states

push gun control, and gun nuts in red states promote gun rights.

The idea that political attitudes about firearms vary by place in

predictable ways is intuitive and may be called “political geography.”

Political geography is a promising approach to addressing the complexities

of state gun regulations because it allows us to both examine the two

separate dimensions of gun policy (pro-control and pro-rights), while also

acknowledging the highly spatial nature of gun views and use. For

example, demand for gun rights is concentrated in some areas, as there is

intense geographic variation in where people own guns^9 and where gun

  1. Siegel et al., supra note 4 , at 1125-26 tbl.2.
  2. For discussions of why Congress fails to legislate on firearms, see Camilo Montoya-Galvez, As New Zealand Eyes Weapons Ban, U.S. Gun Control Advocates Decry “Heartbreaking” Lack of Action , CBS NEWS (Mar. 28, 2019), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/as-new-zealand-eyes-assault- weapons-ban-gun-control-advocates-decry-heartbreaking-lack-of-action/; Harry L. Wilson, Parkland Shooting: One Year Later, Congress Still Avoids Action on Gun Control , THE CONVERSATION (Mar., 7 2019 ), http://theconversation.com/parkland-shooting-one-year-later-congress-still-avoids-action-on- gun-control-111796.
  3. See generally ADAM WINKLER, GUNFIGHT: THE BATTLE OVER THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IN AMERICA 15 - 43 (2011) (introducing the term "gun grabbers" and discussing their concerns).
  4. See generally id. at 45-92 (introducing the term “gun nuts” and discussing their concerns).
  5. Ruth Igielnik, Rural and Urban Gun Owners Have Different Experiences, Views on Gun Policy , PEW RES. CTR. (July 10, 2017), http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/10/rural-and- urban-gun-owners-have-different-experiences-views-on-gun-policy/; Kellie R. Lynch et al., “People Will Bury Their Guns before They Surrender Them”: Implementing Domestic Violence Gun Control in Rural, Appalachian Versus Urban Communities , 83 RURAL SOC. 315 (2018).

174 Journal of Law & Policy [Vol. 60:

the impact of various state-wide statutes like assault weapons bans or SYG

laws.^16 Yet we possess little knowledge of all the work that goes on behind

the scenes to change state legislation—including lobbying, drafting, bill

introduction, and bill sponsorship. Observers often claim that legislatures

are out of step with the majority opinion on guns, which supports stricter

regulation.^17 Hard-to-observe details of the legislative process may be

partly to blame.

In this article, we first review the current state of knowledge about state

gun policy. We then use a dataset of over 4,700 introduced state bills to

investigate the political and geographic origins of different types of

firearms legislation. Each of these bills, initiated between 2011 and 2015,

has at least one sponsor, and many have a number of co-sponsors. A very

small percentage of these proposed bills passed into law, but data on bill

introductions and sponsorships are informative.^18 They can tell us who are

the legislators setting the gun rights and gun control agendas in different

states. They can also tell us what districts these legislators come from,

which is enormously useful for answering certain questions: Are

lawmakers from certain districts more likely than others to bring firearms

legislation? Are there recognizable patterns in legislator activity that might

be attributed to the characteristics of their home districts? In short, what

are the political and geographic origins of gun policy? In what follows,

  1. See, e.g. , Mark Gius, The Effects of State and Federal Gun Control Laws on School Shootings , 25 APPL. ECON. LETT. 317 – 320 (2018); David K. Humphreys, Antonio Gasparrini & Douglas J. Wiebe, Evaluating the Impact of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Self-defense Law on Homicide and Suicide by Firearm: An Interrupted Time Series Study , 177 [J]AMA INTERN. MED. 44 – 50 (2017).
  2. See Quoctrung Bui & Margot Sanger-Katz, How to Prevent Gun Deaths? Where Experts and the Public Agree , N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 10, 2017), http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of- Experts-and-the-Public.html.
  3. For information on the importance of bill introductions and sponsorships as informative of legislative intent and behavior, see TIFFANY D. BARNES, GENDERING LEGISLATIVE BEHAVIOR: INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS AND COLLABORATION IN ARGENTINA (2016); Justin H. Kirkland & Justin H. Gross, Measurement and Theory in Legislative Networks: The Evolving Topology of Congressional Collaboration , 36 SOC. NETWORKS 97 (2014); Mirya R. Holman & Anna Mitchell Mahoney, Stop, Collaborate, and Listen: Women’s Collaboration in US State Legislatures , 43 LEGIS. STUD. Q. 179 (2018) (online first); Mirya R. Holman & Anna Mitchell Mahoney, The Choice Is Yours: Caucus Typologies and Collaboration in U.S. State Legislatures , 55 REPRESENTATION (forthcoming 2019).

2019] Origins of Gun Policy 175

we offer some answers to these questions. Among other things, we

discover that gun rights legislation has more partisan roots than gun

control legislation. We also find that that gun rights legislation is not

prevalent in districts with higher crime rates, but is more prevalent in those

that have larger rural populations, have a higher percentage of white

occupants, and have greater gun commerce. Where gun control legislation

is driven by a desire decrease violence, gun rights legislation is driven by

political, economic, and cultural impulses.

I. WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT GUN POLICY?

A. The Impact of Gun Policy

A common refrain among journalists is that little research on gun policy

exists because the National Rifle Association (“NRA”) blocks it.^19 While

it is true that the NRA was instrumental in lobbying for the 1996 Dickey

Amendment,^20 which makes it more difficult for the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (“CDC”) to examine gun violence,^21 it is not

accurate that research is lacking in general. In fact, a database collected by

GVPedia counts 780 total studies of firearms policy between 1968 and

2018.^22

Figure 1 uses the GVPedia data to provide counts of gun policy research

by year and by academic discipline. The left panel shows that the vast

majority of studies were conducted in the last twenty years, though more

were published in the 1990s than in the decades following. The right panel

shows the dominance of public health in gun policy research: 410 of 780

(52.6%) articles on the topic feature in public health journals. Criminology

  1. Samantha Raphelson, How the NRA Worked to Stifle Gun Violence Research , NPR (Apr. 5, 2018, 3:01 PM), https://www.npr.org/2018/04/05/599773911/how-the-nra-worked-to-stifle-gun- violence-research.
  2. Id.
  3. See Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 10 4 – 208, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009 - 244 (1996).
  4. Study Database , GVPEDIA, https://www.gvpedia.org/study-database/ (last visited Apr. 7, 2019).

2019] Origins of Gun Policy 177

Figure 1. Academic articles on gun policy by year and field

Rather than firearm availability and epidemic lethality, criminologists

focus on the relationship between firearms and crime. Criminological

research attempts to sort out which diametrically opposed causal claims

about firearms in the United States is correct: that gun prevalence induces

crime or deters criminal activity. Take robbery, for example. Areas

saturated with guns may have a higher risk of robbery because criminals

possess more coercive power, but they may also show a lower risk of

robbery because criminals fear armed victims.^25 That stolen guns sell well

on the on the black market may also incentivize burglary.^26 The debate

over guns and robbery can easily slip into a discussion of violent crime

writ large. Does gun prevalence encourage or prevent homicide and other

violent crime? This question has spawned intense criminological debates

over the last three decades.^27 One concerns the “more guns, more crime”

25. PHILIP J COOK & JENS LUDWIG, THE EFFECTS OF GUN PREVALENCE ON BURGLARY:

DETERRENCE VS INDUCEMENT (2002), http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926 (last visited Dec 15, 2018); Richard W. Harding, Rational-choice Gun Use in Armed Robbery: The Likely Deterrent Effect on Gun Use of Mandatory Additional Imprisonment , 1 CRIM. LAW FORUM 427 – 450 (1990); Ling Ren, Yan Zhang & Jihong Solomon Zhao, The Deterrent Effect of the Castle Doctrine Law on Burglary in Texas: A Tale of Outcomes in Houston and Dallas , 61 CRIME DELINQUENCY 1127 – 1151 (2015).

  1. David Hemenway, Deborah Azrael & Matthew Miller, Whose Guns Are Stolen? The Epidemiology of Gun Theft Victims , 4 INJ. EPIDEMIOL. 11 (2017).
  2. See Gary S. Green, Citizen Gun Ownership and Criminal Deterrence: Theory, Research, and Policy , 25 CRIMINOLOGY 63, 64–65 (1987) (discussing an early study). NATIONAL RESEARCH 0 10 20 30 40 50 Gun Policy Studies (^1968 1978 1988) Year (^1998 2008 20180 100) Number of Studies 200 300 400 Political Science Sociology Public Policy Law Psychology Economics Criminology Public Health

178 Journal of Law & Policy [Vol. 60:

hypothesis, which simply holds that greater gun ownership leads to higher

levels of violent victimization.^28 This is countered by the “more guns, less

crime” hypothesis,^29 which advances two expectations: that a well-armed

society (1) specifically deters violent death through defensive gun uses

(“DGU”), and (2) generally deters violent crime by changing violent

criminals’ rational calculations of risk.^30

These are competing hypotheses about guns and crime, not consumption

of goods and services. Still, economists are attracted to the gun debate by

the need for complex quantitative methodologies. One modeling challenge

is estimating difficult-to-measure variables like gun ownership and

defensive gun uses, data for which are not consistently collected by any

single organization.^31 Another modeling challenge is that, no matter which

hypothesis one advances, guns and violent crime exist in a circular

relationship: fear of crime encourages gun ownership for self-defense,^32

and higher rates of gun ownership then feed back into crime rates, either

positively or negatively. Economists call this simultaneity ,^33 and they must

employ sophisticated techniques to control for it.^34 The work of public

health experts, criminologists, and economists converges around

measuring the impact of specific gun policies. Work in the 1990s focused

on the now-infamous Washington, D.C., handgun ban, finding that it had

COUNCIL, FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE: A CRITICAL REVIEW (2005).

  1. Mark Duggan, More Guns, More Crime , 109 J. POL. ECON. 1086, 1088 (2001).
  2. JOHN R. LOTT, MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME: UNDERSTANDING CRIME AND GUN CONTROL LAWS 3 (2d. ed. 2013).
  3. John R. Lott Jr. & David B. Mustard, Crime, Deterrence, and RighttoCarry Concealed Handguns , 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 1, 11 (1997). 31_. See, e.g._ , Deborah Azrael, Philip J. Cook & Matthew Miller, State and Local Prevalence of Firearms Ownership Measurement, Structure, and Trends , 20 J. QUANTITATIVE CRIMINOLOGY 4 2, 43 – 62 (2004); Gary Kleck, The Impact of Gun Ownership Rates on Crime Rates: A Methodological Review of the Evidence , 43 J. CRIM. JUSTICE 40, 40 – 48 (2015); Robert A. Martin & Richard L. Legault, Systematic Measurement Error with State-Level Crime Data: Evidence from the “More Guns, Less Crime” Debate , 42 J. RES. CRIME & DELINQ. 187, 187 – 210 (2005).
  4. Will Hauser & Gary Kleck, Guns and Fear: A One-Way Street? , 59 CRIME & DELINQ. 271, 286 (2013); Gary D. Hill et al., Gender, Fear, and Protective Handgun Ownership , 23 CRIMINOLOGY 541, 542 (1985).
  5. Carlisle E. Moody & Thomas B. Marvell, Guns and Crime , 71 SOUTH. ECON. J. 720 – 736 (2005).
  6. Lawrence Southwick, Jr., Do Guns Cause Crime? Does Crime Cause Guns? A Granger Test , 25 ATLANTIC ECON. J. 256 (1997).

180 Journal of Law & Policy [Vol. 60:

The objective for the vast majority of research on gun policy—from the

fields of public health, criminology, and economics—is to measure the

effect of new firearms regulations, or de-regulations, on outcomes like

crime and gun violence. Presumably, one assumption researchers make is

that lawmakers might be swayed by empirical evidence. If a consensus can

emerge that some firearms laws are effective at reducing deaths, then

perhaps legislators will take note and act accordingly. However, we are

not aware of any data to support this assumption. Generally speaking, we

lack knowledge about what influences lawmakers. What inspires

legislators to alter gun regulations?

B. Gun Policy Determinants

There are two prevailing perspectives on what inspires gun policy: the

legal and political perspectives. The legal perspective is that legislators are

likely influenced by recent court cases. The Supreme Court’s recent gun

rights cases blew open the question of how firearms can be regulated. In

District of Columbia v. Heller , the Court ruled that the Second

Amendment confers an individual right to possess common-use weapons

for the purpose of self-defense.^43 However, Justice Antonin Scalia’s

majority decision explicitly states, “nothing in our opinion should be taken

to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.”^44 Such prohibitions include

“presumptively lawful regulatory measures” like rules against carrying

guns in “sensitive places” or “conditions and qualifications on the

Defense Law and Unlawful Homicides in Florida , 177 [J]AMA INTERNAL MED. 1523, 1523 (2017); Cheng Cheng & Mark Hoekstra, Does Strengthening Self-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence? Evidence from Castle Doctrine 1 – 41 (Nat'l Bureau Econ. Res., Working Paper No. 18134, 2012), http://www.nber.org/papers/w18134; Mark Gius, The Relationship Between Stand-Your- Ground Laws and Crime: A State-Level Analysis , 53 SOC. SCI. J. 329, 337 (2016); David K. Humphreys et al., Evaluating the Impact of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Self-Defense Law on Homicide and Suicide by Firearm: An Interrupted Time Series Study , 177 [J]AMA INTERNAL MED. 44, 44 (2016); Chandler B. McClellan & Erdal Tekin, Stand Your Ground Laws, Homicides, and Injuries 1 – 55 (Nat'l Bureau Econ. Res., Working Paper No. 18187, 2012), http://www.nber.org/papers/w18187.

  1. D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 627 (2008).
  2. Id.

2019] Origins of Gun Policy 181

commercial sale of arms.”^45 The effect of this vague language is to burden

lower courts with deciding which regulations fall under the “safe harbor”

of Heller.^46 The Court’s ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago^47 fully

incorporated the Second Amendment against the states,^48 but introduced

further ambiguity. It failed to rule what standard—strict scrutiny or

intermediate scrutiny—should be applied to judge the constitutionality of

state or municipal firearms laws.^49 Faced with imprecise guideposts, or

what one author called “an intriguing stew of different signals,” 50 lower

courts have effectively deferred to state government on the question of

what firearm regulations are best for the public.^51 Knowing that state laws

are unlikely to be ruled unconstitutional in court, state legislators may

redouble their efforts to regulate—or deregulate—firearms. If this is the

case, we should observe more expansive efforts to legislate firearms in the

last decade.

The legal perspective emphasizes the permissiveness of the current

opportunity structure: fewer checks on the legislative branch would mean

more laws. However, it tells us little about variation in legislation across

jurisdictions. Presumably, all states operate in the same legal milieu, at

least as it pertains to federal courts. Yet the gun policy landscape is

radically different across states. Why do certain state legislators choose to

bring firearms bills, and how do they choose which bills to introduce? To

answer this question, we have to look to a second, political perspective.

Political scientists predicted two decades ago that views on gun control

  1. Id. at 626–27 n. 26.
  2. Tina Mehr & Adam Winkler, The Standardless Second Amendment , AM. CONST. SOC'Y L. & POL'Y (Oct. 2010), https://www.acslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Mehr-and-Winkler- Standardless-Second-Amendment.pdf; Stephen Kiehl, In Seach of a Standard: Gun Regulations After Heller and McDonald , 70 MD. L. REV. 1131, 1170 (2011).
  3. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).
  4. Id. at 791.
  5. Allen Rostron, Justice Breyer’s Triumph in the Third Battle over the Second Amendment , 80 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 703, 724 (2011).
  6. Id. at 737.
  7. Id. at 706-07. Some deference has been given to local governments, but given that municipal laws are subservient to state laws, the primary deference has been to state legislative and executive action.

2019] Origins of Gun Policy 183

bills, just as there are many Democrats who avoid the gun policy debate.^58

For these reasons, political observers point to interest groups and

lobbyists to further explain patterns in gun policy. One interest group in

particular, the NRA, attracts an outsized amount of attention. The NRA is

often credited or blamed for efforts to loosen firearms restrictions, or to

block meaningful regulations.^59 Some claims about the NRA border on the

conspiratorial, but it is now commonplace to attribute the actions of

lawmakers to NRA lobbying, especially in states such as Florida.^60

However, the all-powerful NRA narrative does not always line up well

against data. For example, only one in five gun owners belongs to the

NRA,^61 and the organization contributes far less to campaigns than is often

assumed;^62 for example, according to the National Institute on Money in

Politics, the NRA donated a total of $280,148 in 2016 to candidates for

state-level office.^63 While figures may vary, one estimate places the total

amount of NRA political spending since 1998 at around $200 million,

relatively little of which goes directly to campaign coffers.^64 This number

  1. More than 40% of all legislators – evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats – sponsored zero bills relating to gun rights or gun control in our data.
  2. Cf. Christopher Kenny et al., The Impact of Political Interests in the 1994 and 1996 Congressional Elections: The Role of the National Rifle Association , 34 BRIT. J. POL. SCI. 331 (2004); ROBERT J. SPITZER, POLITICS OF GUN CONTROL 137 (7th ed. 2015).
  3. See Mike Spies, The N.R.A. Lobbyist Behind Florida’s Pro-Gun Policies , THE NEW YORKER (Mar. 5, 2018), https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/05/the-nra-lobbyist-behind-floridas- pro-gun-policies.
  4. Ruth Igielnik & Anna Brown, Key Takeaways on Americans' Views of Gun and Gun Ownership , PEW RES. CTR. (June 22, 2017), http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/22/key- takeaways-on-americans-views-of-guns-and-gun-ownership/.
  5. In the 2018 election cycle, the NRA donated a total of $862,034 to specific campaigns. This ranked 580 of over 19,276 contributors. See https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d See also Jake Novak, Stop Blaming the NRA for Failed Gun Control Efforts , CNBC (Feb. 16, 2018, 1:26 PM), https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/nra-money-isnt-why-gun-control-efforts-are-failing- commentary.html.
  6. National Rifle Association for Contributions to State Candidates in 2008, 2012, and 2016, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON MONEY IN POLITICS, https://www.followthemoney.org/show- me?dt=1&y=2016,2012,2008&f-fc=2&c-exi=1&d-eid=1854 (last visited Apr. 10, 2019). Donations to state-level candidates in 2008 ($385,193) and 2012 ($332,455) look similar. Id.
  7. Novak, supra note 62.

184 Journal of Law & Policy [Vol. 60:

is dwarfed by the lobbying activities of other industries, such as finance.^65

Still, it is undeniable that for the last few decades the gun control

movement has lacked a group as focal as the NRA.^66 While the NRA is the

figurehead gun rights organization, the gun control side has a number of

players—such as the Brady Campaign, the Coalition to Stop Gun

Violence, the Giffords Law Center, and Everytown for Gun Safety—that

compete for attention.^67 Though evidence suggests that financial

mismanagement is now weakening the NRA,

68

the group is still perceived

as powerful. That the NRA, in spite of its problems, maintains an air of

invincibility alone lends credibility to the interest group theory of gun

policy. In essence, the group uses information to manage its own image

and influence political expectations.. One informational technique the

NRA uses is publication of legislator grades, which reward politicians for

voting with the gun rights movement and punishes them for any dissent.^69

This may be as robust a source of influence on gun policy as any

campaign contributions.^70 Indeed, scholars have shown that those

legislators receiving a positive grade from the NRA provide support for

NRA-related policies and credit-claim to constituents about their work on

gun-rights related policy; this is distinct from the behavior of legislators

who belong to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.^71

Accounts of the determinants of gun policy are over-simplified and

  1. Id.
  2. KRISTIN A. GOSS, DISARMED: THE MISSING MOVEMENT FOR GUN CONTROL IN AMERICA 73 – 74 (2006).
  3. Justine McDaniel, Alison Griner & Natalie Krebs, Gun Control Groups Galvanized, But Progress Is Slow , USA TODAY (Aug. 18, 2014), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/18/gun-legislation-battle/14080953/.
  4. Mike Spies, Secrecy, Self-Dealing, and Greed at the N.R.A. , NEW YORKER (Apr. 7, 2019), https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/secrecy-self-dealing-and-greed-at-the-nra.
  5. See generally Grades and Endorsements , NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION POLITICAL VICTORY FUND, https://www.nrapvf.org/grades/ (last visited Apr. 10, 2019).
  6. R.J. Maratea, Online Claims-Making: The NRA and Gun Advocacy in Cyberspace , 11 QUAL. SOCIOL. REV. 144 (2015).
  7. Aaron Smith‐Walter et al., Gun Stories: How Evidence Shapes Firearm Policy in the United States , 44 POL. POL'Y 1053 (2016). Disidentification with the NRA is also important, often as evidenced by a failing grade from the organization. Kimberly D. Elsbach & C. B. Bhattacharya, Defining Who You Are By What You’re Not: Organizational Disidentification and The National Rifle Association , 12 ORGAN. SCI. 393 – 413 (2001). For more detail on the NRA’s organizational techniques, see GOSS, supra note 66 ; Goss, supra note 57.

186 Journal of Law & Policy [Vol. 60:

figure into opinions about firearms: for example, 82% of rural gun owners

consider the right to own guns as essential to their sense of freedom,

compared to 59% of urban gun owners.^74 Politicians who hope to succeed

in predominantly rural areas can therefore mobilize support by rallying

around a defense of the Second Amendment. On the opposite side, this

kind of symbolic politics could also be used by politicians representing

urban districts with negative stereotypes about gun owners.^75

The urban-rural divide lies alongside three related but cross-cutting

factors: race, exposure to crime, and the gun economy. Research

demonstrates that racial resentment is closely associated with individual

support for gun rights.^76 Indeed, gun rights rhetoric often involves thinly

veiled language about criminal minorities and white men protectors.^77 We

expect that those voting districts with a higher number of whites who are

suspicious of outsiders will more likely support gun rights. While it may

seem counterintuitive, intergroup contact theory holds that more

interaction with diverse groups inspires positive attitudes towards

differences; suspicion is often bred in racially homogenous areas.^78

With regard to crime patterns, it is probably the case that areas riddled

with violent crime—which often involves attacks with guns—will show

more skepticism toward laws making firearms more available. Exposure to

gun violence likely breeds more animosity to weapons. Therefore, higher

levels of violent crime should inspire positive attitudes toward gun

  1. Igielnik, supra note 9.
  2. Gary Kleck et al., Why Do People Support Gun Control?: Alternative Explanations of Support for Handgun Bans , 37 J. CRIM. JUST. 496, 497 (2009).
  3. See generally Alexandra Filindra & Noah J. Kaplan, Racial Resentment and Whites’ Gun Policy Preferences in Contemporary America , 38 POL. BEHAV. 255, 255 (2016) (arguing "that the gun rights narrative is color-coded and evocative of racial resentment"); Kerry O’Brien et al., Racism, Gun Ownership and Gun Control: Biased Attitudes in US Whites May Influence Policy Decisions , 8 PLOS ONE, Oct. 2013, at 1, https://journals.plos.org/ plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone. (arguing that “[s]ymbolic racism was related to having a gun in the home and opposition to gun control policies in US whites”).
  4. Christopher Ingraham, White Resentment Is Fueling Opposition to Gun Control, Researchers Say , WASH. POST (April 4, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/04/white- resentment-is-fueling-opposition-to-gun-control-researchers-say/; O’Brien et al., supra note 76 ; Jeremy Adam Smith, Why Are White Men Stockpiling Guns? , SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN BLOG NETWORK, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/ (last visited Mar. 15, 2018).
  5. Thomas F. Pettigrew, Intergroup Contact Theory , 49 ANN. REV. PSYCHOL. 65, 66–67 (1998).

2019] Origins of Gun Policy 187

control.^79 Exposure to criminal violence is different from fear of crime.

The latter can manifest in remote areas that actually have very low crime

rates. For example, aggregate Google search data from 2018 shows that

citizens in Green Bay, Wisconsin and Billings, Montana—cities with

relatively low crime rates—scored in the top five in searches for the word

“crime.”^80 Depending on location, fear of crime could inspire support for

gun rights or gun control. For this reason, we limit our expectations to

actual experience of violent crime.

Finally, the contours of the local firearms economy should influence

legislators. A widely reported ATF statistic is that there are over 60,

gun dealers in the United States.^81 Many of these gun dealers are

individual proprietors who rely at least in part on income from firearms

sales for their livelihood. Though under-examined, firearms commerce is

quite pervasive in some localities, especially in suburban and rural areas.^82

One would expect that the more dealers there are in a voting district, the

more likely that district’s representative will support legislation protecting

the right to bear arms.

II. DATA ON STATE GUN LAWS

To examine gun policy’s origins, we assembled a comprehensive data

  1. Anthony K. Fleming et al., When the Smoke Clears: Focusing Events, Issue Definition, Strategic Framing, and the Politics of Gun Control , 97 SOC. SCI. Q. 1153, 1153 (2016).
  2. See Crime Search Term, GOOGLE TRENDS, https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=crime&geo=US (last visited Dec. 29, 2018).
  3. Leanna Garfield, There Are 50,000 More Gun Shops than McDonald’s in the US , BUS. INSIDER (Oct. 6, 2017, 11:43 AM), https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-dealers-stores-mcdonalds-las-vegas- shooting- 2017 - 10.
  4. Deborah Azrael et al., State and Local Prevalence of Firearms Ownership Measurement, Structure, and Trends , 20 J. QUANTITATIVE CRIMINOLOGY 43, 52 (2004); Michael Siegel, How the Firearms Industry Influences US Gun Culture, in 6 Charts , THE CONVERSATION (Feb. 23, 2018, 11: AM), https://theconversation.com/how-the-firearms-industry-influences-us-gun-culture-in- 6 - charts- 92142; Trent Steidley et al., Gun Shops as Local Institutions: Federal Firearms Licensees, Social Disorganization, and Neighborhood Violent Crime , 96 SOC. FORCES 265, 265 (2017); Garen J. Wintemute, Where the Guns Come from: The Gun Industry and Gun Commerce , 12 FUTURE CHILD. 54, 55 (2002).

2019] Origins of Gun Policy 189

categorize all firearms legislation, we subjected our list of 5,042 bills to

elite coding by graduate research assistants, cloud-based coding by paid

anonymous readers on the internet, and undergraduate student coding.

These stages produced a more concentrated list of 4,725 total bills directly

pertaining to firearms, of which 2,454 relate to gun control, and 2,

relate to gun rights.^86

Table 1. Summary Data on All Gun Bills Introduced in U.S. States,

Year Gun Rights Bills Gun Control Bills Total Gun Bills Total Bills Gun Bills as % of Total Bills 2011 425 471 896 154,809 0.58% 2012 183 182 365 47,908 0.76% 2013 610 637 1247 153,485 0.81% 2014 293 271 564 58,376 0.97% 2015 801 891 1692 158,925 1.06%

Table 1 presents a yearly breakdown of firearms legislation across all

U.S. states. From this data, one can draw two inferences. First, gun bills

make up nearly 1% of all state legislative activity, and this activity is split

roughly 50-50 between gun rights and gun control efforts. This perhaps

reflects that the gun control movement is, despite media depictions, just as

active as the gun rights movement in pushing legislation. Second, as legal

academics might predict based on the current environment of judicial

deference, the amount of legislation aimed at guns appears to be trending

upward with time. State legislators are working hard to establish the

boundaries for firearms regulations.

The pieces of legislation introduced in each legislative session vary

widely in their intent, scope, and impact. Figure 2 presents a snapshot of

bills introduced in 2015, the most active year in our dataset. Of the 1,

  1. These numbers sum to 4,766 because some bipartisan firearms bills both expand gun rights and regulate guns at the same time.

190 Journal of Law & Policy [Vol. 60:

bills identified as firearms legislation, 795 were directed toward clear and

substantial regulatory changes. The remainder made more nuanced edits to

administrative requirements, or slightly altered language in existing

statutes. Among the 795 “substantial” bills, a total of 570 were gun control

bills and 225 were gun rights bills. Out of the gun control bills introduced,

the most prevalent forms of proposed legislation were regulations on

dealers and background checks. Gun control bills often spanned multiple

categories. For example, one bill might include universal background

checks, buyer regulations, and dealer regulations—in these instances, they

count in each category. The most common types of gun rights legislation

loosen ownership restrictions (e.g., by relaxing licensing requirements) or

decrease possession limitations (allowing owners to carry in more public

places). In this period, preemption laws were also very popular. These

laws aim to prevent municipal governments from passing regulations more

stringent than those that exist at the state level.

Figure 2. Gun Bills in 2015 by Type

Gun control bills