Gun Rights Research Articles

Stock Histories

This article traces a discursive lineage from a 2013 Second Amendment billboard campaign in Colorado to visual accounts of white settler nostalgia that circulated in the 1860s. The billboard foregrounds fantasies of indigeneity for a contemporary political discourse of “gun rights” and quite literally backgrounds the reciprocities of nineteenth-century contexts of violence: the Civil War specifically, and genocide and enslavement more generally. The article reveals a correspondence between the Confederacy, white militias, and the so-called peace-making efforts on the Great Plains after the Civil War. It contends that fantasies and projections of white settler nostalgia remain resonant in contemporary gun rights debates, while the Second Amendment’s inextricable relations to settler colonialism, slavery, and white supremacy remain suppressed.

Gun Rights as Deontic Constraints

In earlier work, I argued that gun prohibition is unjustified because it violates an individual right to self-defense. Here, I defend that argument against objections posed by Nicholas Dixon and Jeff McMahan to the effect that the right of citizens to be free from gun violence counterbalances the right of self-defense, and that gun prohibition does not violate the right of self-defense because it renders everyone overall safer.

Charles Mills’s Liberal Redemption Song

Charles Mills’s Liberal Redemption Song

The effect of concealed carry weapons laws on firearm sales

Despite numerous studies exploring the link between concealed carry weapons (CCW) laws and the effect of “more guns, more/less crime” it is unknown if liberalizing CCW laws indeed influences legal firearm sales. Building on previous research, I hypothesize that liberal CWW laws are associated with increases in handgun sales while having no association with long gun sales. Using National Instant Background Check System (NICS) data as a proxy for firearm sales and state fixed-effects regression models to examine the effect of CCW laws on gun sales in all 50 states the results can be simply put: liberal CCW laws are associated with increases in handgun sales, are not associated with long gun sales, and are associated with an increase in the overall share of firearms sold that are handguns. This work supports the idea that the expansion of gun rights via liberal CCW laws has increased the rate of handgun sales in the United States, but not the rate of long gun sales. Implications for future research on firearms and policy are discussed.

Debating Gun Control in Canada and the United States: Divergent Policy Frames and Political Cultures

The weakness of the antigun lobby in the United States is attributed to the “collective action problem” of trying to mobilize “free riders” behind a public purpose. But the Coalition for Gun Control emerged in Canada to successfully lobby for the Firearms Act of 1995. If the “collective action problem” is not limited to the United States, then are its effects “mediated” by political culture? To address this research question, we content analyze (1) media coverage, (2) party platforms, (3) presidential, and (4) ministerial rhetoric. Three frames represent “restrictive” gun policies that ban or regulate firearms, “punitive” gun policies that penalize the person for the unlawful use of firearms, or “lenient” gun policies that encourage gun ownership and gun rights. Marked differences in framing the gun debate help explain why an antigun coalition emerged in Canada but not the United States.

Brandishing Guns: Performing Race and Belonging in the American West

This article examines the racial dynamics and performative nature of US gun culture by analyzing the 2014 standoff between Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management. The standoff followed discernible scripts of white masculine privilege and drew on scenarios of conquest in the US American West, as Bundy’s supporters gathered at his ranch and brandished their weapons in open defiance of the federal government. The act of brandishing their guns was a ‘performance of belonging’, a public, theatrical gesture that marks the bearer as a full participant in civic life and all its attendant rights and privileges. This belonging, however, is predicated on histories of white supremacist laws and settler colonialist violence. By reading gun culture in the United States through the lens of performance, this article traces the profound discrepancies between legal and practical gun rights and illuminates one of the most intractable debates at the center of US American life.

The Symbolic Wolf: A Construal Level Theory Analysis of the Perceptions of Wolves in the United States

Charismatic wildlife can be difficult to manage due to the controversies they generate among stakeholders, which may be rooted in their symbolic meaning. Using construal-level theory, we coded the images of gray wolves mentioned by respondents to a national survey (n = 621) and an issue public survey (n = 447) as symbolic (abstract) or corporeal (concrete). We analyzed the relationship between these representations of wolves and several perceptions that may perpetuate social conflict. Most people thought of wolves abstractly, and abstract thoughts were associated with positive feelings toward wolves and agreement with existence beliefs regarding wolves. Concrete representations were associated with identifying as a gun or property rights advocate, hunter, or farmer/rancher. Given these disparate views of wolves, engaging stakeholders through collaborative processes designed to foster a shared understanding of this species, while addressing the concerns of those groups, could be useful in reducing conflict concerning wolf management.

Is the Second Amendment a Second-Class Right?

In the decade since District of Columbia v. Heller, results for gun rights claimants have been fairly unimpressive. The situation leaves some people concerned that judicial opposition is turning the Second Amendment into a second-class right. This paper takes up empirical elements of the concern. We compare five fields of constitutional litigation in the U.S. Courts of Appeals from 2008 through 2016: gun rights, abortion rights, affirmative action, establishment of religion, and commercial speech. In terms of success rates, we do find significant differences in attracting judge votes across some of these case sets, with gun rights claims at the low end. We are unable to erase or fully explain the relatively poor performance of gun rights claims by introducing several independent variables. Furthermore, judges appointed by Democrats might contribute more to the disparities than judges appointed by Republicans, although neither set of judges seems to support all claims at equal rates. In terms of causes, the situation is far less clear. Plausible explanations are available that do not involve judges disfavoring gun rights, such as relatively assertive claimants and relatively cautious regulators. Existing data cannot rule out those explanations. Nor is it clear that more data will solve the problem of isolating the contribution of judicial preferences to case results across fields of litigation. More fully detailing and explaining the forces at play in all of these fields is a task for future work, a significant part of which will have to be theoretical, historical, and ethnographic.

Substantial Shifts in Supreme Court Health Law Jurisprudence

President Trump’s nomination of jurist Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court presents significant, potential changes on health law and policy issues. If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Kavanaugh’s approaches as a federal appellate court judge and scholar could literally shift the Court’s balance on consequential health policies. Judge Kavanaugh has disavowed broad discretion for federal agency authorities, cast significant doubts on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, and narrowly interpreted reproductive rights (most notably abortion services). He has supported gun rights pursuant to the Second Amendment beyond U.S. Supreme Court recent interpretations. His varying positions related to consumer protections, environmental regulation, and antidiscrimination protections lend further to major concerns on the maintenance of settled positions of the Court on these and other critical health issues.

Psychiatric Evidence and Due Process in Firearms Rights Restoration.

In the preceding article, we reviewed the current state of federal and state regulation of restoration of firearms rights, termed "relief from disability (RFD)," for those who have had those rights suspended due to mental health prohibitors. This review demonstrated that these laws vary widely and at times create situations in which firearms rights may be effectively banned indefinitely. In this article, we review due process and psychiatric evidentiary requirements in RFD hearings. The legal procedures and evidentiary standards in RFD judicial or administrative hearings also vary widely and typically do not include a current psychiatric violence or suicide risk assessment. The psychiatric and policy implications of RFD practices are also discussed in regard to mental health firearm prohibitors, restoration of gun rights, and implications for future policy regarding firearms regulations affecting those with serious mental illness.

The Second Amendment and Firearms Regulation: A Venerable Tradition Regulating Liberty While Securing Public Safety.

An editorial is presented which addresses the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, firearms regulation in America, and a firearms violence epidemic in the country as of 2018, and it mentions other articles which appear in the same issue of the journal and deal with topics such as gun violence prevention. The history of U.S. gun laws is examined, along with debates about liberty, gun rights, and gun control.

Is the Corporation an Enemy of Democracy? How to Give the Corporation a Little Soul

Polanyi's book Great Expectations provides a framework for a critique of the US corporation. Using drug pricing by Big Pharm and gun rights by gun manufacturers, I argue that corporate actors use the free market as an excuse for soulless actions. Such actions threaten democracies, as citizens prefer corrupt dictators to unregulated markets that cause mass disruption and distress. The best hope for the US corporation (and its democracy) is for executives and investors to use their leverage so that corporations act in a socially responsible manner.

Narrative Strategies in the Gun Policy Debate: Exploring Proximity and Social Construction

While much scholarship has explored the framing of gun policy, the bulk of that work has focused on general themes or arguments made in support or opposition to gun control. This study offers a more nuanced examination of the framing in the gun policy debate, utilizing the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to identify rhetorical and political strategies of gun control and gun rights organizations. Drawing on a data set of more than 58,000 Facebook posts by 15 gun policy organizations, I examine how groups portray the victims of gun violence, particularly with respect to the race and age of victims. I also examine the types of gun violence that groups emphasize on social media. The findings suggest that gun control organizations seek to broaden the scope of debate by focusing on child victims and on mass shootings. Gun rights organizations pursue a similar strategy, but with a focus on self‐defense shootings. Despite the fact that gun violence primarily affects minorities, both types of organizations rarely mentioned race. I attribute this to groups' efforts to emphasize proximate and positively constructed characters. This research suggests that both types of organizations systematically distort the nature of the gun policy problem.

Cracking the Racial Code: Black Threat, White Rights and the Lexicon of American Politics

AbstractRacially coded language that appeals to racial bias without open bigotry has a long history in the politics of the United States. Politicians intentionally activate the latent racial biases of both racial conservatives and center‐left liberals without explicitly talking about race. Conservative positions on significant policy areas have shifted over time on the basis of coded racial appeals. Fundamental rights are coded as white rights. Government actions to aid the poor or reduce discrimination are coded as black threats. The racial dimension explains the changing positions of American conservatism on gun rights, crime and mass incarceration, immigration, the welfare state, federalism, and economic policy. White racial identity, mobilized by coded political talk, restrains the potential for cross‐racial coalitions and perpetuates the political repression of nonwhite Americans.

National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. v. Mangan et al. - Amicus Brief for the Ninth Circuit

At issue in National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. v. Mangan, No. 18-35010 (9th Cir.), is whether government may trigger Track 1, political-committee(-like) burdens for a particular organization. Attached is a copyrighted draft of an amicus brief that the author would file with the parties' consent, as indicated on page 1, footnote 4. The Supreme Court has applied constitutional scrutiny and established the two-track system under which government may regulate — i.e., require disclosure of — political speech. E.g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 63-64, 79-82 (1976) (per curiam); Randy Elf, The Constitutionality of State Law Triggering Burdens on Political Speech and the Current Circuit Splits, 29 Regent U.L. Rev. 35, 35-37 & nn.1-12 (2016) (“Triggering”). This action does not address Track 2, non-political-committee disclosure requirements. Instead, this action addresses law triggering Track 1, political-committee burdens. The Ninth Circuit has a different two-track system for state law. Triggering at 54 & n.109. However, the record does not support Defendants-Appellees Jeff Mangan, Tim Fox, or Leo Gallagher’s (“Montana’s”) prevailing under this Ninth Circuit law. Alternatively, Ninth Circuit law is distinguishable. Montana law is worse than unconstitutional Wisconsin law that Ninth Circuit law — in upholding law triggering Track 1 burdens — distinguishes. Therefore, Plaintiff-Appellant National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. (“NAGR”) prevails under this part of Ninth Circuit law. Alternatively, the Ninth Circuit should conform its law to Supreme Court case law, under which NAGR prevails: Government may trigger Track 1 burdens only for “organizations” that are “under the control of” candidates in their capacities as candidates, or for “organizations” having “the major purpose” under Buckley, 424 U.S. at 79; Triggering at 48 & n.84, and engaging in more than small-scale speech, Sampson v. Buescher, 625 F.3d 1247, 1249, 1251, 1261 (10th Cir. 2010); Triggering at 62-64 & nn.153-54. Moreover, “the appeal-to-vote test — once known as the ‘functional equivalent of express advocacy’ — no longer affects whether government may ban, otherwise limit, or regulate speech, and the appeal-to-vote test is vague. It has no place in law.” Triggering at 77. The last page of the attached copyrighted draft is a newspaper column by the author. It summarizes Triggering and is cited in Triggering at 85 n.278.

Value from Fit with Distinct Motivational Field Environments

ABSTRACTFor almost forty years gun ownership and the motivational underpinnings of why guns are valued has received little attention in psychology. Using motivation science tools that explain value creation (regulatory focus and regulatory fit), we tested for fit between the prevention orientation and gun ownership. Our field experiments demonstrate fit between gun ownership and prevention. Our research is agnostic regarding the legal and moral components of the gun rights debate. Instead, we examine the malleability of gun value as a function of regulatory focus and regulatory fit, and provide evidence for fit effects with distinct motivational environments.

The Effects of Cueing and Framing on Youth Attitudes towards Gun Control and Gun Rights

I analyze attitudes towards gun control from a recent survey of American high school students. For students who most closely identify as Republicans, cueing them to think about prior school shootings increases their agreement that armed staff in schools will improve safety and arming citizens will reduce risk of mass shootings. For those identifying as Democrats and Independents, providing them with selective information that certain states have loose gun control laws and low rates of gun violence makes them more supportive of gun rights. For Republicans, providing selective information that certain states have loose gun control laws and high rates of gun violence makes them less supportive of gun rights. These results suggest that emotional cues may exacerbate a priori biases, while informational cues may be more likely to change people’s minds about firearm policies.

The Ease of Exercising the Right to Bear Arms Reaches a Hollow Point: Louisiana's Right to Bear Arms Secured for the Future

The age of the United States Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald rulings has coincided with a new age of mass shootings. As gun rights advocates lobby to stave off gun bans, others scramble to balance the line between responsible firearms regulations and complete gun bans. Although the Court’s have historically attached the Second Amendment right to bear arms to militia functions, recent jurisprudence has secured the right to bear arms as a fundamental right distinct from militia service. Critics say that state and local governments wishing to regulate firearms are left with their hands tied. Some states, including Louisiana, prefer the discretion to pass lax gun regulations and establish state constitutional protections. However, most challenges to state and municipal gun regulations survive the scrutiny of federal courts. The Court’s latest interpretations of the Second Amendment plainly do not nullify state and federal regulations. For example, gun regulations prohibiting the possession and ownership of firearms by felons or habitually violent criminals, persons suffering mental illness, and those not of the age of majority survive judicial scrutiny. As Louisiana continues to rank among the states with the laxest gun regulations, it simultaneously ranks among the states with the highest rate of domestic violence fatalities involving firearms and general gun violence. The Author proposes reasonable regulations and advises the Louisiana Legislature to establish stricter gun regulations within the parameters of the ruling jurisprudence.

Gun Talk Online: Canadian Tools, American Values*

ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to address the following question: Why has the United States been so reluctant to embrace the type of comprehensive gun control that is in place in every other developed democracy?MethodThe method used to address this question is a computerized content analysis on nearly 18 million words that were extracted from online political discussions of Canadian and American gun enthusiasts. A comparison of these discussions was guided by three theories on the character and origins of Canadian–American political difference.ResultsThe results demonstrate that the instrumental components of gun ownership are more relevant for Canadian gun enthusiasts, while American gun enthusiasts view their arms as physical manifestations of political values. These values are consistent with a widely perceived American ideology that centers on individual freedom and antipathy toward government.ConclusionThis leads to the conclusion that U.S. gun rights groups are naturally advantaged in the gun control debate because their rhetoric finds fertile soil beyond the gun enthusiast segment, and helps explain the intensity of their opposition to gun control.

Gun Control in the Crosshairs: Christian Nationalism and Opposition to Stricter Gun Laws

Despite increasingly frequent mass shootings and a growing dissatisfaction with current gun laws, American opposition to federal gun legislation remains strong. The authors show that opposition to stricter gun control is closely linked to Christian nationalism, a religious cultural framework that mandates a symbiotic relationship between Christianity and civil society. Using data from a national population-based survey, the authors show that Christian nationalism is an exceptionally strong predictor of opposition to the federal government’s enacting stricter gun laws. Of all the variables considered, only general political orientation has more predictive power than Christian nationalism. The authors propose that the gun control debate is complicated by deeply held moral and religious schemas that discussions focused solely on rational public safety calculations do not sufficiently address. For the substantial proportion of American society who are Christian nationalists, gun rights are God given and sacred. Consequently, attempts to reform existing gun laws must attend to the deeper cultural and religious identities that undergird Americans’ beliefs about gun control.