The Crime Prevention Research Center has worked with the Peace Officers Research Association of California and the California Association of Highway Patrolmen on an Amicus brief for the U.S. Supreme Court looking at the Ninth Circuit holding “that a national tradition likely exists of prohibiting the carrying of firearms on private property without the owner’s oral or written consent.” All the other briefs filed in the case are available here. The academic research discussed in the brief is extensively based on our work at the CPRC. The importance that the Trump administration puts on this case can be seen by Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s request to participate in the oral arguments: “The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms and in the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment.”
.
.
. . . CCW permit holders are some of the most highly vetted, trained, responsible and law-abiding citizens, who do not jeopardize public safety. May v. Bonta, 709 F. Supp. 3d 940, 969-70 (C.D. Cal. 2023), aff’d in part, rev’d in part sub nom, cert. granted in part, No. 24-1046, 2025 WL 2808808 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2025). PORAC President Brian Marvel explained, “[v]iolent criminals don’t bother with CCW permits and simply carry illegally.” Id. at 948. Thus, it is no surprise that crime data demonstrates that permissive right to carry laws actually reduce violent crime, especially murder and rape.
.
Empirical data confirms that CCW permit holders demonstrate a strong predisposition to comply with the law. With exceedingly low revocation and conviction rates, permit holders present no measurable threat to public safety. In 26 states with comprehensive data the average permit revocation rate for any reason is less than 0.2%, and permit holders are convicted of firearms-related violations at just 1/12th the rate of police officers and 1/240th the rate of the general population. John R. Lott, Jr., Carl Moody, and Rujun Wang, Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2024, SSRN (Nov. 29, 2024), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5040077.
.
Moreover, studies relied upon to argue that right-to-carry (RTC) laws increase crime collapse under closer methodological scrutiny. Many fail to account for differences in permitting requirements between early- and late-adopting states, where later states impose higher barriers leading to fewer permits and smaller crime reductions. When these variables are properly controlled, advanced statistical models demonstrate that RTC laws reduce overall violent crime—with significant declines in murder (up to 6.47%) and rape (up to 9.92%)—and show no significant increases in robbery or assault. See Table 5, infra. Weighted by victim costs, these laws yield a net reduction in violent crime costs of 5.72% to 6.49%. See id. These findings confirm that permissive carry regimes enhance public safety by deterring criminals who cannot reliably predict armed resistance.
.
This deterrent effect also explains why armed citizens provide a critical layer of protection that police—through no fault of their own—cannot always supply. Even when police are present, attackers can wait for them to leave the area before attacking, move to another target, or shoot the officer first since they know the officer is the only person armed. Permissive concealed carry laws enhance both public safety— because criminals will not know who is able to stop them—and officer safety—because attackers cannot eliminate their risk of being stopped by solely engaging the officer.
.
Although purportedly intended to protect vulnerable people, Hawaii’s law actually subjects them to greater risks of gun violence. Regrettably, gun-free zones without comprehensive police protection attract mass shooting incidents by advertising that only the mass murderers will have guns. May, 709 F. Supp. 3d at 970. Law-abiding citizens will obey the law, while criminals intent on murder will not be deterred by these sensitive places designations. “Someone intent on committing a mass murder will likely choose to do so in a ‘sensitive’ place, where he or she is less likely to encounter armed victims.” Id. Rather than divert scarce law-enforcement resources to enforcing symbolic prohibitions, states should focus on suppressing and prosecuting violent firearm related crimes.
.
Reversal is necessary to restore self-defense rights in Hawaii and correct the Ninth Circuit’s continuing departures from this Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence.
0 Comments