A new study published in the journal JAMA Network Open says states with laws requiring permits-to-purchase in addition to “universal” background checks have lower homicide rates than states with only background check requirements.
According to Medical Express, the study was done by the Tufts University School of Medicine and involved an analysis of data from 12 states with background check requirements and seven states with purchase permit laws, from 1976 to 2022.
“States in the former group showed slight variations in firearm homicide rates while those with permit laws saw reductions in shooting deaths ranging from 2% to 32%,” Medical Express said.
But permits-to-purchase requirements raise red flags with Second Amendment activists who argue that the exercise of a constitutionally enumerated fundamental right should not be restricted this way. The contention is that requiring a purchase permit reduces the right to a government-regulated privilege.
According to the study, by Dr. Michael Siegel, “From 1976 through 2022, 12 states adopted the universal background check laws without permitting requirements and 7 states implemented gun permit laws covering all firearms. The mean (SD) firearm homicide rate was 4.3 (0.1) per 100 000 people. Universal background checks for all firearms alone (without a state permitting system) were not associated with overall homicide rates (percentage change, 1.3%; 95% CI, −6.9% to 10.4%) or firearm homicide rates (percentage change, 3.7%; 95% CI, −5.3% to 13.6%). A law requiring a permit for the purchase of all firearms was associated with significantly lower overall homicide rates (percentage change, −15.4%; 95% CI, −28.5% to −0.01%) and firearm homicide rates (percentage change, −18.3%; 95% CI, −32.0% to −1.9%).”
The full report may be read here.
Gun rights activists recall the case of New Jersey resident Carol Bowne, who was brutally murdered in her own driveway by a former boyfriend, Michael Eitel in June 2015, while having waited for weeks to have her permit approved by the local police department. The concern that lazy police agencies will allow such permit applications to gather dust is very high along with the fundamental constitutional rights objection to the requirement.
In Oregon, one of the requirements of Measure 114 was a permit-to-purchase, but a circuit judge in eastern Oregon ruled the measure unconstitutional last year. A proposal for a similar law in neighboring Washington State died in committee in the state legislature earlier this year. The bottom line is that a citizen should not need any kind of government permission slip in order to exercise a right protected by the constitution.
Liberty Park Press corresponded with Dr. Siegel about the study, especially how the purchase permit recommendation might conflict with state and federal constitutional protections. He responded with this lengthy reply:
“I completely understand the sentiment of Second Amendment supporters who find it objectionable that one should need a permit to exercise a Constitutionally protected right,” he wrote. “I recognize and find that sentiment to be a reasonable one. However, I think there’s another way to look at this. Most people agree that it is reasonable to require a background check before gun purchase. No gun owner that I’ve ever talked to believes that someone who is a convicted, violent felon should be able to walk into a store and buy a firearm. Even the NRA supports the basic idea of a background check and they were the ones who actually supported NICS checks when at first gun control groups opposed this idea. And the NRA now is not calling for the repeal of background checks, although they certainly do not want background checks to be expanded.
“So,” he continued, “the question is: if we are going to do background checks, what method of conducting them would be least intrusive to gun owners so that it minimally interferes with their Second Amendment rights? There are only two ways to conduct background checks. One is at point-of-sale every time a gun is purchased. Another is to require a one-time background check that clears the gun owner to then buy as many guns as they desire without the need for any further background checks at point-of-sale. I understand that the term “permit” may seem offensive because it suggests that you need to be permitted to exercise a Constitutional right. But another way to think of this is a ‘clearance card’ that actually absolves you of having to go through any further background checks.
“So what I am actually proposing,” Siegel said, “is for states to eliminate the requirement for a background check at point-of-purchase by adopting a “clearance” system that allows gun owners to go through a one-time clearance process (i.e., background check) and then have all further point-of-sale background checks waived as long as they retain their “clearance.” I view this as at least a partial win for gun owners because instead of having to go through a background check every time they purchase a gun, they could go through this once and then be free to purchase guns whenever they want without further background checks every time. The ATF routinely waives background checks for many states if the buyer has a permit (item 29 in section C of Form 4473).
“The other potential benefit to gun owners is that if all states adopted this procedure, a one-time clearance by one state would clear the gun owner to purchase and possess guns in any state (in other words, gun owners would finally achieve concealed carry reciprocity that would ease one of the most annoying burdens of current firearm regulation).
“I firmly believe that if gun control advocates were willing to make this a win-win situation rather than a zero-sum game,” he explained, “we could work out a system that is more effective in reducing gun violence and less intrusive on gun owners. I think there are compromises that could be made to provide benefits to gun owners without compromising public safety. Yes – it would require this one compromise by gun owners to be willing to accept a clearance system but it would potentially come with benefits (which gun control advocates would have to be willing to compromise on), such as:
- Waiving background checks at point-of-purchase
- Reciprocity
- Potentially eliminating the prohibition against gun possession by non-violent felons
- Potentially revising the NFA to get rid of prohibitions on short-barreled “long guns” and on silencers
- Abandonment of further attempts to ban assault weapons
“I firmly believe that what we need to regulate is not the gun, but the person who owns the gun. And that regulation should be as minimal as possible, but at the minimum, it does need to at least exclude people with a criminal history of violent crime. I do not support assault weapon bans because: (1) the evidence shows that they are not effective; and (2) the definitions are arbitrary and essentially regulate the cosmetic features of a gun rather than its lethality. How does a bayonet lug threaten public safety? If someone wants to put a bayonet on their gun and start poking people, it will do a lot less damage than firing the gun! And how does a folding stock or pistol grip make a rifle more deadly?
“As far as the constitutionality of permit regulations,” he concluded. “I don’t think they are incongruent with the Supreme Court’s rulings in Bruen or Rahimi. Of course, if the Court does overturn such regulations, then I would respect the Court’s decision and we’d have to go back to the flawed NICS system that we now have.”
The constitutionality question would have to be sorted out in the courts. Last year, North Carolina did away with its purchase permit requirement.
