Which Political Party Wants You Disarmed?

By Rob Morse : Research
Which political party wants to take your guns?

Democrats War on Guns
Democrats War on Guns

Slow FactsUSA –-(Ammoland.com)-  I hadn’t thought about that question until this last election. Sure, I’d seen the usual campaign photographs of political candidates wearing hunters-orange and carrying a long gun. That picture changed when Secretary Hillary Clinton said the NRA was her enemy.  Now I’ve looked at the data.  The Democrats are out to disarm us.

I recently looked at why the concealed carry rate varies across the fifty states.  Fewer people receive their carry permits where politicians mandate long hours of training.  Fewer people get their permits when the application is cumbersome and expensive.  As you’d expect, fewer of us are willing to pay these higher costs.

Rules matter more than money.

Fees and training only explains part of what we see.  The larger factor than the price of the permit is if we may apply for a permit at all.  States fall into three broad categories when they regulate concealed carry of a firearm in public.

Some states grant permits on a “may issue” basis.  In those states, a judge or sheriff can deny your application for any reason..or for no reason at all.  Politicians, judges, and retired law enforcement officers are the usual permit holders in “may issue” states.

Some states give permits on a “shall issue” basis.  Law abiding citizens are granted a permit in those states.  There may be mandatory training and fees, but an ordinary citizen can apply.

Some states said their firearms laws weren’t effective at disarming criminals.  Rather than disarm their honest citizens, these states adopted “unrestricted carry” also called constitutional carry.  There, you’re allowed to carry any firearm that you’re legally allowed to own.

The carry rate varies from a high of about 15 percent down to zero in some states.  The number of us who will get our permit is determined by the issuing scheme and the costs.  These factors explain how many, but they don’t explain why.

Why do we see these large variations in fees and issuing regulations?

The answer is politics.  Some states have Democrats as their governor, attorney general, and in control of their legislatures.  Others have Republicans in those positions.  The degree of Democrat control is strongly linked to the decline in carry permits.  Look at the next figure.  All the states in the upper left corner are Republican controlled while all the states in the lower right corner are all Democrat controlled.

On average, the permit rate is about three-and-a-third times higher in Republican controlled states than in Democrat controlled states.  Said another way, about 70 percent of us are disarmed as we move from Republican to Democrat controlled states.  To put a number on it, 10.9 million of us are disarmed by the gun-control regulations in Democrat controlled states.

Where do those restrictions come from?

On average, Democrat controlled states impose higher fees and mandate longer training hours before they will issue a carry permit.  In some states, Democrats refuse to grant permits to any ordinary citizens.  All the states with an effective zero percent licensing rate use a “may issue” licensing scheme.  The states that use a “may issue” licensing scheme are all Democrat controlled.  They are shown in blue in the following figure. In contrast, most of the states that recognize “unrestricted carry” are Republican controlled or politically neutral.  They are shown in red.  Vermont is the single exception and has never required permits.

I didn’t believe it at first, but Democrats really are out to disarm honest citizens.

Widespread firearms prohibition is a fairly new political phenomenon.  Both parties used to support the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.  There also was a time when Democrats supported the working middle class.  Today, the middle class wants to protect themselves at home and in public.  We will be better served when both political parties address our needs and recognize the right to bear arms.

~_~_

About Rob Morse
The original article is here.  Rob Morse writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Clash Daily and on his SlowFacts blog. He hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society Podcast. Rob is an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.

  • 29 thoughts on “Which Political Party Wants You Disarmed?

    1. What country are we living in? It sounds more like the old USSR Maybe ? we have a bunch (RINO/DEMS) that came over (from over there) and started to preach how GOOD there form of gov is you know THE GOV WILLTAKE CARE OF YOU ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS GIVE UP YOUR FREEDOM.

    2. How true, in California, we have a hole bunch of stupid gun laws that only hurt law abiding people, and do nothing to stop criminals ,who don’t care about gun laws in the first place, and with all of the bullshit gun laws that we have , guess what , all of our democraps in office , they voted for themselves to be exempt from the gun laws that they pass, so in other words , what’s good for the goose is not good foe the gander, total bios bullshit, and that’s what you get from the DEMOCRAPS, the hell with Gov brown and that gaysome newsome guy, the both can take a flying leap ………

    3. While the Ds are worse than Rs on guns the Rs help the cause of gun removal by entrenching what the Ds manage to implement. The Ds push more gun control on us then the Rs say stop here. Next time the Ds push more gun control the Rs say OK but stop here. Don’t fall for the con.

    4. they walk around with armed guards and want us to give up our guns while they flood the counrty with terrorists and mexican cartell criminals.screw them.i say bring it only from my cold dead hands.i have had enough of do as i say not as i do crap.its my turn to tell you what your going to do or sleep with the fish.its just that simple.

    5. You’re cause and effect. I could just as easily say CCW holders vote “R”.

      I agree the Dem’s are anti-gun, but this does not prove that.

      1. So So true. Our new attorney general is enforcing gun laws at a higher rate than the old one. This is supposition this is in his own press release. Is he Dem? Didn’t think so. Wasn’t he put in by Our Fearless Leader?

        Read on your own, don’t take my word for it.

        https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-gun-prosecutions-23-percent-after-sessions-memo

        Sessions himself thanks his prosecutors.

        So nothing is simple. The reality is that the Government regardless of D or R wants us to not have guns. Because they know that a armed population is a threat to the Government. It’s why it was put in the Constitution…

        So believe all you want from the R’s I believe in actions, and they speak louder than words. Let’s see some repealing of the current gun law mess before I give any adulation to the R’s….

        If someone shows you who they are, believe them.

        Wake up and Smell the Coffee.

        1. So, Sessions wants more prosecutions of gang members on gun charges, which is exactly what this is focusing on (and exactly what the Obama Admin. refused to do) and you claim he’s targeting law-abiding gun owners? By what supreme stretch of the imagination did you arrive at that conclusion?

    6. Which party supports the pollution of the fields and streams that you hunt in? Yea, I’d rather have a long rifle and a shotgun and clean hunting and fishing grounds, than an automatic weapon or 30 round mag. Also, did you notice the value of your gun collection goes up when the donkey party is in power and sinks like a block of lead when the elephant party is in power? Think MORE.

      1. @Torque, When you say long rifle, what do you mean. Whatever you mean, I have the Right to have both. I won’t be choosing between forced options. Nor do I care about the value going up or down. Money is not the proper measure of our Civil Rights.
        Nor are Democrats any better about pollution than the other party. Look at Al Gore’s and Nancy Pelosi’s documented carbon foot print.
        How is it that you have all the issues so skewed? Who sent you here?

      2. And once again we see that a Liberal Democrat has decided to join in. Hey, welcome to the fray, but expect to be challenged. I’ll be happy to start. Please cite to fact your statement: “Which party supports pollution of the fields and streams you hunt in?”. I would counter with; Guess which party wants to take away the rights of private property owners to either establish a pond or cover up a pond on their own property? Or, guess which Party wants to close millions of acres to any incursion by human beings, not just sportsman but anyone? Let me help you, in the vernacular, it ain’t the Republicans!

        1. I was just thinking about how superfund sites are closed to incursion by human beings. And how some of those “pond’s” are used for pig sewage and other things. There are good reasons to allow and disallow land use in an area. After all nobody wants pig sewage sprayed over a field that’s right next to subdivisions. Even the Free state of Texas is having some “land use” issues they recently discovered with the hurricane.

          1. Let’s talk SuperFund. Most of the sites were either Govt facilities or contractors that worked for the Govt. The EPA SuperFund did a great job, at an incredible cost to the taxpayer, of cleaning up some well known weapons labs that left behind a mess. I believe there were 7 major SuperFund sites during the heyday. I knew the head of the SuperFund, Tim Fields, and there wasn’t a more dedicated guy in the world.

            Now you’ve made a giant leap to pig farming. Initially, pig farmers had no idea of the toxicity of the waste and there were no concerns for runoff. Then the citified gentry came buying up land cause they liked the country but OH MY GOD they didn’t like the smell! Hey, they’re pigs, why’d you move here? Okay, enough about liberals wanting to change everything. They did discover runoff and pollution etc and found that, IF I remember correctly, you could either contain it and let it slowly leach or you could incinerate it and have it for nice pure as the driven snow fertilizer. The exact same thing they did with tons of cow manure in NY in the 50’s.

            What happened with EPA was that while the SuperFund ended the Liberal bureaucracy didn’t and they went on a power grab of epic proportions until finally a few people said ENOUGH, you don’t have sovereign immunity, we’re suing and the courts agreed and gave them standing. Then the tide shifted, as it usually does, and property owners started regaining some of the rights that the Govt had been usurping.

            Some govt is good, runaway govt is bad and that’s what we had with the EPA.

      3. Just how long do you think the liberal elites will allow you to have your shotgun and long rifle after they’ve stripped you of your semi auto military rifle and 30 round mags? The 2nd Amendment doesn’t mention sporting purposes or protecting the value of your firearm investments. Both parties are neck deep in political prostitutes that care nothing for hunting or fishing.

      1. @ Wild Bill, they would have to send a memo to everyone explaining in detail what the new party name means and how to pronounce it. Good idea, though.

    Leave a Comment 29 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *