Staff Reports
The Rockefeller Institute of Government just published a blog summary of a new peer‑reviewed study that says permitless carry — the policy many call “constitutional carry” — is linked to short‑term increases in violent crime. The institute then offered a menu of fixes, from banning guns in certain places to creating databases of legal gun owners. This is a live debate between two things Americans care about: public safety and the Second Amendment. It’s also a reminder that smart ideas and legal limits do not always march in step.
What the Rockefeller summary and the study actually say
Susan T. Parker, the study’s lead author and a research assistant professor affiliated with the Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium, analyzed monthly crime data from states that adopted permitless carry between 2015 and 2019. Her Journal of Policy Analysis and Management paper — and the Rockefeller blog that summarizes it — report short‑term effects: about a 7% rise in violent crime, roughly a 12% rise in firearm assaults, and about a 15% rise in firearm assaults in public places during the first 12 months after adoption. At the same time, weapons‑law incidents and weapons arrests fell — roughly 14% fewer incidents and more than 20% fewer arrests — which Parker links to the practical problem police face when there is no permit system to tell legal from illegal carriers.
Legal headwinds: Wolford v. Lopez changes the rules on “where” laws
Before anyone starts writing marching orders for bars, stadiums, and shopping centers, remember the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wolford v. Lopez. In an opinion by Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the Court struck down Hawaii’s broad rule that effectively barred public carry on much private property open to the public. That opinion applies the Bruen historical‑analogy test and signals real limits on sweeping place‑based restrictions. In short: some of the Rockefeller Institute’s favored “where guns may be carried” fixes are likely to run headlong into current Second Amendment doctrine. Good idea, bad timing — legally speaking.
Policy fixes that survive the courts — and those that don’t
The Rockefeller post is not tone‑deaf to the legal problem and highlights alternatives that may be more durable: targeted vehicle storage rules, promotion of safe storage during transit, and improved verification tools for police. Those are sensible on their face — nobody likes stolen guns or the idea of prohibited people getting firearms — but the devil is in the details. A state database that lists legal gun owners smells dangerously like a national registry and raises privacy and civil‑liberty alarms. And because Parker’s study shows weapons arrests drop after permitless carry, law enforcement needs better protocols and technology to distinguish lawful carriers from those barred from possessing guns. Otherwise good policy ideas will sit on paper while criminals exploit gaps.
The center‑right response should be practical and principled: defend the Second Amendment while fixing real gaps that make Americans less safe. That means backing targeted measures that reduce gun theft, fund safer locking technology, prosecute violent crime and straw purchasers aggressively, and give police narrow, constitutionally tailored tools for swift verification of prohibited persons — not broad bans that courts will toss. Conservatives should also be the first to insist on rigorous evidence and honest trade‑offs. If a new policy truly reduces assault and saves lives, say so and defend it within constitutional limits. If it crosses the line into a registry or blanket bans, say no and offer better alternatives.
