Rising ‘Constitutional Carry’ Is a Sign of Failing Trust in Government

Attention: This disclaimer informs readers that the views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and not necessarily to the author’s employer, organization, committee, or other group or individual.

Come next January, Alabama will be the twenty-fifth state to allow concealed carry without a permit. Alabama will soon join Indiana, which in March of this year passed a new statute allowing permitless concealed carry—sometimes called “constitutional carry.” In 2021 alone, at least six states passed their own provisions legalizing permitless concealed carry: Arkansas, Iowa, Montana, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah. Essentially, any law-abiding citizen over a certain age (usually eighteen or twenty-one) can now carry a concealed firearm in these states. Twenty years ago, only Vermont allowed unrestricted concealed carry. Over the last ten years, however, more than twenty states have adopted new laws deregulating the carrying of firearms.

Why is this happening now? On the most simple level, these laws have passed because lawmakers and constituents at the state level have advocated for them. Moreover, whatever opposition exists among interest groups and the public has been insufficient to block their passage.

On a deeper ideological level, increased ease of concealed carrying is likely the result of a growing feeling among much of the public that they need increased access to firearms for self-protection. In other words, the spread of constitutional carry points to a growing sentiment that state and local authorities are insufficient to provide a reasonable expectation of safety from violent crime and that private self-defense is therefore more necessary now than in the past.

Moreover, many of these laws expanding concealed carry have been passed over local law enforcement’s objections. Police organizations have been among the most vocal of opponents of new constitutional carry measures, yet Republican lawmakers—a group often happy to fall all over themselves announcing how much they “back the blue”—have passed these laws anyway. The continued spread of constitutional carry suggests that even among conservatives there are limits to supporting law enforcement on a vague philosophical level. Rather, the passage of these laws suggests a growing lack of faith that even well-meaning law enforcement can or will provide meaningful defense from violent criminals when the need arises.

The survey data continues to point to declining public faith in public institutions, and this includes law enforcement and the legal system. As faith in these institutions falls, the perceived need to provide one’s own defense naturally increases. As one sociologist puts it, “legal cynicism” leads to greater demand for “protective gun ownership,” and “lower levels of police legitimacy are significantly related to a higher probability of acquiring a firearm for protection.”

In the worst cases, this can even lead to extralegal “self-help” with a firearm. This phenomenon has been explored by historian Randolph Roth, who notes that declining perceptions of state legitimacy can lead to high violent crime rates. That is, when private citizens believe that official coercion will be insufficient to restrain criminals, they may feel the need to take matters into their own hands.

Moreover, crime data in some cases suggests a correlation between gun ownership and high crime. Advocates of gun control naturally interpret this correlation as evidence that guns cause more crime. Yet the causality more likely runs in the other direction: more crime leads to more people arming themselves. Statistical studies are insufficient to prove causality in either case, as a RAND study on gun violence notes:

Whether [the correlation between guns and crime] is attributable to gun prevalence causing more violent crime is unclear. If people are more likely to acquire guns when crime rates are rising or high, then the same pattern of evidence would be expected…. existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide.

And as one National Institutes of Justice study concluded after surveying young residents of high-crime areas,

most participants said they carried guns to increase their feelings of safety. “They held a widespread belief that they could be victimized at any time, and guns served to protect them from real or perceived threats from other gun carriers.”

The sense that personal protection is needed is likely stronger in high-crime areas, but the sentiment certainly is not unique to these areas. Suburban and rural advocates for broadening concealed carry frequently invoke the need for personal protection from violent crime as justification for new laws expanding the right to carry in nearly every situation.

Although many individual police officers support nearly untrammeled gun ownership for law-abiding citizens, many others do not. In Alabama’s legislative battle over permitless carry, for instance, “the bills have been roundly criticized by police and gun control advocates, who argue that removing permits poses a safety risk to citizens and officers.” The head of Alabama’s Sheriff’s Association wants to change the Second Amendment to ban concealed carry altogether. And elsewhere, “some of the loudest opponents of permitless carry laws are the police. They spoke out in Indiana, Texas, and Kentucky but that didn’t stop lawmakers from passing ‘constitutional carry’ laws.” In Georgia, many law enforcement officers voiced their opposition to concealed carry, much to the delight of the state’s Democratic Party. In Ohio, constitutional carry has been opposed by the Fraternal Order of Police—the public labor union that provides free lawyers to abusive and incompetent police officers. Even in Republican-controlled legislatures—where professed support for police runs high—police efforts to quash expanded concealed carry have failed repeatedly.

The continued spread of constitutional carry is, of course, related to the surge we’ve seen in private gun ownership overall. For example, Americans in 2020 and 2021 went on what CNN calls a “gun buying spree,” and this included a 58 percent spike in gun purchases among black men and women in 2021. Violent and destructive “mostly peaceful” protests exposed the police’s limited ability to do much other than protect government property during periods of unrest. And in the wake of lockdowns, which shut down vital social institutions such as churches and schools, crime surged in the US, and not just in the “usual” places like urban cores. Police legitimacy also suffered a serious blow with local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies’ abject failure at the Uvalde school shooting in May of this year. The officers who chose to do nothing while children were massacred will likely face no serious legal repercussions, and this will further highlight that police officers are under no legal obligation to actually protect the public from violent crime.

It’s no wonder that permitless carry continues to make gains in American states. In the past, many Americans may have simply trusted the regime to provide “law and order.” But that sentiment is apparently becoming more and more rare.

Reporting from Mises Institute.