Licenses to carry guns are flying out of Utah at a speed you could liken to the way Apple’s new iPhones are flying off its store shelves. And it’s a troublesome development.

Utah is issuing concealed weapon licenses  — by the thousands — to people willing to pay the mere $65.25 fee. You don’t have to live, or ever set foot, in Utah to get the license. These licenses are recognized as valid in more than 30 states, most of which, wisely, make it harder for dangerous people to legally carry a hidden gun.

Utah, though, makes it far too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on permits to carry lethal weapons. All a potential gun carrier has to do is be 21, pass Utah’s background check system — which doesn’t necessarily link to disqualifying background check data in other states — and have some instructor who might be anywhere in the country say the applicant has taken a course in gun safety and concealed carry laws. This means that prohibited purchasers, such as the mentally ill, domestic violence abusers, and felons, are easily able to illegally get a license to possess a gun. What’s more, even those who would not be blocked legally from getting a license, can skip even basic weapons training under Utah’s scheme.

In gestures that underscore the seriousness of gun ownership, other states require license-seekers to take training in how to handle and shoot a gun. Not so in Utah. Some, such as Texas – require a written test. No so in Utah.

One of Utah’s gun license instructors advises that his course is for you if you have “the combat mind-set,” while bragging that the licenses are recognized in “32 states” (such as Alabama, Alaska, Florida, West Virginia, Mississippi, and Louisiana) “and counting.”  What he’s also counting is the bushel-load of money he’s collecting from these licenses  –  “The only people making money off it are the instructors,” Lt. Doug Anderson, manager of the concealed firearms program for Utah’s Bureau of Criminal Identification, told a Reuters reporter –  while ignoring the bloodshed that could result from Utah’s policy.

More than 76,000 licenses were issued by Utah last year, according to Jason Chapman of Utah’s BCI. That’s double the number issued in 2008, and nearly three times the number issued in 2007.  It’s gotten so that more people who live outside the “Beehive State” have licenses than those who live in the state. And there are more course instructors outside Utah – 706 of 1092 total – than inside it, as well.

Seeing the dangers this kind of loose licensing scheme poses, Nevada and New Mexico, which border Utah, have recently stopped recognizing the permits. Utah and the other states that still accept the licenses’ validity ought to consider the irresponsibility that underlies this kind of policy. Industry, which is a part of Utah’s official motto, is one thing.  Being productive at behavior that endangers people across the nation is another.

As the Supreme Court’s term enters its last month, we still await the Court’s ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment challenge to Chicago’s handgun ban. The case poses the question whether the right to be armed recognized by the Court in its 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller applies to constrain state and local gun laws. Although most observers think the same five justices who made up the 5-4 Heller majority will vote to extend the right to states, cities and counties, many may be too quick to predict dire consequences for gun control from such a ruling.

Two consequences are most likely from a ruling striking down Chicago’s handgun ban. First, the decision will be used by the gun lobby, as well as gun criminals, to challenge a myriad of state and local gun laws. Second, with few exceptions, those challenges will fail. We can say this with some confidence for several reasons.

First, it is important to keep in mind the nature and scope of the right that would be applied to states and localities. In the words of Justice Scalia’s majority opinion, the Second Amendment guarantees “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” The Heller decision confers no rights on those who have violated the law or acted irresponsibly. In addition, the Heller right applies only to self-defense in the home, not to carrying guns in public. Although some have expressed concern that a ruling against Chicago would cripple “stop and frisk” and other law enforcement tactics against illegal carrying of guns on the street, nothing in Heller itself would jeopardize those tactics.

Second, the Heller majority went out of its way to make clear that strong gun regulation short of a handgun ban would still be permissible, regardless of the new right to be armed. According to Justice Scalia, the Second Amendment right is not “to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Instead, the Court said, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt” on several broad categories of gun laws, which the Court said remain “presumptively lawful.” Those categories, which the Court said did “not purport to be exhaustive,” include laws imposing conditions on the sale of guns (which could include background checks, licensing, registration, etc.), bans on dangerous and unusual weapons (which could include machine guns and assault weapons), and prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons. Heller’s assurance that prohibiting concealed weapons remains “presumptively lawful” further suggests that extending the Heller right to the states would pose no threat to police tactics against illegal guns on the streets.

Heller’s narrow definition of the right to be armed, and its reassuring language about other guns laws, thus far have ensured the defeat of virtually every post-Heller challenge to federal gun restrictions. (Two judges struck down provisions of the Adam Walsh Act barring gun possession by persons awaiting trial for child pornography offenses, a vindication of “gun rights” about which the NRA has been oddly silent.) Even the strong gun laws passed by the District of Columbia in the wake of Heller, which include a registration system, fingerprinting and training requirements, an assault weapon ban, a limit on gun purchases, and other provisions far stronger than federal law, recently were upheld as entirely consistent with Heller. This should embolden Chicago to enact similarly strong laws even if its handgun ban is struck down.

In assessing the likely impact on other gun laws of a Chicago defeat, one additional fact generally has been overlooked. As the gun lobby likes to boast, forty-two states already have provisions in their state constitutions interpreted by the courts to confer an individual right to be armed for personal purposes unrelated to militia service; that is, an interpretation similar to that given the Second Amendment in Heller. Gun laws in those states already have been challenged under these state constitutional provisions and, as Professor Adam Winkler of UCLA Law School writes, “only a fraction of state gun laws have been invalidated on the basis of the right to bear arms since World War II.”

Of course, these state court rulings are not binding on the federal or state courts as they apply the new Heller right. Nevertheless, in all but eight states, those bringing Second Amendment challenges to state and local gun laws will confront a consistent judicial tradition of according great leeway to legislative judgments about how the right to be armed may properly be regulated. And of the six states that do not have right to bear arms provisions in their constitutions (California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York), or that recognize only a militia-related right (Kansas and Massachusetts), all but Iowa, Minnesota and Kansas have very strong traditions favoring gun control and, of course, no tradition of judicial interference with gun laws.

If Chicago’s law is struck down, it will no doubt be hailed by the NRA as a great victory, as was Heller. But the most ardent “gun rights” advocates can barely hide their disappointment with the practical impact of Heller. They likely have more disappointments to come after McDonald.

For more information, see Dennis Henigan’s Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy (Potomac Books 2009).

From sunrise to sunset. In cities, suburbs, and rural areas. In climates both hot and cold. Every day, somewhere in America, people disagree over the littlest things. One person mistakes another person’s expression or gesture for an insult. And if one of those persons has a gun, then that littlest thing might lead to that gun being used.

This is what seems to be the case involving murder suspect, gun enthusiast, and self-appointed “Open Carry Spokesman” Jesus C. Gonzalez, of Milwaukee. For the past two years, Gonzalez, 25, had made it clear that he was

Jesus Gonzalez

ready for a fight. Gonzalez posted frequently on the site opencarry.org, suggesting that it was time to challenge Milwaukee’s ban on the open carry of firearms. “I’ve noticed that there seems to be no one in Milwaukee willing to get OC (open carry) started, but I was never one to wait for others,” he’s quoted as saying by the Milwaukee Sentinel. He filed two federal civil rights lawsuits over his disorderly conduct arrests while carrying a loaded weapon at Menards and Wal-mart stores. His suits were dismissed and he was never charged in the cases.

However during his depositions in the federal lawsuits, Gonzalez reportedly went toe-toe with the government’s lawyer, while trumpeting his in-depth knowledge of gun possession laws. And on May 9, Gonzalez took his zeal for open carry to its most lethal extreme. In what police are suggesting was a confrontation over a parking space, Gonzalez shot and killed tribal dancer and singer Danny John, as he was sitting in his car. John’s nephew, Jered Corn, was paralyzed from the chest down by a bullet blast (one of seven Gonzalez fired at both men) through his neck. Gonzalez faces a first-degree intentional homicide charge for the death of John, age 29, and an attempted first-degree intentional homicide charge for shooting Corn, age 21.

Police later confiscated additional artillery from Gonzalez’s home: three more handguns, three rifles, a shotgun and 1,300 rounds of ammunition.

Americans have for far too long settled minor disputes with lethal firepower, and it’s one of the reasons that we continue to reject the vision of America, held by gun rights extremists, as a place where anybody can carry and display any gun, anywhere, and at any time. The NRA’s push  to deprive state and local law enforcement authorities of the discretion to fully evaluate applicants for concealed carry licenses has resulted in licenses being issued to just about anyone who can pass a minimal criminal background check. And to make sure we don’t learn about the problems caused by giving away these permits so easily, the NRA bosses have taken steps in a number of states to hide this information from the public.

Many law enforcement agencies share our concern about this dangerous trend.  “ ‘It is my view, shared by the California Police Chiefs Association, that ‘open carry’ is an unnecessary threat to the safety of our officers and the public whom they serve,’ ” Ken James, a Bay Area police chief, recently wrote in an op-ed to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Whether it’s open carry for everyone, without a permit or training, or concealed carry with little oversight, the American people feel less safe with these guns being in public places. Jesus Gonzalez is the poster child for why those feelings are justified.

I was in Charlotte on Friday to debate Alan Gura, the lawyer who brought the Second Amendment cases against DC and Chicago, at an event sponsored by the local chapter of the Federalist Society. As it happens, there was a somewhat bigger event in town at the same time: the NRA Convention. Every year at this event, we hear more of the same fear-mongering: “your guns are going to be outlawed; your guns are going to be confiscated; hunting will be banned; you won’t be able to have a gun in your own home”. The politicians, celebrities, and NRA leaders say these same self-serving things every year because they ignore the facts – guns haven’t been banned in this country and the Constitution, as well as politics, makes it clear that they won’t be banned next year, or any year.

Sarah Palin

The most popular speaker for the NRA this year was apparently former Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The Associated Press article summarized her talk: “Palin says Obama would ban guns if he could.” Her version of “the sky is falling” (after briefly acknowledging that President Obama hasn’t done anything to push common sense measures to reduce gun violence) was this statement: “Don’t doubt for a minute that, if they thought they could get away with it, they would ban guns and ban ammunition and gut the Second Amendment”.

Now Palin, of course, failed to mention why President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, or anyone else are unable to ban guns. Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case District of Columbia v. Heller that total gun bans violate the Second Amendment’s individual right to own a gun in the home for self-defense. Justice Scalia, quoted approvingly by Palin in her speech, did make it clear in Heller, however, that this right, like all other rights in the Constitution, “is not unlimited”. Despite Palin’s scare tactics, gun bans and confiscations are out of the picture, but the common sense gun laws that I, and the Brady Campaign, promote– like background check on all gun purchases, being able to stop suspected terrorists from purchasing guns, and cracking down on illegal gun trafficking as a way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people – are perfectly acceptable.

This is not just a problem with Palin’s speech, of course, because all of the NRA speakers followed the same script. As they did last year. And the year before.

What’s even more ridiculous is the fact that the public, gun owners in general, and NRA members disagree with the NRA leadership and their politician buddies with regard to the common sense gun laws mentioned above. This is why they have to raise the specter of mythical gun bans and use scare tactics to ensure they maintain their financial and membership support.

Lake Research recently conducted a poll for the Brady Center that found a majority of Americans oppose people carrying loaded guns openly in public. Rasmussen conducted a poll on the same topic, and found similar results. The Mayors Against Illegal Guns conducted a poll in December that showed 69 percent of NRA gun-owners support requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct Brady background checks of the people buying guns, and that 82 percent of NRA gun-owners support prohibiting people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.

So when will the NRA’s leaders admit that no one is coming to take away their guns? Never. How could they raise money to pay their big salaries otherwise? There is no appeasing them. They’re not happy even though they can now carry guns into our national parks. They aren’t content now that they’ve destroyed the District of Columbia’s latest chance at getting an elected representative in Congress. They aren’t even satisfied with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense.

Tennessee State Legislator Joe McCord recently spoke out against an NRA bill to allow people to carry guns into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, and summed up the problem as follows: “The NRA is not right here, and we’re not standing up to them… It makes me wonder, what line will we not cross for the NRA? I’m just curious. At what point do we say this is too much?’”

Our elected officials in the White House, Congress, and state legislatures across the country need to stand up to the NRA bosses now and take steps to reduce gun violence in this country. If they don’t, then the deaths and injuries will continue. The lines being crossed because of their quest to get more guns in more places are making our world more dangerous everyday.