My newest piece at Fox News: "What the Supreme Court still doesn't understand about guns"

John Lott's latest piece at Fox News starts this way:

In what’s being hailed by many as a victory for gun-control advocates, the recent Supreme Court decision on “straw” purchases of guns has completely muddled the whole issue of background checks and “straw” purchases for potential gun owners.

The court ruled 5-4 that, as The Hill.com put it, “one legal gun owner may not acquire a firearm on behalf of another — a practice known as "straw" purchasing. 

The case heard by the high court involved a Virginia police officer, Bruce Abramski, who bought a gun, a Glock 19 handgun, for his uncle. The police officer, who could get a discount on guns, bought the gun in Virginia. He then transferred it to his uncle, who lived in Pennsylvania, through a second licensed dealer in the state. 

The Obama administration successfully prosecuted Abramski for two felonies. The Justice Department said that the same federal background check form where Abramski indicated that he wasn’t a straw purchaser involved perjury as well as for providing false information to the gun dealer who sold the gun. 

The five Justices who supported Obama’s prosecution, claimed: “That information helps to fight serious crime. When police officers retrieve a gun at a crime scene, they can trace it to the buyer and consider him as a suspect.” 

But there are two big problems with their claim. . . . .

The rest of the piece is continued here.

Newest Fox News piece: Media feeding frenzy over open carry guns in restaurants much ado about nothing

My newest piece at Fox News starts this way:

The NRA’s strong statement reprimanding a few people for carrying long guns into restaurants was bound to get media attention. Bloomberg’s Moms Demand Action and much of the media quickly jumped in and described various restaurants as “asking customers to leave their guns at home.” But their assertions couldn’t be more misleading. 

The headline at USA Today saying “No Guns Inside” or at MSNBC and Huffington Post saying “No-Gun Policies” are simply wrong. 

A big deal has been made of Starbucks, Jack in the Box, Chipotle, Wendy's, Applebee's, Chili’s and Sonic’s supposed bans on guns, with Bloomberg’s groups declaring “victory.” 

Yet, Starbucks “respectfully requesting” customers no longer bring in openly carried guns is not a ban on guns. 

Jack in the Box’s statement “we would prefer that guests not bring their guns inside our restaurant” refers to open carry.  Neither restaurant forbids customers from carrying concealed handguns and comments like “request” or “prefer” are a long ways from bans. 

Calls to all these restaurants revealed that none of them have changed their policy about posting any signs banning either generally banning guns or permitted concealed handguns. 

With 11 million concealed handgun permits in the United States, it is understandable why none of these businesses want to risk losing that many customers. 

From a general crime-deterrence perspective point of view, . . .

The rest of the piece is available here.