I knew that case was significant when Growler67 first brought it up last March 5th.
Following the links in HiCarry's OP above, I found:
http://www.nysrpa.org/files/woollard_v_gallagher-amicus.pdfThis ^ is a pdf of the actual document which the HRA signed on to.
In there, I found this gem as Footnote #2 on page 14 in the document (which appears as page 20 of the pdf file):
2 It is important to remember that “no empirical research has made a case
for shall-issue laws increasing crime. Instead, the literature has disputed
the magnitude of the decrease and whether the estimated decreases are
statistically significant.” David B. Mustard, Comment, in EVALUATING GUN
POLICY 326 (Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook eds. 2003). See also id. at 326
(“Even if one uncritically accepts the most negative reviews of Lott-
Mustard [research] at face value, there is still more evidence that shall-issue
laws reduce, rather than raise, crime.”).
In any event, the burden is on Maryland to justify its restriction of the
right to bear arms. Citizens do not need to prove that permitting public
gun carriage reduces crime, as noted above.
(Bolding and underlining mine.)
"Citizens do not need to prove that permitting public gun carriage reduces crime, as noted above."
In other words, all you Mayors and Chiefs of Police,
you have to prove private carrying of firearms actually does cause more crime. Such proof is not obtainable.
The "blood running in the streets" mantra and all similar remarks are pure fiction.
On second thought, let me restate that more forcefully:
They are outright baldfaced lies.
Terry, 230RN