Dr. Joanne D. Eisen

Dr. Joanne D. Eisen Senior Fellow in Criminal Justice

Dr. Joanne D. Eisen received her B.A. from Queens College, City University of New York, in Chemistry/Biology. She earned her D.D.S. degree from New York University in 1966. Since 1966, Joanne has been engaged full-time in the private practice of dentistry in Old Bethpage, New York.

She met Paul Gallant in 1994 and shortly thereafter, Dr. Eisen and Dr. Gallant began co-authoring newspaper and magazine articles on firearms policy. Among their early research was one of the first anonymous gun-owner surveys, designed to measure the true social and political attitudes of gun-owners.

In recent years, Doctors Eisen and Gallant have often co-authored articles with David B. Kopel, the Research Director of the Independence Institute. The three have co-authored nearly three dozen magazine articles for National Review Online and other periodicals. They have also co-authored numerous articles for law journals and other scholarly publications.

The topics of their writing include biographical essays of persons such as First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, Civil War General Ambrose Burnside, and painter Leonardo da Vinci, as well as analyses of various social and political issues.

The leading topic of their research, however, is analysis of the social and political effects of firearms and of firearms laws around the world. Among the countries they have written about are Albania, Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bougainville, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, DR Congo, Croatia, East Timor, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Macedonia Mali, Montenegro, New Zealand, Panama, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Serbia, Sri Lanka, the Solomon Islands, South Africa, the Sudan, Tajikistan, Uganda, United Kingdom, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Their current primary focus of international research is the prevention of genocide.

The writings of Dr. Eisen have appeared in the Brown Journal of World Affairs, Texas Review of Law & Politics, UMKC Law Review, Engage, Notre Dame Law Review, Journal of Law, Economics & Policy, Journal of Firearms & Public Policy, National Review Online, Tech Central Station, Reason Online, and Chronicles. Dr. Eisen and Dr. Gallant are contributors to the award-winning academic encyclopedia, Guns in American Society: an Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law. Both are members of the International Association of Genocide Scholars.

Archive of Independence Institute Publications

“Human Rights and Gun Confiscation,” David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant & Joanne D. Eisen, 26 Quinnipiac Law Review (No. 2, 2008) 385. This Article addresses a human rights problem which has been generally ignored by the advocates of firearms confiscation: the human rights abuses stemming from the enforcement of confiscation or similar laws. This Article also documents some of the human rights abuses that result from the types of gun control and gun prohibition programs supported by the United Nations and other international gun control advocates.

Part I conducts a case study of the U.N.-supported gun confiscation program in Uganda, a program which has directly caused massive, and fatal, violations of human rights. Among the rights violated have been those enumerated in Article 3 (“the right to life, liberty and security of person”) and Article 5 (“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”) of the Universal Declaration.

Part II examines a similar gun confiscation program, with similar results, in Kenya.

Part III describes the recent government attempts to disarm South African citizens, and details how the implementation of antigun laws has caused extensive violations of civil and human rights, although not the government-perpetrated murder, torture, arson, and ethnic cleansing that have been endemic in Kenya and Uganda.

Part IV reports on survey data and other evidence from around the world which suggest one reason why gun confiscation programs can result in major human rights violations: most gun-owners possess their firearm for personal and family defense. Therefore, gun confiscation must be enforced by extremely violent and intrusive measures. Civilians simply will not disarm when they cannot see concrete evidence of guarantees for personal safety.

This Article concludes by offering two caveats for disarmament programs. First, that voluntary disarmament will generally be possible only after a government has proven that it will protect the security of the people who would be disarmed. Second, that coercive attempts to disarm people who still need guns to defend themselves—including for protection from predatory governments—are likely to lead to massive resistance, and to an escalating cycle of human rights abuses by government forces, and re-armament by the victim population.

This Article also provides the most complete collection ever presented of international survey data about why people in various countries own guns. PDF.

"The Human Right of Self-Defense," David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant & Joanne D. Eisen, 22 BYU Journal of Public Law (Number 1, Fall 2007). Is there a human right to defend oneself against a violent attacker? Is there an individual right to arms under international law? Conversely, are governments guilty of human rights violations if they do not enact strict gun control laws?

The United Nations and some non-governmental organizations have declared that there is no human right to self-defense or to the possession of defensive arms. The UN and allied NGOs further declare that insufficiently restrictive firearms laws are themselves a human rights violation, so all governments must sharply restrict citizen firearms possession.

Since the 1990s, the United Nations has been focusing increasing attention on international firearms control. UN-backed programs have promoted and funded the surrender and confiscation of citizen firearms in nations around the world. A subcommission of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has declared that there is no human right to personal self-defense and that extremely strict gun control is a human right which all governments are required to enforce immediately.

The full Human Rights Council is expected to take up the issue and promulgate similar orders. The declaration implements a report for the HRC prepared by Special Rapporteur Barbara Frey. According to the Frey standard adopted by the United Nations, even the most restrictive gun laws in the United States, such as those in Washington, D.C., or New York City, are violations of current human rights law, because they are insufficiently stringent.

This Article investigates the legal status of self-defense by examining a broad variety of sources of international law. Surveying international law from its earliest days to the present, the article analyzes in detail the Founders of international law—the great scholars in the fourteenth through eighteenth centuries who created the system of international law. The Article then looks at the major legal systems which have contributed to international law, such as Greek law, Roman law, Spanish law, Jewish law, Islamic law, Canon law, and Anglo-American law. In addition, the article covers the full scope of contemporary international law sources, including treaties, the United Nations, constitutions from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, and much more. The Article shows that international law—particularly its restraints on the conduct of warfare—is founded on the personal right of self-defense.

Based on those sources, the Article suggests that personal self-defense is a well-established human right under international law and is an important foundation of international law itself. Finally, this Article demonstrates that self-defense is a widely-recognized human right which no government and no international body have the authority to abrogate. PDF.

"The Gold Standard of Gun Control," David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant & Joanne D. Eisen, 2 Journal of Law, Economics & Policy 417 (2006, Issue 2). Book review of Joyce Malcolm's "Guns and Violence: The English Experience." PDF.

"Does the Right to Bear Arms Impede or Promote Economic Development?," David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant and Joanne D. Eisen, 6 Engage 85 (2005, Issue 1)(journal of The Federalist Society). Using case studies from Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, this article refutes the claim of gun prohibition advocates that the presence of "small arms" is a cause of economic underdevelopment.

Although prohibitionist claims are frequently stated in unequivocal terms, careful researchers acknowledge that the connection between arms and development is unclear. Even gun prohibitionists such as the authors of Small Arms Survey 2003: Development Denied hedged: “Research on this linkage is in its infancy...At the macro level, simple relationships between small arms and underdevelopment are extremely difficult to demonstrate.”

Blaming SALW for development failure serves several political purposes. The rhetoric attempts to enlist the development community in the arms prohibition movement, and even to divert development funds into arms confiscation projects.

In this article, we shall demonstrate that underdevelopment is largely the result of poor governance—including governance which promotes the spread of infectious disease. SALW may exist in underdeveloped countries, but they are generally not a causal factor in underdevelopment.

The article also details the harmful effects of UN policy regarding malaria and AIDS in the Third World. PDF.

"Microdisarmament: The Consequences for Public Safety and Human Rights," David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant and Joanne D. Eisen, 73 UMKC Law Review , 969 (2005). This Article examines UN-sponsored programs to disarm people.

“Micro-disarmament” is a term of art in the small arms prohibition community, referring to the disarmament of the civilian population in a particular country. Advocates of micro-disarmament argue that the success of micro-disarmament in particular countries demonstrates that reducing or eliminating the prevalence of firearms reduces violence. Micro-disarmament successes are touted as proof of the desirability of ever-broader campaigns to disarm civilian populations worldwide. This article examines six case studies of micro-disarmament: Cambodia, Bougainville, Albania, Panama, Guatemala, and Mali.

In each of these six countries, we argue, micro-disarmament has failed or has not been nearly as successful as firearms prohibitionists have claimed. We suggest that the emphasis on disarming civilians as the key to peace is mistaken, because, as these six case studies demonstrate, true and lasting peace must be based on protection of human rights. When human rights are secure, violence will diminish; conversely, when human rights are denied, many people will refuse to surrender the tools necessary to defend their lives and liberties. PDF.

"Firearms Possession by 'Non-State Actors': The Question of Sovereignty," David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant and Joanne D. Eisen, 8 Texas Review of Law and Politics 373 (Spring 2004, No. 2).

At United Nations conferences and in other international fora, many diplomats and NGOs have called for prohibiting or severely limiting firearms possession by “non-state actors.” Use of the phrase “non-state actors,” however, reveals a profound misunderstanding of the nature of sovereignty. While the phrase implies that sovereignty belongs to the government, sovereignty properly belongs to the people and is merely delegated by them to the government. In this article, we examine the connection between arms possession and sovereignty and we detail the horrible violations of human rights that have so often resulted from the prohibition of guns to “non-state actors.” From ancient Athens to modern Zimbabwe, weapons bans for “non-state actors” have often led to human rights abuses by illegitimate governments; these abuses are perpetrated against the legitimate sovereigns: the people of the nation.

When Confucius was asked what would be the first step if a government sought his advice, he answered that “[i]t would certainly be to rectify the names. . . . If the names are not correct, language is without an object.”

The modern push for civilian gun prohibition—for banning gun ownership by “non-state actors”—is based on the faulty premise that “the government” is equivalent to “the state.” To the contrary, as the Declaration of Independence teaches, it is a self-evident truth that governments are created by the people of a state, in order to protect the human rights of the people. As sovereigns, the people have the authority to change the government when they determine that the government is no longer fulfilling its function of protecting the people’s rights. The people are the only true and legitimate rulers of a state, and the government is only their instrument and servant. To the extent that a government is not founded on the consent of the governed, it is illegitimate. As a United States federal district court put it, “the people, not the government, possess the sovereignty.” PDF.

"Global Deaths from Firearms: Searching for Plausible Estimates," David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant and Joanne D. Eisen, 8 Texas Review of Law and Politics 114 (Fall 2003, No. 1).

Advocates of firearms prohibition and other restrictive laws often state that every year around the world, five hundred thousand people are killed by small arms and light weapons (SALW)—most of which are owned by civilians. According to Jayantha Dhanapala, U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, “Small arms are responsible for over half a million deaths per year, including 300,000 in armed conflicts and 200,000 more from homicides and suicides.” The figure is ubiquitous in the public statements of international anti-gun activists The Small Arms Survey 2002 announced that “It is essential that we recall the human devastation directly attributable to small arms on an annual basis: more than 200,000 deaths from homicide and suicide in the industrialized world, and at least 300,000 killed during armed conflicts in developing countries.”

The statistic of half a million people killed by “firearms” or by SALW is the most widely cited statistic by advocates of international weapons control. Such advocates promise that disarming civilians will dramatically reduce these deaths. For many advocates, government-owned weapons are not a concern.

However, when one carefully examines the data behind the “500,000” factoid, the issue appears more complex. First of all, the data simply does not support the “half a million” factoid. This myth has gained strength through repetition. Moreover, the simplistic agglomeration of all SALW into a single total, with all deaths in that total presumed to be caused by overabundance of firearms in civilian hands, evades consideration of essential policy issues on firearms control. For example, how many deaths from “armed conflicts” are the result of aggression against civilians by governments and government agents? How many of these deaths result from resistance to government abuse by innocent citizens fighting to protect their human rights? How many deaths from homicides and suicides in “peaceful” countries would have been prevented if civilian access to small arms could be reduced, or even eliminated? PDF.

"Gun Ownership and Human Rights," David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant and Joanne D. Eisen, Brown Journal of World Affairs (Winter/Spring 2003, vol. IX, no. 2).The previous issue of the Brown Journal of World Affairs (Volume IX, Issue 1) contained a collection of articles arguing for dramatically reducing the numbers of small arms and light weapons (SALW) in the hands of “non-state actors.” In this article, we suggest that such a reduction is neither realistic nor desirable. Should the reduction project succeed, the result might well be a substantial increase in mortality. PDF.

"Trigger Happy: Rethinking the 'Weapons Effect'," Paul Gallant and Joanne D. Eisen, 14 Journal on Firearms and Public Policy 89 (2002) The "Weapons Effect" hypothesis suggests that guns can psychologically control people and cause them to be violent. In this article, the authors analyze previous research about the weapons effect and examine more recent studies to test their agreement with the hypothesis. The authors conclude that evidence does not support the "Weapons Effect" hypothesis, and therefore, firearms policies premised on the existence of a "Weapons Effect" may be harmful. HTML.