After Mass Shootings And A Supreme Court Ruling, What is Gallup Thinking?

Today's Gallup news release, "Support for Gun-Control Laws at All-Time Lows", is one of the most misleading I've seen in a long time.

Not only is the information old, but the main question asked and highlighted is not reflective of current efforts by activists around the country to reduce gun violence.

This polling information was collected last October, which Gallup does mention in its third paragraph. Yet it certainly begs the question: Why publish a statement based on data that is almost six months old, in the wake of a string of mass shootings committed over the past month?

The pressures of getting into the news cycle are powerful, but the important question is what Americans believe about gun violence prevention policy today.

What's even more disturbing is for Gallup to ask Americans whether or not they support a total ban on handguns when that policy has not been pursued nationwide in years and totally ignores the current debate on gun violence prevention.

Since the Supreme Court decided last June that total handgun bans are unconstitutional, such policies are off the table as a policy option. It makes no sense to ask Americans their opinion on a policy that cannot lawfully be enacted.

Asking this question last October - almost four months after the Supreme Court's decision - was puzzling enough. Repeating the same irrelevant polling results six months later in the wake of police officers being murdered with AK-47s is mystifying, and it is a distraction from public attitudes toward the mainstream of gun control policy today.

What Gallup should do in the future is try to replicate the polling results of other surveys that examine Americans' attitudes toward the wide variety of gun violence prevention policies that, in the words of Justice Antonin Scalia, are "presumptively lawful" after the Supreme Court's decision, while gauging the desire of Americans to see those proposals enacted into law.

For example, the Brady Campaign commissioned a survey of 1,083 people who voted on Election Day last year to find out their attitudes on a handful of gun law proposals. The results showed:

· 83% of voters support requiring background checks for all gun sales in this country;
· 68% support registration of gun sales and licensing of gun owners; and
· 65% support banning military-style assault weapons;

These wide majorities include McCain voters and gun owners who support these policies, as well. (Not surprisingly, some of these results compare favorably to a CNN poll taken in June of last year.)

Over two-thirds of all voters said these policies should be adopted in the first year of the Obama Administration.

It seems that public support for gun control laws is as high as it ever was.

Lives are at stake in the gun violence prevention issue, where 100,000 Americans are killed or wounded every year by gunfire. It's obvious that what we are doing now to reduce gun violence is not working.

In deciding how to address this problem, policymakers should be seeing relevant and current polling if they need some sense of what the public might be thinking now, not old data regarding out-dated questions.

UPDATE: Gallup has changed the title of its release to "Before Recent Shootings, Gun-Control Support Was Fading," though the release URL indicates the earlier version.

See also the Media Matters "County Fair" blog on the same issue from earlier today here.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[makarovowner]

Replicate polling results? to suit your own disires, this does not sound like polling but manipulation.

However beyond all of the other stuff I will tell you this. I and many other americans believe in our heritage. We intend to keep our constitution whole. You who wish to subvert, and manipulate for your own feeling of well being can stuff if. I have had many excellant adventures and times with friends and family without hurting anyone, ever. Your ideal is not more important than mine. To be safe is less than to be free.

[ProGunAmerican]

The Brady's like to mention that Heller theoretically allows the ban of "dangerous and unusual weapons". The Brady's immediately define this as an AR-15 and think they can ban it. However, the court also said that firearms in "common use at the time" are protected from any type of ban. AR-15's have become an extremely popular varmint hunting rifle and competition target shooting rifle, due to their stellar accuracy. Seems that we have another conflict here and probably another court case. I'd be very surprised if the new AWB goes unchallenged, post Heller.

Remington has built the model 7600 rifle for decades now, its semi-auto, has a 5 or 10 round magazine and fires common hunting rounds, such as 243, 308, 30-06, 270, ect. How are these rifles less lethal than an AR-15, when they fire cartridges with twice as much power?? I would argue these rifles are far MORE deadly than an AR-15. Heck, the soldiers in Iraq are having to shoot insurgents 3,4,5 times, with the 223, before they go down.

[jimtom]

Fishjay, to continue (I went over the 250 word max.) "In view of your position, it's VERY easy to see you supporting a handgun ban."

Well, I do believe Heller was wrongly decided by four justices who simply chose to ignore the historical evidence presented by several groups and individuals who offered "amicus" briefs (And yes, I read ALL the amicus briefs that were submitted to the Court). But I see no point in wasting time and energy arguing about whether Americans do or do not have the right to possess handguns under the original intent of the Framers, especially post-Heller. But I do believe legislation mandating that only handguns equipped with biometric technology, or something akin to it, can be legally sold, manufactured, or possessed by private citizens (excluding those non-biometric handguns already in their possession when the legislation goes into effect) of individual states, or the United States, could survive Supreme Court review once Scalia leaves the scene.

[djkrlsn]

The writings of Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry and the rest that I have seen all show strong support for an individual right to own firearms which is based on the view dating back to the Greeks that citizens are BY RIGHT ARMED

[jimtom]

The issue is not whether or not whether citizens have a general RKBA anymore, it's what kind of arms, with what kind of capabilities. Everyone, including you, acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment has not been interpreted by the Courts to be absolute or universal. If it was there would be no legal basis for denying a RKBA to convicted felons, among others.

I'm not going to be drawn into a discussion of why this kind of firearm is ok but this other kind isn't. I've indicated what my arms control objectives are in several postings.

[djkrlsn]

A few additional points--ALL 9 JUSTICES AGREED THAT THE 2nd amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL RKBA--the differences were on degree of scrutiny to apply-- 5 of the justices agreed that a complete ban on functional firearms in the home fails ANY degree of scrutiny. You also have yet to provide a reasonable explanation why firearms that fire only 1 round per trigger pull that use cartidges that are LESS powerful than poplar handgun rounds like the 44mag should be banned--and COSMETICS don't qualify for a valid reason

[fishyjay]

jimtom: "Well, I do believe Heller was wrongly decided"

Two possibilities: "No individual right" or "Handgun ban (or other gun ban) OK despite inividual right" -- which are you?

jimtom: "But I do believe legislation mandating that only handguns equipped with biometric technology, or something akin to it, can be legally sold, manufactured, or possessed by private citizens"

And I have posted the circumstances in which I might agree to that.

[fishyjay]

(A repost of what was posted WAY down, and so might be lost, regarding the LE exemption for smart gun laws.)

"Different environment"?

WHAT is is so deserving of special eexemption?
The message to gunowners is that reliability for defensive use is LESS important for civilian gunowners -- and that their LIVES are less important.

"I also don't believe the general citizenry has the inherent right under the 2nd Amendment to own the same firearms they do."

No right to self-defense with as reliable a means as LE? Who knows, from a legal sense -- but the MESSAGE to gunowners is the same as I posted above.

If you look at the history of "smart gun" proposals, you will find that LE was the original intended beneficiary -- and even when it was proposed for everyone, the promoters always mentioned the benfits for LE.

(There is a big problem with LE officers shot with their own guns, among other things.)


But when gun control advocates came up with the "mandatory" idea, they soon discovered that LE would resist (and doom any such law) from reliability concerns. So LE had to be exempted to cram "smart guns" donw the throats of unwilling gunowners.

Everyingthing else said about the LE exemption has just been covering up the above.

[jimtom]

From Fishjay: "Jimtom, you are much more honest than many other advocates of gun control, who almost surely would also ban all semiauto and pump long guns...Most of them...make the bogus claim that they won't ban popular hunting guns.

In view of your position, it's VERY easy to see you supporting a handgun ban. And by the way, how do you feel about lever-action rifles...?"

I'm not very familiar with the technical characteristics of their operation.

In general terms my objective is to significantly reduce "stranger on stranger," murders and the kind of mass shootings we've experienced recently. Accordingly, I'm opposed to easy access to handguns by people who have no legal right to own them, regardless of their type or characteristics. As I've indicated in many, many postings, I believe biometric handguns can reduce, but clearly not end, stranger on stranger murders and mass shootings. (I'm against all murders, of course, but biometric technology will have little impact on murders in which the shooter is the "owner-authorized" gunman.)

[djkrlsn]

Lever actions have been available since the Civil War--so you are being somewhat disingenous

[jimtom]

So what. I said I'm not familiar with their technical characteristics. I didn't say I knew when they were invented.

[HisXLNC]

Considering how easy it is to bypass biometric technology (most of it can be defeated with clear tape, crushed pencil lead, and a makeup brush) and the sheer number of non-biometric guns in circulation, I doubt it will do anything to reduce any kind of murder. What it will do is increase the number of unsafe, jerry-rigged guns floating around.

A similar phenomenon happened when car makers first started making anti-lock brakes and traction-control standard equipment on cars. Many people didn't trust the technology (and rightfully so), so they simply pulled the appropriate fuses.

[ProGunAmerican]

I agree that the 2nd Amendment provides a basis for challenging a gun ban, without it, the only argument we would have is natural law, which would have a 50/50 chance in court. I still don't agree that the Constitution "grants" rights, because then you could make the logical leap that the government "grants" rights, that's where I have a real problem. What the government can give, it can take away on a whim, highly dangerous. The safeguard that we have, is that it takes 3/5ths of Congress and 3/4's of the states to repeal an amendment, that's never going to happen.

I've always said that if the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual right, why is it in the bill of rights? The other 9 amendments protect and individual right. Fortunately, Heller settled that question, no more of this militia garbage coming out of the Brady's.

[jimtom]

Well, we now find ourselves in agreement. I too worry that the government could take away "rights." But it would hardly be as a result of a "whim." And we also seem to agree that absent the Constitution, which provides the framework for a legal system to protect our "rights," there would be no plausible legal recourse to challenge such cases where someone, or some group, believes government has taken away their "rights."

[djkrlsn]

Jimtom--what would your justification be for banning semiauto carbine firing cartridges that are less powerful than the lowpowered 3030?

[ProGunAmerican]

jimtom, you made my point, the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, it does not "grant", or "give" that right.

[jimtom]

How so? I said that absent the 2nd amendment those who "maintain" they have a right, an inherent right that precedes the Constitution, to keep and bear arms would not necessarily be able to exercise it. Anyone can "believe" just about anything. Being able to do that thing you "believe" you have a right to do is another story if your government, with all its powers, says you can't do that thing.

The Framers maintained that the rights people have are essentially universal by virtue of the fact that they are people. So people in every country have them. But the difference is that they, the Framers, established a legal framework through which these universal rights could be executed. Other countries still have not done so. Try telling a Saudi woman that she not only has the same universal rights American women have, but that because she is a person, she can exercise them. She'll find herself executed, in a different sense of the word.

[ProGunAmerican]

jimtom, I agree with you're statement, about challenging laws passed by Congress on constitutional grounds, that's part of the check's and balances instilled in our government. That's not what you implied in you're original statement, the Constitution does not grant rights, it protects certain inaliable rights, rights that were instilled prior to the writing of the Constitution. This is the purpose the Supreme Court serves, interpreting the Constitution.

Concerning you're remark about left wingers taking over the Supreme Court, not gonna happen yet. The judeges most likely to retire are the liberals, not the conservatives. Obama would just be replacing a liberal with a liberal. Ginsburg is on her way out, John Paul Stevens is getting old, so is Stephen Bryer and Souter is getting on in years as well. I don't think the makeup of the court will change during Obama's term, when it comes to the 5-4 conservative majority.

[jimtom]

In the absence of the Constitution, the rights you refer to, were mere theories or arguments enunciated by political philosophers like Locke. The inalienable rights you speak of would be totally worthless in terms of what the government can and cannot do without the Constitution.

You may believe in your heart of hearts that you have the inalienable right to own firearms. But if the 2nd Amendment did not exist, and if Congress passed a law banning private ownership of handguns you could not exercise that particular "inalienable" right. You could argue that your right to own a firearm was based on your natural rights in general and your right to self-defense in particular. Who knows in this scenario whether or not the Court would agree with your assertion.

I've gone back over my recent posts and I don't see where I ever said or implied that the Constitution "grants rights," I've consistently stated the the Constitution is the source document for our subsequent laws, and we agree that all such laws are subject to Court review if their constitutionality is questioned.

Yes, the oldest members of the Supreme Court are the liberal members. But Kennedy has indicated that he'd like to retire, but who knows when. Scalia is 73. So the balance on the Court could well swing to the left. For me, the 2008 election was first and foremost about the make-up of the Supreme Court 4 or 8 years hence. My side won.

[OdinsEye]

"I've gone back over my recent posts and I don't see where I ever said or implied that the Constitution "grants rights," "

Look for the word "confer".

Main Entry: con·fer

Pronunciation: kən-ˈfər

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): con·ferred; con·fer·ring

Etymology: Latin conferre to bring together, from com- + ferre to carry — more at bear

Date: circa 1500

intransitive verb

: to compare views or take counsel : consult

transitive verb

1 : to bestow from or as if from a position of superiority

2 : to give (as a property or characteristic) to someone or something

synonyms see give

[fishyjay]

jimtom: "So the balance on the Court could well swing to the left. For me, the 2008 election was first and foremost about the make-up of the Supreme Court 4 or 8 years hence. My side won."

That supports what I have argued since before Heller: Continued gun ownership in the US depends much more upon the political power and continued vigilance of gunowners than it does upon the Supreme Court.

[ProGunAmerican]

So, you believe in the principle that if the govt decides the first amendment right to free speech is not in you're best interest, then the govt can revoke it??? WOW! That's some scary philosophy there, I'm really happy people like you don't control our govt, good god!

This is a good reason to own guns, it will guarantee our liberty against this garbage philosophy. Tyranny will never succeed against an armed populace, gaining the support of the military would be a longshot.

[jimtom]

No, I believe that any law passed by Congress, and signed into law by the President, can be subjected to legal challenge on Constitutional grounds.

PGA, you're demonstrating that you're way out of your depth in this discussion. Leave it to OdinsEye to represent you, if he cares to. He, at least, actually knows stuff. Relax, stroke your guns, tell them you how much you love them, and let the adults carry on the discussion.

[Thirdpower]

Let's do a roundup of mikesw's deliberate use of non-comparable data to fabricate claims.

First he claims that the NRA stated "ALL" Mexican army deserters went into the cartels:

"the NRA is mis-citing the data in suggesting that ALL of them did."

When asked for a cite, he provided articles from early 2008.

The problem? In 2008, there were 100K deserters. The NRA claim was from 2009 when the number of deserters was actually over 150K. His cited articles also noted that the military was contradicting themselves as to how many defectors actually went to the cartels. No mention of this from mikesw.

After having this discrepancy in dates and numbers pointed out to him numerous times,, and numerous times ignoring it, mikesw then switched to asserting that the NRA used the 2008 numbers of deserters. This was shown to be another false claim after numerous articles were cited showing where and when the 100K military member numbers of the cartels came from. It wasn't 2008, it was earlier in 2009.

He ignored those cited and pasted articles for awhile but then did another switch. Now the claim is that the numbers aren't 'official' (of which noone made that demand but him) and that they NRA is a bunch of hypocrites for using media 'echo chambers' sources, once again changing around wording and making false claims and refusing to respond to anything regarding his previous assertions.

Now watch as he continues to try and distract .

[ProGunAmerican]

odinseye, thank you, jimtom is full of crap. People with his belief's are highly dangerous. The day the govt grants rights, we're in serious trouble.

[jimtom]

No, we're in serious trouble because people with such a distorted view of American history, such as you, own guns.

[ProGunAmerican]

jimtom, chew on this :

http://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index.php?/archives/99-Does-the-Constitution-Grant-Us-Rights.html

http://www.fff.org/comment/ed1101h.asp

http://www.uncle-scam.com/Articles/War/horn.htm

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese223.html

You sir, are WRONG!

[jimtom]

I'm supposed to take these far right-wing rants seriously? Why don't you check out the source materials: Madison's Notes, The Federalist Papers, or the work of scholars, check out Cases on Constitutional Law, or Original Meanings (won the Pulitzer Prize for history -- yes I know, just a bunch of liberal academic know-it-alls award Pulitzer Prizes, right?), too lazy to read, buy the appropriate courses from The Teaching Company, such as: Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights, among many others.

I sure wish I had you in my classes at UVA, I needed students to help bring down the curve in U.S. Government 101.

[djkrlsn]

I rather doubt that James Madison would support much of the Brady tripe

[Rhetticent]

Jimtom: have you REALLY read any of the things you cite? For example, did you read Hamilton's argument in The Federalist Papers AGAINST the Bill of Rights, based on his belief that since the Constitution created a government of limited and enumerated powers, it could NEVER impinge on the rights of the people that the Bill of Rights sought to protect? Our Constitution is a social contract. The people, who are the source of all rights "by virtue of their Creator" (check the Declaration of Indepence for that) GIVE RIGHTS TO THE GOVERNMENT in exchange for certain protections or services. Our government has rights only because we give them to it. The government gives us nothing. Much in the same way that government cannot give us money that it doesn't first take away from us.

[ProGunAmerican]

You might be right about the Constitution, but "in god we trust" is on our dollar bill and "one nation under god" is in the pledge of allegiance. Now, the left wing kooks are tying to remove those two statements, ticks me off.

[jimtom]

"In god we trust," was not on the currency until the Civil War, "under god" was added to the Pledge in the 1950's when Republicans thought they'd lay a trap for Democrats by adding that language. The Dems didn't bite. The Republicans argument was that the phrases were needed to show how the U.S. differed from the godless Soviet Union. It was just a political trick.

I'm glad it ticks you off, it clearly means the left wing kooks are on the right track. By the way, check this out from Wikepedia:

"The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), a Baptist minister, a Christian SOCIALIST and the cousin of SOCIALIST utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850-1898). Bellamy's original "Pledge of Allegiance" was published in the September 8th issue of the popular children's magazine The Youth's Companion.... (I added the capital letters, just to tick you off some more)

"Bellamy's original Pledge read, "I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

"He had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity but decided they were too controversial since many people opposed equal rights for women and blacks.

After a proclamation by President Benjamin Harrison, the Pledge was first used in public schools on October 12, 1892...."

"Under God," will be struck down as unconstitutional when at least five of us kooks get on the Supreme Court .

[ProGunAmerican]

Jimtom, if you're saying that the Constitution grant's rights, that is a highly dangerous argument. You could then say that the government "grant's" rights, which is even more dangerous. The Constitution protects certain "inaliable" rights, god given rights, among them, self defense. The Constitution doesn't grant anything, that's a very dangerous road to go down.

[jimtom]

You are absolutely WRONG. Don't believe me? Ask any lawyer who specializes, or even one who doesn't, in Constitutional Law (you might want to exclude graduates of such fine institutes of higher learning as Falwell's Liberty (sic) or Robertson's Regent University) The Constitution is the SOURCE of ALL LAWS in the U.S. Other factors, such as religious beliefs, or beliefs in natural law doctrines, can influence LAWMAKERS and JUDGES, but the laws come from the Constitution. Further, "inalienable" rights, found expression in the Declaration of Independence, which is NOT a legal document in terms of law in the U.S. Think you have a "God" given right to self-defense, wherein you, and you alone, get to decide when and under what circumstances you get to exercise that right? That's the dangerous road, because you may injure or kill someone in the future, under circumstances you deem are in "self-defense," but if a D.A. disagrees, you'll find yourself in court. Finally, please find the word "god" for me in the Constituti­on....it's not there, and it's not there by INTENTION.

[OdinsEye]

"The Constitution is the SOURCE of ALL LAWS in the U.S. "

It is the source of the laws defining the powers and limitations of the government.

It is kind of like a set of bylaws detailing the organization, rules, and responsibilities for a group.

In this case it is called a "social contract" wherein the people tell the government what they expect the government to do and not to do.

Our rights do not come from the Constitution or BoR. Read the documents and you will see that when our rights are mentioned, they are referred to as if they already exist.

trust me, I have had plenty of discussions about this with ConLaw professors and lawyers.

[jimtom]

"I am not making that up and I can even cite US Supreme Court cases which back up what I said."

Let's try again. Maybe we're not as far apart as it seems. I do not maintain that "natural law" in its various incarnations, influenced the Framers or the Supreme Court. I am saying is that our laws and rights are derived from the Constitution and laws passed by legislatures. The laws have to be constitutional, and sometimes it takes a Supreme Court ruling to clarify or nullify the administration of some laws. Sometimes the Court has cited what might be interpreted as, or called, natural law theory to explain the basis for their ruling.

But if, as it seems to be the case, OdinsEye and Mike102 are arguing that the right to own firearms is an inherent RIGHT, stemming from Natural Law, that is, "law" that preceded the drafting, enactment, and on-going interpretation and amending of the Constitution, and cannot be overturned, even by an Amendment to the Constitution, you are wrong. Hence my citing prohibition.

If a Constitutional Amendment is ratified that bans the private ownership of all handguns, try owning one anyway and make your case before the Supreme Court on the basis of your rights derived from Natural Law. You'll lose. But, if a law banning all handguns is passed by Congress and signed by the President, then you might succeed by appealing to the Supreme Court that the law is unconstitutional.

[djkrlsn]

In terms of taking a law banning ownership of handguns to the SCOTUS--been there, done that--or did you not know that Washington DC was selected because it combined a gun ban with being a federal enclave so incorporation would not be an issue. Incorporation is being addressed through Nordyke and the litigation concerning Chicago (the other cities rescinded their gunbans). In terms of the constitutionality of any future AWB--with competent pro RKBA litigators--the unusual or dangerous won't go very far (especially since the 44mag pistol round out of a carbine is MORE POWERFUL than either the 223/5.56 or the 7.62X39 at the muzzle). In terms of the "common use" standard--last time I looked both the AR (owned well into the 6 figure range and very popular as a match rifle) and the AK and SKS are all very popular and widely owned

[jimtom]

"In terms of taking a law banning ownership of handguns to the SCOTUS--been there, done that."

I said: "If a Constitutional Amendment is ratified that bans the private ownership of all handguns...

There is a difference between a "Constitutional Amendment" banning handguns, and a law banning handguns, so we have not "been there, done that." As for "common use" and the technical capabilities of any given firearm, I'm not certain that a future Court will determine that gun types owned "in the 6 figure range," constitutes "common use." It may, it may not. The same applies with regard to any future AWB, specific technical characteristics may or may not be found to be "unusual or dangerous."

There is also a possibility, not withstanding the Court's tendency to follow "stare decisis," that a future court may determine that Heller was "wrongly decided," in part or in whole. After all, abortion opponents have been arguing for years that Roe v Wade was "wrongly decided." The Court has not overturned Roe, it is also unlikely to do so in the next 4 or 8 years. This precedent bodes well for the Heller supporters. But if one or two of the 5 justices who signed off on Heller leave the Court, we may have a whole new ballgame when it comes to banning a specific class of firearms, or requiring a specific class of firearms to have certain technical characteri­stics,e.g. "owner-authorized," recognition technology.

[ProGunAmerican]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7350770&page=1

This should frustrate the gun control advocates a bit more, lol.