Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

SCOTUS: 2nd Amendment

As the Supreme Court takes up an historic guns case, a new Washington Post poll shows nearly three-quarters of Americans believe the 2nd amendment extends to individuals, that gun rights are not limited to "militias."

A thornier question, however, is how this privilege stacks up with governmental interest in controlling guns. And after considering the constitutional rights, the public is evenly split on whether ownership rights or gun control should be a higher priority.

But there's broader agreement on a D.C.-like ban on private handguns and trigger lock requirements, the subject of today's hearing. Nearly six in 10 would support such a law in their state. In a January D.C. poll, three-quarters of District residents supported the plan, including six in 10 who said they were "strongly" behind the law.

Men are more likely than women to say the 2nd amendment extends gun rights to individuals (80 to 65 percent). Agreement across party lines on this: 83 percent of Republicans, 76 percent of independents and 67 percent of Democrats agree individuals carry a constitutional privilege to bear arms.

Men are also more apt than women to prioritize the protection of those rights over gun control (53 percent among men to 41 percent among women). Big regional differences on this question as well: 70 percent in the Northeast said it's more important to limit gun ownership, compared with 58 percent in the West, 43 percent in the Midwest and 40 percent in the South.

More than six in 10 Republicans said the emphasis should be on individual rights, while about as many Democrats would prefer gun control. 57 percent of independents would opt for gun control, 41 percent for protecting rights.

Two-thirds of women would support a state law similar to the D.C. one under review, but support drops to 50 percent among men. About two-thirds of Democrats and independents alike support such a law; 55 percent of Republicans are opposed.

Complete data from the poll is here.

By Jon Cohen  |  March 18, 2008; 11:30 AM ET
Categories:  Post Polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Toe to Toe on Issues and Attributes
Next: A Better Uniter?

Comments

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Vote Weekly!
New Weekly YouTube video!

Posted by: votenic | March 19, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

When reading these surveys I often wonder if the majority of people taking them know the legal definition of Individual Rights, or Militia. To interpret the constitution, one can not look simply at the statement it makes, but the language stating it. You must also look at other statements in the constitution that would support the argument. The second amendment states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is obvious, through study, that the "people" are everybody, and the "well regulated militia" is composed of organized militia ie. national guard, and unorganized militia, everyone else that is capable and willing. Refer to U.S. Code 311, Militia, composition and classes. It states in our Declaration of Independence that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed, and that if "the government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." Are the People mentioned here the same people mentioned in the second amendment? I believe "the people" only refers to one group of people....everyone.

Posted by: Matt Simkin | March 20, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

I know... guns don't kill people, people kill people. When does the government's obligation to keep order and protect the safety of its citizens outweigh criminals rights to obtain guns? And don't give me the rights of law-abiding citizens crap. Law-abiding citizens have no need to be able to secure a gun on a moment's notice without a complete background check. There's no legitimate reason to circumvent controlling weapons.

http://www.cafepress.com/wetnoodle

Posted by: radiocboy | April 11, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company