Voters Split on Need for Stricter Gun Control Laws, but Oppose City Handgun Ban

[Woodmonkey]

American voters are evenly divided on the need for stricter gun control laws but don't think city government should have the right to prevent citizens from owning handguns in their city.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 44% say stricter gun control laws while another 44% disagree and 12% are not sure. Most African-American and Hispanic voters believe stricter gun control laws are needed while a plurality (47%) of White voters disagree. Sixty-two percent (62%) of Democrats say stricter gun control laws are needed and 63% of Republicans hold the opposite view. Among unaffiliated voters, 37% want stricter laws while 48% disagree. Overall, the desire for stricter gun control laws is little changed from last December.

However, while there is an even divide on the question of whether stricter laws are needed, only 26% believe that city governments have the right to prevent citizens from owning handguns in their city. Sixty-four percent (64%) disagree and say such a restriction is a violation of the Second Amendment. The United States Supreme Court is expected to announce a decision soon on whether a Washington, DC law banning handguns violates the Constitution.

The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, a collection of vital Amendments added shortly after the Constitution went into effect. The Amendment reads "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." Some have argued that this provides a right to bear arms only in the context of a well-regulated militia. Others reject that notion and say it's an individual right. The Supreme Court has never ruled definitively on that question. That last major Court ruling on this Amendment was issued nearly 70 years ago when justices upheld a federal ban on sawed-off shotguns.

Not surprisingly, households where someone owns a gun are particularly inclined to believe that a ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment-- 80% of those from gun owning households hold that view. Among households without a gun owner, 35% believe the government has the right to ban handgun ownership while 50% say the Second Amendment trumps the city law.

Eighty percent (80%) of Republicans say that city governments should not have the right to ban handguns. That view is shared by 52% of Democrats and 63% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

The Washington, DC law before the Court was passed in 1976. Last year, he U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled against the city's gun ban and sent the case on to the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court upholds the Appeals Court ruling, the ban on handguns would be overturned. It is possible that other restrictions could survive such a ruling including background checks requirements.

Eighteen percent (18%) of voters say they've followed news stories of this case Very Closely and another 28% say they've been paying attention Somewhat Closely. Twenty-two percent (22%) of gun-owning households are following the case Very Closely along with 12% of those in households without a gun.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American voters say that stricter gun control laws would reduce violent crime while 19% say it would increase violent crime. A plurality—39%--say it would have no impact.

This national survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on June 21, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

The Source

[Angelus]

To a meddling outsider from across the pond, the act Reads: "Militia", which would have been set up to protect the fledgling State. There are no longer fledgling States, so amend the constitution, if not a ban, at least limit gun ownership to licenced members of registered gun clubs, for hobby purposes.

Put heavier penalties on those carrying, and/or, using illegally held guns.

My major concern is for the victims of accidental discharges in the home, particularly among children. Anybody got stats on the number of accidental shootings in US homes?

[john mclaughlin]

our county is considering changing the law from no shooting within 100yds to 200yds.because all the city people move out here and think its gonna be quiet.wrong.now after whining incessantly they are getting away with more hard fought rights.they dont like dirt bikes either.we dont like come heres around here.

[Woodmonkey]

As population numbers go up, then shooting restrictions come in.

[Manchu34]

Originally Posted by Angelus

To a meddling outsider from across the pond, the act Reads: "Militia", which would have been set up to protect the fledgling State. There are no longer fledgling States, so amend the constitution, if not a ban, at least limit gun ownership to licenced members of registered gun clubs, for hobby purposes.

Put heavier penalties on those carrying, and/or, using illegally held guns.

My major concern is for the victims of accidental discharges in the home, particularly among children. Anybody got stats on the number of accidental shootings in US homes?

Actually, the 2nd Amendment consists of three parts. The first part is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The 2nd part is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." The final and third part is "shall not be infringed." If it was only meant to be the state militia, they would have stated that. They ensured that they not have put in the words The Right of the People

As far as creating more heavier penalties for carrying and or using illegally held guns. All I can ask is why? In most states there are enough stiff penalties and even jail sentences for owning illegal guns. In fact, in many cases its not the lack of laws. but the lack of enforcement of these laws by law enforcement, the general public (juries, etc) and society as a whole. For example, back in the mid-70s when Massachusetts passed a law requiring a license to own and or use a gun. The penalty was 1 year jail, no exception. Furthermore, over the first year or two, approximately 500 people were arrested in violation of this law. However, Less then 20 people received jail. That is a MAJOR problem with the current gun laws.

However, the BIGGEST problem is not the law abiding citizen, for they will obey the laws tha are on the books. The problem is the individuals such as criminals. gang members, etc who no regard to laws own illegal guns. Passing any stiffer laws or even a ban on guns, will not remove guns from America. All it will do is disarm the law abiding citizen and leave guns in the hands of citizens who ignore the law and the law enforcement.

[Paladine030]

Germany's laws DO require a valid reason for owning a handgun, at a minimum, membership in a gun/shooting club. It does seem to work out, as I know of noone who was denied permission to own. I myself have permission to use one, and am waiting for permission to own one; 2 different things in Germany. Then I will have mine shipped over from Michigan.

I agree that the restrictions/punishments are definitely good enough in the states. We really need to cut back on probations, and warnings, and early parole of criminals whose crimes, in some way or another, involved the illegal use or possession of guns. Enforcement IS the problem these days, not regulations.

Being a lifelong member of the NRA-ILA, maybe some would say my views are biased, but aren't all views/opinions?

[Angelus]

I accept the other clause changes, but another fact of the matter is the time that the amendments were written, at a time of new States gathering their identity.

There may have been seen to be a need at that time for everyone to be ready to fight, to have been trained in firing a gun, so that they could be conscripted into the Militia, if needed, to ward off us Brits (LOL) that still lurked around after Independence, native indians, and outlaws, etc. I could see how these amandments were necessary then

But owning sub machine guns, and automatic rifles now, the US is a community, not a war zone. Where is the sport in shooting an animal with with a submachine gun, or automatic rifle. That isn't sport.

Chicken and egg, do criminals carry guns to defend themselves against gunowning homeowners? Or, do homeowners need guns to protect themselves against gun carrying criminals? Here in the UK we get house, car, and other types of robberies, but they very rarely do criminals carry firearms. The US will have crime with or without guns, but gun ownership creates a perptual cycle of violence.

Again, no one has quoted me the number of accidental shootings, at home, in the US annually. I could believe that it will be in the hundreds of fatalities, and even more injuries.

If I lived in the US, I would want to consider the need for bearing arms then, to the need to bear arms now. Does the need really exist. Remember your country is not at risk from enemies that are willing to face you, as they did back then a couple of centuries ago. The enemy that the US faces now, in their homeland, doesn't bear a gun, or a uniform.

It is a different world now. American citizens, armed with guns, isn't going to stop a terrorist, but it may be the cause of a child or other family member being accidently shot.

Deal with the problem. If it is crime, get more and stronger law enforcement. You want stop crime by having more or bigger guns than the criminal, then it will just creates your own internal arms race.

Who wins, gun companies and the National Rifle Club.

God; I can see me getting shot here.

Angelus steps down from his podium across the pond.