Eugene Volokh on the Second Amendment

Volokh Conspiracy ^ | 5 jun 02 | Eugene Volokh

[white trash redneck]

ZOGBY POLL ON VOTERS' ATTITUDES ABOUT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: I just got an e-mail from someone at Zogby -- a reputable polling firm -- about their recent poll (funded by the Second Amendment Foundation) on the right to bear arms. According to the press release,

     A wide majority of American voters (75%) agree with the Justice Department?s position that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Just over a fifth (22%) disagree with the Justice Department, while 4% are unsure. . . .

     Zogby International interviewed 1,015 likely voters chosen at random nationwide on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation, an educational and legal defense organization that works to protect the civil rights of firearms owners. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, New York, from Tuesday, May 28 to Thursday, May 30, 2002. The survey has a margin of sampling error of +/- 3.2%.

     Republicans (84%) were most likely to agree with the Justice Department?s position. Residents of the South and the Central/Great Lakes, and West (79% average) as well as respondents 18-24 years old (82%) were also more likely to agree. Majorities of Democrats (65%), Easterners (60%), respondents earning $75,000+ annually (70%) and those 65 years or older (65%) also agreed with the Justice Department.

I have e-mailed Zogby to ask for more details, and especially the wording of the question; that's obviously very important, and I'll report on that as soon as I hear the answer.

     Now naturally public opinion doesn't dispose of the legal question; constitutional meaning can't be decided by Zogby Poll. And I realize that public opinion on these matters is often quite sensitive not just to the way the question is phrased, but also to what has been in the news recently. Perhaps the results would have been different right after, say, the Columbine shootings, or they might change if a popular Administration prominently switches back to a states'-rights position.

     But I do think that this survey puts in proper perspective claims that the Administration's Second Amendment views are somehow "radical", extremist, or otherwise out-of-touch. Calling your opponents radical or extremist (something that both the Left and the Right do too often) is usually an attempt to shift the debate away from the merits and towards a supposedly objective claim about popular opinion: I don't need to get into a tough debate about whether Judge X or Attorney General Y is right, because I can just point to the objective fact that he's Out Of Step With The People. Except that here the Bush Administration seems to be very much in agreement with the people.

UPDATE: The Zogby people very promptly responded to my request for the text of the question; it was "Do you agree or disagree with the current Justice Department's position that the Second Amendment guarantees you the individual right to keep and bear arms?"

     I'm not a polling specialist, but I suspect that this question would have yielded a lower pro-individual-rights position if it had just asked "Do you believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, or a right that's limited only to the National Guard?," or something like that. Mentioning the views of a fairly authoritative institution like the Justice Department, and explicitly mentioning only one side's position, may temporarily shift to the individual rights side some people who are not very familiar with the debate.

     Still, any possible phrasing might have some flaws (is "limited only to the National Guard" the right phrasing of the states' rights view? would "limited only to state militias" be better, or would it just be confusing, given that "militia" means different things to different people?), and referring to the Justice Department's views does help test whether people really see the Justice Department's position as radical. I'd love to see the results of surveys done with other questions -- if, say, the Ban Handguns Now people at the Violence Policy Center commissioned a reputable survey outfit to do a similar survey with their preferred wording, this would provide a great perspective both on the gun debate and on surveys. But for now, the Zogby survey at least makes clear that the supposedly "radical" Justice Department view is at least well within the mainstream of public opinion.

MORE ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT POLL: The Zogby people, with the SAF's permission, were kind enough to pass along the table with the breakdown by region, 2000 Presidential vote, age group, gender, party affiliation, and income. Noteworthy: The gender gap was small (men went 78-19-3 [yes-no-don't know], women went 71-24-5); the party breakdown wasn't huge (84% took the individual rights view among Republicans, 76% among Independents, and 65% among Democrats); and even in the least pro-individual-right region, the East, 60% took the individual right view.

[white trash redneck]

Hmmm, so it looks like the gun nuts aren't so nutty after all...

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I'd be careful...pollsters can spin results based on the way questions are asked. Also, the responses might be different in a NY neighborhood that turned out for Hillary.

[phasma proeliator]

Humm... funny that I haven't seen this on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS - nowhere...

guess that they're just too busy with other things - surely the major media wouldn't "not report" somthing like this.

[DWSUWF]

When trying to discover the most popular flavor candy to market, 'polls' are appropriate tools.

When discussing matters of morality or absolute rights, the results of polls are irrelevant.

The left will endure a thousand polls going against their agenda if they think it will serve to legitimize those polls to their intended victims.

Then, when the rubes have been seduced, the poll results will change.

The 2nd Amendment is not 'justified' by the transient approval of the hoi poloi. Nor is it 'desanctified' by their disagreement.

[ScreamingFist]

This is excellent, thanks for the post. Once again the anti-gunners are shown to be the lying fools that they are.

[ScreamingFist]

Booga Booga, to Death!

[Redbob]

Zogby isn't known for putting any special "spin" on their questions.

I regularly (about once a month) participate in Zogby on-line polls, where respondents are contacted via e-mail, and their answers compared with a similar demographic randomly selected by telephone.

Zogby himself, BTW, is an ArabHyphenAmerican who's active in "Arab Anti-Defamation" circles.

[Atlas Sneezed]

A proper poll question would be:

"The second amendment to the US Constitution states: 'a well-regulated militia being ... arms shall not be infringed.' Which interpretation of this is proper?

(rotate answers)

A. This guarantees the right of individual private citizens to have guns. Or,

B. This means that only government-organized groups like the National Guard are guaranteed the right to have guns."

[Zon]

I agree.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Actually, I would revise this one to make it more clear, if slightly "push"-y.

A. This guarantees the right of LAW-ABIDING individual ADULT private citizens to have guns.

[NovemberCharlie]

Zogby himself, BTW, is an ArabHyphenAmerican who's active in "Arab Anti-Defamation" circles.

I know his brother James is, but I can't remember hearing anything similar about John Zogby.

[Zon]

 

How about: B. That you have the right to own a gun.

After all, that's what really maters. Not what other people can do, but what themselves can do.

I can almost assure that the poll would go through the roof. And when you think about it all it does is remove the answer from being closed boundary political debate. Instead of thinking about what other people can do it is what they think themselves can do.

The constitution is not to enumerate or limit the person's rights. It is to enumerate and limit government granted rights and power. Thus the one answer should be phrased to respect that citizen position. I wonder if Zogby ever thought about it that way.