Americans are deeply divided on many issues these days. But a recent poll conducted by Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, WI, revealed at least one area of broad agreement: A supermajority in the U.S. supports a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. The poll questioned 1,005 adults nationwide from July 24 to Aug. 1, 2024, and has a margin of error of +/- 4 percentage points.
Participants were queried on a range of opinions about U.S. institutions and the Supreme Court in particular. One question asked: “In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that, subject to some restrictions, the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. How much do you favor or oppose this decision?”
Forty percent of respondents “strongly favor[ed]” this decision, with another 29% “somewhat favor[ing]” it. In contrast, only 39% opposed the decision, with just 14% “strongly” opposed. These results showed an increase in support for the decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen since the last time Marquette University Law School asked the question during November 2022. At that time, 64% were strongly or somewhat in favor.
In contrast to the overwhelming support for the Second Amendment right to carry, no branch of the government, nor the “national news media,” managed to generate “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence among a majority of respondents. For the presidency, it was 32%. For the Supreme Court, it was 27%. For Congress, it was 13%. And for the media, it was a dismal 12%.
Support for Bruen was the second highest of all the 10 Supreme Court decisions on which the respondents were polled. The highest support, at 77%, went to the case affirming that prohibiting firearm possession by persons subject to a domestic violence restraining order did not offend the Second Amendment. This indicates that while Americans strongly support the rights protected by the Second Amendment, they also view those rights as pertaining to peaceable, law-abiding persons.
With the presidential election season well underway, the two major parties have been sparring over whose candidates represent the mainstream versus those with fringe views. When it comes to the right to bear arms, it is the Republican ticket of Donald Trump and JD Vance who clearly reflect the nation’s prevailing opinion that law-abiding Americans have a right to carry guns for self-protection as they go about their daily business.
The official X (formerly Twitter) account of Kamala HQ, on the other hand, continues to host a video where vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz expresses his opposition to “reciprocal carry among states,” meaning he supports the criminal prosecution of otherwise lawful carriers for crossing state lines. As for presidential aspirant Kamala Harris, we’ve already explained that she is on record for the proposition that the Second Amendment doesn’t even protect any individual right to own guns, much less carry them in public.
Americans should not make the mistake, however, of thinking that the popularity of the Second Amendment will protect it from those, like Harris and Walz, who are dedicated to its destruction. The Democrat party elites, and those who fund them, have made their intentions clear. If there is safety in numbers, it can only be secured at the ballot box by voting pro-freedom candidates into office.
—Courtesy of NRA-ILA
“If there is safety in numbers, it can only be secured at the ballot box by voting pro-freedom candidates into office.”
Completely agree. The entire lawsuit strategy produces what are considered “wins”, but when the judicial and executive branches refuse to enforce those wins they become meaningless and the “loser Left” becomes only more emboldened in their efforts to destroy The United States.
The only answer is to replace these politicians and bureaucrats with people who love and honor the country.
Something is out of whack here. For Bruen, if 40% strongly favor it and 29% somewhat favor it, you cannot have 39% opposed with 14% strongly opposed. That adds up to 122%. I tried other permutations and still get nowhere near 100%.
You may be reading it wrong – but the numbers still don’t add up.
40 + 29 = 69% in favor.
14 strongly opposed and 25 opposed adds up to that figure of 39% given in the text.
69 + 39 only = 108%
As I say, still a discrepancy, but not as bad as 122%.
But, I can explain that discrepancy easily enough. Some of those polls were conducted at cemeteries, where everyone toes the party line.
The actual results of C20 show 40% strongly favor, 29% somewhat favor, 17% strongly oppose, 14% somewhat oppose.
So, 69% cumulative support vs 31% cumulative opposition.
I saw the same thing. I want the numbers in favor of carrying but these numbers, I have to say, seem bogus. They don’t add up or they at up to too much.
ya know those Kamunist events where she speaks to the groups in places and in the background there are black curtains?
the people you see in the audience… the majority are paid ‘talent’ (real people, not actors) recruited by a talent casting company so the attendance seems more than it really is. For example….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPdasdNRdXA
Unless stick in the mud lawmakers who enjoy armed security can guarantee your safety it’s Constitutional Carry Anyway. What we had no choice but to do before years of waiting for Concealed Carry to be signed into law.
TRUMP/VANCE 2024.
In a speech Tienanmen Tim vowed to end/fight/block “reciprocal carry” (paraphrased), he doesn’t give two yuan what the majority prefer. Tim’s shtick was passing out Mao’s ‘Little Red Book’ after his travels to China.
I’m sorry, but poll of only 1,005 people, is just a freakin’ surrvey…and hardly represents something that constitutes saying a “A supermajority in the U.S. supports a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.”
Lets not play democraptic games…
A sample size of 1,005 might seem small, and if this were a research paper it would be wayyyyy too small for a more expansive thing with different variables introduced. But this is a focused ‘single variable’ poll and for representative cross section statistical purposes in such polls and surveys, with the average of 100,000,000 being the statistical standard baseline, for this type of poll the sample size of 1,000 (to ~2,000, sometimes) is about the norm to project a representative majority and is the most ‘honest’ and bias free way to do this type of polling and statistically for every ‘1,000 cohort’ group the numbers would remain about the same with very little variation for a cross section. So 1,005 is not wrong at all and is representative for projecting a majority.
Nonsense.
sooo.. your saying that a cross section of the population that numbers 1,000 is not a representative sample if they are all asked and respond to the same question?
that’s some BS, its exactly how polls and surveys are weighed.
I’d recommend you don’t take any medication your doctor prescribes, because that is exactly how drug manufacturers determine the likely hood of side effects, the method, by a cross section sampling of the ‘cohort’.
The method is all over the place in your life, for example, the cleaning instructions on that tag on new clothing – that’s based on an industry representative sample numbers from washing a certain material the equivalent of 1,000 times under the same conditions. It practically runs your gun life, its how ammo manufacturers figure out how much ammo production they need to forecast – 1,000 people using some quantity of ammo in a period of time, its the same methodology.
1005 out of 345,689,323…0.0000029% of the population. Hardly a representative cross-section.
This is why polls are irrelevant in politics…you can make them representative of anything you choose.
Are you sure your not a Democrat? They love nonsensical polls.
All of the YouTube links are getting annoying, especially when they are way of topic.
scroll
They would be a lot less annoying if the poster included a short one-paragraph synopsis of the linked videos which would enable us to get the gist of the subject matter without having to sit through several minute-long videos.
For example, this morning I do NOT have time to watch several videos. And yet I would like to spend 20 seconds reading a synopsis of each to stay aware of the legal landscape. If they content is important enough to provide a link to the video, it should be important enough to provide a brief description.
I tried the synopsis thing once before, for that very purpose, and someone complained about it. So I rarely do that any more and mostly just use the title of the video used by the creator.
Let’s try to keep it limited/on topic with a comment, I’m inclined to agree with the other posters. 6 links in a row with no context unrelated to the article is more akin to spam.
Can’t please everyone and someone will always have something to bitch about (me included) but I tend to prefer the brief synopsis. Either way the variety is fine.
Comments are closed.