The landmark 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen was a contentious one, with pro-gun advocates praising the ruling and gun-ban groups decrying it. As it turns out, it wasn’t as contentious as many would have you believe.
First, a little background. While the ruling upheld the right of Americans to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense, it also set a new standard for how Second Amendment cases are to be considered. Under the new standard, courts must ask whether the “Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct?” If the answer is yes, it next must ask whether there exists a “historical precedent from before, during and even after the founding [that] evidences a comparable tradition of regulation?”
Before the ink was dry on Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion, anti-gun lawmakers and gun-ban organizations were declaring the ruling to be “out of touch with Americans.” In fact, U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington said exactly that, posting on Twitter: “[The Supreme Court] is out of touch with America and faces a legitimacy crisis.”
Interestingly, a recent Marquette Law School poll gauging opinions on the Supreme Court proved just the opposite. While the study found a low approval of the Supreme Court’s actions overall (only 41%), it also revealed that 67% of respondents favored the Bruen ruling—more than twice as many as opposed it!
“Support for the ruling in Bruen has been … stable when asked in September and November, with just under two-thirds in favor of the ruling and one-third opposed,” the report stated. “A differently worded question asked in 2022 found similar support for the decision among those who had heard of the ruling.”
While these poll results likely won’t surprise many TTAG readers, the revelation likely put anti-gun advocates in a tizzy. After all, while they think the public is with them on the “gun issue,” that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Of course, truth has never been an important aspect of their rhetoric. As the majority of Americans disagree with their agenda, they’ll no doubt keep on pushing their bans and other restrictions, blissfully unaware—or not even caring—that only a small minority of the public is behind them.
Polls are useless.
They are routinely framed to get a predetermined result, questions always lack nuance and context, and there’s no way to ensure the knowledge of a respondent or the accuracy of a response.
They are entirely useless for collecting real, accurate, repeatable data.
The CDC thinks I’m fully vaxxed, YouGov thinks all kinds of crazy shit about me and UNH is convinced I’m voting for Asa Hutchison.
Worthless.
Just look for the money, if I PAY for an outcome and YOU want me to do business with YOU in the future, I damn well better get the outcome that I paid for…
Yep. Carefully wording the questions and then carefully selecting your respondents can result in a more desired outcome.
You should look things up before pontificating. The qquestion asked was pretty darned neutral:
Question: 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?
That’s one thing I like about Marquette’s polls; they are good at making questions really bland and thus not slanted. I’m not thrilled with their sample sizes though they tend to be larger than commercial polls often use. Their sampling methods always seem to be sound, plus they include questions that make it possible to find if there is a tilt in one direction or another in partisan answers.
The last thing any Gun Control zealot wants is for anyone to hear a word about the embarrassing racist history of Gun Control. The Bruen historical element sets the clock back centuries and that is bad news for Gun Control. And with that said, Justice Thomas in his brilliance placed the football on the 1 yard line…unfortunately waaaay too many Gun Owners sit and stare at it.
And if you ask 100 GUN-OWNERS you will get near 100% approval… The same would be true if you ask 100 anti-gunners, you’d get 100% negative… The trick is to deliver an appropriate mix to arrive at the desired results, you want a pro answer adjust the filter… Pols are just like any other for-profit business…
You’re claiming that a university is a”for-profit business”? Seriously?
Did you bother to read the actual questions and check the methodology?
Sadly, neutrality in almost every political poll is nearly non-existent. Marquette’s wording of this question works well though. For example, if the NRA had asked the same question in their “Truth About Gunowners” (aka, TAG) poll it would read something like,
In 2022, the Supreme Court stomped down jack-booted political hacks determined to confiscate your guns and destroy them. Do you support the actions of SCOTUS or are you one of the gun control freaks working to obliterate the Constitution?
Which would be followed immediately by a request to donate money. Before you flame me, I am a life member of the NRA; but I also recognize polling language designed to prompt a desired response.
Writing neutral polling questions was pretty much the toughest part of Sociology 202 back in university. Universities tend to do it better than professional polling organizations for a fairly simple reason: university questions usually go through departmental review, which puts a lot more brains behind it.
I think your NRA version is a bit much; I don’t recall them every being quite that bad — though as an Endowment Member I never saw a poll for twenty-some years, I recall them at least trying to appear professional. On the other hand you caught the spirit of them quite well!
Approve Bruen? Tell that to the tards who vote “D” in ILLannoy? Or anywhere🙄☹️
From the English “Bill of Rights”, 1689.
“That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;”
This was how the law on ‘arms’ stood in 1776 in the English colonies in north America.
The Founding Fathers retained it and strengthened it. No mention of religion. No distinction between rich and poor.
And comparing the final four words of each: “as allowed by law” became “shall not be infringed”, that’s the major difference.
If someone can footnote ANYTHING intelligent from Jayapal I’d be interested in such a revelation.
Someone needs to tell Pramila Jayapal and many others who said similar things that the SCOTUS is SUPPOSED to be out of touch with the American people. They are NOT a representative body and as such they are supposed to simply call the balls and strikes of the constitutionality of any laws based upon the U.S. Constitution; NOT the whims of public opinion.
This. The Legislature is the body that represents the People. In a sense, SCOTUS is to represent the Founding Fathers, in the form of the Constitution. Sorry, Jayapal and your ilk.
Also, prior to the 17th Amendment, only the House of Representatives directly represented the People in the Legislature, because the Senators were appointed by their respective State Legislatures.
its a trap!
Well they could always give them to a school to make art out of.
Just not in NYC, 3400 high school students have been sent home and their school was turned into a permanent shelter for 2600 illegal migrants, the students will be indefinitely “schooled” on laptops like they were during the WuFlu which worked SO very well…
Likely going to be higher and in areas of the Bronx and Brooklyn…….yep going to be fun.
Yes, lets look to Jayapal for Constitutional decisions. The woman is an unAmerican liberal nutcase.
Polls don’t matter. votes don’t matter. Civil rights are given to us by our creator and in a constitutional republic it doesnt matter what even an overwhelming majority thinks. That’s the whole point. They don’t get to vote or edict our rights away.
because 85 percent of the counties in america
havent forgotten
that freedom is still our birthright
I thought the Bruen ruling was about the legality of electric fences around Bee hives?
Might as well “Bee”…
nice
Gavin Newsom Demagogues Judges Who Blocked California SB2 Concealed Carry Ban > https://shootingnewsweekly.com/story/423/gavin-newsom-demagogues-judges-who-blocked-california-sb2-concealed-carry-ban
Basically; when the court rules for the state in violating the 2A Newsom will call them saints and want to have their babies but when the court rules against the state Newson calls the same court ‘extremist’ and basically likens the court to Satan.
A little nit.. FTA:
While the ruling upheld the right of Americans to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense
NO NO NO. It upheld the right to carry a firearm outside the home for all presumptively lawful purposes, of which self-defense is one. Hunting, competition, practice, and even defiance of tyranny (see Decl. of Independence), are all presumptively lawful as well.
Keep stating it was for “self-defense” only, and 2A becomes only useful for self-defense.
Bruen said 2A is for any lawful purpose, and that most purposes are presumptively lawful. And when the Government says it’s not lawful, the Government is supposed to justify it with similar non-repugnant laws that were on the books at the time of the founding.
The Bruen decision is a great victory for the 2nd Amendment. However, it will all be for naught if we are not still vigilant in protecting the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd is still under attack by the Leftist Control Freak Hoplophobes.
If anyone is disconnected from the American people it is gun control activists. They live in a echo chamber, believing them and those in the same chamber represent the whole of America.
Gun sales of first time buyers, minorities and women, reflect that.