A recent online survey conducted last month by the Oregon Values and Beliefs Center in Portland revealed “nearly 60% favored stricter federal gun regulations, and 56% said the same about the state’s regulations.”
That was from a response of more than 1,400 Beaver State adults, according to the Oregon Capital Chronicle. The story appeared as Portland-based anti-gunners were delivering petitions to the Secretary of
State in Salem to put a restrictive gun control measure on the November ballot that will ban original capacity magazines and require Oregonians to get a permit before they can legally purchase a firearm.
In neighboring Washington four years ago, a well-financed campaign by the billionaire-backed Alliance for Gun Responsibility pushed Initiative 1639 into law. That measure invented a definition of a so-called “semiautomatic assault rifle,” a gun which, according to Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich, doesn’t exist. The sweeping definition applies to every self-loading rifle ever manufactured anywhere, regardless of caliber.
These developments raise the question whether constitutional rights can be subject to popularity contests, which initiative elections actually are. That is, at least until they are challenged successfully in federal court.
The Capital Chronicle said “60% favored stricter federal gun regulations, and 56% said the same about the state’s regulations” in the June survey.
But what are these “stricter regulations” favored by a majority of survey respondents?
- So-called “expanded background checks?” What are those?
- Ban gun purchasing by anyone with a domestic abuse charge?
- So-called “red flag” laws, which critics fear lack due process, and could be abused?
The outcome of such a survey depends upon political beliefs, it appears. According to the Capital Chronicle story, “the largest divide on gun regulations in the state was among those with differing political affiliations.
“Among Democrats,” the survey revealed, “90% want tighter federal gun laws and 85% want stricter state laws. About one-quarter of Republicans called for tighter gun laws nationwide and in the state.”
This breakdown reinforces the notion that Democrats are the “party of gun control.”
The question also comes down to location: Rural residents don’t like gun control while urban dwellers do.
“According to the survey,” the story noted, “women, college graduates and those with higher incomes and who live in cities are most supportive of stricter gun control laws in Oregon and across the country.”
The report also referred to a Pew Research survey conducted last year that found “three out of five Americans want stricter federal gun laws.”
But can that opinion override the Constitution? The Supreme Court recently nullified New York State’s arbitrary concealed carry permit requirement that applicants must show “good cause.” The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, essentially said citizens do not need to provide a “good cause” in order to justify the exercise of a constitutionally-protected fundamental right.
The ruling also struck the use of a “two step” approach used by lower courts in Second Amendment cases. Lower courts rallied to this “two step” scheme “that combines history with means-end scrutiny.”
The high court declared, “But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context.”
Several pages later, the Thomas opinion added, “The test that we set forth in Heller and apply today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”
Magazine bans enacted in California and Washington are now being challenged in federal court. If such bans are ruled unconstitutional, anything voters do in Oregon will be essentially mooted.
If that is the case, it will affirm that constitutionally-protected rights are not subject to popularity contests or the outcome of an initiative election.
