“Politicians who are doing the bidding of the gun lobby, and businesses who worry about offending gun rights extremists, should look at this data and be aware that there is potentially a large price to pay with voters and customers alike,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “Having more guns in public places not only puts more people at risk, it clearly makes people feel less safe.”

The key results:

• Fifty-two percent oppose allowing people in general, not just those connected to law enforcement, to carry loaded guns openly in public;

• Fifty percent feel less safe knowing that people not connected to law enforcement can carry guns in public, while 38 percent feel more safe.

• Fifty-one percent said they were less likely to vote for a candidate who makes it easier for people to carry loaded guns in public, compared to 27 percent who were more likely to support such a candidate. Fully 63 percent of women said they were less likely to vote for a candidate who loosens laws on carrying guns in public.

The numbers are based on a survey of 600 registered voters in late April. The poll was conducted by Lake Research Partners, a Democratic polling firm.

Arizona allows people to openly carry guns, including semiautomatic assault rifles, so no one was arrested. After all, they were just exercising their Second Amendment rights, right? The man captured on camera said he was carrying his assault rifle slung over his shoulder “Because I can do it. In Arizona, I still have some freedoms.”

Meanwhile, a reader at TPM raised a good point:

“Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme was released from prison this week, after 34 years in prison. The gun she pointed at President Ford had no bullet in the firing chamber — unlike Sarah Jane Moore, she never even pulled the trigger or fired. Presumably, these gun nuts showing up for the health care events have their weapons actually loaded.”

So when does carrying a loaded weapon to a president’s speaking event become a threat?  Police officers reportedly kept an eye on the two guys with the assault rifles, but what about the other eight who just carried handguns? How many officers have to be tied up watching individuals who come to see the president fully armed? Does the right to bear arms at some point give way to the ability of police and Secret Service to reasonably protect the president?

“If we need to intervene, we will intervene at that time,” said one Arizona detective. Unless, of course, it’s too late.

Yesterday Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called on the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups to tell their members to leave their weapons at home when attending presidential events:

Bringing loaded firearms to any Presidential event endangers all in attendance. Even though our weak national and state gun laws may allow this dangerous behavior, we should use a little common sense.

Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers, thus stretching their protective efforts even thinner. The possibility that these weapons might be grabbed or stolen or accidentally mishandled increases the risks of serious injury or death to all in attendance.

The National Rifle Association and other ‘gun rights’ groups need to send a message about ‘gun responsibilities’ to their members and all gun owners. Loaded weapons at political forums endanger all involved, distract law enforcement, and end up stifling debate. Presidential protesters need to leave their firearms at home – no exceptions.

[This post has been updated for clarity.]

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

It’s the first time the NRA has weighed in against a Supreme Court nominee and warned senators that their votes affect how the NRA “scores” their records. Although that’s clearly had some affect, eight of the 36 senators endorsed by the NRA in their last elections have said they will vote to confirm her. Those include Democrats Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Tim Johnson of South Dakota, as well as Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Mel Martinez of Florida.

The NRA has also wavered on how strongly it will weigh this vote, perhaps realizing that it would alienate some key supporters. NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told the LA Times that the Sotomayor vote was important but might count for less than a future Senate vote on gun control. “The NRA has yet to determine the weight of this vote, but we have informed people that this vote will count,” he said. “Sounds to me like the NRA has been getting some pushback of its own,” observes Christy Hardin Smith of Firedoglake.com.

Meanwhile, gun control groups are relishing the notion that the NRA may be losing its sway. “This vote is a test of the conventional wisdom that they are an 800-pound gorilla capable of scaring up votes,” Doug Pennington, a spokesman for the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, tells the LA Times. “Well, so far, they have been unable to keep the votes of the senators they endorsed in the last campaign.”

The gun issue was a hot topic at Sotomayor’s hearing, of course, with senators grilling her on why she would not acknowledge that the right to bear arms was an individual “fundamental” right enforceable against the states. Sotomayor answered that she was just following settled court precedent, and carefully avoiding what Jeff Sessions has called “the siren call to judicial activism.”

Although surely plenty of senators agree with the idea of preventing gun violence, it’s a testament to how influential the NRA has become that no one had the courage to ask Sotomayor to explain the inherent reasonableness of regulating firearms in a country where more than 50 children are killed every week by guns.

Here’s what the Brady Campaign had to say about the NRA’s statement and Sotomayor’s nomination:

“During the second day of her Senate confirmation hearings, Judge Sotomayor has now been asked for her views on the Second Amendment.  She has given clear and responsible answers, while not pre-judging any issues that may come before her on the Court.  We have been impressed with her presentation.

“In stark contrast, gun lobby extremists have revealed their preference for an activist Supreme Court Justice who would support their ‘any gun, anywhere, anytime’ ideology.  Judge Sotomayor’s comments today as well as her judicial opinions in cases involving gun laws, however, show respect for the Constitution, for precedent and for the considered judgments of legislative bodies in protecting communities from gun violence.

“Judge Sotomayor’s background and her experience as a prosecutor have given her an invaluable understanding of the devastating impact of gun violence on families and communities.  Because of her experience enforcing gun laws, she brings to the bench an appreciation of the importance of those laws in protecting our citizens.

“The Brady Campaign enthusiastically endorses Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.” [The Brady Campaign's emphasis, not mine.]

It’s worth noting that despite harsh and one-sided questioning on the Second Amendment issue, Sotomayor was careful never to say how she’d vote on the matter were it to come before the Supreme Court — which it very likely will during her expected tenure. Although she’s ruled in the past that there is no “fundamental” right of an individual to bear arms that’s enforceable against state governments, the court opinion she signed onto carefully explained that the court believed that result was mandated by Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in an opinion by the conservative Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook, has reached the same conclusion.

The Supreme Court could rule differently, however, and given that its latest ruling on the gun issue was a 5-4 decision, Sotomayor’s position on the issue is important. Even if Sotomayor rules as the Brady campaign might hope, though, NRA supporters could win the day if the key gun question — whether there’s a “fundamental right” to possess a gun that’s enforceable against the states — reaches the court before President Obama gets to appoint another justice.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Today, Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Jack Reed (R.I.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) re-introduced legislation to close that loophole by requiring all gun-show vendors to perform background checks on potential customers.

“Allowing sales at gun shows without identification, without accountability and without knowing whether the buyer is a felon or mentally ill, is unacceptable,” Feinstein said in a statement. “This legislation proposes common sense protections that do not limit the rights of law abiding citizens to own and purchase guns.”

But the bill has a tough road ahead. The National Rifle Association, which opposes the proposal, is a juggernaut of political influence in Washington, and Democratic leaders, including President Obama, have all but conceded that gun reforms are likely going nowhere this year.

It’s a familiar scenario. Indeed, when the Senate passed a similar gun-show proposal in the immediate wake of the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, the NRA lobbied it dead in negotiations with the House. If it couldn’t pass in that political environment, don’t go holding your breath for passage in this one.

A statement from the Brady campaign puts it well:

“The Bush Administration’s parting gift for the gun lobby to allow hidden weapons in our parks threatens the safety of these national treasures and those who visit them,” said Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke. “We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry firearms in our parks. We urge the proper authorities to use common sense, and stop this senseless rule.”

‘Nuff said.