States for and against the view that there is an individual right to own guns

31 to 5 sounds pretty lopsided, but when you look at the map you get a better idea how lopsided those numbers are. Those who oppose an individual right to own guns are (with the exception of Hawaii) all in a very small section of the country. By contrast, from the Northeast to the South to the Midwest to the Mountain States and to the West, there are states that support the view that people have a right to own a gun. The surprise is that states such as Vermont, Maine, Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee and North Carolina didn't join in also, though I think that there is a Democratic Attorney General effect that explains what happened in those states. All the states that argued that there is not an individual right have Democratic Attorney Generals. All but one of the states that chose not to take sides have Democratic Attorney Generals (Wisconsin is the one exception). Most Democratic Attorney Generals are either neutral or against recognizing an individual right. My guess is that if those AGs were Republicans, we would have even more than the 31 states that signed onto the brief that people have a right to protect themselves.

Labels: ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe Illinois is in the against camp.

3/02/2008 8:34 AM  
Blogger John Lott said...

In fact, you can look at the brief and only five states have filed this argument: New York, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.

3/02/2008 2:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's part of Montana's argument...

"The Montana Resolution cautions that a collective rights decision would violate the Montana contract for statehood.... The Montana contract is archived as Article I of the Montana Constitution. At the time the then-territory's "Compact with the United States" was agreed to by Congress, the Montana Constitution included the "right of 'any person' to bear arms," the group said.

"Contracts must be implemented so as to effect the intent of the parties to the contract. A collective rights decision by the court could also call into question the sanctity of contracts, considered to have been a bedrock principle of law for centuries," the group said.

John W. (Mpls)

Full article at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56914

3/02/2008 6:20 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home