The Hatewatch blog is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.

Gun Rights Advocates to March Against Phantom Threat

By Larry Keller on February 1, 2010 - 6:57 pm, Posted in Patriot

Public support for gun control has been steadily declining, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a ruling that strengthens an individual’s right to own firearms and President Obama has said nothing to suggest he will take on gun-rights enthusiasts.

No matter.

Gun rights advocates, including some in the antigovernment “Patriot” movement for whom the specter of gun restrictions is a recurring theme, are planning to march in Washington, D.C., and some individual states on April 19.

Speakers scheduled for the “Second Amendment March” in D.C. include

  • Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, a conspiracy-minded, antigovernment organization composed mostly of active-duty police and military officers and veterans;
  • Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff who travels the country preaching about the evils of the federal government;
  • Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, who advocated the formation of citizen militias in the United States in the early 1990s and addressed a three-day meeting of neo-Nazis and Christian Identity adherents in Colorado in 1992; and,
  • Nicki Stallard, a transsexual gun rights activist who is active in Pink Pistols, a gay gun rights organization.

Gun rights supporters assumed the worst even before Obama was elected. The National Rifle Association initiated a membership drive dubbed, “Prepare for the Storm in 2008.” In the months before and immediately after Obama’s election, firearms and ammunition sales soared in anticipation of new gun restrictions. Those fears were reinforced a month after Obama took office, when Attorney General Eric Holder said the administration would try to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration.

But the administration quickly backpedaled. Not only has the president made no effort to restrict gun ownership, he even signed legislation allowing guns in national parks and on Amtrak trains. (These provisions were amendments to larger, unrelated pieces of legislation that he supported.) The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which endorsed Obama in 2008, recently gave him a grade of “F” on every issue on which it scored him.

There are other reasons to think gun rights supporters would be content. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s strict gun control law and reversed years of lower court decisions holding that the intent of the Second Amendment was to link the right of gun possession to militia service. The opinion “delivered a bold and unmistakable endorsement of the individual right to own guns,” The Washington Post reported.

And there’s still more happy news for the gun enthusiasts. Poll after poll shows a steady decline in support for gun control. For example, a Gallup Poll last October asked, “In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?” Only 44% chose “more strict,” the lowest number in at least 10 years. In April 1999, by contrast, 66% favored stricter laws. The same poll asked if a law should be enacted that bans the possession of handguns, except by police and other authorized persons. Only 28% answered in the affirmative – the lowest percentage in the 50 years Gallup has asked the question. In 1959, 60% favored a handgun ban.

A CBS News/New York Times Poll conducted in April of last year asked, “In general, do you feel the laws covering the sale of handguns should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?” Some 60% said stricter, but that was down from 66 percent from two years earlier, and down from 71% in 2000.

A FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll taken in May 2009 asked respondents which strategy would more likely decrease gun violence –  better enforcement of existing gun laws or more laws and restrictions of obtaining guns. Forty-seven percent of those who answered said better enforcement, compared to 41% in 2000. And 34% said they favored more laws and restrictions, a decline from 37% in 2000.

Despite the dearth of evidence that their rights are in peril, gun enthusiasts are gung-ho on the planned marches. “The purpose is to remind the U.S. government that it is our right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed,” the Second Amendment March website states. Organizers say they have contacted Glenn Beck to see if he’ll support them. One vocal gun rights guy who won’t be speaking at the Washington march is rocker Ted Nugent. It seems his oratory carries a hefty cost.

“While Mr. Nugent would be a great asset to the march, we simply cannot afford him,” the organizers’ website says.

  • john

    How in Gods name do you justify describing Oathkeepers as an anti-government group?The members only vow to follow The Constitution,the guiding legal document of the government,our government.Of the PEOPLE,by the PEOPLE,for the PEOPLE.All of us.Hardly classifies as anti-government,does it?

  • E Zach Lee-Wright

    Bored eh?
    Please just answer one last question. Why does SPLC choose NOT to keep and eye on the radical left as well as the radical right?? They certainly are as dangerous or more so.

    By the way, to fight boredom you might try sounding out my complete name.

    Signed….. E. Zach Lee-Wright

    Told you. (;- >)

  • Stephen Manning

    You are right, the term ‘illegal militias” is problematic but you do realize I hope it doesn’t mean battle reenacters. The people I deal with have no problem with the term, and use it to mean an armed group whose stated aim would be illegal if put into practice, ;i.e. overthrow of the government, killing of police, genocide, terroristic threatening, cross-burnings, etc. But semantically you are correct.

    Yes, run of the mill folk get shot from time to time but most don’t and automatic weapons probably wouldn’t stop those attacks anyway.

    Stringing together random facts (?) is an excellent diversionary propaganda technique but does little to advance the discussion towards any resolution.

    In short, you’re boring me, son.

  • E Zach Lee-Wright

    Mr. Manning, in your comment you said you are sure I will correct your beliefs about the reasons rifles account for less than two percent of gun crimes. You then proceed to list some very good reasons for rifles being a minor part of American crime. The only thing I would disagree with is the idea that a person has to be important to be attacked outdoors. Run of the mill folks get shot from time to time and deserve the same opportunities of self protection that “important” people get.

    I do wonder about your term “illegal militias”. I am not aware of any of these. What defines a militia as illegal?
    If a militia member breaks a law, even an extremly serious law that would not make the militia illegal. It would take a violation of a law against being a militia to be an illegal militia. Do we have such laws?

    You say my comments are opinion and not fact. The three IQ test items are absolute fact and are not opinion in any way. The usefulness of a AL-47 type weapon for hunting wild boar is fact and informed opinion therefore is both.

    You are absolutly correct that my posts are off of the original topic. Shoot me. Another off topic question is why does the sponsor (SPLC) say that HATEWATCH exists to “keep an eye on the radical right” at the top of this page? Why would they choose to ignore the radical left?? I know of two bombings done by right wing radicals in the US in the past 50 years. I can name dozens that have been done by radical left wing hate groups. Bill Ayers, anyone?

    Your turn Stephen.

    Signed E. Zach Lee-Wright!