By Adam Garrie at Brownstone dot org.

Background

For decades, the fight for full health freedom—as defined by a system in which full informed consent replaces the legislative reality and culture of vaccine mandates—has been an arduous one. However, there are important parallels between the fight for health freedom and the success that advocates of a constitutionalist view of the Second Amendment (2A) have achieved over the last 25 years. By learning from the success of 2A advocates, supporters of health freedom can change the culture, change the law, and change legal precedent, all in favor of health freedom.

Weaponized Emotion

The early 1990s represented the nadir of a constitutional view of 2A in terms of public opinion. This was largely due to the popularity of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (commonly referred to as the Brady Bill). The legislation, signed by President Clinton in 1993, established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

The passage of the Brady Bill represented a perfect storm in which public sentiment was shaped by emotion rather than information. The bill was named for former White House Press Secretary James Brady, who was paralyzed during the assassination attempt on President Reagan.

In 1991, Reagan offered his support for the bill in what represented a major blow to many Republican supporters of a constitutional view of the Second Amendment. By the time President Clinton signed the bill, it had major bipartisan support. But then came the data.

Data Changes the Narrative

The popularity of firearm restrictions in the wake of the Brady Bill becoming law was a wake-up call to 2A constitutionalists. It demonstrated that straightforward constitutional arguments were insufficient to move public opinion when people were bombarded with a bipartisan blitz of emotion-driven propaganda about safety. It did not matter that arguments for safety were not backed by data; what mattered was that emotions tied to fear were more compelling than recitations of constitutional norms.

This is when 2A advocates got smart and began a long, data-driven campaign to restore constitutional rights.

The first major study to expose the flawed logic behind gun control laws came in 1997. Conducted by John Lott and David Mustard, the study was eventually turned into the best-selling book, More Guns, Less Crime. Using data from all US counties over 15 years, Lott argued that states with "shall-issue" (easy-to-obtain) concealed carry permits saw significant decreases in violent crimes like murder, rape, and aggravated assault.

In 2003, the CDC analyzed 51 different studies on measures like background checks and weapon bans. Ultimately, the CDC task force concluded there was "insufficient evidence" to prove these laws reduced violent crime.

Further studies indicated that states with relatively unrestricted firearm ownership laws had fewer instances of violent crime than states with highly restrictive laws.

These and other studies began to shift public opinion. This led to louder demands from citizens for a return to strict constitutionalism regarding firearm ownership, and it also helped pro-2A groups fundraise for judicial challenges to gun control laws.

Public Opinion Shifts

The popularity of gun control measures peaked in 1993 and has trended downward ever since. Even small spikes in gun control popularity following major school shootings have not impacted this overall trend. Crucially, recent school shootings have been even less impactful regarding outliers.

While support for a constitutionalist approach to 2A remains far stronger among Republicans and conservatives than among Democrats and liberals, this too is changing in a positive direction for constitutionalists.

A 2022 University of Chicago NORC study found that 29% of Democrats or Democrat-leaning individuals had a gun at home in 2022, up from a record low of 22% in 2010. This was followed by a poll from NBC News in November 2023, which found ...