The Second Amendment Doesn’t Belong to Just One Party

One in five Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents told Pew they personally owned a gun in its June 2023 survey, compared with 45 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners. That doesn’t make Democratic owners confused about their politics. We should be asking what they need, instead of making them defend their place on the left.

For most gun owners, the answer starts with protection: 72 percent in that survey called it a major reason they owned a gun. Pew also found that Democratic owners were more likely than Republican owners to worry about having one at home. I don’t find that especially contradictory, either; you can want a way to defend yourself and still be concerned about what you’re bringing into your house.

People with those concerns need somewhere to ask questions without being handed a whole political identity along with the answers. The Liberal Gun Club described itself in a 2024 Supreme Court brief as a forum for owners who support the Second Amendment without subscribing to the right-wing ideology often associated with other gun groups.

The club also argued for addressing poverty and homelessness, and for better access to mental-health treatment, as ways to reduce violence. This is where I think a progressive position on guns has something to offer: buying a firearm doesn’t make those problems stop being our responsibility. Someone can make a decision about protection at home and still want public money spent on keeping people housed. We shouldn’t make them pick.

And the decision to own a gun has a constitutional protection behind it. In District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, the Supreme Court recognized an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes, including self-defense at home, without requiring militia service. I think defending that right should be something progressives can do without being expected to adopt the rest of a Republican platform.

Wanting people to be protected also means taking the person being threatened seriously. In United States v. Rahimi in 2024, the Court upheld temporary disarmament after a court found Rahimi posed a credible threat to his former partner’s physical safety; the domestic-violence restraining order followed notice and an opportunity to be heard. I can’t see a progressive argument for self-defense that leaves her out of it.

Pew’s research shows plenty of disagreement between the parties over gun restrictions, so there’s still actual policy to argue about. Fine, let’s ask what a proposal would change and whether someone can challenge the government’s decision. I want progressive gun owners in that conversation. They’re among the people who could lose the choice to own a gun under a restriction we support.

Illustrative stock photo. Photo by Parker Johnson on Unsplash — Photo source.