When State and Local Policy Clash The Great Gun Debate in Virginia

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Overview

Gun violence in Virginia has increased every year since 2012. High-profile

incidents such as the April 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, November 2013 shooting of a

state senator, August 2015 execution of a reporter and cameraman during a live telecast,

and May 2019 mass shooting at Virginia Beach have led to repeated calls for

comprehensive gun control legislation (Parsons et al., 2015). Regardless of strong public

support for some gun control measures, such as universal background checks, state-level

legislative trends throughout the United States in the last 20 years have focused on

deregulation vice strengthening gun laws (Reich & Barth, 2017). Extensive literature

exists on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and rulings by the U.S. Supreme

Court. Furthermore, substantial research exists on attitudes toward gun control policy and

specific gun control measures’ effectiveness. This study’s foci were Virginia gun owner

and non-gun owner perspectives on gun control initiatives and the 2nd Amendment

Sanctuary movement, specifically how their attitudes align with the conflicting legislative

efforts at the state and local levels.

This research contributes to the literature by examining an aspect of the gun

control policy debate not previously researched, highlighting the extent to which gun

owner and non-gun owner attitudes reflect the divergence between state and local gun

policy initiatives. This study has the potential to inform lawmakers, policy advocates,

special interest groups, and the public about conflicting attitudes toward gun control

measures and 2nd Amendment Sanctuary resolutions so that policy that aligns with

constituent beliefs is implemented. This study promotes positive social change by

contributing to the literature on gun policy attitudes to assist in the development and

implementation of effective and widely endorsed policies to address gun violence in

Virginia.

In this chapter, I discuss the research study’s background and address the gap in

current knowledge. I then introduce the problem statement, the purpose of the study, and

research questions and hypotheses. Next, I describe the theoretical framework, nature of

the study, assumptions, scope, delimitations, and limitations. The chapter concludes with

a synopsis of the study’s significance and an overall summary of the main points.

Background

A vital component of the debate over gun control today centers on a “balance

between the government’s obligation and authority to protect the citizens of the nation

not only from foreign invasion but also from each other, and the ability of law-abiding

citizens to exercise their constitutional right to self-defense with a firearm” (Cooper,

2015, p. 351). In a move away from historical precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court in

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) ruled that an individual had the right to own a

firearm to defend themselves. Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010),

the U.S. Supreme Court determined that an individual’s 2nd Amendment rights were

protected from infringement by both the federal and state governments (Cooper, 2015).

State-level governments enact the majority of firearm legislation, and this shift in

interpretation is at the core of the gun policy conflict today.

In response to threats and actions toward more restrictive gun legislation at the

state level, local jurisdictions across the country have passed 2nd Amendment Sanctuary

resolutions aimed at opposing the enforcement of any gun control law that violates the

2nd Amendment. In Virginia, within a 4-month period, November 2019 to February

2020, more than 95% of the counties throughout the state had declared themselves 2nd

Amendment Sanctuaries (Gunter, 2020). The Virginia governor responded, on what was

perceived as a more robust gun control mandate during the 2019 elections, by enacting

seven new gun control laws in April 2020 (Miller, 2020).

The extensive literature on the effectiveness of specific gun control measures at

reducing gun violence shows mixed results. Data inaccuracy, inconsistencies in

methodology, subjective scoring or ratings of legislation, use of proxy variables to

measure gun ownership, inaccurate measures and testing, and inconsistent definitions

lead to skewed research results and conflicting outcomes across the spectrum of studies

(Kposowa et al., 2016; Lang, 2016; Makarios & Pratt, 2012; Martin & Legault, 2005;

RAND, 2018; Rostron, 2008). Literature is also prevalent regarding the types of exposure

to policy imaging that may influence attitudes within the gun policy debate. Specifically,

I examined eight categories relevant to policy imaging. Research shows that the media

and interest groups, high-profile events such as mass shootings, suicide rates, mental

health perspectives, culture, religion, and political identity all influence public attitudes

toward gun control policy (Cukier & Eagan, 2018; Kposowa et al., 2016; McGinty et al.,

2016; Miller, 2019; Yamane, 2016).

Much of the literature on gun owner and non-gun owner perspectives of gun

control concentrates on specific gun control measures coupled with control variables such

as race, gender, political or religious affiliation, culture individualism versus collectivism,

and rural vice urban identity (Blanco, 2016). A specific gap exists in determining gun

owner and non-gun owner attitudes on 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries and the divergent

gun policy initiatives between state and local governments. A gap also exists in assessing

the effects of exposure to policy imaging regarding gun policy initiatives and 2nd

Amendment Sanctuaries related to gun owner and non-gun owner attitudes. This study

was needed to help researchers understand the attitudes of gun owners and non-gun

owners and the effects of policy images on those attitudes related to 2nd Amendment

Sanctuaries and the divergent gun policy initiatives between state and local governments.

Problem Statement

Prior to 2020, the Virginia General Assembly’s specific efforts to enact more

stringent laws to mitigate gun violence had been largely unsuccessful (Berti, 2019).

However, after the 2019 state-wide Virginia General Assembly election, the governor,

senate, and House of Delegates were controlled by the Democratic Party for the first time

in more than 2 decades. The Democrats had campaigned on stricter gun control and with

the shift in power the General Assembly proposed numerous legislative policies aimed at

increasing gun control. In protest, between November 2019 and February 2020, more

than 95% of counties and 42% of independent cities in Virginia passed a 2nd Amendment

Sanctuary resolution. Although these resolutions were mostly a political statement and

not legally binding, many local jurisdictions declared they would not enforce state or

federal gun laws perceived to violate the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

(Gunter, 2020). Regardless of the mobilization of the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary

movement in Virginia, during the 2020 general assembly session, seven state-wide gun

control bills were passed and signed into law by the governor (Arnold, 2020).

This conflict between state legislative proposals and local jurisdictions is

problematic as it suggests a divide within the constituency. Research shows that the

majority of firearm legislation is implemented at the state level. However, it is not clear

whether state initiatives or local resolutions genuinely reflect the will of the people

(Sabbath et al., 2020). Researchers do not know what Virginia gun owner and non-gun

owner attitudes are regarding local enactment of 2nd Amendment Sanctuary resolutions

and state gun law proposals. Additionally, researchers do not know what policy image

factors influence the contradictory perspectives regarding state and local government gun

policy initiatives in Virginia. The literature that I reviewed for this study suggested that

others have investigated attitudes on gun control, focusing on public preferences, police

chief, sheriff and African American legislators’ perceptions, media influence, mental

health and social issues, school security concerns, and special interest groups (Miller,

2019). None of the literature examined whether gun owner and non-gun owner attitudes

support 2nd Amendment Sanctuary resolutions or gun control legislation at the state level

or the effects of policy image on those attitudes. My research fills this gap by

contributing data to the literature to better understand the gun law conflict between state

and local jurisdictions. It potentially influences constituency-endorsed development of

policy to mitigate gun violence at the state level.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quantitative cross-sectional correlational research study was

to examine Virginia gun owner and non-gun owner attitudes on gun policy and enhance

the understanding of the conflict between divergent views that influence gun policy

initiatives at the state and local levels. In this study, I examined the attitudes of Virginia

gun owners and non-gun owners, specifically on 2nd Amendment Sanctuary resolutions

and state-level gun legislation policies and proposals. Additionally, I assessed the

influence of policy image factors on the conflicting initiatives proposed at the state and

local levels. I assessed Virginia gun owner and non-gun owner attitudes on 2nd

Amendment Sanctuary resolutions, policy image, and state-level gun control policies and

proposals through primary data gathered from surveys. This study was unique because in

it, I addressed an aspect of the gun control debate, specifically attitudes of constituents on

divergent state and local policy initiatives, which was under-researched.

In this quantitative cross-sectional correlational study, I focused on a population

(gun owners and non-gun owners) that directly influences and participates in the conflict

between greater gun control and greater gun freedom, which affects the development of

strategies to mitigate gun violence at the state level. The independent dichotomous

variable for this study was gun ownership, and the dependent variable was attitudes on

2nd Amendment sanctuary resolutions measured on a 7-point Likert scale. A composite

score of gun owner and non-gun owner attitudes based on nine specific gun control laws

comprised both a dependent and predictor variable to address the research questions. I

assessed gun control laws regarding universal background checks, protective orders,

carrying firearms in sensitive areas, a one-gun-a-month purchase limit, reckless

endangerment of a minor, notification of lost or stolen weapons, extreme risk protection

orders, assault weapons and magazine bans, and concealed carry. I measured the variables

for generating a composite score on a 7-point Likert scale.

I generated a policy image index variable consisting of categorical factors to

provide an index score which functioned as a predictor variable. The eight exposure to

policy image factors were media coverage, interest group involvement, mass shooting

awareness, gun suicide prevalence, mental health impacts, cultural influence, religious

influence, and political identity influence. The covariates in this study were the

categorical demographic variables, gender, race, and political affiliation.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

RQ1: What is the relationship of gun ownership and exposure to gun policy

imaging in predicting attitudes on Virginia state gun laws?

H01: There is no statistically significant relationship between gun ownership and

exposure to gun policy imaging in predicting attitudes on Virginia state gun laws.

HA1: There is a statistically significant relationship between gun ownership and

exposure to gun policy imaging in predicting attitudes on Virginia state gun laws.

• Dependent variable: attitudes on Virginia state gun laws.

• Predictor variables: gun ownership; exposure to gun policy imaging.

RQ2: What is the relationship of gun ownership and exposure to gun policy

imaging in predicting attitudes on 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries?

H02: There is no statistically significant relationship between gun ownership and

exposure to gun policy imaging in predicting attitudes on 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries.

HA2: There is a statistically significant relationship between gun ownership and

exposure to gun policy imaging in predicting attitudes on 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries.

• Dependent variable: attitudes on 2nd Amendment Sanctuary resolutions.

• Predictor variables: gun ownership; exposure to gun policy imaging.

RQ3: Do attitudes on Virginia state gun laws, exposure to gun policy imaging,

gun ownership, gender, race, and political affiliation predict attitudes on 2nd Amendment

Sanctuaries?

H03: Attitudes on Virginia state gun laws, exposure to gun policy imaging, gun

ownership, gender, race, and political affiliation are not statistically significant predictors

of attitudes on 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries.

HA3: Attitudes on Virginia state gun laws, exposure to gun policy imaging, gun

ownership, gender, race, and political affiliation are statistically significant predictors of

attitudes on 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries.

• Dependent variable: attitudes on 2nd Amendment Sanctuary resolutions.

• Predictor variables: attitudes on Virginia state gun laws, exposure to gun.

policy imaging, gun ownership, gender, race, and political affiliation.

Theoretical Foundation

A theoretical foundation shapes the topic, design, goal, and results of the research

study by integrating and aligning the research with existing literature. It enables the

researcher to place the study relative to other research and findings in the respective field

of study, adds to the body of knowledge and understanding about phenomenon within

specific contexts, and ensures the continuous and iterative development of knowledge

(Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Jones and Baumgartner’s punctuated equilibrium theory (PET)

was the theoretical base for this study. PET involves policy change related to setting the

agenda and defining the issue within the foundation of periodic stability augmented with

sharp disruptions to the status quo. As the public debates, an agenda on the issue changes,

and the existing policy can either be strengthened, which may create difficulties for

enacting change or challenged providing opportunities for policy change (Jones &

Baumgartner, 2012). Gun violence in Virginia and the lack of political action have led to

increased public outrage and heightened attention on gun control policy. The conflicting

ideas and interest groups resulted in competing coalitions that were attempting to

redefine the issue to bolster their influence. This led to increased attention by the state

government and involvement of the previously apathetic on both sides of the issue. When

one side mobilized the other counterattacked. The result was significant policy changes

or punctuations in the near term before interest and political action subsided, and the

status quo was re-established (True & Utter, 2002). In Chapter 2 of this study, I will

further explain PET.

In this research study, I focused on the attitudes of gun owners and non-gun

owners and policy images that influence conflicting gun policy initiatives between state

and local governments in Virginia. PET provided a theoretical framework for analyzing

the elements such as issue definition, political institutions, and special interests, which

influence the gun policy debate. The current focus on gun control versus gun rights in

Virginia was the dominant policy topic that disrupted the traditionally stable political

environment. As a critical element of PET, it is essential to examine how exposure to the

portrayed image of a policy affects gun owner and non-gun owner attitudes. PET’s

application coupled with subsequent research provided insights into the punctuated

political environment of gun control policy and potential changes in policy to mitigate

gun violence (Jones & Baumgartner, 2012).

Nature of the Study

I designed this research study as a nonexperimental quantitative correlational

cross-sectional study. The focus was examining Virginian gun owner and non-gun owner

attitudes regarding 2nd Amendment Sanctuary resolutions and state gun laws to

determine whether they reflect gun policy initiatives at the state and local levels and

whether exposure to specific policy images influences those attitudes. To understand this

phenomenon, a cross-sectional correlational research approach helped me examine the

current situation and identify data that enabled the assessment of multiple factors within

the same study. The methodology enabled me to build upon the previously established

concepts of PET and related them to gun control policy action at the state and local

levels. The research questions aligned with using a correlational analysis to examine the

themes and content surrounding Virginia gun owner and non-gun owner attitudes. I

converted objective and statistical analysis of the data into numerical values that I

statistically analyzed to determine the results (Williams, 2007). The nonexperimental

cross-sectional survey necessitated both descriptive statistical analysis to summarize and

interpret the data and inferential statistical testing to generalize the results gathered from

the sample population.

I collected data using a SurveyMonkey instrument consisting of 7-point Likert

scale questions, dichotomous questions, index questions, and categorical demographics. I

administered the survey to Virginians older than 18 years who had resided in the state for

at least the last 2 years. According to the Census Bureau (n.d.), in 2020, Virginia had an

adult population of more than 6.6 million. Therefore, a minimum of 128 valid responses

was required for this study (Faul et al., 2009). I used the SurveyMonkey Audience

application to solicit participants and ensure adequate response rates. Surveying gun

owners and non-gun owners in Virginia afforded an opportunity to gain insight into their

attitudes on gun control and 2nd Amendment sanctuaries and determine whether policy

images influence attitudes on these themes.

Definitions

2nd Amendment Sanctuary: A local jurisdiction (county, city, or town) that has

adopted a resolution to reject the local enforcement of any firearm law (state or federal)

that they perceive as a violation of the 2nd Amendment individual right to bear arms

(Mascia, 2020).

Gun control: Any policy or law that regulates the possession, sale, transfer,

storage, or use of firearms, ammunition, or accessories such as magazines, bullets, or

bump stocks (Perez-Pena, 2015).

Mass shootings: The death of four or more people within a 24-hour period by the

same perpetrator or group of perpetrators with no cooling off period (Lott, 2018).

Policy image: The mixture of emotional and empirical material that influences the

understanding and portrayal of policy definitions and implications (Baumgartner &

Jones, 2009).

Punctuated equilibrium: Sporadic incidents when the evolutionary development

of policy traditionally characterized by long periods of little or no change is interrupted

by isolated episodes of intense activity (Baumgartner & Jones, 2009).

Assumptions

In quantitative research, reality is assumed to be objective. The variables selected

must be sufficient to provide a realistic basis for describing the outcome with an

acceptable level of accuracy so that the findings can be generalized to a larger population.

This study’s ontological model accepted that I was searching for the relationship between

the factors being analyzed and the selected phenomenon (Arghode, 2012). In this study, I

used numbers and statistics to analyze gun ownership attitudes and quantify the results to

either prove or disprove the hypotheses. I assumed the following.

• The selection of PET as the theoretical foundation provided an accurate

reflection of the issue being studied. PET was justified because the gun policy debate in

Virginia is characterized by long periods of stability augmented with episodic disruptions

to the status quo coalesced around exposure to policy images.

• The variables selected realistically and accurately described the

phenomenon being studied. The use of gun ownership coupled with gun laws, 2nd

Amendment Sanctuary movements, and policy image categories was justified in that they

accurately and effectively described the relationship being assessed in the study.

• The survey questions included provided an accurate and consistent

measure of the variables. I modified the questions from existing similar instruments,

tested for readability, and designed the survey to answer the research questions and

ensure validity and understandability.

• The research participants’ responses to the questions were honest and

accurate. The anonymity and voluntary nature of the survey ensured accurate and truthful

answers from the participants.

• The sampling technique and sample size selected for the total population

provided representative data to meet statistical standards and the generalizability of the

findings. I used G*Power analysis and established sampling methods that determined a

minimum of 128 valid responses were needed to ensure representative response totals

were collected.

• The statistical tests used were appropriate. I conducted an analysis to

determine multiple linear regression testing best measured the variable relationships

expressed in the research questions and hypotheses.

These assumptions were critical to the study’s meaningfulness because they

provided a context for what we think is true regarding the research. The data collected on

gun owner and non-gun owner attitudes underwent rigorous analysis, and understanding

the assumptions enhanced critical thinking and mitigated bias when drawing conclusions

about the outcomes of the study (Simon & Goes, 2013).

Scope and Delimitations

The research study’s scope was adult gun owners and non-gun owners who had

lived in Virginia for at least the last 2 years. I selected the objectives, research questions,

and variables specifically to provide insight into the relationship between gun ownership

and gun control laws and 2nd Amendment Sanctuary resolutions in Virginia. I chose this

population sample because it offered the best perspective on Virginians’ attitudes and the

influence of exposure to policy images regarding state gun control laws and the 2nd

Amendment Sanctuary movement. I excluded non-Virginians from the study due to their

lack of potential knowledge or attitudes on Virginia gun control laws and the 2nd

Amendment Sanctuary movement. I also excluded persons 17 years of age and younger

due to their inability to legally own a gun in Virginia (Simon & Goes, 2013).

I selected PET as the theoretical framework for this study because it focuses on

policy images and episodic policy shifts. Advocacy coalition framework (ACF),

introduced by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith in the 1980s, was another theory that may have

been appropriate to this research. ACF is often affiliated with analyzing the policy

process because it provides a shared platform for the analysis of multiple actors. ACF

focuses on the beliefs that individuals translate into political action. In ACF, a coalition is

a disparate group with shared beliefs who coordinate activity to achieve some end state.

They then compete to control and influence policy subsystems and those that try to

influence the subsystems. This study could have used the theory of ACF to analyze the

2nd Amendment Sanctuary movement and how actors who advocate specific beliefs

influence policy. However, I elected not to use ACF because its focus is on the behaviors

of coalition members who attempt to influence policy. Although the 2nd Amendment

Sanctuary movement did attempt to influence policy action, the influence of that specific

movement on policy was not my focus for this study (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2017). In this

research study, I looked at episodic policy shifts. I assessed the relationship of individual

attitudes, specifically gun owner and non-gun owner constituents, and the influence of

policy image on the deviations between state and local initiatives. By using PET, I

incorporated a framework that provided insight into attitudes and policy images that

influence policy development at local and state levels, which aligned with my research

goals of this study. The results of this research may be generalizable beyond Virginia to

states with similar gun control laws or 2nd Amendment Sanctuary movements.

Limitations

Possible limitations to this study were the selected sampling procedure,

representativeness in the sample population, and the survey instrument. In surveys, valid

response rates may be affected by barriers in access to the sample population, length of

the survey, or survey fatigue if the population is inundated with survey requests. I

administered the survey instrument for this research study via the web; therefore, a

specific limitation was the potential for a low response rate. Using the SurveyMonkey

Audience application to solicit participants mitigated constraints and increased valid

response rates by using a pre-established panel that met the specific inclusion criteria.

Additionally, personalizing the request, establishing a completion deadline, and

increasing methods and frequency of contact improved the response rates. Other potential

limitations were ensuring representativeness within the sample population and mitigating

researcher bias within the sample selection. Some research participants may have had

concerns regarding anonymity, which may have presented a challenge to recruiting

participants and response rates. It was important to clearly articulate the details about the

study as well as stress the maintenance of participant anonymity to the potential sample

population. The survey instrument may also provide limitations to the data collection in

several ways. The self-reported nature of the data may result in underreporting or over

reporting and open the aperture to potential social desirability bias in the responses.

Additionally, the closed and monothematic format of the questions may have limited or

affected the responses or limit the information that I collected (Aggarwal, &

Ranganathan, 2019). I mitigated both potential limitations through the use of a

predetermined survey panel, focused and validated survey questions and a pilot survey.

Significance

The emphasis of this quantitative research was an aspect of gun control not

previously studied, specifically the attitudes of Virginia gun owners and non-gun owners

with regard to competing state and local gun policy initiatives and whether policy image

influences those attitudes. The study’s significance is that it contributes to the current

literature by educating policymakers, advocacy groups, and the public on attitudes

regarding gun control and 2nd Amendment Sanctuary and the influence of policy image

on those attitudes. This study was needed to understand the relationship of the

phenomenon. It increased the level of understanding and has the potential for positive

social change by contributing findings that may provide useful insights into gun control

policy development in Virginia and elsewhere in the United States.

Summary

The increase of gun violence in the state of Virginia characterized by several high-

profile shootings resulted in a punctuated policy response that upended the decadesold

status quo. The Virginia state government passed several new gun control measures in

2020, and more than 95% of the local counties enacted 2nd Amendment Sanctuary

resolutions to counter those policies. According to several national surveys and research

studies the support for specific gun control measures is on the rise (Barry et al., 2018;

Parker et al., 2017; Reich & Barth, 2017). In this study, I aimed to understand the

dichotomy between state and local initiatives by examining gun owner and non-gun

owner attitudes on gun control and 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries in Virginia.

In Chapter 2, I provide an overview of the literature relevant to this study. It

begins with search strategies followed by a comprehensive analysis of Baumgartner and

Jones’ (1993) theory of punctuated equilibrium. I then review the literature on the

interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment Sanctuary movements, and

Virginia gun control laws backed by studies on gun control effectiveness. The chapter

concludes with an analysis of research on gun owner and non-gun owner perspectives of

gun control followed by assessments of factors that affect gun policy images within this

national debate.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

In this chapter, I review the current literature pertinent to my study on Virginians’

perspectives on gun control policy and whether they align with the legislative initiatives

at the state and local levels. The theoretical foundation for this study was based on

Baumgartner and Jones’ PET. In this chapter, I explore the tenets of PET and its

application to gun policy development at the national, state, and local levels. This

literature review includes analysis and synthesis of research studies, peer-reviewed

articles, publicly available surveys, and relevant background material on the issues

surrounding gun control policy and the variables applicable to the research study.

Following the theoretical framework, in the literature review, I provide a perspective on

current doctrine regarding the 2nd Amendment and the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary

movement. Next is a brief history of gun control policy and existing gun laws in Virginia

and an analysis of national survey data and research on the perspectives of gun owners

and non-gun owners regarding gun control policy. The literature review concludes with a

comprehensive assessment of studies on several key factors that influence the competing

perspectives on gun control policy. This combined review of the body of literature

provides insights into the theories and variables surrounding my topic. I synthesized the

data that I collected to provide context regarding the main ideas and themes within my

research and I structured the data to highlight salient ideas prevalent to the research

described throughout (Randolph, 2009). This chapter begins with a description of the

method and search strategy that I used to select the relevant literature for this review.

Literature Search Strategy

The literature search strategy encompassed a thorough exploration of scholarly

sources and key literature for information critical to providing background and

addressing the research problem, questions, and hypotheses of this study. Significant

research and peer-reviewed material exists on gun control policy explicitly relating to the

2nd Amendment, gun owner and non-gun owner perspectives of gun control, the

effectiveness of methods for reducing gun violence, and PET. My search strategies for

those areas included online title, keyword, and phrase searches in the Walden University

Thoreau database, Sage Publications, and Google Scholar. Search terms included gun

control policy AND United States, gun rights AND state laws, gun control attitudes,

firearm legislation, gun control AND reduce violent crime, Second Amendment AND gun

control, Second Amendment AND sanctuary OR protection OR resolution, gun control

AND state level, gun rights AND state government, gun control policy AND firearm

legislation AND state legislators, General Social Survey on gun control, gun control

effectiveness, and punctuated equilibrium theory. The reference lists in many of the

articles provided additional resources. I located material specific to Virginia gun policy

through internet searches of official government sites and the Virginia Legislative

Information System (VLIS). Peer-reviewed and scholarly articles on the 2nd Amendment

Sanctuary movement were almost nonexistent therefore I gathered most of the

information for this topic through news articles via online Google searches. I explored as

many avenues as possible to ensure comprehensive background material and saturation

on the specific themes for this research study.

Theoretical Foundation Background

In their 1993 publication Agendas and Instability, Frank Baumgartner and Bryan

Jones introduced PET, which served as the theoretical foundation for this study on

whether Virginians’ perspectives on gun control policy align to the legislative initiatives

of the state and local governments. PET focuses on the mechanisms that result in policy

change and is based on the idea that public policy is developed due to sporadic or

fragmented activity that interrupts the routine stable periods that generally typify the

development of public policy. Baumgartner and Jones characterized stability in public

policy by the inherent rules that constrain change and the emotional and cognitive

confines of the actors involved. Stability is maintained by the existing political

institutions and the unchanging definitions of the issues they promote (Baumgartner &

Jones, 2009).

Baumgartner and Jones’ (2009) concept of PET was formed in contrast to the

traditional public policy process theories that emerged in the mid-1900s, which were

organized around principles of incremental action orchestrated by agenda setting

subsystems operating within the political establishment. In these microcosms, the

participants made incremental policy adjustments based on their expertise,

onedimensional views of the world, and their assessment of public preferences, to

maintain a stable framework for political order (Jones & Baumgartner, 2012). Contrary to

the standard policy model, PET emphasizes information processing of environmental

signals and their effects on the equilibrium of the policy-making process. The punctuation

that upends that equilibrium is characterized by either the strength or accumulation of

those external signals, which can then overcome the inherent resistance built into the

political system (Baumgartner & Jones, 2009).

PET was influenced by Redford’s (1969) theory on the differentiation of

subsystem and macro politics along with Burnham, Schattschneider, Cobb, and Elder

who introduced approaches focused on mechanisms of change that could disrupt the

status quo. Two examples of those mechanisms are critical elections where political

coalitions are redefined and the introduction of special interest topics that generate new

participation in the process (Jones & Baumgartner, 2012). PET is grounded in Herbert

Simon’s bounded rationality theory as well as attention-based choice theories. Bounded

rationality surmised that one’s capacity to solve complex problems is limited by the

inability to obtain and process all the relevant information to make a rational decision

(Jones, 2003). It purports that people do not “tally up costs and benefits from a potential

decision and then chose the best course of action” (Baumgartner & Jones, 2009, p. xxiii).

Attention-based choice theories advocate that identification, categorization, and filtering

of the stimuli by the individual determines the distribution of attention toward the choices

that affect the decision (Logan, 2004). How the attention is allocated toward an issue and

what mental shortcuts are used to parse out the attention leads to a disproportionate split

between what information is focused on and what is ignored. The foundation of PET rests

soundly on the idea that “decision makers are prisoners to their limited attention spans”

(Jones & Baumgartner, 2012, p. 3). Within the policy-making process, whether during

equilibrium or a punctuated event, the public policy decisions of both government

institutions and individuals are influenced by their bounded rationality and limited

attention spans on the issues (True et al., 2006).

Throughout the policy-making process, punctuations can occur due to a major

event that cannot be ignored or through the buildup of minor events with time. Issue

definition and agenda setting are related elements critical to any punctuated policy

change. Issue definition is linked to image. To recruit new supporters and participants in

the process, an issue can be redefined to appeal to a broader constituency. When a policy

image is widely accepted generally so is the policy, and change is difficult. When entities

disagree on a policy, the proponents will promote one image of the issue and the

opponents will promote a different image (True et al., 2006). An example of framing the

gun control image is proponents defining it as a public safety issue (i.e., Saving Lives vs.

Taking Rights) and opponents framing it as an infringement on the 2nd Amendment (i.e.,

gun rights vs. gun control). This reimaging opens the aperture on the issue and facilitates

a shift in agenda setting. “So long as the possibility exists of mobilizing the previously

indifferent through the redefinition of issues” (Baumgartner & Jones, 2009, p. 19), the

issue can quickly move to the forefront of the public agenda for policy change.

PET has been applied in numerous research studies to understand the sporadic and

episodic policy changes at the national level with regard to the environment, crime,

drugs, nuclear energy, education, health care, and firearms control policy (True et al.,

2006). As an example, national gun control policy activity is typified by the elements of

PET through the analysis of gun policy images, engaged interest groups, and political

actors. During the past 225 years, federal gun policy can be summed up by five major

pieces of legislation, in 1934, 1938, 1968, 1986, and 1993. All were enacted due to policy

punctuations where the subsystem incrementalism was overwhelmed by pressure from

outside the establishment. Each of these changes was characterized by the reimaging and

agenda prioritization of the issue followed by a return to the status quo once the policy

was implemented and public attention faded (True & Utter, 2002). PET reshaped the

national gun policy landscape by embracing the punctuated demands for change at the

macro level that the political subsystems could not contain (Jones & Baumgartner, 2012).

Although gun policy is periodically engaged at the national level, within the last

two decades much of the activity on gun policy has migrated to the state-level. In the

early 1900s, there were several initiatives at the state-level to restrict handguns which

were followed by a shift towards loosening regulations which was then followed by a

period of complete inaction (Vizzard, 2015). PET accounts for both “long periods of

stability and domination of important policy areas by privileged groups of elites, and for

rapid change in political outcomes, where apparently entrenched economic interests find

themselves on the losing side of the political battle” (Baumgartner & Jones, 2009, p. 3).

PET at the state and local levels was demonstrated by the Godwin and Schroedel (2000)

study on local gun control policy activity in California in the 1990s. Their study found

that the shift from the national level to the local level coupled with a re-imaging of the

issue by advocates to a public health crisis and increased involvement by gun control

groups resulted in 20 of 26 cities adopting gun control ordinances. My research aligns

with PET because most gun control policy change is accounted for by the punctuations to

the equilibrium of gun policy. There is limited research on the application for PET below

the national level of policy development. In this research study I applied PET at the state

and local levels to gun policy in Virginia which exemplified the PET policy foundation of

stabilized activity, characterized by decades of stalemate, punctuated by episodic major

policy change, and followed by a return to the status quo. The interactions between issue

definition, competing images, engagement of interest groups, and political institutions in

the Virginia gun policy debate align with the tenets of PET and provide a solid basis for

addressing the research questions in this study (True & Utter, 2002).

History of the 2nd Amendment

The debate surrounding interpretation of the 2nd Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution, “ a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the

right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (U.S. Const, amend. II),

has been ongoing since it was first ratified in 1791. There has been long-standing

controversy over whether the 2nd Amendment applies to an individual’s right to own and

carry weapons or whether it applies as a states’ right in order to regulate militias, and

whether it protects individuals from state government infringement on their right to own

and carry weapons (Cooper, 2015).

In pre-revolutionary America, the natural right to own a firearm for personal

defense was universally recognized as evidenced in the 1765 Blackstone’s Commentaries

on the Laws of England (Cooper, 2015). However, there were gun laws to regulate the

control of firearms and munitions in colonial America. For example, as early as 1619 the

Virginia General Assembly made it illegal to sell or give guns to Native Americans. By

the start of the American Revolution there were at least 101 gun laws in the 13 colonies.

However, none of them banned firearms or limited their ownership by free citizens

(Spitzer, 2017). When the 2nd Amendment was drafted most states had already

incorporated the right to keep and bear arms into their state constitutions, either as an

individual right or in relation to a requirement to serve in the militia. Specifically, the

language in Section 13 of the Virginia Bill of Rights from 1776, “a well-regulated militia,

composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe

defense of a free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be

infringed” (Cooper, 2015, p. 346), was the standard used by the members of the

Constitutional Convention when drafting the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

(Cooper, 2015).

Before 2008, Supreme Court decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment supported

the interpretation of the right to bear arms as a states’ right vice an individual right.

Therefore only the federal government was legally bound by the 2nd Amendment and

states had the power to regulate firearms in order to maintain the common good. In

United States v. Cruikshank (1876), this states’ rights interpretation was affirmed when

the Supreme Court determined that states were allowed to regulate firearms in whatever

manner they chose in order to maintain the militia. In Presser v. Illinois (1886), the states’

rights to regulate firearms were again affirmed in order to protect the public. The

United States v. Miller (1939), Supreme Court decision in response to a challenge to the

1934 National Firearms Act held that the 2nd Amendment only refers to the federal

government and not state laws (Epstein & Konig, 2019).

The individual versus states’ rights debate regarding the 2nd Amendment is

further complicated by incorporation doctrine. Up until the late 1800s precedent held that

protections guaranteed under the Bill of Rights applied only to actions taken by the

federal government and not actions taken by states (Cooper, 2015). With the ratification

of the 14th Amendment in 1868 states were forbidden from denying individuals the right

to life, liberty, or property without due process under the law. By the early 1900s, under

incorporation doctrine, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment applied those

protections to both federal and state actions. Subsequently, the Supreme Court on a

caseby-case basis used selective incorporation to apply the 14th Amendment protections

to most of the Bill of Rights. It therefore protected those individual rights from both

federal and state government actions (Vernick et al., 2011).

Supreme Court interpretation of the 2nd Amendment changed with the decision in

the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). The doctrine was reframed as an individual

right for the primary purpose of self-defense vice a states’ right connected to a

wellregulated militia (Imoukhuede, 2017). The individual right to possess or use a

firearm was further upheld in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) when the Supreme

Court decided that the 2nd Amendment protections applied to both the federal and state

governments because of the 14th Amendment due process clause (Cooper, 2015). While

these rulings dictate that “neither Congress nor state governments have the constitutional

authority to disarm law-abiding citizens by regulating the right to keep and bear arms to a

point that endangers the right to self-defense with a firearm” (Cooper, 2015, p. 366), both

institutions do still have the authority to regulate firearms in the interest of public safety.

The Supreme Court decision did stipulate that the 2nd Amendment protections did not

cover all types of firearms i.e., rocket launchers or machine guns. Additionally, it allows

the prohibition of gun ownership by categories such as felons or the mentally ill. It also

allows gun regulation in certain public or sensitive locations such as government

buildings and schools (Imoukhuede, 2017). While the 2nd Amendment was historically

deemed a states’ rights issue, with the majority of firearm legislation being implemented

at the state-level, the transition to an individual right’s interpretation by the Supreme

Court in 2008 makes firearm legislation at the state and local levels even more

provocative (Sabbath et al., 2020).

2nd Amendment Sanctuary Movements

The 2nd Amendment sanctuary movement is a relatively recent phenomenon that

has swept through the United States in the past decade. The movement advocates gun

rights through resolutions established to oppose any gun legislation that the local

jurisdiction deems as an unconstitutional infringement on an individual’s right to bear

arms. The idea, which was mirrored off of the immigration sanctuary cities concept, was

born in Effingham County, Illinois as a gun rights response to state gun control proposals

and has gained momentum across the country (Mascia, 2020). By the end of 2019, more

than 20 states had counties with 2nd Amendment sanctuary resolutions, to include 70 of

102 counties in Illinois, 38 of 64 counties in Colorado, 30 of 33 counties in New Mexico,

and 10 of 16 counties in Nevada (Fields, 2020). In late 2019 Virginia became the

epicenter of the movement, as local county supervisor meetings were held with standing

room only crowds. Between November of 2019 and February of 2020, 91 of 95 counties,

16 of 38 independent cities, and 40 towns (see Figure 1) in Virginia had passed 2nd

Amendment sanctuary resolutions (Gunter, 2020).

Figure 1

Map of Virginia Sanctuary Status, 2020

Note. Data on map as of March 20, 2020 adapted from http://vcdl.org.

The advent of the 2nd Amendment sanctuary movement can be traced to several

factors. First was the trend of deregulation of gun control at the state-level which began

in the 1980s and favored gun rights advocates while disfavoring gun control proponents

(Fields, 2020). Specifically, from 2009 to 2013 over 546 gun laws were enacted

nationwide and over 50% of them loosened restrictions on firearms access. Additionally,

during that timeframe, “52 percent of all gun deregulation measures introduced by state

legislatures were enacted into law, versus 36 percent of gun control measures” (Reich &

Barth, 2017, p. 489). Virginia led the way on the liberalization of gun regulations

approving 24 laws. In this timeframe, 47 states approved at least one gun measure

reducing constraints on gun control (Reich & Barth, 2017). Nine states even went as far

as to enact some form of statewide sanctuary legislation aimed at the federal government.

In 2010 Alaska passed the Alaska Firearm Freedom Act (AFFA) which sought to “nullify

the federal government’s ability to regulate personal firearms, firearms accessories, and

ammunition that are manufactured entirely in Alaska” (Hill, 2016, p. 126). In 2013 the

Kansas legislature “declared that federal laws violating the Second Amendment are null,

void, and unenforceable in the state” (Rostron, 2016, p. 353). The second factor leading

to increased activity regarding 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries was the recent increase in

state enactment of extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws which allow the court

ordered removal of weapons from persons deemed a risk to themselves or others. These

laws are perceived as a violation of individual rights to own a firearm and due process by

gun rights advocates. A third was the wave of Democrats elected to many state

assemblies in 2018 and their promise to pass strict gun control measures in the wake of

high profile mass shootings. The fourth was the on-going struggle between localism and

state authority (Fields, 2020).

Most 2nd Amendment sanctuary resolutions range from passive symbolic gestures

of discontent or noncooperation to more active resistance such as taxpayer funded legal

action, deputizing the public, or calling on the “militia’ to ensure citizens can own

weapons. The sanctuaries are an attempt to resist the enforcement of laws enacted by

higher levels of government. While both state and local governments cannot be

compelled to enforce federal law under the 10th Amendment and upheld in Printz v.

United States (1997), local governments do not have those same protections from

enforcing state law (Fields, 2020). The rule of preemption allows state governments to

prohibit local governments from enacting any law that is contrary to state law.

Traditionally, preemption was a means of maintaining uniformity of the law throughout

the state, protecting against jurisdictional or territorial conflicts, and limiting the issues

requiring action by local governments (Pough, 2018). However, with the increased divide

between local and state institutions preemption has become a political tool wielded by

both sides of the political aisle. Some states have approved civil and criminal penalties

aimed at local officials who legislate policy in conflict with state preemptive statutes.

Localities have responded by challenging the states in court. Forty-four states including

Virginia have preemption laws that do not allow local jurisdictions to enact any firearm

regulation (Davidson, 2019). Specifically, Virginia follows “Dillion’s Rule”, “which

provides no autonomy for local governments and treats them as entirely subservient

subdivisions of the government” (Fields, 2020, p. 26). It is important to note that 2nd

Amendment sanctuary resolutions are not binding laws or regulations but are instead

attempts to influence policy by refusing to use local resources to enforce state laws. As of

November 2020 the legality and enforceability of 2nd Amendment sanctuary resolutions

was still up for debate as no judicial test has been ruled on by the courts (Fields, 2020).

History and Effectiveness of Gun Legislation in Virginia

Legislation governing firearms in Virginia dates back to the first Virginia General

Assembly in 1619. Since then Virginia has had firearms legislation covering numerous

broad categories such as concealed carry, carry and use in sensitive areas, requirements

for registration, prohibition of dangerous or unusual weapons, and prohibited use by

select persons (Frassetto, 2013). The current Virginia State Code, Title 18.2, Chapter 7

Crimes Involving Health and Safety has five sub-sections covering over 70 laws

regarding firearms (Virginia Legislative Information System [VLIS], n.d.). Some of the

historic gun laws in Virginia were predecessors to the types of laws passed by the

Virginia General Assembly in 2020. While all legislation must be assessed based on the

context of the time period in which it was enacted, it is clear the gun control legislation

controversy in Virginia pre-dates the current debate over 2nd Amendment rights.

Following the mass shootings at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007 which killed 32

people, Governor Kaine established a panel to study the event and make

recommendations to prevent any future incidents. Overall the panel made 91

recommendations covering mostly mental health reform and campus security. Although

the panel cited several loopholes in Virginia gun laws very little was done about gun

control, specifically recommended with no action taken was the issue of universal

background checks (Friedenberger, 2019). Twelve years later, following the Virginia

Beach mass shooting on May 31, 2019 which killed 12 people, Governor Northam

convened a special session of the General Assembly to address eight gun control

measures. The special session ended after two hours without any votes and postponed

discussion on gun control until after the November 2019 elections. Instead a panel was

convened to prepare a report on 78 prospective firearm measures for review by the State

Crime Commission (Berti, 2019). In April 2020 Governor Northam signed seven new

gun control laws, more in one session than Virginia had passed collectively in over two

decades. The actions foreshadowed by the Virginia General Assembly and Governor

Northam were the catalyst for the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary movement in Virginia that

was launched statewide between November 2019 and February 2020 (Miller, 2020).

Gun control research demonstrating the effectiveness of specific gun policies is

extensive and varied. Data accuracy, reliability and transparency are critical to ensuring

research findings are valid. A systemic issue pervasive throughout gun control research is

the variation and inconsistency in definitions, methodologies, data, and testing that drives

the divergent results regarding effectiveness (Lang, 2016; Makarios & Pratt, 2012; Martin

& Legault, 2005; Rostron, 2008). To evaluate effectiveness, often a subjective or arbitrary

score is assigned to rate gun control policies such as the Brady Campaign or the Giffords

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence scorecards (Kposowa et al., 2016). Additionally,

many research studies use a proxy for gun ownership such as national gun sales,

background checks, surveys, state level estimates, and percentages of suicides,

homicides, or robberies involving guns. The use of these inaccurate measures can skew

the relationship between crime and gun ownership (Lang, 2016). A 2018 analysis of gun

control policy research reviewed thousands of studies published since 2003 and found

only 62 met the standardized criteria for inclusion based on the methods used to

determine causal effects, evidence and rigor (RAND, 2018).

The following is an analysis of the historical context and literature on gun policy

effectiveness of Virginia gun laws relevant to this study, which include 1) universal

background checks, 2) protective orders, 3) carrying firearms in sensitive areas, 4) a

onegun-a-month purchase limit, 5) reckless endangerment of a minor, 6) notification of

lost or stolen weapons, 7) extreme risk protection orders, 8) assault weapons and

magazine bans, and 9) concealed carry.

Prior to July 2020, in compliance with the Brady Law of 1994, Virginia law only

required background checks on purchases from licensed dealers and not secondary

markets such as gun shows or private sales (Rostron, 2008). Senate Bill 70 now requires

mandatory background checks for the sale or transfer of all firearms in Virginia (VLIS,

n.d). Policy on background checks has been extensively researched. Sen and

Panjamapirom (2012) found that having more background checks is associated with

fewer suicides and homicides. A 2016 study on firearm mortality and legislation also

found that universal background checks were related to the potential reduction of firearm

fatalities (Kalesan et al., 2016). Sabbath et al. (2020) determined an association between

reduced homicides in the workplace and strengthened state laws regarding background

checks. Conversely, Vernick et al. (2017) and Crifasi et al. (2018) determined that there

was no benefit to having comprehensive background checks unless the state law also

required a permit to purchase weapons. As of 2020, Virginia does not require a permit or

license to purchase or own a weapon (VLIS, n.d). Lang (2016) found no “significant

relationship between homicide and background check rates…[and] all violent crimes

with the exception of rape are insignificantly related to background checks” (Lang, 2016,

p. 64). A comprehensive review on gun control studies to determine the effectiveness of

the policy outcomes by RAND (2018) found that universal background checks were

inconclusive at reducing mass shootings and suicide, however they had moderate success

at reducing violent crime.

The inconsistency of data compiled in the National Instant Criminal Background

Check Systems (NICS) is another factor affecting universal background checks. Data for

NICS is pulled from several databases. There is no universal standard for the type of data

required to be reported to NICS by each law enforcement jurisdiction, which leads to

gaps in quality and timeliness (Crifasi et al., 2019). Additionally, NICS “relies on states

to voluntarily report the names of individuals who fall into one of the prohibited

categories… [as] Congress cannot compel states to contribute to a federal regulatory

system” (Record & Gostin, 2014, p. 562). A Kessler (2007) study found that millions of

records that would generally disqualify an individual from purchasing a weapon were not

included within the NICS system, which led to the NICS Improvement Amendments Act

(NIAA) of 2008. The act is aimed at refining the records provisioning and maintenance

and requires states to estimate the availability for inclusion in NICS of seven categories

of records that would prohibit an individual from purchasing firearms (Krouse, 2019).

Newly enacted Virginia Senate Bill 479 prohibits persons subject to a protective

order from possessing a firearm. These types of gun laws are aimed at reducing familial

and intimate partner gun violence. Between 2004 and 2013 Virginia had an intimate

partner gun homicide rate for women 21% greater than the national average (Parsons et

al., 2015). A RAND (2018) analysis of gun policy studies found that while protective

order laws had inconclusive results in lowering suicides they did show moderate success

at reducing violent crime. Evidence also supports that prohibited persons most often

acquire weapons from acquaintances or the secondary market so other laws in

conjunction with protective orders, such as universal background checks may be required

to determine their overall effectiveness at reducing gun violence (Vizzard, 2015).

Virginia Senate Bill 35 authorizes local ordinances to prohibit the possession or

carrying of firearms in government buildings, public parks, recreation or community

centers, or public streets and sidewalks open to the public or requiring a permit (VLIS,

n.d.). Dating back to 1794 Virginia had a law prohibiting the armed presence of

individuals at fairs, markets or in the presence of justices (Frassetto, 2013). Federal law

already bars firearms in some sensitive areas or gun-free zones, such as schools, post

offices, and federal buildings (Wolfson et al., 2017). A 2017 study on public opinion

drawn from the GfK Knowledge Panel (n=3949) found that both gun owners and nongun

owners supported some restrictions on areas where guns could be legally carried to

include college campuses, places of worship, sports stadiums and bars (Wolfson et al.,

2017). The RAND (2018) analysis found no applicable research to determine the

effectiveness of these types of prohibitions on gun violence.

Virginia Senate Bill 69 prohibits anyone who is not a licensed handgun dealer

from purchasing more than one handgun in a 30-day period (VLIS, n.d.). In 1993

Virginia enacted a law to limit the number of guns an individual could purchase within a

month called the One-Gun-A-Month law, which was repealed in 2012. At the time the

law was introduced Virginia was ranked 1st as the largest source for crime guns used in

the northeast corridor of the United States and the law was put in place to stop the

trafficking of guns from Virginia to areas to the north with stricter gun laws (Evans,

2019). A study by Weil and Knox (1996) found that this law was effective at reducing the

interstate trafficking of crime guns out of Virginia, however a subsequent study by Webster

et al. (2009) contradicted these earlier results and found no effect of the One-

Gun-A-Month law on reducing the interstate trafficking of firearms out of Virginia.

Kalesan et al. (2016) found no association between limiting the number of guns

purchased and reducing gun violence. Senate Bill 69 restored the One-Gun-A-Month law

in Virginia in April 2020.

Child access protection (CAP) laws are aimed at limiting children’s access to guns

by allowing the prosecution of adults who negligently or carelessly allow unsupervised

access to guns (RAND, 2018). Prior to 2020, Virginia had a CAP law which was

modified through House Bill 1083 which states that any person who recklessly leaves a

loaded or unsecured firearm in a manner that endangers the life or limb of a person under

the age of 14 is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor. This bill was controversial and went

through several iterations where the age was debated between 21, 18, or 14. Ultimately

the law was amended to keep the age at 14 but increase the penalty from a Class 3

misdemeanor to a Class 1 misdemeanor, which could mean up to 12 months in jail

(VLIS, n.d.). There is limited peer-reviewed research on CAP laws. A Webster and

Starnes (2000) comprehensive analysis of CAP laws in 15 states found that only one state

showed a significant decrease in the rate of unintentional gun-related deaths among

children; the remaining 14 states showed no effect. A subsequent study by Lott and

Whitley (2001) concluded no reduction in accidental gun deaths or suicides due to CAP

laws. The Kalesan et al. (2016) study found that CAP laws had no significant association

with reducing homicides or suicides while the RAND (2018) analysis of the literature

found limited evidence to support decreases in suicides or unintentional injury or death

due to CAP laws.

Virginia House Bill 9 requires a person to notify police within 48 hours of

discovering the loss or theft of a firearm. Failure to notify results in a $250 fine; however

if the notification is made then any civil or criminal liability is waived if the gun is used

in a future crime (VLIS, n.d.). The intent of this law is to limit the availability of guns on

the illegal market and to better account for and trace guns used in violent crimes. There is

limited research on this element of gun control. A study by Kalesan et al. (2016) did find

an association between mandatory theft reporting and reduced homicides or suicides but

the RAND (2018) analysis did not find any studies that corroborated those findings.

One of the most controversial new laws was Senate Bill 240 which allows any

attorney for the Commonwealth or a police officer to apply to a court for a 14 day

emergency substantial risk order to prohibit a person who poses a risk from purchasing,

possessing or transporting a firearm (VLIS, n.d.). By 2020 extreme risk protection orders

(ERPO) or red flag laws had been passed in at least 17 states and the District of Columbia

(Kohrman & Stephens, 2020) “authorizing pre-emptive, risk-based, time-limited gun

removal orders” (Bonnie & Swanson, 2018), for persons deemed a danger to themselves

or others. ERPO laws are designed to reduce suicides which account for almost twothirds

of gun deaths, protect against domestic and intimate partner homicide, and stop violent

offenders such as mass shooters and terrorists by interceding before they can take action

(Bonnie & Swanson, 2018). Opponents argue that red flag laws are a violation of an

individual’s 2nd Amendment and the right to due process (Kohrman & Stephens, 2020).

ERPO laws are touted as an evidence-based policy grounded on the premise that denying

access to firearms reduces firearm violence (Vernick et al., 2017), however relatively

limited statistical research exists on ERPOs and the RAND (2018) study found

inconclusive results. Empirical evidence from two other studies suggests that suicide

rates have declined by as much as 7.5% in Indiana and in Connecticut ERPO laws

averted one suicide for every 10-20 gun removals (Bonnie & Swanson, 2018).

In addition to the seven laws from 2020, two other gun control measures are

publicly contested in Virginia. First is a ban on assault weapons and high capacity

magazines and second is concealed carry permits. The 2020 Virginia General Assembly

considered an assault weapons ban, however it did not make it out of the Senate Judiciary

Committee. House Bill 961 would have made the sale or transfer of assault weapons,

silencers, and magazines holding greater than 12 rounds illegal. Governor Northam has

stated he will re-introduce the bill during the 2021 session (Booker, 2020).

In 1994 the federal government enacted an assault weapons ban which expired in

2004. The term “assault weapon” is a misnomer as assault weapons do not technically

exist. An assault rifle is a military style shoulder fired weapon that can switch between

semi-automatic mode (requires one trigger pull for each shot) and automatic mode (one

trigger pull fires multiple bullets continuously). In most gun policy and gun violence

research the terms assault weapon or assault rifle are used interchangeably to refer to a

semi-automatic rifle that looks similar to a military style rifle. An example would be an

AR-15, which actually stands for Armalite Rifle not automatic rifle and requires one

trigger pull for each bullet fired. A significant difference between automatic and

semiautomatic weapons is how they are regulated by the government. While it is

relatively easy to acquire a semi-automatic handgun or rifle, all automatic weapons are

heavily regulated by the 1934 National Firearms Act (Lord, 2019). According to Kleck

(2012), “assault weapons” account for less than 1.2% of the firearms used in homicides.

According to Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics most gun violence incidents do

not involve firing more than three rounds. A 2001 preliminary analysis of the federal

assault weapons ban found the ban had “no effect on gun violence” (Koper & Roth, 2001,

p. 67). This finding was substantiated in a study of state-level assault weapons bans by

Kalesan et al. (2016) who found no decrease in homicide mortality due to assault

weapons bans and no association between high capacity magazine bans and reducing

firearm mortality rates. However, when assessing only the effect on public mass

shootings, which account for less than 4% of gun violence deaths each year (Cukier &

Eagan, 2018), a de Jager et al. (2018) study found that from 2000 to 2017, 24.6% of

active shooter incidents (n=248) involved a semi-automatic rifle and that when a

semiautomatic rifle is involved more people were killed or injured. RAND (2018) found

inconclusive evidence to determine whether a ban of specific assault weapons and

magazine types had any effect on overall gun deaths or mass shootings. Research

suggests that an assault weapon and high capacity magazine ban will affect the number of

casualties, specifically in mass shootings; however the evidence does not show that a ban

would have an effect on overall gun violence and mortality rates in the United States.

Concealed carry permits is another gun policy issue contested in Virginia. In 1838

the state passed its first conceal carry prohibition. The law was amended after 1868 so

that anyone deemed of good character could carry a concealed weapon with an approved

application (Frassetto, 2013). Currently Virginia is a “Shall Issue” state which means that

a license is required, however as long as specific criteria are met the state must issue a

concealed carry permit without any discretion to deny it. As of June 2020 there are

approximately 640,000 concealed carry permits issued in Virginia. Virginia does not

require guns to be registered with the state or local law enforcement, it is legal to openly

carry a gun without any permit as long as applicable laws are adhered to, and you can

defend yourself with no duty to retreat as long as you are not the initial aggressor (U.S.

Concealed Carry Association, n.d.). There are mixed results in the literature on the

relationship between shall issue concealed carry laws and gun homicides with most

research showing no clear effect (RAND, 2018). In a 2017 study researchers evaluated

data from 25 years (1991-2015) comparing concealed carry shall issue laws and handgun

homicide rates and found a significant relationship with 8.6% higher firearm homicide

rates and 10.6% higher handgun homicide rates in shall issue states (Seigel et al., 2017).

In contrast, a Hamill et al. (2018) study of 30 years of data (1986-2015) did not find a

statistically significant association between homicide rates and liberalized concealed

carry policies. A 2019 study of concealed carry permits among young adults aged 18-20

found no increase in murder, robbery, or assault rates by allowing concealed carry (Kleck,

2019). The RAND (2018) analysis of studies on shall issue law effects concluded that

there is inconclusive evidence on their effect on gun homicides, robberies or assaults.

However, the RAND (2018) study did find minimal evidence that shall issue concealed

carry laws result in an increase in overall violent crime and unintentional firearm injury.

Gun Owner and Non-Gun Owner Perspectives on Gun Control

Individual perspectives of gun control are often associated with varying

characteristics and demographics, such as political affiliation, individualism versus

collectivism, race, gender, rural vice urban identity, religious affiliation, or culture

(Blanco, 2016). The purpose of this quantitative research study was to examine Virginia

gun owner and non-gun owner attitudes on gun policy, and enhance the understanding of

the conflict between divergent views that influence gun policy initiatives at the state and

local levels. Recent comprehensive analysis comparing perspectives of gun owners to

non-gun owners on a national level has been accomplished through a 2017 Pew Research

Center study and a 2018 national survey through the non-partisan and objective research

organization (NORC) at the University of Chicago.

American society has a long and complex association with guns. According to the

2017 Pew survey, over 30% of Americans own guns and 66% of those gun owners own

more than one firearm. An additional 11% of Americans live with someone who owns a

gun. Over half (52%) of Americans think that gun laws should be more strict, however

64% think that most people should be able to legally own a firearm. Interestingly, in

2017, 51% of Americans thought it was more important to control gun ownership than to

protect the right to own a gun which is the inverse of 2016 when 52% said it was more

important to protect gun rights than control gun ownership. As to why they own guns,

67% of gun owners say it is for their own protection. Hunting, sport shooting, and gun

collecting are other major factors contributing to gun ownership in the United States

(Parker et al., 2017).

The 2017 Pew survey assessed several gun control policy perspectives between

gun owners and non-gun owners (see Table 1). There is relatively close agreement

between gun owners and non-gun owners on prohibiting the mentally ill and individuals

on no-fly lists from purchasing guns, and on employing universal background checks for

all gun purchases. Yet there is a large variance on creating a federal database to track gun

sales and banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines (Parker et al., 2017).

Table 1

Pew Survey Results, 2017

Gun Policy

Gun Owners

Support

Non-Gun Owners

Support

Preventing mentally ill from purchasing guns

89%

Barring gun purchases by people on no-fly or

watch lists

82%

84%

Background checks for private sales and at gun

shows (universal background checks)

77%

87%

Creating a federal database to track gun sales

54%

80%

Banning assault-style weapons

48%

77%

Banning high-capacity magazines

44%

74%

In addition to the Pew survey, a 2018 study by Barry et al. used the NORC online

panel to compare gun owner and non-gun owner opinions on 24 firearm policies. The

sample population (n=2124) was gathered from a probability based representative pool

covering 95% of American households. There was a 75% completion rate from the

sample population. Of the 24 policies assessed eight had a disparity of support greater

than 10 percentage points between the two groups. There were 10 policies assessed in the

Barry et al. study which correlate to the scope of my research study (see Table 2).

Table 2

NORC Survey Results, 2018

Gun Policy

Gun Owners

Supporta

Non-Gun Owners

Supporta

Requiring a background check system for all gun

sales (universal background checks)

85%

90%

A person who can legally carry a concealed gun

should be required to pass a test

83%

85%

Requiring states to report a person to the

background check system who is prohibited

from a buying a gun due to involuntary

commitment or declared mentally

incompetent

84%

Prohibiting a person subject to a temporary

domestic violence restraining order from

having a gun

77%

83%

Allowing family members to ask the court to

temporarily remove guns if a relative is at

risk of harming himself or other (red flag

law)

73%

80%

Allowing law enforcement to temporarily

remove guns from individuals who pose

an immediate threat to themselves or others

(red flag law)

69%

78%

Requiring by law that a person lock up guns in

their home to prevent handling by children

58%

79%

Banning the sale of military style semi

automatic assault weapons

44%

68%

Banning the sale of large capacity ammunition

clips or magazines holding more than ten

rounds

41%

67%

Allowing legal concealed carry on school grounds

(K-12)

43%

19%

a Percentages are approximate based on data provided in the Barry et al. (2018) study.

Of the relevant policies, universal background checks (87.8%), requiring a person to pass

a test in order to carry a concealed weapon (84.7%), reporting individuals disqualified

from owning a gun due to mental health background checks (83.6%), and ERPO or red

flag laws (78.9%) garnered the most support overall from both gun owners and non-gun

owners (Barry et al., 2018).

Factors Affecting Imaging of Gun Policy

Media Coverage and Interest Groups

Within the gun policy debate divergent definitions and imaging are shaped by the

media and advocacy groups who often use evidence, scientific studies, public opinion

polls, regulations, laws, celebrity endorsements, or lobbying efforts to advocate for their

policy agenda (Smith-Walter et al., 2016). The competing narratives portrayed in the

media and by advocacy messaging can influence the outcome of public policy

discussions by shifting engagement and support among key constituencies not normally

engaged in the issue. “Policy makers and interest groups frame issues in ways that they

believe will shape policy debates in their favor and work to garner news coverage that

uses those frames” (McGinty et al., 2016, p. 9).

Both the content and volume of news coverage on gun policy is often a result of

punctuated incidents such as mass shootings or assassinations. After the Columbine

School shooting in 1999, 42% of the media stories defined the problem of school

shootings as “too many guns or too few gun controls” (Kleck, 2009, p. 1448). Within six

months of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, the intense media

coverage coupled with public opinion polls, led to an influx of over 1500 legislative

proposals on gun control at both the federal and state levels (McGinty et al., 2016).

In 2016 a study assessed policy imaging in the media on gun control by

examining the volume of coverage, frequency, and level of advocacy on both sides of the

issue of universal background checks right after Sandy Hook. The results demonstrated

that immediately following a high profile incident the volume of coverage peaked within

four months and then dropped off precipitously coinciding with the defeat or

implementation of legislation. By a margin of 23%, news coverage was more likely to

favor pro-gun control messages than anti-gun control messages and only 32% of news

reports presented both the supporting and opposing message. Counter-arguments by

advocacy groups were used often with 43% of the message framing on universal

background checks cited as a means of keeping guns away from dangerous people while

24% cited universal background checks as ineffective (McGinty et al., 2016).

Media coverage of high profile events often affects public opinion, and gun policy

is no different. Seate et al. (2012) assessed the effects of media coverage on attitudes

regarding gun policy following the 2007 Virginia Tech mass shooting which killed 32

people and wounded 15. The results showed that for non-gun owners’ media exposure to

news regarding gun violence did influence their opinions on gun control while for gun

owners it did not. This is consistent with other research that showed that media messages

are not accepted if they are seen as a threat to an individual’s social identity.

In assessing how advocacy groups use narrative strategies and certain types of

evidence regarding gun policy, Smith-Walter et al. (2016) compared the policy stance of

the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Rifle Association (NRA).

The results demonstrated that Brady Campaign narratives target emotional and

intellectual responses by combining their interpretation of statistical and legal truths with

evocative portrayals of victims and heroes. The strategy of this approach is “designed to

draw in more participants and expand the scope of conflict” (Smith-Walter et al., 2016, p.

1073). Conversely the NRA narrative focuses on the groups arrayed against them who

threaten intrinsic values such as liberty and freedom. The strategy of the NRA is to define

the problem as us vs. them where an elitist enemy is determined to take away the rights of

the average American citizen. This type of framing relies on emphasizing “the power of

an opponent while understating the power of the narrating group or coalition”

(SmithWalter et al., 2016, p. 1073). The interpretation of evidence by coalitions is critical

to how the narrative on gun policy is received and promulgated.

Mass Shootings

There is no universally accepted definition of a mass shooting. Therefore the

results of research studies can vary drastically, which can affect the messaging and image

of this highly volatile topic. Prior to 2013 the FBI historically defined a mass murderer as

someone who kills four or more individuals in a single incident however in 2013 the

definition was changed to three or more. Most academic researchers continue to use the

death of four or more people within a 24 hour period with no cooling off period as their

definition of a mass shooting (Lott, 2018).

Statistics show that mass shootings account for less than 4% of the more than

35,000 gun deaths in the United States each year, however due to the lethality of these

types of attacks they are often the epicenter for renewed gun control debate (Cukier &

Eagan, 2018). According to Lott (2018) the United States is not unique when it comes to

mass shootings. Between 1998 and 2015 the United States accounted for 2.2% of the

world’s mass public shootings and 1.5% of the worldwide mass shooting casualties. In a

per capita ranking the United States ranks 64th out of 97 countries in the number of mass

shooting attacks. Additionally, the growth rate in the number of mass shootings is not as

high as the rest of the world; however there has been an increase in the annual number of

mass shootings in the United States over the last five years. Analysis of data from the

Global Terrorism Database strongly supports Lott’s findings. Of the 58,445 mass

shootings worldwide since 1970 only 402 were instigated in the United States. In contrast

a study by Lankford (2016), which consisted of a data set derived from 292 cases of mass

shootings worldwide between 1966 and 2012, found that the United States accounted for

31% of the world’s mass shootings.

Mass shootings typically garner a high level of media attention which leads to

increased gun policy debate. In the 12 months after Columbine more than 800 pieces of

firearm legislation were introduced, however only about 10% ever became law

(Schildkraut & Hernandez, 2014). Research from 2012 showed a divide among gun

owners and non-gun owners on the causes of mass shootings. Republicans typically

blame the individual shooter while Democrats blame weak gun laws and poor mental

healthcare. A follow-up study in 2017 found that both gun owners and non-gun owners

attributed the most blame to the shooter however, gun owners next blamed parents, then

pop culture, then gun laws, while non-gun owners blamed gun laws followed by parents

and then pop culture (Joslyn & Haider-Markel, 2012). A study by Lemieux (2014) found

that gun availability did have an effect on mass shootings from which the author surmised

that increased gun control would reduce access and therefore reduce mass shootings.

However, a RAND (2018) comprehensive review on gun control studies to determine the

effectiveness of the policy outcomes found there is inconsistent evidence from the studies

they reviewed that any gun control measure reduces mass shootings. The contradictory

findings highlight that the discrepancy in the definitions and data sets in mass shooting

research affects the results and affects perceptions and messaging within the gun control

debate.

Suicide and Mental Health

Another category integral to the policy image on gun control is the relationship of

suicides and mental health to the overall gun violence problem. Over 60% of all gun

deaths each year in the United States are from suicides and over 50% of all suicides

involve a firearm (Alban et al., 2018). Re-framing the gun violence problem as a public

health crisis to address suicides and mental health deficiencies has had a significant effect

on increasing the involvement of the medical community in the gun policy debate and led

to an increase in gun violence research motivated by that lens.

Kposowa et al. (2016) examined the effect of gun ownership, firearm storage, and

state level firearm laws on suicide rates. The results showed that gun ownership slightly

increases the gun suicide rate, maintaining unloaded firearms in the home increases the

rate by 50% and keeping them unsecured by as much as 75%, and there is a small

relationship between strict gun regulations and decreased suicide rates. These findings

were supported by a 2018 study which used the Brady Scorecard rankings for state

firearm regulations and compared them to the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) of

hospital admissions for firearm related suicide injuries. The study found that over a 14

year period, firearm suicide attempts occurred significantly more frequently in states with

less restrictive gun laws (Alban et al., 2018). Another study examined four specific gun

regulations and their effect on suicide rates between 2013 and 2014. The outcomes

exemplified mixed results. Although there were significant differences in suicide rates

between states with universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods and

states without those restrictions, they found no significant differences in suicide rates for

gun locks or open carry restrictions between states that had those types of laws and those

that did not (Anestis et al., 2017).

The mental health component of gun violence is amplified by mass shootings,

however only 3% - 5% of all violence can be attributed to an individual who has a serious

mental illness (Miller, 2017). Federal law does not mandate that all mental health records

be included in the NICS background check system, and does not address reporting of

those who have never been deemed mentally unfit, never received outpatient treatment,

or never been committed to a mental health institution (Schildkraut & Hernandez, 2014).

At the time of the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, Virginia state law only required

information on admissions or detention in a mental health facility be included and not

medical records. As a consequence, although the perpetrator Seung Hui Cho had been

temporarily detained and ordered to receive outpatient mental health treatment, it was not

reported and he was able to pass the required checks and purchase a gun. Also at that

time the one-gun-a-month law was in effect in Virginia so Cho waited 30 days and

purchased the second gun he used to ultimately kill 32 people. Subsequently Virginia

enacted an executive order to increase reporting requirements regarding mental health

disabilities (Davies, 2007).

Culture, Religion, and Political Identity

There are numerous variables that have been associated with attitudes on gun

control. All of which are used to frame the image on gun policy. The General Social

Survey (GSS), a representative stratified multi-stage probability sample of American

households used for numerous gun control studies, includes many of these applicable

control variables such as political views, religion, gender, race, age, and urbanization.

There are also several gun-related variables within the GSS that measure gun ownership

and attitudes. GSS data from 1984-1998 consisting of a stratified probability sample

(n=7174) was used to demonstrate that gun ownership is related to cultural values.

Specifically, possessing individualistic cultural traditions is a strong predictor of attitudes

against requiring gun permits (Celinska, 2007). Yamane (2016) also used GSS data from

2006-2014 to study the influence of religious affiliation and religiosity on gun ownership.

The results showed that sects of Protestantism are more likely to own a gun than other

religions, with Evangelicals being the most likely. These findings were enhanced by a

Merino (2018) study using a random sample survey from the Public Religion Research

Institute (n=1006). The results demonstrated that Evangelical Protestants are more likely

to oppose stricter gun control laws than other religions. A later study conducted by Miller

(2019) assessed 26 waves of the data from the GSS from 1972 to 2016 and found that

neither increased political partisanship nor the urban/rural divide caused a significant

reduction in support for gun control. The results demonstrated that most Republicans

support some measure of gun control and that the polarization on gun control policy is

not at the level of the general population but instead resides within the political elite. The

Miller (2019) study provides an underpinning for evaluating the effect of policy image

from the perspective of political affiliation and the difference between constituent

attitudes regarding local and state level policy initiatives.

While GSS data is useful in assessing general attitudes of varying demographic

groups on gun control, the use of GSS data for my research study was not feasible due to

the focus of the gun related questions not addressing the perspectives of gun owners and

non-gun owners towards specific gun control policies and the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary

movement in Virginia.

Summary

The controversial issue of gun policy in America has been extensively examined

from many different viewpoints. It is consistently characterized by outrage, then action,

followed by reaction which specifically aligns to Baumgartner and Jones’ theory of

punctuated equilibrium (Watkins, 1997). There is an abundance of contradictory research

about the effectiveness of gun control policies at reducing gun violence. However, there

is a lack of literature specifically addressing the perspectives of gun owners and non-gun

owners as it relates to contrasting legislative initiatives at the state and local levels. It is

important to analyze and understand this issue as overall current opinion polls show an

increase in public support for some gun regulation which is in contrast with the trend

from the last two decades which was marked by a decline in public support for more

regulation (Vizzard, 2015). This study explores the dichotomy between public opinion

polls and the rise of the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary movement in Virginia. Examining

what factors drive engagement contributes to the existing literature on gun policy and

may influence future policy development aimed at curbing gun violence while protecting

individual rights. The next chapter describes how the study was conducted and how the

participants were selected. It also explains the rationale for the type of study

methodology, instrumentation design, data analysis as well as reviews any validity and

ethical considerations.

Chapter 3: Research Method

Introduction

The purpose of this quantitative cross-sectional correlational research study was

to examine Virginia gun owner and non-gun owner attitudes on gun policy and enhance

the understanding of the conflict between divergent views that influence gun policy

initiatives at the state and local levels. It is unknown what Virginia gun owner and

nongun owner attitudes are regarding local enactment of 2nd Amendment Sanctuary

resolutions and state gun law proposals or if gun policy imaging exposure influences the

contradictory perspectives regarding state and local government gun policy initiatives in

Virginia. The dichotomy between the explosion of localized 2nd Amendment Sanctuary

resolutions and the enactment of state level gun legislation sets the stage for assessing the

attitudes behind both initiatives and the effect of various gun policy images on those

attitudes. In this chapter, I focus on the research questions and variables, explain the

rationale for the quantitative nonexperimental cross-sectional correlational study design,

and articulate any constraints. I also address the methodology by defining the population,

discussing sampling procedures and participant recruitment, and conclude with a

breakdown of the data collection procedures and threats to validity. The chapter ends with

a summary of the key points.

Research Design and Rationale

I designed this quantitative nonexperimental cross-sectional correlational study to

assess the attitudes of Virginia gun owners and non-gun owners on gun control laws, 2nd

Amendment sanctuary resolutions and the influence of policy images on their attitudes.

The independent variable for this study was gun ownership. This dichotomous variable

was represented by 1 = yes and 2 = no. Attitudes on 2nd Amendment sanctuary

resolutions was a dependent variable measured on a 7-point Likert scale. I measured the

composite score of the attitudes on nine specific gun control laws: universal background

checks, protective orders, carrying firearms in sensitive areas, a one-gun-a-month

purchase limit, reckless endangerment of a minor, notification of lost or stolen weapons,

extreme risk protection orders, assault weapons and magazine bans, and concealed carry

on a 7-point Likert scale which functioned as both a dependent variable and a predictor

variable to address the research questions. The policy image factors that potentially

influence attitudes on gun control were also predictor variables. These eight variables:

media coverage, interest groups, mass shootings, suicides, mental health, culture,

religion, and political identity, were measured to provide an index score of positive,

negative, and no effect for analysis. Additionally, the categorical variables for the

demographics of gender, race, and political affiliation functioned as covariates.

In establishing a research design, I used quantitative analysis to convert observed

data into a format that could be manipulated using statistical techniques to provide an

explanation or description of the outcomes. I used a nonexperimental approach because

the independent variable was not subject to any manipulation, a cross-sectional approach

because the collected observational data came from samples of a pre-existing group

within the studied population at a single point in time, and a correlational design to

measure a statistical relationship between variables (Babbie, 2017). These four criteria

were characterized in the design of this study. I converted the collected data into

numerical values represented by dichotomous, categorical, or interval values. I did not

manipulate the independent variables. The sample population was a pre-existing group of

Virginians at least 18 years of age who had resided in the state for a minimum of 2 years.

I used multiple linear regression to test for a relationship between the variables. Analysis

of the empirical data collected using a quantitative nonexperimental cross-sectional

correlational approach efficiently and effectively addressed the aspects of the research

questions in this study of Virginians’ attitudes on gun control and 2nd Amendment

Sanctuary resolutions.

In this study I used a quantitative nonexperimental cross-sectional correlational

design due to the compressed timeframe and constrained resources characteristic of this

research study. This approach incorporated the use of statistical tools for data analysis,

which provided a means for accurate and timely outputs without any manipulation of the

variables by me, the researcher. A survey enabled me to describe the characteristics of the

phenomenon being studied. Using a survey required little interaction between the study

participants and me, which saved time and resources. With web-based tools such as

SurveyMonkey, I was able to design and administer an instrument to a large cross-section

of the population within a short timeframe at little to no cost. Ultimately, this design

streamlined the process and allowed for robust statistical analysis for determining the

outcomes.

Attitudes and perceptions of sample populations at a given time are often

measured in quantitative studies where the data are converted into numerical elements

and then analyzed through statistical procedures (Creswell, 2013). The design of this

study was consistent with this type of research. The use of this method enabled me as the

researcher to compare the differences in attitudes between gun owners and non-gun

owners and advance the knowledge of incongruent perspectives on gun policy at the state

and local levels.

Methodology

Population, Setting, and Sample

The target population for this research study was the adult population of the

Commonwealth of Virginia who were at least 18 years of age and therefore legally

eligible to own a firearm. As of July 2020, anyone 18 years or older in Virginia can

purchase a rifle or shotgun; however, the individual must be 21 years old to purchase a

handgun. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (n.d.), Virginia’s total adult population as

of June 2020 was estimated at 6.657 million. Virginia’s population was 49% male and

51% female and was composed as follows: approximately 61% White, 20% Black, 10%

Hispanic, 7% Asian, and 2% other. More than 89% of the population had a high school

degree and 38% had a bachelor’s degree or higher. The median household income was

$71,564 with 10.7% of the population living in poverty.

I determined two other important demographics for this study using proxy data.

Virginia recognizes only two official political parties: Democrat and Republican. In

2016, approximately 49% of the population of Virginia voted Democrat and 44% voted

Republican (Virginia Department of Elections, n.d.). Because Virginia does not require

registration with a specific political party to vote, the demographic for political affiliation

in this study was instead based on the proxy data from overall party identification in the

United States. In 2020, a Pew survey found that 33% of Americans identified as

Democrat, 29% identified as Republican, and 34% identified as Independent (Gramlich,

2020).

Gun ownership is also difficult to determine because Virginia does not have a

requirement to register firearms. In 2020, RAND conducted a study, “State-Level

Estimates of Household Firearm Ownership,” which assessed years of survey data from

the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), GSS, Pew Research Center,

and Gallup along with proxy measures of the rates from gun suicides, hunting licenses,

and Guns & Ammo magazine subscriptions to determine household firearm rates (HFR).

The result for Virginia was an HFR of 44% (Schell et al., 2020). This number may be

high because several individual survey estimates of gun ownership in Virginia quote

lower numbers. Specifically, the Pew study had a gun owner rate for Virginia closer to

30% (Parker, 2017). In this study, I used the HFR score of 44% as the baseline for

comparing gun ownership rates between the sample population and demographics for

Virginia.

In research to determine the probability of an outcome, a robust representative

random sample of the population being studied is required. Probability is defined as the

measure of whether an event will happen in relation to the total number of possible

outcomes. A random selection means that each participant has an equal chance of being

selected. However, probability samples are not always feasible or appropriate. Therefore,

due to the nature of this nonexperimental study design, I used a nonprobability sampling

technique to gather the sample by a means unrelated to random selection and probability

theory (Babbie, 2017). In this study, I selected a subset of Virginians older than 18 years

using the SurveyMonkey application. I sent the survey to individuals who met the

screening criteria which provided a basis for examining the attitudes of a segment of the

population. Using this technique for this study ensured that a large enough sample that

was generally representative of the target population was collected. This enabled

statistically sound assessments of the data (Babbie, 2017). I compared the overall

demographics for the population of Virginia with the sample population in the study

using chi-square analysis to demonstrate the representativeness of the sample.

SurveyMonkey (n.d.) consists of a panel of volunteers who agree to participate in

research studies. The sample obtained from SurveyMonkey was limited based on the

number of participants maintained within their database. The population size was the

entire population represented in this study which is an estimated 6.6 million Virginians

who are 18 years of age or older (Census Bureau, n.d.). The confidence level shows how

reliable the outcomes are and for this study it was set at 95%. The margin of error

informs how much of a deviation there is in the sample population from the total

population and for this study the margin of error was 5%. The G*Power (see Figure 2)

sample size results showed that a minimum of 128 valid responses were needed as the

sample for this study. The representativeness of the SurveyMonkey sample was assumed

but could not be validated although a chi-square analysis was conducted to assess the

representativeness of the sample. The population was screened to include only those who

have lived in Virginia for at least the last 2 years and were 18 years or older.

SurveyMonkey only included those participants who self-reported that they met the

screening criteria, and any survey responses that did not meet the screening criteria were

excluded from the study. All potential respondents were provided with an informed

consent letter attached to the survey that articulated the study purpose, the voluntary

nature of their participation, and the parameters of their involvement in the study. Those

who consented to the survey and met the criteria were able to participate in the study

(SurveyMonkey, n.d.).

Power Analysis

Power analysis is typically used by researchers to ensure that the sample size is

large enough to determine with some degree of confidence that an effect can be detected.

There are four elements to power analysis; sample size, effect size, significance level

(alpha), and power (beta). In knowing any three of the elements the fourth can be

determined. The sample size is the minimum number of participants or subjects required

in the analysis to prove a statistically significant result. Effect refers to the outcome or

results of what was actually studied regardless of how many subjects were included. The

expected effect is traditionally assessed based on findings from similar studies and

knowledge of the topic and is ranked as small, medium, or large. The study design will

also influence the effect size benchmarks that should be used. The effect size is a

measurement of the strength or significance of the study results independent of the size of

the sample. The significance level or p-value refers to the likelihood that an effect is not a

result of chance. Power refers to the probability that the effect that is present will be

found (Hunt, 2015).

The purpose of conducting a power analysis for this study was to exemplify the

number of subjects needed to prove that the effect is statistically significant and not due

to chance. It ensured that a statistically significant predictor could be detected from the

sample size. Prior to beginning the research I conducted a priori power analysis to show

the feasibility of the multiple linear regression statistical tests used in this study and

determine the size of the sample needed. The power analysis used G*Power version

3.1.9.2 software for the specific statistical tests (Faul et al., 2009).

Figure 2

Power Analysis for Multiple Linear Regression

In multiple linear regression Cohen (1988) states that a medium effect size is f2 =

.15, which equates to a .13 medium effect size for multiple-R2 and a .059 medium effect

size for a partial r2. When calculating to remove any shared variance from the partial r2, the

result is a part r2 of .0545 which accounts for any unique variance of a specific predictor.

When conducting the multiple linear regression analysis the residual variance is defined as

the proportion of variance that is not explained by the entire set of predictors and equates to

1 – multiple-R2 or .87 for a medium effect size of the overall multiple-R2. To detect a

medium effect size part r2 of a predictor within an overall medium effect size multiple-R2

the power analysis values are a Cohen’s f2 = .0626, p = .05, and power = .80

(Cohen, 2003).

The result of the G*Power analysis (see Figure 2) was a required minimum

sample size of 128 to ensure there was a 5% chance that the null hypothesis is correct but

will be rejected and an 80% probability of finding a significant relationship in the effect. I

have multiple predictors in my test and the sample size of 128 remains consistent for up

to 37 predictors (Cohen 2003).

Participant Recruitment and Data Collection

Recruitment of participants for this study was managed through the

SurveyMonkey (n.d.) application which drew from a pool of participants who met the

screening criteria. The SurveyMonkey panel of participants for this study was comprised

of individuals who live in Virginia. SurveyMonkey encourages participation and honest

input by offering incentives such as donations to the participants’ favorite charity and

opportunities to win prizes. The survey was sent directly to the participants via an email

link. The email also contained the purpose of the study, the participant consent letter,

information on the length of the survey, the approximate time required to complete it, and

contact information in case any participant requests the results or has a question. The

participant consent letter included a guarantee of anonymity and informed on the

potential risks, harms and benefits of participating in the study (Babbie, 2017). Once the

participant agreed to the terms outlined in the consent letter they were granted access to

the survey instrument. The survey took approximately 5 minutes to complete. Once the

survey was completed the participants received an auto-generated thank you that

appeared after they clicked the submit button. The results from the survey were compiled

by SurveyMonkey and the raw data made available to me for statistical analysis. It was

expected to take approximately 5 days to collect the data for this study (SurveyMonkey,

n.d.).

Cognitive Testing Pilot Study

Cognitive testing of the questions is conducted when developing a survey to

determine if the questions perform as designed. It ensures that the respondents are able to

correctly understand what is being asked and provide accurate responses. Specifically, is

the intent of the question captured and does it make sense to the audience? The test

examines four aspects of each question which include comprehension of the topic, recall

of relevant knowledge, bias or sensitivity, and completeness of the response format. The

goal of a cognitive pilot is to improve the survey quality by addressing any

misunderstandings or concerns prior to fielding the survey to the sample population

(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.).

In this study I administered a cognitive pilot (see Appendix B) to test the

readability and understandability of eight of the survey questions that were not pulled

from established and verifiable survey instruments. These eight questions related to the

influence of policy images on attitudes towards gun control. The format for the questions

was based on the Political Attitudes Questionnaire (PAQ) developed by Koleva et al.

(2012). The question design used a multiple choice option of three contrasting statements

to garner the pro, con, or no effect view of the participant by asking which statement

about the issue was closest to their views. My survey questions inserted the policy

imaging issues into the pro, con, no effect formatted statements. The policy imaging

elements were an index and did not constitute a scale measure. Therefore neither factor

analysis nor a Cronbach’s alpha was appropriate nor necessary since the variables were

not correlated or coalesced into a common variance construct (Warner, 2013).

The pilot was administered to 12 participants who met the criteria of the sample

population using convenience sampling. The pilot only included the eight requisite

questions and made no reference to the other survey questions. The pilot participants

were asked to provide any comments or recommendations in writing geared towards

improving the readability and understandability of the survey questions. The feedback

was assessed and incorporated as required into the final survey instrument. The cognitive

pilot outcomes and modifications to the final survey instrument are discussed in the study

outcomes.

Instrumentation and Operationalization of Constructs

Survey Development

The survey instrument I used in this study (see Appendix A) was comprised of 25

questions pulled from two empirically validated survey instruments and my cognitive

pilot. The authors granted permissions to use the survey questions and modify them

where necessary to fit the scope of my study. My survey consists of two screening

questions for participation, four multiple choice demographic questions, one dichotomous

question on gun ownership, one Likert scale question on 2nd Amendment Sanctuary

attitudes, nine Likert scale questions on gun control attitudes, and eight multiple choice

questions on the influence of gun policy imaging.

The 2017 Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP) consists of a

nationally randomly selected representative group of adult respondents n = 3930 and asks

99 questions related to American gun attitudes. Pew survey material is free to the public

for use and written permission to use the questions without any modification was granted

by Ms. Julia O’Hanlon via email on July 27, 2020 (see Appendix C). Pew uses a

multistep approach to designing and validating survey instruments. They assess wording,

format, and ordering through focus groups and pilots. Questions from the ATP are used

over many years on various survey instruments to ensure consistency and validity in the

collected data. The 2017 survey margin of error was 2.8% with a 95% confidence

interval. My survey included the verbatim question on gun ownership measured as a yes

or no and demographic questions on race, gender, and political affiliation taken from the

2017 Pew survey (Parker et al., 2017).

The Police Chiefs’ Perceptions of Firearm Policies (PCPFP) survey is a 29 item

instrument designed by Dr. Amy Thompson in 2006 to assess support for various firearm

regulations by Police Chiefs. The questions ask respondents to rate on a 5-point Likert

scale how strongly they agree or disagree with specific gun regulations. The survey

design aligned with my questions on gun regulations and was modified to address the

nine specific Virginia gun laws and incorporate a 7-point Likert scale. Written permission

to use and modify the questions as appropriate was granted by Dr. Thompson via email

on July 27, 2020 (see Appendix C). The PCPFP survey content was validated through two

iterations of a pilot consisting of a convenience sample of 20 police chiefs. The

correlation coefficient was .64 and the Cronbach’s α = .90 on the firearm regulation

questions. The survey instrument was used in a 2006 study of police chiefs n = 405

perceptions and a subsequent 2011 study of sheriffs n = 398 perceptions (Thompson et

al., 2006).

The PAQ instrument was developed by Koleva et al. (2012) to assess the attitudes

on specific political issues. The instrument was pulled from the PsycTests database and

written permission was not required for use in educational research (see Appendix C).

The questions were collected and adapted from national polls conducted by Gallup, Inc.,

the New York Times, and the Pew Research Center. The survey was administered to

selfselected volunteers from the general population n = 14,517. For my study the format

design of eight of the questions was a modified version from PAQ and tested for

readability and understandability with a cognitive pilot of 12 participants.

Variable Definitions, Measures, and Scales

1. Gun Ownership - legally owning one or more firearms to include handguns, rifles,

and shotguns (Parker et al., 2017).

2. 2nd Amendment Sanctuary - a local jurisdiction (county, city, or town) that has

adopted a resolution to reject the local enforcement of any firearm law (state or

federal) that they perceive as a violation of the 2nd Amendment individual right to

bear arms (Mascia, 2020).

3. Universal Background Checks - requiring a mandatory review of records in the

National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to legally purchase

or transfer any firearm (VLIS, n.d.).

4. Protective Orders - prohibiting any person subject to a legal protective order

issued by a magistrate or judge from possessing a firearm (VLIS, n.d.).

5. Carrying in Sensitive Areas - authorizing local ordinances to prohibit carrying or

possessing firearms or requiring a permit to carry or possess a firearm in

government buildings, public parks, recreation or community centers, or public

streets and sidewalks (VLIS, n.d.).

6. One Gun a Month Limit - prohibiting anyone who is not a licensed gun dealer

from purchasing more than one handgun in a 30-day period (VLIS, n.d.).

7. Reckless Endangerment of a Minor - mandating any person who recklessly leaves

a loaded or unsecured firearm in a manner that endangers the life or limb of a

person under the age of 14 is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor (VLIS, n.d.).

8. Notify of Lost or Stolen Weapon - requiring a person to notify police within 48

hours of discovering the loss or theft of a firearm (VLIS, n.d.).

9. Extreme Risk Protection Orders - allowing any attorney for the Commonwealth or

a police officer to apply to a court for a 14-day emergency substantial risk order to

prohibit a person who poses a risk from purchasing, possessing or transporting a

firearm (VLIS, n.d.).

10. Assault Weapons and Magazine Ban - prohibiting the sale or transfer of assault

weapons, silencers, and magazines holding greater than 12 rounds (VLIS, n.d.).

11. Concealed Carry - requiring a legally issued permit to carry a concealed handgun

in public (VLIS, n.d.).

12. Media Coverage of Gun Policy - general attention and exposure to policy

initiatives related to gun violence and crime in print, television, radio, the internet,

or social media.

13. Interest Group Involvement in Gun Policy - familiarity with or membership in a

group or an organization with a specific common interest in gun rights or gun

control advocacy or issues that attempt to influence public policy.

14. Mass Shooting Awareness - the familiarity or knowledge of a gun violence

incident that involves the death of four or more people within a 24 hour period by

the same perpetrator or group of perpetrators with no cooling off period (Lott,

2018).

15. Gun Suicide Prevalence - familiarity or knowledge of the prevalence of gun use

by people who intentionally killed themselves.

16. Mental Health Aspect of Gun Violence - the familiarity or knowledge of an

incident that involves an individual with diminished psychological, emotional,

and social capacity that results in gun violence.

17. Cultural Influence on Gun Policy - the shared beliefs, values, knowledge, social

norms and characteristics that affect attitudes towards gun policy.

18. Religious Influence on Gun Policy - the organized system of beliefs or attitudes

related to the worship of God or the supernatural that influence support or

opposition to gun policy.

19. Political Identity Influence on Gun Policy - the knowledge and support of a set of

political ideals or issues that inform an individual belief system on gun policy.

Table 3

Variable Measures and Scales

Variable

Measure

Scale

Gun Ownership

Predictor

Dichotomous

Attitudes on 2nd Amendment Sanctuary

Dependent

Interval

Attitudes on Gun Control Policies (universal

background checks, protective orders,

carrying firearms in sensitive areas, a one-

gun-a-month purchase limit, reckless

endangerment of a minor, notification of

lost or stolen weapons, extreme risk

protection orders, assault weapons and

magazine bans, and concealed carry)

Dependent and

Predictor

Interval w/ a

composite

score

Exposure to Policy Imaging (media

coverage, interest group involvement,

mass shooting awareness, gun suicide

prevalence, mental health effects, cultural

influence, religious influence, and

political identity influence)

Predictor

Categorical w/

an index score

Demographics (gender, race, and political

affiliation)

Covariate

Categorical

Data Analysis Plan

Multiple linear regression was used in this study to test the relationship between

the variables and determine if the null hypotheses should be rejected for each of my three

research questions. This type of test was used to estimate how the dependent variable

might change when exposed to changes in the independent or predictor variables. The

predictor variable gun ownership is dichotomous and the exposure to policy imaging

variable is categorical. The dependent and predictor variables on attitudes regarding gun

control and 2nd Amendment sanctuary resolutions are measured on a 7-point Likert scale

which is traditionally considered ordinal. There is an ongoing debate among researchers

as to whether Likert scale values should be treated as ordinal or interval. This

differentiation affects the types of parametric or nonparametric statistical tests that can be

applied. Some statisticians prefer to use parametric analysis if all assumptions are met

whereas others are less stringent and prefer parametric methods due to their enhanced

statistical power. If Likert scale data is treated as ordinal then nonparametric testing

should be used meaning there is no assumption that the data is distributed normally.

Conversely if they are treated as intervals then parametric testing applies meaning it is

assumed that there is a normal distribution within the data (Warner, 2013). A 2017 study

by Wu and Leung demonstrated that increasing the number of points on the Likert scale

improves the approximation to true intervals, reduces kurtosis and skewness, and

increases the normality of the distribution. Based on other research (Knapp, 1990;

Lovelace & Brickman, 2013; Wu & Leung, 2017) regarding the treatment of Likert scale

variables, the projected sample size, and the assumption that the sample will be evenly

distributed, I elected to treat the data from the 7-point Likert scales as interval and apply

parametric testing in this study.

The software used to analyze the data in this study was the IBM Statistical

Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) v27. Before beginning any analysis the data

gathered from the surveys was screened to ensure accuracy, consistency, and identify

outliers or missing data elements. Outliers are data points that are significantly different

from the rest of the data. These extremes fall outside the normal distribution or z scores.

A boxplot, histogram or scatterplot was used to identify outliers. If outliers are detected

the data set may be trimmed or the outliers converted to a mean or median. For missing

data the course of action will depend on the amount that is missing. If the missing data

equals less than 3.29% of the total it will be omitted; if it is greater than 3.29% then

values will be randomly imputed using the SPSS software (Warner, 2013).

The data were tested for any assumptions relative to the statistical tests that were

used. For multiple linear regression this includes linearity, normality, multicollinearity,

and homoscedasticity. If the assumptions were not met then further action was applied for

the variable in question. The linear relationship between the dependent and independent

variables was assessed by testing for the linearity assumption. Normality assumed that

there was a normal distribution of the variables’ scores. The multicollinearity assumption

tested for the correlation between predictor (independent) variables. Homoscedasticity

assumed equal variances for the populations being assessed (Warner, 2013).

I tested Hypothesis 1 using multiple linear regression to determine the

relationship between the predictor variables (gun ownership and exposure to gun policy

imaging) and the dependent variable (attitudes on Virginia state gun laws). The test

provided descriptive statistics, confidence intervals, regression coefficients r2 or

estimated effect, standard error which shows the variation in the estimates, t statistic, and

p-value (Warner, 2013).

I tested Hypothesis 2 using multiple linear regression to determine the

relationship between the predictor variables (gun ownership and exposure to gun policy

imaging) and the dependent variable (attitudes on 2nd Amendment Sanctuary

resolutions). The test provided descriptive statistics, confidence intervals, regression

coefficients r2, standard error, t statistic, and p-value (Warner, 2013).

I tested Hypothesis 3 using multiple linear regression to determine the

relationship between the dependent variable (attitudes on local 2nd Amendment

Sanctuary resolutions) and multiple predictor variables including (gun ownership,

attitudes on gun control, exposure to policy imaging, race, gender and political

affiliation). These covariates were added to the analysis to increase the precision of the

predictions and reduce any bias. The test provided descriptive statistics, confidence

intervals, estimated effect, and variation in the estimates, t statistic, and p-value.

Additionally, the Part R-squared values were assessed to learn the relative importance of

the predictors (Warner, 2013).

The research questions and hypotheses for this study were: