Still waiting for it:

That last result is consistent with the hypothesis that the more people knew about the gun control legislation, the more likely they were to oppose it. Which reinforces a point that should be kept in mind whenever anyone cites public approval of a policy as a reason to support it: The public does not necessarily know what the hell it’s talking about. That is demonstrably true in the case of “assault weapon” bans, which received majority support in polls taken after the Sandy Hook massacre, probably because most people don’t know what an “assault weapon” is. Likewise, Obama is fond of saying that 90 percent of Americans support expanded background checks for gun buyers, which is what a CBS News survey conducted in January found. To be precise, 92 percent of respondents said they favored “a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers.” Yet Obama himself says “most Americans think that’s already the law.” How well-informed can support for requiring private sellers to run background checks be if most people who favor the idea don’t even realize it would represent a change in policy? Might these people be less inclined to support this proposal if they were not only familiar with current law but understood the reasons why background checks are not effective at keeping criminals from obtaining guns as well as the burdens and risks that a universal mandate would entail?

They’re going to wait a good long time, I think and hope.

As he points out, there is no duty on an elected representative to vote in accordance with the polls. Doing so would basically remove him from his responsibilities to vote his principles and conscience, and uphold his duty to the Constitution. The polls are ephemeral, and the only polls that matter are the ones on election day. Like Jacob Sullum, I’m glad as hell that we don’t have to put the Bill of Rights to a popular vote, because it would almost certainly lose.