The New Politics on Gun Control
Josh Horwitz is the Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. All views expressed are his own.
Gun violence prevention advocates were rightfully excited to see Barack Obama elected as our 44th president in November of last year. Upon taking office, President Obama did not disappoint, issuing an Urban Policy agenda that contained the following strong statement on gun control:
"Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof.They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."
These sentiments were echoed by new Attorney General
Eric Holder, who expressed support for closing the Gun Show Loophole and renewing
the Assault Weapons Ban during his confirmation hearing. Noting this, Wayne LaPierre, Chief Executive Officer of the National Rifle Association (NRA), commented, "I think there are a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill cringing at Eric Holder's
comments right now."
It was tempting to view LaPierre's words as typical gun lobby bluster, but the actions of the U.S. Congress during the past month suggest that the NRA leader was speaking truth. Strong Democratic gains in both chambers of Congress led many to believe that support for sensible gun laws on Capitol Hill was a given. In the new Congress' first major test on the gun issue, however, Democratic Members countered the conventional wisdom and defied the best intentions of their own leadership.
The bill in question was the "D.C. House Voting Rights Act," which would grant the District of Columbia a voting Representative in the House for the first time ever. Bipartisan and vote-neutral, the act would pair a seat for the traditionally Democratic District with an additional seat for Republican-leaning Utah. When the bill came up for consideration in the Senate in late February, however, Senator John Ensign (R-NV) moved to attach an NRA-drafted amendment to the bill in hopes of undermining and defeating it.
The Ensign Amendment aims to gut the District of Columbia's new gun laws entirely. D.C.'s firearm registration system would be eliminated, assault weapons and high-capacity magazines would be legalized, federal anti-trafficking laws would be rolled back so that District residents could buy guns across state lines in MD and VA (without any oversight by D.C. authorities), and the D.C. Council would be prohibited from enacting any law in the future that might "unduly burden the ability of persons" to obtain and possess firearms. None of these changes to D.C.'s gun laws were called for in the recent District of Columbia v. Heller ruling by the Supreme Court. Needless to say, the amendment is also antithetical to the very principle of the "D.C. House Voting Rights Act": self-determination.
Facing the prospect of standing with the gun lobby or a city of 600,000 residents that has experienced significant gun violence from illegally trafficked firearms (97% of D.C. crime guns come from outside states with far weaker gun laws), 22 Democratic Senators chose the gun lobby and voted to approve the Ensign Amendment. It passed easily, 62-36, with all but one Republican voting for it. The voting rights bill, as amended, then passed on a vote of 61-37, with Senator Ensign and many other staunch NRA supporters voting "no."
The "D.C. House Voting Rights Act" is now being held up in the House because Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer do not have the Democratic votes needed to pass a rule that would block consideration of amendments. They know that if a vote is taken on a gun amendment in the chamber, they will lose and the NRA will win.
As our national headlines continue to feature horrific accounts of shootings -- two of the latest involving an assault weapons rampage in Alabama and an 11 year-old boy who blew his stepmother's head off before taking the bus to school -- our Congress has already dashed hopes of preventing such tragedies in the future. In the past, it might have been easy to blame gun lobby pandering on the Republican Party. Progressives will now need to come to grips with a Democratic Party that is increasingly interested in currying favor with pro-gun groups and numb to the suffering of gun violence victims and survivors.
It was tempting to view LaPierre's words as typical gun lobby bluster, but the actions of the U.S. Congress during the past month suggest that the NRA leader was speaking truth. Strong Democratic gains in both chambers of Congress led many to believe that support for sensible gun laws on Capitol Hill was a given. In the new Congress' first major test on the gun issue, however, Democratic Members countered the conventional wisdom and defied the best intentions of their own leadership.
The bill in question was the "D.C. House Voting Rights Act," which would grant the District of Columbia a voting Representative in the House for the first time ever. Bipartisan and vote-neutral, the act would pair a seat for the traditionally Democratic District with an additional seat for Republican-leaning Utah. When the bill came up for consideration in the Senate in late February, however, Senator John Ensign (R-NV) moved to attach an NRA-drafted amendment to the bill in hopes of undermining and defeating it.
The Ensign Amendment aims to gut the District of Columbia's new gun laws entirely. D.C.'s firearm registration system would be eliminated, assault weapons and high-capacity magazines would be legalized, federal anti-trafficking laws would be rolled back so that District residents could buy guns across state lines in MD and VA (without any oversight by D.C. authorities), and the D.C. Council would be prohibited from enacting any law in the future that might "unduly burden the ability of persons" to obtain and possess firearms. None of these changes to D.C.'s gun laws were called for in the recent District of Columbia v. Heller ruling by the Supreme Court. Needless to say, the amendment is also antithetical to the very principle of the "D.C. House Voting Rights Act": self-determination.
Facing the prospect of standing with the gun lobby or a city of 600,000 residents that has experienced significant gun violence from illegally trafficked firearms (97% of D.C. crime guns come from outside states with far weaker gun laws), 22 Democratic Senators chose the gun lobby and voted to approve the Ensign Amendment. It passed easily, 62-36, with all but one Republican voting for it. The voting rights bill, as amended, then passed on a vote of 61-37, with Senator Ensign and many other staunch NRA supporters voting "no."
The "D.C. House Voting Rights Act" is now being held up in the House because Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer do not have the Democratic votes needed to pass a rule that would block consideration of amendments. They know that if a vote is taken on a gun amendment in the chamber, they will lose and the NRA will win.
As our national headlines continue to feature horrific accounts of shootings -- two of the latest involving an assault weapons rampage in Alabama and an 11 year-old boy who blew his stepmother's head off before taking the bus to school -- our Congress has already dashed hopes of preventing such tragedies in the future. In the past, it might have been easy to blame gun lobby pandering on the Republican Party. Progressives will now need to come to grips with a Democratic Party that is increasingly interested in currying favor with pro-gun groups and numb to the suffering of gun violence victims and survivors.
Comments
Josh makes a great point, namely the Democrats in Congress have figured out that people who care about "gun issues" will vote against them if they try to ban or restrict their guns, but people who generally don't understand the issues and mistakenly equate "gun control" to "crime control" do not vote based mainly upon this set of issues. What took them so long?
For more information see www.gunlobbyist.com
Posted by: Richard Feldman | March 30, 2009 8:55 AM