In Congress, the Uphill Battle for Gun Control
Why it's been years since significant federal legislation
The scenario is all too familiar: A disturbed gunman opens fire in a school, an office, or a shopping center and, before horrified spectators, slaughters innocent men, women, and even children. After the massacres at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech University, and Omaha's Westroads Mall, the question is always the same: How could this tragedy have been prevented? Inevitably, there are calls for tougher gun control, and routinely they are followed by arguments about Second Amendment rights, along with protestations that "guns don't kill people; people do." In the end, the reactions to these tragedies serve only to remind how deeply divided Americans are when it comes to guns.
Four out of every 10 Americans own a gun. And nearly 3 out of 4 believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to have a firearm. Recent Gallup polls show that only 38 percent of Americans think the most important way to combat gun violence is through stricter gun laws; 58 percent believe more should be done to enforce current laws instead. And more than two thirds oppose an outright ban on handguns.
Lost momentum. Perhaps that's why, despite the steady toll of gunshot violence, it's been nearly 15 years since there has been a significant push for gun legislation on the federal level. Back in 1993, a Democratic-controlled Congress passed the Brady bill, which imposed background checks on gun buyers, and the following year, Congress banned private ownership of assault weapons. But the momentum didn't last. Months later, Republicans took over Congress, and in 1996, the House voted to repeal the assault weapons ban. Although the Senate failed to follow suit at the time, in 2004 Congress let the ban expire.
The Democrats learned the perils of reviving the gun control issue during the 2000 presidential campaign when candidate Al Gore pledged to limit handgun sales, crack down on gun shows, and support state registration of firearms. It was a liberal position that some think cost him the vote in a few southern, pro-gun states, including his home state of Tennessee. For many Democrats, the lesson was clear: Gun control was a losing—and consuming—issue. "You can talk about guns, or you can talk about everything else," says Dane Strother, a Democratic media consultant. "If you start talking about guns, everyone bridles, be it pro-gun or antigun. You'll never make it to healthcare. You'll never make it to the economy."
That attitude has carried the day as Democrats have tried to pick up more seats in pro-gun states like Missouri and in the Southwest. Many of the Democratic victories in 2006 came from conservative candidates like Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, a gun-owning former marine whose senior aide was arrested last year for accidentally carrying Webb's gun into a Senate office building.
In the 2008 presidential campaign, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama has talked much about gun control. Both Democratic candidates have endorsed the idea of tracking down illegal guns, but both have dropped their onetime support for licensing gun owners and registering new guns. At their Nevada debate in January, Clinton said she would reinstate the assault weapons ban. And Obama vowed to increase access to data that help trace the origin of guns used in crimes. But he acknowledged the gun control divide when he said: "We essentially have two realities when it comes to guns in this country.... We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets." Republican candidate John McCain has long endorsed an individual right to have guns.
Under Republican leadership, Congress did little to toughen gun control laws, and what Congress has done since then has largely been to relax laws. In 2003, for instance, it passed an amendment to block the government from publicly releasing most data that trace guns used in crimes. And in 2005, Congress gave gun manufacturers immunity to lawsuits if their firearms were used in crimes. The only significant federal gun control legislation, which increased funding for mental health background checks, was passed in December, under Democratic leadership and in the emotional wake of the Virginia Tech massacre. Other than that, says Andy Goddard, whose son was injured in the shooting, "people don't know how poorly protected they are."
In the states, however, the debate over gun control is as robust as ever. In a number of major cities, rising crime rates have pushed the issue to the front of the public agenda. Gun control advocates, led by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have been pushing for laws that would help target illegal gun trafficking: allowing states access to gun-trace data, requiring background checks at gun shows, and forcing gun owners to report lost or stolen weapons. "We have more than 250 million guns in this country, and not all of those guns are in the hands of rational people," says Jim Sollo, vice president of the Virginia Center for Public Safety, a gun control advocacy group.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next Page >
Reader Comments
On Democracy, Tyranny, and Permits
I have to take issue with several things written herein.
First, we are not a "democracy," but a Constitutional Republic. By that, I mean that our Constitution guides the government, with the Bill of Rights limiting what government can do to the individual's rights. In most cases it is nothing whatsoever. Those that try, and succeed, are treading on dangerous ground, acting in a treasonous manner, and against the oath they took to "protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic/" The problem is that once they suggest, vote for, or sign laws which abrogate the rights of the citizenry. they fall into that area which becomes treason to the very government they have sworn to uphold.
Certainly, there are many tragic deaths because of gun control, but as Thomas Jefferson wrote to Archibald Stewart in 1791, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree." The end result of this is further tragedies, played out daily in our media, as rogue elements of criminality use guns to perpetrate criminal acts, often in places where no law abiding citizen could be armed.
Mary May of MO states guns killed those people, not protected them. The problem could be that all those people were either under age based on the laws, or in (law abiding citizen) gun free zones.
She states she wants to control my guns. Well, well, isn't that quite tyrannical of her? When she runs for office, people had better vote against her right away, or the next thing you know you'll only be able to eat mashed up potatoes, and boneless chicken, and fish. Do-gooders are all around us, but those who wish us well through tyrannical means haven't a clue as to where their righteous indignation may lead, nor, do they care.Edmund Burke related, "The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts (encroachment: see meaning of infringe)...the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Thus, people like MM of MO, are in essence, tyrannical, evil, and wholly unfit for office, let alone prepared for what life has to offer.
Finally, let me let all of you in on a dirty little secret the government has been hiding, and the major pro-gun groups are unwilling to press. The fact is there are three rulings which have determined that permits for rights are unconstitutional censorships, or prior restraints, on the individual. This means that pistol permit, or other gun permit systems are unconstitutional on their very face, yet, the pro-gun groups keep pressing for these permit systems as if this is suppsed to make them look like such nice fellows. After all, here they are, willing to submit themselves to the government for record, and background checks to determine their worthiness. The founders must be turning over in their graves.
Dems less committed to gun control????
How will the Democrats approach the gun-control issue now that Washington D.C.'s admittedly hard-line gun laws (ban on handgun ownership; rifles and shotguns need to be locked up or disassembled) is up before the Supreme Court? The local ban on functioning firearms will certainly be invalidated, but the high-court justices certainly will provide for an N.A.R. (no-absolute rights) loophole that at least will allow many state, local, and even federal guns laws currently existing to already stay in place.
Note that Democrats appear to be less committed to pushing sweeping federal gun restrictions than they were in the year 2000 (the same year their party lost the White House).
Since the Supreme Court obviously will allow for a N.A.R. loophole in it's interpretation of the Second Amendment, that will encourage Democrats to spport such a constitutional interpretation.
Gun owners should not worry about the mainstream Democrats pushing for federal legislation requiring owners to be licensed or guns be registered, for bth Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in a January debate in Nevada both rejected the twin ideas of national/federal licensing and registration.
There is the question of whether or not Dems should try to renew the old federal ban on military-style semiautomatic weapons (1994-2004). Maybe not.
Certainly, one idea that might gain more adherence is federal funding of gun buyback programs, where people are paid money or some other prize for turning in their firearms-a practical, voluntary approach to gun policy. If it's voluntary, it has to be constitutional.
Buyback programs could not only receive federal funding, such programs could also be narrowly tailored to target (albiet voluntarily) certain types of firearms: the aforementioned, so-called assault weapons; 50-calibre rifles (especially powerful, miltary-style guns), and fully-automatic machine guns.
The 2008 Democratic platform could propose a moderate plant on guns: enforcement of existing federal laws by hiring more federal agents, support for a moderate Supreme Court decision on gun rights to recognize both the rights of private citizens AND an N.A.R. loophole, states' rights on licensing and registration (instead of making them federal policy), and federally-funded, voluntary buyback programs.
The issue is not the diffrence between Democrats and Republicans on guns, but between 2008 Democrats and the same party five-to-10 years ago, or between pre-2000 and post-2000 Dems.
Nonetheless, some gun owners are NOt willing to forgive and forget Democrats for "past sins", and consequently vote Republican.
I am glad
I am glad I didn't buy this magazine to contribute to the biased propaganda I just read for free online.
The author is clearly for gun control. How can she say that the polls show people want to protect gun rights (even if they don't own firearms), and then bash the fact that the government isn't giving gun contol any teeth?
How about enforce the laws we have and let's not government decide whats good/bad for us? I am glad I am from Missouri, a state that recognizes this.
advertisement
