In Congress, the Uphill Battle for Gun Control
Why it's been years since significant federal legislation
NRA power. But supporters of gun control say that the strength of the National Rifle Association in many states makes it nearly impossible to even discuss laws targeting illegal guns. The powerful group has about 4 million members nationwide, a $20 million to $30 million lobbying budget, and a strong youth group raising a new generation of members. In particular, NRA foes point to the group's successful efforts to gain passage of state "pre-emption" laws that limit local power over gun laws. It has played a role in state and federal elections, for instance, joining the broader Republican-led upset of South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle, a Democrat, after he supported gun control amendments to the manufacturers' liability legislation.
Not surprisingly, moderate and Democratic states, where the NRA is less influential, have voted for the greatest number of gun control laws. California, for instance, passed a law last year requiring that manufacturers stamp every firearm with a unique imprint so ammunition fired from it can be traced. (Opponents argue that releasing this sensitive information would harm investigations.) And in January, New Jersey legislators passed laws calling for owners to report lost or stolen guns, requiring criminal and mental health background checks for ammunition purchases, and increasing penalties for illegal gun possession and trafficking.
The fault lines in the gun debate aren't entirely partisan; they often mark divisions between rural areas, where hunting is deeply embedded in the culture, and urban communities, where guns are linked with drugs and crime. These cultural differences affect constituents' views: City dwellers tend to want more gun control than rural people do. And in rural districts, even Democrats often support the NRA.
For instance, the NRA is pushing for laws to prohibit private businesses from barring employees from keeping guns in their cars in a company parking lot. A measure to that effect introduced in Georgia, although it has stalled, won support from a number of Democrats, particularly those from rural areas. In Arizona, state Republican Rep. Jonathan Paton introduced such legislation after hearing from a constituent who drove an hour each day through a dangerous border area to work. "There's a lot of rural no man's land between where some people work and where they live," he says. "This is about people's right and whether they feel safe or not."
Part of the challenge in going after guns used in crimes is the lack of solid research on exactly which laws help reduce gun violence. Researchers agree that where there are more guns, there are more likely to be accidents with guns. But beyond that, a 2003 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded, there is "insufficient evidence" to measure the efficacy of various gun control laws, largely because of limited data.
For instance, laws requiring owners to protect children by keeping their guns locked or unloaded reduced deaths among children in Florida, research shows, but not in California or Connecticut. Laws allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons, which advocates say tend to discourage criminals from shooting, have brought little meaningful decrease in crime. And the research is mixed on whether mandatory waiting periods reduce the likelihood of suicides by impulsive gun buyers.
The effect of bans. The District of Columbia gun ban now before the Supreme Court has been at the center of contrasting research. A 1991 study found an almost 25 percent decline in homicides and a 23 percent drop in suicides by firearms following the ban and no similar drop in neighboring Maryland and Virginia, which don't have bans. But a study published five years later argued that the assessment wasn't valid because it compared D.C. with prosperous suburbs rather than with another city, such as Baltimore, where homicides also declined during the same period.
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
