A few commentators, including Rachel Maddow, have taken pessimists to task for suggesting that the chances of actual meaningful gun safety legislation in the wake of the Tucson assassination attempt are quite low. I think it’s more accurate to describe those pessimists as realists. And joining them is one of the most ardent gun safety supporters in the Congress, Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL).
On a conference call about gun policy in the 112th Congress, Quigley reminded his audience of the landscape in Washington around this issue. In the 111th Congress, one with large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, “My staff worked hard to get members to sign on to an amicus brief in the McDonald case,” said Quigley, referring to a gun rights case in the Supreme Court (ultimately decided in favor of the pro-gun side). “Only 54 members signed on. The Republicans had a brief of their own and they got 260-270 signatures. To my knowledge, there were no hearings on gun control measures in 111th Congress. We struggled to get what they called a briefing on the gun show loophole. The DISCLOSE Act passed only with a monster-sized loophole for the NRA. An unrelated bill about credit cards came with a provision that allowed guns in national parks.” Quigley concluded that “there has not been a lot of support or leadership on this issue prior to this tragedy… it will take a lot of effort to move forward.”
That’s just plainly self-evident, given the facts of the recent past. And even after the tragedy, lawmakers in both parties expressed little hope of any advance on the gun safety side of the equation. John Boehner has basically stated that “the Pledge to America is our plan” and he doesn’t expect to deviate from it regardless of events. Supporters cannot help but dim their expectations, mindful that they might not have a majority for such measures in the Democratic caucus, let alone Congress. This is the foundational statement most members of Congress agree with, as sad as it sounds:
Erich Pratt, the director of communications for Gun Owners of America, said his organization and others were girding for at least a skirmish in Congress. “But I think after the November election it’s going to be very tough for Carolyn McCarthy and even the Peter Kings,” he said “Why should the government be in the business of telling us how we can defend ourselves?”
Mr. Pratt added: “These politicians need to remember that these rights aren’t given to us by them. They come from God. They are God-given rights. They can’t be infringed or limited in any way. What are they going to do: limit it two or three rounds. Having lots of ammunition is critical, especially if the police are not around and you need to be able to defend yourself against mobs.”
Major gun safety legislation has come after national tragedies. Key federal laws came about after the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, and after President Reagan’s assassination attempt in 1981, advocates waged a 12-year battle to get the Brady bill, the background check database and the assault weapons ban into place. But that was a different time with a different Democratic caucus. The NRA has simply won this debate. The fact that Carolyn McCarthy has to hope to pull the President off the sidelines shows the difficulty involved here.
That doesn’t mean that advocates should give up. Just today family members and survivors of the Virginia Tech shooting called for closing the gun show loophole (where background checks don’t apply) and increase funding for the habitually underfunded background check system, which needs more information sharing across agencies. Then there’s McCarthy and Frank Lautenberg’s extended magazine bill, and Gary Ackerman’s bill on stopping dealers who lost their licenses to sell guns at private events, and Peter King’s “Get Guns Away From Peter King” bill, and more. “The conventional wisdom that we can’t do anything is wrong,” said an earnest Cliff Schecter, who works with the coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Is there a concern that all these different proposals make it difficult to find a focus and easier for NRA-backed lawmakers and lobbyists to stop all of them? “At this stage, it’s important for there to be a number of ideas on the table,” said Arkadi Gerney, an advisor to Mayor Michael Bloomberg on the issue. “The strategy to come around key ideas and move that forward can come later, at this point it’s helpful to demand more conversation, more debate, more analysis.” As Rep. Quigley noted, there were no hearings on the issue in Washington all of last year. “There is no debate right now,” he said. Perhaps that’s a place to start.
…Mayors Against Illegal Guns sends along a poll from Frank Luntz, of all people, showing support for common sense gun safety regulations even among NRA members. But the leadership doesn’t agree with the rank and file on this one.





20 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
If the right has it’s way I could own one of these.. Boy what a piece of machinery..
I think many people want to find out precisely why Canada has so many legal guns and so few shootings.
Micheal Moore already pointed the fact out in a movie, and some factors involved, but he didn’t nail the causes down completely. We all have some suspicions.
Let’s get this question nailed down finally. A big Federal research study to positively nail down the reason why American shoot each other so much more often than Canadians do.
I know. It doesn’t solve anything yet. We need this done, and done in a big way so we can move towards solving the problem.
Nathan Aschbacher (sp??) is one of FDL’s pests on this subject, being eager to criticize others’ comments on gun control instead of providing his own ideas.
However, a couple of days ago, I asked him for his ideas, which were quite sensible and rarely advanced here or by the pols.
The short version is TRAINING.
I’m still a neophyte when it comes to what a sensible gun policy ‘should’ be. And certainly a complete cynic that the U.S. will do anything other than demagogue the subject from both the left and the right.
But I am smart enough and well enough read to recognize that training is a HUGE, and MUCH OVERLOOKED part of the solution.
So let’s stop the fruitless, senseless, arbitrary focus on limitations, and think about the benefits of better training. Like how about an annual target recertification license program?
Not sure what would work best. But AM sure that gun owners knowing more about them & being better trained to use them would be a better plan.
HELLO! You got that one right!
I own a gun, several in fact. I keep them at home. I don’t feel they are safe in a public forum. I’ve had training, non-military training in hand guns and rifles. I enjoy skeet shooting. Well, I did. I’m also female and I can tell you I am very wary of Government fooling around with our rights. Especially, the right of deciding what is good for you and your body. You and your home, and your protection or hobbies.
I don’t think any other country allows such threatening verbage against political foes to grace their airwaves 24/7.
Plus, we are the only Industrialized Nation that does not have Universal Health Care along with Mental Health coverage!
Not really once you know and understand that any weapon is not a toy but a tool and using that Tool has it’s obligations to use it lawfully. But beyond that the real problem is that killing someone has become “Just part of the culture” of our times. The total disregard for human life has reached new heights. The discourse these days has become totally antagonistic with the Righ seem to have no bounds on the vitriol they constantly spew. Eagerly calling for taking out him or her or this and that, for instance “All Liberals” “They are the root of all of our problems” and on and on…No wonder some one on the edge goes over and commits such violence as we saw last Saturday.. Our country no longer cares a hoot about living breathing people but swoons to big money..
Just saying what I see…
And why do you think that training would not include language of violence and how to react to it reasonably?
Or put differently, why do you think that prohibition would work better than training?, as your comment seems to imply.
If I’ve misinterpreted your comment, plz correct me.
I do not advocate banning fire arms. What I am saying we need to address the that as Americans we Kill more per person than any first world country. Americans almost seem to like the finality in settling claims with deadly violence. So what needs to be addressed is that propensity for Americans to want to kill to “Fix” the issue… Now on the other hand I don’t have any solutions except the golden rule and respect of life…BTW I do and seems have always owned rifles and shotguns since I could 16.. But I did understand what they were capable of doing and thus have always had a healthy respect of what such tools can do. Was one of the lessons I taught my kids.
And why would ‘training’ not include that?
In fact, IMO, that is the sole purpose of training.
One of my HS classmates got high up in the NYC police dept.
When I talked to her about the probs, she always retreated to how they were trained.
So, I don’t for a nanosecond think that cops will be evah be better trained, only that advancing that as a potential reasonable solution will point out the complete ridiculousness of the other side,
The upshot of the Luntz poll is that most gun owners are okay with new restrictions to prevent criminals and terrorists from getting guns, so long as they don’t affect law-abiding citizens in any way. That’s a tall order. If there is room for new legislation anywhere it is on closing the gunshow loophole. But Obama’s negatives among gun owners are so high that he’s probably not the best man for the job.
None of you have addressed the issue of training vs. restrictions. I’ll merely note that for the record.
eCAHN – I have had training, I have a conceal carry license from one of the most restrictive states – Massachusetts – and I suggest training is only part of the solution – necessary but no where near sufficient.
I hide and lock up my guns – the joke around the house is that an intruder would find me before I found a gun – and that is possible – but locking them up is required by the law in Mass – and it is a good idea – and the intruder would be taking a chance on my not getting to my gun to stop them.
Indeed Canadian law is about training, registration, and prohibition of certain types of arms.
# It is possible to enter Canada with ordinary long guns without a license, provided that you have the proper non-resident paperwork and pay the appropriate fees. It is possible to enter Canada with restricted handguns, including to transport between Alaska and the Lower 48, provided that you have the proper license, registration certificate, and transport authorization paperwork. Indeed it is possible for non-residents to get a Canadian firearms license and register any firearms you wish to bring into Canada, thus waiving the non-resident paperwork and fees.
# ALL handguns are either prohibited or restricted in Canada.
* Handguns with a barrel shorter than 105mm (4.14 inches) and/or in caliber .25 or .32 are prohibited in Canada and are illegal to possess in Canada. DO NOT EVEN THINK OF ATTEMPTING TO CROSS THE BORDER INTO CANADA WITH A PROHIBITED FIREARM!
* Most handguns with a barrel longer than 105mm (4.14 inches) are restricted and thus legal to possess in Canada with a Canadian firearms license and registration certificate. Transport within Canada requires transport authorization paperwork obtained in advance.
* The rules on which firearms (including long guns) are prohibited, restricted, or non-restricted are complex. ALL handguns are either prohibited or restricted.
# It requires a lot of work and time (a minimum of several months for the first time) to obtain the license, registration, and paperwork approvals; but it is possible. People do it, myself included. Do not attempt to enter Canada with a restricted handgun unless you have these documents in your possession. They won’t issue them at the border.
The idea that the world of gun “freedom” is either /or is nonsense. The idea that training alone solves the problem is also nonsense, IMO. The idea that restrictions that say your 2nd Amendment rights do not mean you can have an ground to air anti-plane missile have been upheld by the Courts – your choice of weapon can be restricted. The idea that registration means the state is going to come and get your gun, in a country where we have more guns than citizens making door to door the only way a dictator would do their search, is also nonsense, IMO. Registration need only be feared by gun dealers that knowingly sell to felons, and by the felons themselves.
I note that the eight year old killed by an Uzi he was trying to fire at a gun show resulted in today’s not guilty verdict for the show organizer on the charge of reckless endangerment involuntary manslaughter. The father put the gun in the sons hands after the older son had his turn shooting it off. The jury felt the father was the guilty party.
This in a state with some of the toughest gun laws.
I expect no change in any federal law to occur because of the AZ killings.
hi and hope you’re having a great new year. i am enjoying many if not all of the comments here on various fdl forums, and yours are always provocataive – i’d be flip and reply that none of my targets are in need of certificication, annual or otherwise – reality is few self aware, mature firearm owner/users would submit to any futher erosion of the sacred, yes sacred natural right of self defence expressed within the 2nd amdmt. remember warsaw – it can and will happen here absent justice for the criminal banksters who so successfully divide and conquer we the sheeple. repeal nafta/gatt and, of course, D2nwo
“Gun Safety Advocates” formerly known as “Gun Control Advocates”, the people who brought us the ’94 Republican takeover of the U.S. Congress. Re-branding will not fool anyone.
I grew up with guns – it was a way to put meat on the table.
I know of no “sacred natural right of self defense expressed within the 2nd amdmt.” – the second amendment was a way to avoid standing armies – instead call up an armed militia – because standing armies always get used by someone – usually someone rich.
But I also buy into the Slavic concept of everyone needs a gun to keep the state at bay – the Slavs have a right to fear the state – and while we do not have that history I agree with gun freedom as a precaution. But gun ownership post Canadian law restrictions does just fine by me.
I guess that makes me one of the “few self aware, mature firearm owner/users” that feel this way :-)
Bush’s lack of regulations brought us a deep recession and a timid “stimulus” bill that was half the size needed and even then what was in the bill was one third ineffective tax cuts meant the recession lasted into the 2010 election – and people vote their economic woe – the loss of seats had nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with loss of jobs under Bush (8 million) that only had a tiny reduction from the 1 million new jobs under Obama.
The same crowd criticizing Obama mercilessly for cutting a deal on taxes are now taking the “pessimists” to task for pointing out that this Congress is absolutely, 100% NOT going to pass gun control legislation in any shape or form?
Here’s a hint: the Republicans have a huge majority in the House now, and they’ll never ever even allow a vote on gun control legislation in any shape or form unless both the NRA and Charlton Heston comes back from the dead to endorse it. Even then I’d be skeptical.
The Republicans run the show in the House. They would’ve passed a worse tax cut by now if there weren’t a deal before, and they’ll never ever pass gun safety legislation. Moreover, it’s not Obama’s fault. Stop blaming the guy for stuff he can’t do anything about – when there’s plenty of blame for the things that WERE his fault for the prior 2 years.
Why the headlining about “gun safety” when the topic is really gun control.
Gun safety is what 99.9 % of gun owners practice 24/7 through proper storage or handling procedures. Gun control is a movement to restrict ownership of guns. Sneakiness ruins good conversation and debate.
I fail to see how this is a response to my comment. The last time the Democrats allowed the “Brady Bunch” to have free rein with their gun control agenda they lost control of the House for the first time in 40 years.
I consider myself to be very progressive on most issues and find Obama far too conservative for our nation at this time. However, I see the 2nd Amendment to be just as important as the 1st Amendment and vote accordingly.
This is the most heavily armed continent on the planet that is privately owned by citizens. Gun control will never happen. You will not take guns from private citizens without a huge fight on your hands. Quit trying, it’ll never work to your likings.