Making Gun Safety (Politically) Safe (Guest Voice)
Dec 10th, 2009 | 8 responses
WASHINGTON — When it comes to passing sensible gun laws, Congress typically offers Profiles in Cowardice.
The National Rifle Association wields power that would make an Afghan warlord jealous because the organization is thought to command legions of one-issue voters ready to punish any deviationism from the never-pass-any-new-gun-laws imperative. Many legislators fear that casting a single vote for even a smidgen of restraint on weapons sales could be politically lethal.
But imagine if members of the NRA were more reasonable than the organization’s leaders and supporters in Congress in understanding the urgency of keeping guns out of the wrong hands.
NRA leaders, meet your members.
It turns out that the people in the ranks actually are much wiser than their lobbyists. In a move that should revolutionize the gun debate, Mayors Against Illegal Guns decided to go over the heads of Beltway types and poll gun owners and NRA members directly.
The survey, which will be released soon, wasn’t conducted by some liberal outfit, either, but by Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster lately famous for providing talking points against the Democrats’ health care bills.
“I support the NRA,” Luntz insists. What he doesn’t go for is the “slippery slope argument” that casts any new gun law as the first step toward confiscation. “When the choice is between national security and terrorism versus no limits on owning guns,” Luntz says, “I’m on the side of national security and fighting terrorism.”
Most NRA members seem to agree.
In his survey of 832 gun owners, including 401 NRA members, Luntz found that 82 percent of NRA members supported “prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns,” 69 percent favored “requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns” and 78 percent backed “requiring gun owners to alert police if their guns are lost or stolen.” Among gun owners who did not belong to the NRA, the numbers were even higher.
It’s true that these gun owners, including NRA members, don’t buy broader forms of gun control. For example, 59 percent of NRA members opposed “requiring every gun owner to register each gun he or she owns as part of a national gun registry,” though I was surprised that 30 percent actually supported this.
And gun owners continue to worry that President Obama “will attempt to ban the sales of guns in the United States at some point while he is president.” Asked about this, 44 percent of NRA members said Obama “definitely” would and 35 percent said he “probably” would.
Still, those surveyed stood behind the core idea that gun regulations and gun rights complement each other. The poll offered this statement: “We can do more to stop criminals from getting guns while also protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them.” Among all gun owners and NRA members, 86 percent agreed.
NRA members also oppose the idea behind the so-called Tiahrt amendments passed by Congress. Named for Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., the rules prevent law enforcement officials from having full access to gun trace data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and require the FBI to destroy certain background check records after just 24 hours. Talk about handcuffing the police.
The mayors’ poll offered respondents this statement, antithetical to the Tiahrt rules: “The federal government should not restrict the police’s ability to access, use, and share data that helps them enforce federal, state and local gun laws.” Among NRA members, 69 percent agreed.
This survey should empower Congress to take at least some baby steps down the safe path the mayors’ group is trying to blaze. They could start by overturning the Tiahrt rules and keeping guns from those on terror watch lists. “There are too many public officials taking an absolutist position when they don’t have to,” Luntz says. “And they’re taking it not because they want to, but because they’re scared into doing it.”
Mayor Tom Barrett of Milwaukee said in an interview that he and his colleagues are trying to send a clear message to gun owners: “If you have a gun you use for hunting or for self-defense in your home, I don’t want your gun.”
What he does want are tougher rules on purchases that might have kept six of his city’s police officers from being shot with guns bought at the same gun store. A lot of gun owners get that.
This column is copyrighted and licensed to appear on TMV in full. (c) 2009, Washington Post Writers Group
8 Responses to “Making Gun Safety (Politically) Safe (Guest Voice)”
Dionne fails again. Sadly, he even had a rare ally that would otherwise have been more useful. Now all these people need to do is to be truly honest and make it clear they are after gun control, merely to make it troublesome to have a gun on hand rather than try to take the guns away completely. (What's also of note here is that their attitude and agenda is worse by more than an order of magnitude than anyone's attempt to use a similar approach like “waiting periods” or counseling or other ways to make it inconvenient to get an abortion.)
“In a move that should revolutionize the gun debate, Mayors Against Illegal Guns”
Far worse than what they decry is their misuse of the courts to shake down gun manufacturers, as they have tried to do in the past (with specific goals sought in settlement agreements).
It's the troublesome lefties who are the biggest obstacle to closing the 'gun show' loophole and having background checks on all (legal) gun purchases, everywhere.
82 percent of NRA members supported “prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns, I think that the terror watch list has been shown to be very problematic, inaccurate, and and a person being on there may have nothing to do with facts. Basically it would be removing a constitutional right because of a bureaucratic list. No P.C., not even what it would take for a search warrant, no evidence needed at all. Not to mention the fact that you believe you have a constitutional right to bear arms and do so may put you on the list as a possible right wing extremist.
69 percent favored “requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns”
I wonder if they know that the law already requires every licenced dealer to do background checks? That this would prevent a private person from selling a gun just based on location? That you can put an add in your local paper and meet in a parking lot and legally sell a gun but for some reason gun shows seem to scare people silly.
78 percent backed “requiring gun owners to alert police if their guns are lost or stolen.” Shocking considering they almost always do anyway. I mean they want their guns back right? Really a no issue because the law would not get any better compliance than before just criminalize a victimized gun owner who doesn't want to interact with the police.
The truth is gun control advocates lie. They don't push for what they want but rather what they can get right now and then tomorrow they want more. That type of mentality breeds a dig in your heels “not one more inch” response.
As for the watch list make it so that the gov must have legal PC, go before a judge, notify the person, give them a chance to refute in court, ect. Then I would have no problem with that person being barred from fire arm purchases.
This first sentence says it all, if you don't like the Second Amendment, don't act like cowards and pussyfoot around, repeal or amend it using the methods set forth in the US Constitution. Those methods are there for a reason, the rule of law. Do not violate the Rule of Law because you can't generate the required level of support for your political agenda. If you try such an endrun, you reveal yourself for what you are, a person with no respect for the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
The NRA has been sending me literature off and on for years, but I won't join them because too many of them are idiots who depend on fear tactics, misrepresentation, and playing down to the paranoid and witless. I grew up around guns, own guns, hunt, target shoot and obviously believe in the second amendment (which is in no danger) but the NRA is operated by a bunch of kooks who haven't had any use for common sense in a long, long time.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV, Marlita H. Marlita H said: Making Gun Safety (Politically) Safe (Guest Voice) | The Moderate Voice http://ow.ly/KuC5 [...]
an awful lot of individual and specific comments come to mind. as an owner and one who knows other owners i don't think most of us object to the idea of quickly and efficiently executed background checks which keep firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. given how poorly managed its been proven to be, i don't think the terrorist watch list is a useful litmus test. but felons, those who are mentally imbalanced and anyone under a restraining order probably shouldn't own any type of weapon.
here in CO a number of counties sheriffs are kind enough to enter those who earn a CCW into the state-wide database used for things like stolen property and folks who are under wanted for the commission of a crime.
i doubt any reasonable individual would object to sensible laws designed to keep firearms out of the wrong hands. but who really can look to the congress and expect anything useful on this issue? what have they gotten right? the congress crafted the laws which ushered in the economic depression we're enjoying. the congress can't manage to do much more than mandate we all buy health insurance at inflated rates from the very companies who caused this crisis instead of actually reforming anything. the congress is working to pass cap and trade which is yet another economic travesty in the making, wether you are someone who believes in anthropogenic climate change or not. the congress took it upon itself to intervene in a family matter when some poor brain-dead woman was dying in FL. the congress came up with the horrid medicare part D legislation. the congress has continued over the decades to raid the social security trust fund, as if it weren't in bad enough shape. the examples go on and on and on.
frankly, the only thing worse than our dysfunctional bought-and-paid-for congress is the mass of talking heads who presume to have all the answers.
gun control and gun rights … its a tough issue. its clear that the brady bunch doesn't have the answers. its equally clear that the more rabid elements of organizations like the NRA are just as lacking. there are certainly folks out there who think this should be a free for all … they're wrong. but its just as obvious that gun owners are perfectly justified in their healthy paranoia over the congress stepping further into the debate. we're the governement. we're here to help