I alluded to the fact that the gun ban movement was desperate to keep gun control on the radar screen. What I suspect has been happening, is the anti-gun folk expected the Democratic Congress to give them some real traction on their issues, and, are now finding themselves shut out, with a few sympathetic ears in the leadership, but a leadership who nonetheless aren’t willing to do anything. This has thrown them into a bit of a panic. While I don’t think we can safely call the Democrats our friends on the gun issue yet, far from it, I do think it’s good to point out when some Democrats do things that warrant our praise.
Sure, we have two faced Democrats, like Ed Rendell, who have a long and glorious history of doing everything they can to crap all over our right to bear arms, then suddenly give lip service to us to win elections, while undermining us behind the scenes. To be fair, we have more than few Republicans that fit into this category as well. But we do have some Democrats that are really on our side. Max Baucus of Montana is a good example of a Democrat who is willing to take up leadership positions on outdoor sporsman’s issues and work to preserve our rights. I point you to this press release by Max Baucus, where he announces he’s heading up the Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus along with Mike Crapo (R-ID):
2nd Amendment Protection: Baucus said he will fight any attempts to erode Montanans rights to keep and bear arms.
Now, we’ve heard this line from Democrats before. We should be skeptical of any Democrat who says this, and doesn’t put his money where his mouth is.   One could point out that the CSC is mostly a pro-hunting caucus rather than a pro-gun caucus, and this would be true. But he’s cosponsoring S.388, the National Reciprocity Bill, and that speaks loudly.
I may have problems with Democrats on other issues, and even the National Reciprocity Bill I oppose as it’s currently drafted because of federalism concerns, but I think it’s good to highlight Democrats who are willing to fight for us and thank them for their support.
Another thing to note is his state. The excise taxes from EBRs and even handguns go to the Pittman-Robertson funds. Montana needs that money, especially since a decent chunk of their economy is based upon outdoor recreation. So for someone like Baucus, simply protecting Elmer Fudd can also include protecting those of us who don’t hunt and love non-PC guns.
The new democrat senator from Montana will be on your side, as well. He was a state senator for years before, and supported guns. I just heard 2 days ago that Montana has the highest per-capita hunting license rate. Montana is kind of a special case where guns generally trump the party line :)
Montana isn’t the only state that goes that way. Even Pennsylvania has quite a number of pro-gun Democrats, and you generally have to be if you win a state wide race. Rendell is kind of an exception, because he draws a lot of support in from suburban areas around Philadelphia that aren’t as offended by gun control. Rendell’s also benefited by running up against some pretty awful opponents.
One of my worries is that with the Philadelphia suburbs moving away from being traditionally Republican, the dynamics in the state’s politics will start to change. I don’t look forward to living in a state where the suburbs vote in lock step with the city. There are plenty of suburban Democrats who are moderates, and don’t look all that different from the Republcians they replaced, but there are certainly a fair share of leftist loons out there as well.