INDIANAPOLIS — Freshman Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly is opposing a ban on assault weapons sought by President Barack Obama.
How many other Democrats will stand against the President, and the progressive-left wing of their party? Donnelly deserves credit for doing so.
23 thoughts on “Joe Donnelly Comes Out Against Gun Bans”
I don’t know anything about Donnelly and have no basis for my thoughts but I am suspect of any Democrat not backing Obama on this. Part of the fight is the integrity of the Second Amendment. Donnelly is working with a different landscape coming from Indiana. This could be a purely political move. Then again I could be dead wrong or should simply appreciate a “no” vote against Obama and Feinstein however it comes.
Let’s not take our friends for granted, even unexpected, possibly temporary ones. That’s the nature of politics.
I am surprised. I have to assume he fears the voters in Indiana would remember this(or his republican opponent would remind them) in 2018 when he runs again. Maybe Heitkamp and Tester will have a similar opinion.
Why are you surprised?
There’s a long string of Democrats who’ve been forced to spend more time with their families after voting for gun control, most notably the ones who lost the majority in both houses of the Congress in 1994 and Al Gore in 2000 (well, no, obviously he went on to make a lot of money by promoting global warming, becoming an unlisted lobbyist for the monarchy of Qatar, etc. … but he never got his hands on the nuclear football and all that.)
Is there any sign vulnerable politicians will have an easier time of it if they do so now?
Yes Harold, sometimes they do get sent packing after voting aye on gun bans, like in 1994. But the law still stood. Many of the lawmakers in New York may pay a price, but the law will still stand will it not? I guess what really surprises me is that some people cannot or will not accept that the democratic party is our enemy. No other way to put it. Donnelly and company would attempt to limit our rights if they thought they could survive politically.
The problem is there haven’t been enough Republicans spending more time with their families, after voting for gun control. NRA-endorsed Tom Ridge as Pennsylvania governor always springs to mind, because I took that rather personally.
Not being a resident, can you tell me what anti-gun stuff he did in his first term?
Sign that NRA sponsored anti-gun act? If so the problem is obvious, the NRA couldn’t turn on him after he did its bidding.
Ridge voted for the Clinton AWB while in congress.
Because those were heady times in the gun rights battle, a state coalition of pro-gun groups formed, met, and voted nearly unanimously not to support Ridge, but to endorse independent candidate Peg Luksik. The NRA broke off key pieces of the coalition by promising their leaders positions on a Governors Sportsmen’s Advisory Council if Ridge were elected. Those people turned coat on what they had voted for with their fellow gun owners. They came out in the mainstream media endorsing Ridge. As I recall the NRA also launched some personal attacks on leaders of other groups.
When Ridge was elected (in the Republican UnRevolution of 1994) he demanded that a gun control bill be part of his Special Session on Crime. The bill had in fact been in the works in the summer of 1993, before he was elected. When it was introduced, the NRA helpfully dubbed it the “Sportsmens Omnibus Anti-Crime Bill.” When it was passed, the NRA member magazines in October of 1995 list it as one of their “great triumphs” of the year.
Meanwhile, Krug, who had been NRA state liaison, was almost literally run out of the state by gun owners. It was some time before the position of liaison was reinstated.
If I ever have a hard time mustering much enthusiasm for the NRA, you will understand why.
Oh, and I won’t make an attributed quote for fear of failed memory putting words in someone’s mouth, but one of the “sportsmen” leaders named to the Governor’s Advisory Council later admitted and said in public it was a total fraud, and that he’d been had.
You know what? When he tells me what his position is on universal background checks maybe I’ll give him some credit. Not until.
We need to start calling this “criminalization of private sales”, not universal background checks.
I agree with you. Private sale ban is what I’ve been trying to use. Who wants to ban privacy? Plus, it’ll be easier for gun owners to get “This means you can’t sell a gun to your friend, neighbor, or fellow club member without forking over 50 bucks to an FFL and filling out your universal registration form.”
I think it’s at least possible that he will answer to his constituency rather than his party, if he can’t trust is party to keep him in office.
To look at a mirror image from the right, Ron Paul was never terribly popular with the Republican Party, and even the NRA tried to get him out of office, but apparently he did enough to please his voting constituency that he didn’t need to care.
I knew that Joe Donnelly was better on gun rights than Richard Luger, and I suspect that Heitkamp, Tester, Baucus, and a whole bunch of other democrats will follow a similar path. In fact I doubt that the senate can obtain even 51 votes for some kind of gun ban.
An NRA F rated old bull RINO is worse than a new, not yet cemented in his seat Democrat in a gun friendly state? Why am I not surprised? Why are we (I mean many conservatives) not entirely upset that this seat has swung Blue for the next 6 years?
There’s been a number of Dems who’ve stood up against the new AWB and “criminalization of private sales” (I like that term; thanks Richard!). Though the Democrats are known as the “party of gun control”, and I admit that most Dems will support new laws, I don’t believe any vote counts will fall strictly along party lines this time.
I think we need to rub this fact in the noses of RINOs and other wishy-washy Republicans who look like they might cave on it (Joe Manchin, call your office).
Whoops, Joe Manchin has a ‘D’, not an ‘R’. Correction noted.
My point still stands, though.
I think that Joe Manchin is going to be the next Secretary of the Department of the Interior and hence he will go for whatever Obama wants.
Good point clay, but i will draw your attention to the fact Richard Mourdock, not Lugar, was Donnelly’s opponent.
That’s true but when Richard Mourdock beat Lugar in the primary and then Joe Donnelly became his democratic opponent it became a no lose situation for gun owners.
I really think this is a direct result of my fellow Indiana gun owners keeping the heat on him. Shortly after Sandy Hook he said he was considering his views on gun control. Now he comes out to support us. Called his office to say thanks tonight. It is a great thing but I don’t think Mourdock would have taken over a month to come out in support of us. I think we will have to continue to keep the pressure on him since he is still mostly unproven in his rating, wavered a little here, and comes from the worst part of the state for gun control. However, at least he is better than Lugar.
If Murdock held that seat now, this would not even be an issue. Donnelly, a democrat holds it, so he must be watched closely.
I think the Dems know they’re going to lose the AWB, they’re focusing on the universal background checks. That’s what we should be paying attention to. What’s everyone’s read on the Senate? They’ll need all of the democrats and five republicans. So far two republicans have caved. Have any democrats joined our side?
Comments are closed.