The Future of Ballot Measures

Sebastian noted that Bloomberg has rated his top priorities for the next gun control ballot initiatives. The Brady Campaign is quick to follow with their promise to ride his coattails.

However, they want more. They want far more than what Bloomberg is willing to fund right now. They released this map that shows all of the states they want to target in coming years with gun control ballot measures.


Maine isn’t highlighted because the Brady Bunch decided to go with a flashing GIF that colored target states blue one by one and I didn’t quite act fast enough to capture it in time. I didn’t care enough to try again.

Regardless, I wouldn’t completely write this off if you’re in a deep red state that they have colored dark blue on this map. Plenty of gun owners are willing to believe that these laws only target “bad” people and that they aren’t really efforts to entrap otherwise law-abiding people who just get mixed up with what’s allowed and not allowed. Do not assume your state is immune.

19 Responses to “The Future of Ballot Measures”

  1. Peter O says:

    Welp. Looks like Ohio is on the list. I’ll definitely be watching out.

  2. Sebastian says:

    The Bradys don’t have the money for this, so they are going to roll on whatever schedule Bloomberg and his asshole billionaire friends want to roll on. It takes a shit ton of money to fight with the ballot. It’s an obvious tactic. The only reason the Bradys or other gun control groups didn’t do this earlier is they didn’t have the money.

    Bloomberg can outspend us on his own all day long. Even if Gates and those guys back out of future fights, Bloomberg can fund this kind of thing and win with pocket change.

    • Matt says:

      This may seem like a obvious question but to play Devil’s Advocate, let’s assume that Bloomberg is mostly successful in his personal crusade. Say he achieves his goals of onerous regulations and hoop jumping. What is the ultimate outcome of this crusade? Destruction of gun ownership and/or gun owners? Personal satisfaction?

      There has to be some goal in mind here. And it definitely seems personal. What does Bloomberg ultimately want to achieve and more importantly, what would sate him? Or once his goals here are accomplished, does he move on to his next cause du jour?

      What does he believe he is accomplishing here? I don’t get the motivation outside of a desire to absolutely control others. If so, then I guess I’ve answered my own question. But I don’t understand why one would spent tens of millions on such an unachievable goal. He is still just one man.

      • Jim Jones says:

        Psychopathy and delusions of grandeur. What is it with the soda bans and sugar? What does he care if the “useless eaters” die younger and faster of various ailments? I can’t imagine he really gives a rip. Tyrants take on many forms. The thrill of ruling over others is ingrained in our hierarchical species of monkey’s brains. Alphas, betas, omegas. I am not sure that there is necessarily a cause or a goal. Agent O’Brien said it best: “Always, Winston, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face — forever.” Power for the sake of power. It’s pretty simple, and it appeals to our basest needs.

  3. Jethro says:

    In the California gay marriage case the SC dismissed because the people representing voter will did not have standing. Could a similar stunt work in more pro-gun states?

    • Peter O says:

      We may be able to thwart some because some states require ballot takers to be from in the state. But, the Cali case was completely different in that the state refused to defend the passed ballot issue, so the outside groups tried to step in, which SCOTUS prevented. Washington’s Govenor supported the measure, so I’m assuming the AG will defend it against a challenge. So unless a 594 style gets passed against a very pro-gun state government, we’re not going to have a similar situation.

  4. Sigivald says:

    I would note that Oregon already has “expanded background checks”, since transfers by non-dealers at “gun shows” require a call in to OSP for a NICS check.

    • corvus says:

      The gun-show background check requirement was passed as an initiative in 2000.

      Democrat state rep Floyd Prozanski from Eugene will no doubt be proposing a legislative version of I-594 this session in Oregon, because he’s already proposed a ban on private transfers without background checks twice before, as SB700 in 2013 and again as SB1551 in 2014. Now that the Oregon legislature has Dem majorities in both houses (and the governor, of course), this has a high likelihood of passing.

      I would not be surprised if its language was very similar to I-594 — they probably came from the same source (ceasefire and friends).

  5. Matthew Carberry says:

    That graphic should probably be compared to a list of “states that do ballot initiatives.”

    I’d guess Brady’s “potential to pass” means “ballot initiatives exist as a thing”, not “has a chance in hell of winning.”

  6. Clay says:

    They duped the people of Florida into voting for an amendment to the state constitution that protects pregnant pigs, so yes I am definitely worried.

  7. Jim W says:

    That’s why Florida passed a ballot initiative requiring future initiatives to win 60% of the vote to become law. Under the old rules, medical marijuana would have won this year.

  8. Matthew Carberry says:

    Astonishingly their map seems to map pretty closely with the 24 states that have a relatively easy initiative process. The low hanging fruit so to speak.

  9. Buck says:

    We’re getting wise to bullcrap ballet measures here in Missouri but it’s still a battle with the big urban countries voters.

  10. Weer'd Beard says:

    We do need to watch out, but I don’t think Maine will be as fertile a ground as they hope. Yes the pro-gun forces are weaker in Maine than other strongly pro-gun states simply because Maine has never really been under direct assault by anti-gun forces. Mainers tend to take for granted that you can simply walk over to the gun store, or visit a friend’s house and buy a gun, and carry a gun everywhere in state simply because you want to.

    Still one thing that is VERY bad about the Washington law, and the failed federal attempts at “Universal Checks” is how most people hunt. It’s super common to lend somebody a gun for their hunting trip. When looking at the defeat of the Bear Baiting bill in Maine, I really think the hunters are strong enough alone to defeat anything but a VERY watered down bill if Bloomberg floats one.

  11. Where did this map come from?

  12. Joe_in_Pitt says:

    Any historical reasoning behind why the ballot initiative seems to be more prevalent in the western end of the country?

    I think the number one tool in defeating Bloomberg at these referendums is going to be education. Washington was a loss any way you cut it but if we can get 41% of Evergreen State voters against I-594 (and here I thought only 10% of Americans oppose “background checks”) a better ground game can tip the scales in less liberal-leaning states.

    • Matthew Carberry says:

      Democratic response to “machine style” politics and big money absentee landlords back East as the Western Territories got Statehood.

      • Joe_in_Pitt says:

        Interesting. Sort of like the Seventeenth Amendment, where progressives were calling for the popular election of Senators due to “big money owning the state legislatures”. Turns out the states lost a check against the feds and big money became prevalent anyway.