Author: Sebastian

Doug Pennington of the Brady Campaign says:

Doug Pennington, with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, finds it curious when gun-rights supporters rail against federal gun-control measures, considering how few such measures there are.

“What people don’t realize, at the national level, at least, is that I can count the federal gun laws on the books on one hand. I don’t even need all five fingers to do it,” he says, quickly rattling off the 1934 ban on machine guns, the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibiting gun sales to felons, and the Brady Law, which requires licensed gun dealers to perform criminal background checks.

Smart rhetoric, since most people don’t know better, but very misleading.  Anyone’s who’s ever had to deal with the maze of regulations that is our federal gun laws knows better.  It underplays just how significant GCA ’68 really was.  Let’s look.  The relevant parts of the United States Code, which is Title 18, Part I, Chapter 44.  Load that, and keep scrolling.  Does that look like a handful?  Easy to understand because it’s so trivial?  And yet, that is only part of our federal gun law.  Let us not forget, also, that the National Firearms Act is to be found in the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26, Chapter 53.  Keep scrolling there too.   But wait!  We’re not finished.  We haven’t looked at the Code of Federal Regulations yet!

• 27 CFR Part 53 – Excise taxes on firearms and ammunition
• 27 CFR Part 447 – Importation of Arms, Ammunition, and Implements of War
• 27 CFR Part 478 – Commerce in Firearms and Ammunition
• 27 CFR Part 479 – Machine Guns, Destructive Devices, and Certain Other Firearms

And this isn’t even comprehensive, as I’m leaving out the various federal codes and regulations that do things like, regulate firearms on aircraft, or on certain federal lands.  Does Doug Pennington still want to argue that he “can count the federal gun laws on the books on one hand?”  Could you understand all this without having a lawyer explain it to you?   Even the lawyers get it wrong sometimes.

Hat Tip to Joe Huffman, who takes a similar line of reasoning.  I thought it would be useful to see visually exactly how large this body of law is.   Do the gun control people still want to argue guns are less regulated than teddy bears?

This article in CQ politics, about the Sotomayor confirmation, has some more fun quotes from gun control advocates:

“Gun rights groups have exploited the fact that Obama has an agenda that he wants to move quickly,” Helmke said, citing the president’s plans for the economy, health care and energy while prosecuting two wars. “Until the president weighs in, it’s going to be tough to advance any [gun control] agenda. It’s not the issue they want to take up right now.”

What Helmke is hoping for is Obama to do what Bill Clinton did in 1994.  In the 103rd Congress, it looked like the votes wouldn’t be there to pass an assault weapons ban either, until Clinton started twisting arms and promising Congressmen the moon if they’d just go along with his agenda.

I don’t think Obama will have it as easy, because the gains the Democrats have made are largely on the backs of pro-gun candidates who remember what Clinton’s promises were worth when the 1994 elections came around.  Again, I think Helmke is barking up the wrong tree with Obama.  If they don’t change Congress, it’s probably not going to happen.

First the gay rights folks, and now The Brady Campaign.  I have to admit, I don’t like him either, so we have that in common at least.  But I’m forced more and more to admit that the issue with him isn’t guns.  Obama pretty clearly isn’t interesting in fighting culture wars, as Bill Clinton relished in.  No, Obama is interested in transforming the American economy and health care system, and has no intention of letting culture war issues like gun control, gay rights, or abortion jeopardize his efforts to bring social democracy to the United States.  I can almost hear Rahm saying, “Never let a culture war get in the way of a good opportunity to take the country closer to socialism!  Besides, we can take their guns after we make them dependent on us for health care.  We can sell it as a cost saving measure.”

Joe talks about how the Bradys are backing down from some of their bogus statistics with this latest post.  I agree that’s a positive change, but necessary for them.  Previously the gun control movement could count the media to do most of their heavy lifting.  Their control over the debate in the media bought with it political access.  The media is in the process of transforming, and in whatever emerges from the other side is going to be considerably different than what came before it.  Ordinary citizens are going to play a greater role in shaping public debate.

The gun control movement needs to learn to speak to real people.  Their lack of political progress, even under what should be a very favorable congress and administration, isn’t really about Obama.  Obama is just being a shrewd politician.  The real problem is that they don’t have people, which you need to have a real movement.

The six million dollar question for the gun control movement is whether there’s any passion for it.  Sure, lots of people say they favor it, but when the rubber meets the road, they really don’t care.  Lecturing Obama might feel good, but ultimately there’s not much he can do if he doesn’t want a costly fight in Congress.  The failure of the gun control movement isn’t Obama’s fault, it’s the movement’s inability to motivate voters that’s costing them.  Whether or not that is changeable depends on whether the gun control movement has a future, or will go the way of the temperance movement.