How We Got Here, Part II: The Political Struggle

This is the second part of my “How We Got Here” here series. You can read part one here. The first series covered the cultural reasons we find ourselves in the present situation. While the cultural situation goes in-part with the political situation, the two are distinct enough I thought they warranted separate posts.

The gun movement went into the 1990s weak. Despite having won a major overhaul of the Gun Control Act in 1986, the movement suffered a number of setbacks on the cultural front and suffered from internal divisions. It emerged out of the 1990s much stronger and more unified, in large part because of spending most of the decade under unrelenting attack. But being attacked has a way of sharpening people’s focus, and giving them clarity. Bill Clinton acknowledged the assault weapons ban cost him Congress. The Democrats believed, with merit, that Al Gore lost in part because of his calls for even more draconian gun control. Then John Kerry, despite actually being a lifelong hunter (though in favor of gun control), became the dog that don’t hunt. The 2004 victory convinced many Democrats that gun control was a lost cause and a losing issue.

The Democrats would crawl their way back to a majority in 2006 using the Blue Dog strategy; the idea of running candidates that were suited for their local districts, which included being pro-gun if that was a necessary factor. The Democratic takeover in 2006 did not become an immediate harbinger of gun control because the progressives had Blue Dogs at the right flank of their majority that needed protection. As long as this was the case, progressives were going to lay off gun control. The Heller victory only added to the momentum. I think the Blue Dog strategy would have held, and been a viable means of keeping their majority. But then came the 2008 elections.

I think not turning out for McCain was probably the biggest mistake gun owners have ever made politically. Was McCain with us 100%? No. But he was consistent with where he wasn’t with us and as much as I might have disagreed with his stance on private sales and gun shows, he was far and away better than Mitt Romney. McCain has consistently opposed gun bans. McCain’s defeat got us Mitt Romney in 2012, and it also got us Barack Obama, who is indeed the transformative figure he claimed to be. McCain’s defeat also ensured that we failed to pick up two more votes for the Second Amendment on the Supreme Court.

The first act of Barack Obama was not gun control. In fact, Obama signed two easements of gun control, though they were attached to “must pass” pieces of legislation. We achieved this because the Blue Dog strategy was working for us. With a Democratic Congress, we were getting around an anti-gun Democratic President. But unfortunately, Obama decided to start spending the country into bankruptcy, decided that the middle of all this debt, coupled with a financial crisis, it was a great time to ram a massive new, and highly unpopular entitlement through Congress. This pissed off enough people that the Blue Dog strategy was doomed, an outcome I think the President was fine with as long as he got his bill. In 2010, despite NRA endorsements for many pro-gun Democrats, most of them got taken down on other issues. Harry Reid didn’t receive an endorsement, despite helping us legislatively, largely because of pressure from members who were angry at Democrats for reasons completely unrelated to guns. The tidal wave that came crashing down on Blue Dogs was beyond NRA’s ability to stop. Obama had eaten the Blue Dogs to get health care.

After 2010, with Blue Dogs an endangered species, the dynamic changed, but not greatly. We suddenly ran into trouble getting pro-gun legislation through the Senate, but that was it. We still did not see gun control because Obama was well aware of our political clout, and he would soon face re-election. The 2012 election was a watershed event because not only did Obama win re-election, but he won with a coalition that was composed mostly of the progressive left. He didn’t need moderates anymore. With the Blue Dog Democrats largely extinct, Obama was, and is, counting on having built a winning progressive-left coalition that can openly embrace gun control and not have to fear NRA at the polls. But is Obama correct?

Well, Bill Clinton, whose political instincts I think are keener than Obama’s, certainly isn’t sure. If NRA was weakened, it was weakened by politicians largely ignoring the gun issue, and also by having two lackluster candidates (on guns, at least) at the top of the ticket the last two elections. There wasn’t a whole lot of reasons for gun owners to get excited, or worried, until now. But is Obama only awakening a sleeping giant? It’s my opinion that he is, and he might be crazy, but is he crazy like a fox?

If more Democrats vote with us in this current struggle, but lose anyway, well, that’s just another example that NRA is useless at protecting pro-gun Democrats. I don’t think Obama would object to that narrative. If more Democrats vote with us and win, well, he wins there too because his party’s majority might hold in the Senate. If he gets a few Republicans to join him on gun control? Those Republicans will be weakened by it. Win there too. If Republicans block all his measures? He’ll use that issue in swing districts in 2014 to try to pick up some house seats current occupied by GOP reps in Democratic leaning, liberal districts. Pressing the issue is easier when there’s money behind it, and many of us are about to find out for the first time what happens when there is.

Obama is betting his coalition will, long term, drive Democratic left-wing majorities that don’t have to give a crap about what the rednecks and rubes in flyover country think. The Blue Dog strategy is dead, and we are reliant on the Republicans to protect our rights. We would have been far better off with a bipartisan consensus on this issue, and I think it was within reach, but in the age of Barack Obama, it wasn’t going to be possible. Ultimately, we are here because the Blue Dog strategy was not going to work for where Barack Obama wants to take America, so he laid waste to it and then won re-election. Gun rights is the only coalition Barack Obama and his machine have not really tangled with seriously. Will he beat us too? That remains to be seen, and largely depends on us.

The Fallout from the Eastern Sports & Outdoor Show Cancellation

At this point, the headline about the British company that tried to force American hunters to give up showcasing their guns at an outdoor show has made a nationwide splash and managed to make a few headlines overseas. Here in Pennsylvania, the fallout is huge. It’s even spreading into the political world with condemnations of Reed’s decision.

Rep. Tom Marino, who represents the area around Harrisburg, put out a statement that chastises Reed for their attack on the Second Amendment and notes how much it hurts the local economy. It’s estimated to be a loss of about $74 million in the local economy and in support of the non-profits that raise money and sign up memberships at the ESOS.

…despite the assertions by Reed that the decision to exclude modern sporting rifles and certain magazines only “affected a small percentage of more than 1,000 exhibits,” its impact is in fact far greater than that. The decision represents yet another attempt to undermine protections guaranteed to all Americans under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and it restricts the ability for law-abiding citizens to purchase legal firearms that are increasingly being used for hunting in a number of states.

He’s not the only lawmaker speaking out. State Rep. Tommy Sankey submitted an op-ed on the situation and noted that it’s the free market at work.

While I am not happy with this development, the show is a result of free market capitalism, one system in America that thankfully is not broken. In organizing the event, Reed Exhibitions has every right to limit the sale or display of modern sporting rifles (also referred to as ARs). Its officials call the shots (no pun intended) and must do what they feel is best, keeping in mind their bottom line.

The vendors who consider participation in the show also have a right – the right to withdraw and not participate for whatever reason they see fit. In this case, they used their wallet to speak out against Reed Exhibitions’ policy. The result was obviously enough to impact the show’s viability. …

In the case of the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show, the system worked. It’s a simple case of supply and demand. The people have spoken, as they should.

It did work. Now, hopefully, someone will see a significant profit motive to offer up a nice alternative that pulls the community together in the same way, but without the gun bans that Reed endorsed.

That said, we have now also learned that Bass Pro Shops in Harrisburg will apparently host a set-up the non-profits who were screwed over by Reed’s decisions the entire time the ESOS was scheduled.

Tweet of the Day

Sebastian already claimed a quote of the day, so I’ll call this the tweet of the day.

Any Energy for Some Opposition?

The Virginia Shooting Sports Association notes that Joe Biden is headed to Richmond to start the campaign-style events in support of gun control. They add to this news:

It would be great to have a turnout of pro-rights folks to show opposition.

Yes, it would be great. It would be awesome. If you’re in or near Richmond and have a little flexibility in your schedule, check in with VSSA to see what, if anything, they are able to help plan.

While it’s great that the community came together to stop a private company from pushing a gun ban at a sportsmen’s show, we need to show the same enthusiasm for opposing the gun controls that the White House is proposing. Let’s make these types of protests happen. Be part of the news cycle in each city they visit.

UPDATE: VSSA now has time details and a broad location, but they are trying to pinpoint a building. Basically, if you’ve got some free time around 11am tomorrow, it would be a great time to head to the VCU campus.

UPDATE II: VSSA has the building information now.

The Eastern Sports & Outdoor Show is OFF

The President of Reed’s American division released a statement that says they have decided to postpone the Eastern Sports & Outdoor Show. Interestingly, they indicated that they haven’t actually scheduled any other dates.

Reed Exhibitions has decided to postpone, for now, the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show given the controversy surrounding its decision to limit the sale or display of modern sporting rifles (also called ARs) at the event. The show was scheduled to take place February 2-10 in Harrisburg, PA.

“Our original decision not to include certain products in the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show this year was made in order to preserve the event’s historical focus on the hunting and fishing traditions enjoyed by American families,” said Chet Burchett, Reed Exhibitions President for the Americas. “In the current climate, we felt that the presence of MSRs would distract from the theme of hunting and fishing, disrupting the broader experience of our guests. This was intended simply as a product decision, of the type event organizers need to make every day.”

“It has become very clear to us after speaking with our customers that the event could not be held because the atmosphere of this year’s show would not be conducive to an event that is designed to provide family enjoyment. It is unfortunate that in the current emotionally charged atmosphere this celebratory event has become overshadowed by a decision that directly affected a small percentage of more than 1,000 exhibits showcasing products and services for those interested in hunting and fishing.”

“ESS has long been proud to participate in the preservation and promotion of hunting and fishing traditions, and we hope that as the national debate clarifies, we will have an opportunity to consider rescheduling the event when the time is right to focus on the themes it celebrates.”

What’s interesting about this decision is the refusal to give any kind of timeline to vendors or possible attendees for future dates. That sounds more like a cancellation than a true effort to simply postpone the event. It makes me wonder if they are calling it a decision to postpone in order to keep exhibitor money instead of giving refunds. (See update below for new information from a vendor.) The fact is that they have already spent a large part – if not all – of that money. It cost them around $500,000 to rent the Farm Show Complex, plus untold sums in advertising and staffing to organize it up to this point. (Not to mention, their Public Relations contractor has probably substantially increased her fee for this mess. She would be right to do so since she didn’t sign on for fighting the entire sportsmen’s community.)

I will take a detailed look at the contract for vendors that a reader sent me to see what the policy is on the issue of refunds for the event being postponed instead of canceled and will update this post as more details come out.

In the meantime, I would ask that everyone who is celebrating the community standing together against anti-gun attitudes spend today contacting their US Senators & Congressmen. We need to fight the gun control proposals being launched today. Anti-gun senators are about to start a big press conference to announce draconian limits on the firearms and accessories we use. The Vice President is starting a new media “conversation” to tell us again how much he wants gun control bills sent to the White House, and the President is about to launch a campaign-style series of rallies to generate support for more gun control.

UPDATE: A vendor comments that Reed has just now decided to let them know about the decision (after making it public), and they are now finally promising them refunds.

NSSF has also said that they are now reconsidering their business with Reed for running SHOT Show. Funny about that since NSSF originally begged vendors & attendees to continue giving money to Reed by attending the ESOS. I’m going to assume that whatever conversations happened earlier this week really blew up spectacularly for such an extreme change in position.

UPDATE: PFSC releases a statement on the so-called postponement of the ESOS, and here are the highlights:

It is sad to read the statement from Reed and the reason they chose to use for their position. Had it truly been their concern (the family hunting/fishing experience), they should have been eager to engage with various stakeholders in a discussion on the issue and any related impacts. Instead, they chose to stand their ground and refused to negotiate. …

From the feedback that we are receiving, we are not sure that their term “postponement” is the appropriate word to describe the future of a show hosted by Reed. Their unwillingness to even discuss their decision to not allow the displaying or advertising of certain types of legal firearms and accessories solely based on emotion and misinformation of those types of firearms does not sit well with sportsmen and women who believe the decision was nothing more than an attack on our 2nd Amendment Rights. Firearm sales typically don’t even take place during the show itself. Background checks and required federal and state requirements are strictly adhered to and Reed Exhibition is fully aware of this.

Given this statement, it really does seem that Reed basically told the gun community to go do perverse things to itself in “conversations.” It also indicates that Reed may not ever come back to this community. I guess that means if some enterprising company wants to take on the massive effort of hosting a Harrisburg Sportsmen’s Show, there may be quite the opportunity now.

Split Between Reid and Obama?

So says the Washington Post, but the article speaks of how Democrats may accomplish gun control:

Senate Democrats have yet to decide the order: whether to start with background checks — their most likely victory — and try to build momentum, or to save that for the final piece so the effort ends on a positive note.

I’ve talked about the dangers of momentum before, and one reason to oppose the entire agenda is so they don’t get any. It’s also interesting that they admit the other measures are not “positive.” That is correct, because the are punitive; they punish all of us for the actions of a madman. The fight against the background check bill will undoubtedly be the toughest, but the anti-gun people should have to give something up, and by that I don’t mean we only take half your delicious cake instead of the whole thing. It means you insist on having some of my cake, I get some of yours too, which was really mine that you took from me in the first place.

I sincerely hope any bill that starts moving gets amended with some of their cake. Then they can decide what they are willing to give up. Often times that’s enough to kill the bill, because when it comes down to it, they aren’t willing to engage in real compromise.

Waiting on the Eastern Sports & Outdoor Show Statement

Just to put this out there, I’m reducing the number of posts about the Eastern Sports & Outdoor Show to one a day. We’ve covered the apparent collapse of the show pretty thoroughly, but it remains newsworthy to highlight just how our gun culture has really learned to stand up for one another in the last several years.

Last night, Pennsylvania’s Olympic Gold Medalist Jamie Gray – billed as the ESOS’s guest of honor – canceled her appearances at the show. She posted on Facebook:

As an avid outdoors woman who grew in this sport in part due to my experience at ESOS, it’s a decision that doesn’t come easy but I have decided that I will NOT participate. My decision is due to what I feel would be an inability as an Olympic athlete to represent my sport, industry and USA Shooting teammates in the best possible manner given the political climate that will be present as a result of the decisions that have been made.

Perhaps the biggest news that doesn’t seem to be confirmed anywhere through a statement, but the official ESOS website now only lists one sponsor willing to be associated with them – Progressive Insurance. Cabela’s and Outdoor Channel have officially dropped out, but the disappearance of the Comcast logo indicates that maybe they don’t even want to be associated with the fiasco that this has become.

When it comes to the diversity of sportsmen standing with us, it has so far mostly been from hunters and archers. However, today Towne Marine announced that they are pulling their massive 30 boat display out of the ESOS in protest of their decision to ban modern semi-automatic firearms. Based on the map on the website, it appears they were the second largest display in the fishing hall.

The other interesting turn of events surrounds an archery event at the ESOS. It’s a world qualifier event, so it’s not something to just cancel without serious harm to the sport. However, the International Bowhunting Organization clearly felt they needed to something to stand up for gun rights even though they are trying hard not screw competitors who need to compete in this qualification. Here’s the meat of their statement on how they are striking the balance:

The PA-3D Bowhunter’s Challenge and IBO Indoor Nationals will take place as previously advertised, albeit without IBO representation. The local PA-3D Bowhunters organization has opted to host and oversee the shooting event on its own. The logistics involved in administering the competition, along with registered participants’ concerns with travel plans and airline reservations, are contributing factors for the decision to continue these events.

Proceeds received by the IBO in shooter fees, along with the Rinehart Target Fee, will be donated to the National Rifle Association specifically to fight the threats to The Second Amendment currently being faced by law-abiding American firearms owners.

The IBO stands with those who have chosen to boycott the Eastern Sports and Outdoor show and strongly condemns the action taken by Reed Exhibitions. (emphasis added)

Going back to the gun world, surprisingly, it took GunBroker until late this afternoon to pull out of the show. Given their reliance on business from people who absolutely support semi-automatic rifles, I would have assumed they would have pulled themselves out earlier.

While we have focused on many of the smaller vendors who are pulling out, news also comes today that one of the largest vendors that had space in four key sections of the show has joined the boycott.

Sportsmans Liquidations is one of the largest vendors at the show, Locker said. It originally had signed up for a large chunk of space — 130 booths, typically 10- by 10- feet apiece, split up into four different areas at the show.

Speaking of those smaller vendors, Keystone Country Store in Ft. Loudon, PA deserves some attention for their efforts. Not only are they pulling out of the show, but they told the media that they are instead having a celebration for the Second Amendment at their store. Part of the proceeds from their celebration will go to the NRA.

For the non-profits that have pulled their booths from the ESOS, the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs announced that they are currently working with Cabela’s to get special days set up there to promote the organizations that are taking a huge hit by joining the boycott.

Given the size of some of the new boycotters, I think it’s safe to say that upwards of 1/4 of the show will be empty this year. If Comcast really did pull out as a sponsor, then they have lost 3/4 of their sponsors for the year. On Facebook, the boycott page has nearly twice as many followers as the actual ESOS itself. According to media reports, Reed Exhibitions plans to release a statement sometime this week. At this point, you really have to wonder what on earth they plan to say.

What is Unusual?

Uncle asks, since Heller mentions “dangerous and unusual” weapons. I like to go back to Dave Hardy’s example from his lecture on the subject at the 2010 NRA legal seminar. I tend to think when it comes to this topic, that classes of arms should be interpreted rather broadly, and one also has to look to police use.

If you narrow a category enough, anything is unusual, and all guns are dangerous. The courts ought to look at prohibitions on subsets of weapon classes with skepticism. For instance, if a state decided to ban all derringers made by Bond Arms, one could argue such a small subset is unusual and not in common use. But the superset of handguns are. What about the Undetectable Firearms Act that was a result of a public scare ginned up by the anti-gunners? That is also a subset of protected arms. There might be instances where banning a subset of a larger protected class may be upheld, but I would generally believe strict scrutiny should be applied. If we reject that preventing criminal misuse is not a reason to ban handguns, how can it be a reason to ban a subset of handguns?

I’ve also advocated that the courts should consider police use when making a determination about “common use.” If a type of weapon is part of ordinary police equipment, it can’t be dangerous and unusual, and ought to be defined as in common use, even if it’s only in common police use. That would get us protections for things like body armor and “patrol rifles.” It may also get us machine guns, since machine guns are increasingly becoming more common in police armories.

But this is just thinking out loud. It’s a far cry from the courts ever adopting such a standard. As it is, I’d be nervous going to court with even New York’s draconian gun and magazine ban.