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 Evolving Definition of “Assault Weapon”

Reason posted a video highlighting the stupidity of Congressional hearings that try to squash pop culture via things like rock music and video games that will harm our kids – like the 1992 version of Mortal Kombat.

I watched it with a laugh, but then I caught a key moment from a 1993 hearing where former Sen. Joe Lieberman defined assault weapon. When shown a Nintendo Super Scope, Sen. Lieberman said, “To me, that looks like a, it looks like an assault weapon of some kind.”

1993AssaultWeapon

That is what Sen. Lieberman believes a so-called assault weapon looks like. A giant tube of plastic that has no real shape was lumped in as an “assault weapon” in 1993. And don’t think that it was just commentary of an old out-of-touch man rambling to no one. This was a lawmaker looking to ban the giant tube of plastic and the games it was used with at the time.

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.

Taking Away the Supply of Guns

Several top anti-gun leaders have seemingly conceded that they cannot get away with pushing bills to go door-to-door to round up all the guns. It doesn’t mean they don’t want to, it just means that they acknowledge there’s too much public acceptance of allowing people to own the firearms they legally purchased. So, their next goal is to end our ability to purchase the guns in the first place. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said, “The purpose [of her bill] is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time.”

We already know that Cerberus has essentially been forced to put Freedom Group up for sale due to threats from those in charge of investing California’s pension funds. Philadelphia is pulling its investments out of gun companies and investment funds that invest in gun companies unless they meet key conditions. What kinds of conditions? Gun companies must:

  • Promote gun control, including new hurdles for lawful gun and ammunition purchasers;
  • Give support (assuming financial since there’s no other that would make sense here) to cities to fund new record keeping options that would supposedly be used to share criminal records with NICS;
  • Conduct a background check on every single firearm and ammunition transfer – all the way down the line;
  • Stop producing their most popular products;
  • Dedicate any research budget for new product development to so-called “smart” guns;
  • Use any remaining product development budget to create an ammunition registry;
  • Harass every customer at every sale about the history of firearms training;
  • Redesign all existing products to include, at minimum, 4 serial numbers;
  • Fund gun buyback programs; and
  • Stop support of gun shows.

That’s just the highlights. Essentially, the demand from Philadelphia’s pension board is that gun companies should just shut themselves down before they can qualify for investments. Some of this stuff isn’t even possible given the distribution methods of the industry, but that isn’t stopping the big cities from making these demands.

Today’s headline is that Rahm Emmanuel is going after banks that allow gun manufacturers to do business with them, this is in addition to getting the city of Chicago to pull money out of gun companies and related funds.

They don’t just want a little gun control. They want to destroy the entire gun culture by making it so that even the law-abiding cannot easily find or buy firearms, and even if we pass them down, our children or grandchildren won’t have anywhere to turn to get them fixed or be able to buy new versions. Feinstein’s plan isn’t about drying up the supply of firearms. It’s about drying up the entire gun culture.

What a “Free Lunch” Really Means

This is actually a really good post by @ExJon on just what it is like to suddenly work in an industry that was handed an “awesome” government handout to promote business.

Before the industry could start raking in that “free money,” they only needed one clarification. To receive one of Congress’ incentive payments, providers had to show that they are “meaningfully using” their EHRs. Since Congress added that two-word phrase to the 1000-page stimulus legislation, they must have a quick definition right? They should get back to us by the end of the day, and we can get to selling! Okay, maybe by the end of the week? Err… end of the month?

Fifteen months later, a sub-suboffice in the Department of Health and Human Services dropped a stack of dead trees on the industry. The simple two-word phrase had ballooned into a 650-page “interim final rule” which defined “meaningful use” through a series of new regulations, certifications, quality checks and best practices that your local family doctor had to follow if he wanted his slice of government cheese.

Since that interim rule contained several contradictory demands, meaningless requirements and flat-out errors, the HHS later released a “final rule” weighing in at 850 pages. But that was only “Stage 1” of meaningful use; Stages 2 and 3 were promised in the years ahead.

Oh, and in the meantime, Congress passed Obamacare, which added 2,700 pages of new rules never mentioned by HHS’s CMS/ONC 850-page EHR Meaningful Use Final Rule (Stage 1). Have a headache yet? Don’t worry; I had one for a year and a half straight. Overnight, my job changed from helping customers to dissecting turgid bureaucratese and offering my own Talmudic interpretations.

As much of the post as I highlighted here, you should still go read the whole thing. It really shows the very serious reason why many people run and hide when they hear the words, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

Tweet of the Day

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

Manchin Lying Again

He says he’s working on a universal background check bill, and notes:

“With exceptions. The exceptions are: Families, immediate family members, some sporting events that you’re going to — that if you’re just going to be using them at the sporting events. So we’re looking and talking to people with expertise. I’m working with the NRA, to be honest with you, and talking to them,” he said.

NRA is denying it:

“If Sen. Manchin supports putting private transfers between law-abiding citizens under the thumb of the Obama-Holder justice department, we will vigorously oppose those efforts,” said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam.

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.