Democrats sing new tune on gun control
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-08-07-pilots-_x.htm WASHINGTON — With little fanfare, the Bush administration is undoing or ignoring gun-control measures that were pursued aggressively by the Clinton administration.
And to the delight of gun-rights activists, the Democratic opposition in Congress hasn't responded with the expressions of outrage and demands for redress that have met President Bush's actions on such issues as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and environmental protection.
The politics of guns are changing.
Some Democratic leaders and key strategists are worried that a perception of Democrats as anti-gun is costing the party's candidates dearly among white men, rural residents and Southern voters. More than any other issue, some analysts say, unease about gun control helped defeat presidential candidate Al Gore in several traditionally Democratic Southern and border states — any one of which would have been enough to put him in the White House.
"We lost a number of voters who on almost every other issue realized they'd be better off with Al Gore," Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, Gore's running mate, says of the gun issue. "They were anxious ... about what would happen if Al was elected. This one matters a lot to people who otherwise want to vote for us."
Frustrated gun-control advocates argue that Democrats are overreacting. They note that gun control was a powerful issue that boosted Democratic Senate candidates and hurt Republican incumbents last fall in Missouri, Michigan and Washington state. The Democratic challengers in all three states won.
"Democrats have completely misread the elections," says Joe Sudbay, public policy director of the Violence Policy Center, which supports gun control. "They are missing opportunities to show how extreme this administration is and how beholden they are to a special interest."
Overreaction or not, the gingerly approach of some Democrats has given Bush officials more running room to change regulations, abandon programs and set new policies about guns throughout the administration.
"The NRA has for years called for more aggressive prosecution efforts against the illegal use of firearms and less focus on new restrictions for law-abiding people, and the Bush administration is doing just that," says James Jay Baker, legislative director of the National Rifle Association. The gun-rights group this year bumped the American Association of Retired Persons from the top of Fortune's list of the most powerful Washington lobbies. "Clearly we're in a better atmosphere so far for law-abiding gun ownership," Baker says.
But the Bush administration hasn't done everything the NRA wants, Baker says. As an example, he notes that Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered the FBI to reduce the period of time the agency holds criminal background check records on gun buyers from 90 days to 24 hours.
"We would prefer that records on law-abiding individuals be destroyed immediately," Baker says. "We think one day is too long."
A 'sea change'
Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts have introduced a bill that would force the FBI to hold the records of gun buyers for at least 90 days to check for fraud and abuse by gun sellers.
Even supporters of the idea see little chance that Congress will move to reverse Ashcroft's decision, however.
Neither Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota nor House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt has made the issue a priority on the Democratic agenda. And that step is only one of several the Bush administration has taken involving guns.
"They've been very quiet about it, ... but they're very serious," Schumer says.
"It's been a virtual sea change," says Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., who was just elected to a second 3-year term on the NRA board.
"In terms of the tone and the general feeling of appreciation and understanding of the Second Amendment, it represents a complete reversal of the last 8 years."
In recent months:
The State Department opposed an international accord intended to curtail the sale of small arms to organized crime figures and combatants in civil wars. U.S. officials argued that the language calling for restrictions on civilian gun ownership violated Americans' constitutional right to bear arms. The objections prompted a significant revision in the final agreement that proponents complain weakened it.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) eliminated funds for a Clinton administration program started in 1999 that provided federal grants for police departments to buy guns off the street, especially around public housing projects. Supporters said the program removed 20,000 guns from the streets of 80 cities in its first year, but administration officials questioned those numbers and said the money could be better spent on drug and other programs. A proposal this month to shift $15 million from drug programs to the gun buyback program was defeated in the Senate, 65 to 33.
HUD backed away from an agreement between the Clinton administration and Smith & Wesson. The gun manufacturer had agreed to provide gun locks and develop new technologically advanced gun safety devices. But as reported by The Wall Street Journal, the administration is not doing anything to pursue the memorandum of understanding.
The Justice Department is asserting a new interpretation of the Second Amendment, which says, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." For six decades, the Supreme Court has seen it to mean there is a collective right to own guns through state and federal militias.
In a letter written to Baker in May, Ashcroft said he believes the Constitution "unequivocally" protects the rights of individuals to own guns — an individual right, not a collective one.
The issue is at the heart of a Texas case now being considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals that might be headed to the Supreme Court.
Bush also has moved to stiffen enforcement of gun laws. In a program called Project Safe Neighborhoods, he promised to add prosecutors focused on gun crimes and proposed $44 million in federal funding to help states upgrade criminal background records.
"The president understands there's a balance" when it comes to guns, White House spokesman Dan Bartlett says. Bush supports stricter enforcement and gun safety, he says, "but the president also understands that law-abiding Americans have the right to protect themselves and their families."
Stealth warfare
Even so, the administration isn't any more eager to spotlight the issue of guns than the Democrats are. If being seen as anti-gun hurts Democrats among white men and rural residents, being seen as pro-gun could hurt Republicans among women and suburbanites.
"They're paying back the NRA without wanting to pay the price with suburban voters," Republican analyst Marshall Witmann says of the White House. With both parties anxious about the issue, he says, "This is stealth warfare on both sides."
Gun ownership proved to be a stunning fault line in the 2000 election. Voters divided almost evenly into those who had guns at home and those who didn't, 48% to 52%. Those with guns voted overwhelmingly for Bush. Those without voted decisively for Gore.
"How did Bush carry West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee, and how did he survive in Ohio?" Republican pollster Bill McInturff asks. "It was because Bush's margin was so extraordinarily high in rural areas. And there's no question that in rural America ... the gun issue was huge."
Even former president Bill Clinton, in discussions with friends and associates, blames the money and organizational muscle of a resurgent NRA for costing Gore the electoral votes of Clinton's home state of Arkansas. Going county by county in the state he served as governor, Clinton calculates that Gore lost Arkansas because his support was squelched in some rural counties where Democrats need to roll up big margins if they hope to win statewide.
The cover of the current issue of Blueprint, the magazine published by the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, promises important advice inside: "What Democrats Should Do About Guns." The prescription, advocated by leaders of a group called Americans for Gun Safety, is to balance talk of gun owners' "responsibilities" to accept safety measures with an explicit commitment to gun rights.
Other gun-control groups disagree, however, and their differences over how to operate in the changed political landscape have split their ranks and weakened their clout. They already are dwarfed by the NRA and the gun-rights lobby, which contributed nine times as much as gun-control advocates did in campaign contributions in the last election cycle.
Americans for Gun Safety is supporting a proposal to close a loophole that permits unregulated sales of weapons at gun shows. The bill is co-sponsored in the Senate by Lieberman and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona. They say it is an effort to find common ground on "sensible" gun-control proposals.
But the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence has declined so far to take a formal position for or against the bill. And the Violence Policy Center opposes it, arguing that it would open new loopholes.
Should Democrats be more restrained in talking about guns? Or more outspoken?
"The people who vote this way (against gun control) are only 15% of the country, and they're not voting for Democrats anyway," Schumer argues.
"On the other hand, really the bulk of voters are very much on our side. So might you lose votes in certain places? Yeah. But for every vote you lose, you pick up two or three if you draw the issue."
But so far, Schumer acknowledges, Democrats have been "quiet" in opposing Bush on guns.
"Maybe people have been focused on other issues," he says.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
