Posts Tagged ‘background checks’

h1

Senators voting with the NRA over their own constituents

March 8, 2013

[RL takes precedence, and some days it does for my blogging too. Yesterday I wrote this up about the problem of background check legislation in the Senate, as key — oh, hell, all — Senators standing in the way are doing the bidding of the NRA and ignoring huge majorities of their own people. They will go on doing this, I figure, until held accountable. I should also note that I was amazed that I posted that black rifle with that caption and no one’s head exploded. I figure that’s because no one read this diary.]

A man of the people?...nah.

A man of the people?…nah.

As bipartisan negotiations over a universal background check bill have faltered in the Senate, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) chose this moment to introduce the NRA’s preferred legislation, which addresses mental health issues and ignores the gaping hole in the law permitting private gun sales (often called the ‘gun show’ loophole) with no background check.

Although groups dedicated to the reduction of gun violence, like Gabby Giffords’ Americans for Responsible Solutions, see value in the bill — from a pragmatic standpoint, it will help deal with the one problem the NRA has picked out for its sacrificial lamb — they also acknowledge the big problem, private gun sales, that Graham’s bill will do nothing to solve.

And since Mayors Against Illegal Guns has released polling data on universal background checks for all gun sales, showing many legislators who enjoy the support and endorsement of the NRA, one of my own Senators, Jeff Flake of Arizona, stands accused of siding with the NRA by co-sponsoring their bill. He’s ignoring 90% of his own constituency to do it.

So, MAIG polled a variety of states and Congressional districts, looking for voters and their views on background checks. Many of the districts they polled are represented by A-graded, NRA-approved politicians. And the lowest percentage they could find in support of universal background checks — for all gun sales — was 79%. Arizona, my home state, not known as a bastion of deep ‘blue’ or liberal, progressive values, polled at 90%.

And yet, there’s Jeff Flake, my senator, co-sponsoring the NRA bill that fails to address the private gun sale loophole. Ignoring the people of Arizona. Before the expected objection about whether or not the NRA supports this bill is raised, let me point out that CNN quotes the NRA-ILA executive director supporting Graham’s bill:

The National Rifle Association announced its support for the legislation saying it would “improve” the current background check system.“This bill will create accurate definitions of those who pose serious threats and should be barred from the ability to buy or possess a firearm, while protecting the rights of law abiding citizens and veterans,” said Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.

CNN also went looking for responses from gun control advocates, and got one from Giffords’ new group, Americans for Responsible Solutions.

“We are glad that Senators Graham, Flake, Pryor and Begich agree that America has a problem with gun violence. And we agree with their ideas for strengthening the NICS system” said Pia Carusone, executive director of the new group. “But they cannot ignore the fact that 40% of the guns purchased in this country are bought outside of the system all together –meaning dangerous people have easy access to guns.”

On the contrary — I think that ignoring the facts is precisely what the NRA and its agents in Congress mean to do. What I suspect the NRA will now do is lie to the American people, and present their bill as addressing the background check issue, despite the gaping loophole, 40% of all gun sales, that it fails to tackle.

Yes, I've called out a Democrat

Yes, I’ve called out a Democrat

Incidentally, Senator Flake isn’t the only one subject to some MAIG polling; they also show that Mark Pryor (D-AR), one of the Democratic co-sponsors of the NRA’s bill, is ignoring 84% of his constituency as well. Considering that the lowest percentage the MAIG could find in these states and districts was 79%, all of the NRA’s supporters may be going against the will of their own people, Senator Graham included.

Meanwhile, some writers are looking to blame the White House for controlling gun control advocates too much, in order to present a unified front. With a title like “How the White House silenced gun control groups,” this Politico article tries hard to make it look like Obama has hurt gun control advocacy. A writer could quote half of it for a pretty good hit piece, I’d say. Saved for the end, they quote Michael Barnes, a former representative in Congress and former president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Now, Barnes said, it would be “counterproductive” to the cause of gun control for any of the groups to make waves — even if they don’t believe Obama’s effort goes far enough.“It probably doesn’t go as far as some of us would like, but it’s a great program,” Barnes said. “They shouldn’t be putting energy into trying to make it stronger because it’s going to be very tough to pass this. A lot of people say it can’t be done. If I were involved, I would counsel against people saying it doesn’t go far enough.”

So, yes. It sucks that the fight to enact some sensible, amazingly popular legislation to reduce gun violence is this hard to win, but it is. And taking some progress over none is an easy choice. Some of this also applies to the NRA’s chosen bill, even. If everyone supposedly agrees on making the NICS database work better as a check on the dangerously mentally ill, then perhaps Congress can make quick work of it. But it’s not enough, and the NRA and their allies in Congress have very few of the people on their side.

Those few people, though, they’re definitely speaking up. Just for example, this “fire mission” that I found today. I guess it takes a particular mindset to be comfortable with comparing political advocacy to killing folks…and I guess ar15.com, the “Home of the Black Rifle,” qualifies.

They've found something black that they like!

They’ve found something black that they like!

Provided are the names of the members, party affiliation, and links to their E-mail contact page as well as their DC office phone and fax information.
LIGHT THOSE PHONES UP GUYS!

They left out Dianne Feinstein’s info as a lost case, although she’s not the only one for them.

Dianne “lol don’t bother” Feinstein
D-California

One might think that the NRA, staking out such an isolated, fringe position on opposing background checks, would have political clout matching its far-right take, but no. Media Matters documented how the NRA has flip-flopped on this very issue, having supported background checks after Columbine. As I pointed out yesterday, they’re losing the support of gun manufacturers and gun rights advocacy groups. Even Bill O’Reilly of the raging spittle has referred to background checks as a reasonable position — perhaps not the best arbiter of that which is reasonable, but it shows just how far gone the NRA is now that Bill O’Reilly or even Lou Dobbs are to the left of them.

And yet, all it takes is a few Senators to turn, and even this most popular of all policies intended to curb gun violence will fall. So, I’m going to include the contact information again for the Senate Judiciary Committee. This isn’t literal combat. Don’t think of it as a ‘fire mission.’ But it can save lives, so…you know what, think of it as a war if you like. Because if the NRA wins, there will be casualties.

Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman, D-Vermont [202-224-4242] Dianne Feinstein, D-California [202-224-3841] Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member, R-Iowa [202-224-3744]
Chuck Schumer, D-New York [202-224-6542] Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah [202-224-5251] Dick Durbin, D-Illinois [202-224-2152]
Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama [202-224-4124] Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island [202-224-2921] Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina [202-224-5972]
Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota [202-224-3244] John Cornyn, R-Texas [202-224-2934] Al Franken, D-Minnesota [202-224-5641]
Michael S. Lee, R-Utah [202-224-5444] Christopher A. Coons, D-Delaware [202-224-5042] Ted Cruz, R-Texas [202-224-5922]
Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut [202-224-2823] Jeff Flake, R-Arizona [202-224-4521] Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii [202-224-6361]
Advertisements
h1

NRA’s support among gun advocates splintering over background checks

March 6, 2013

[…which may or may not be a result of my hammering away at them on almost a daily basis, but anyway, good news today. Set phasers to Infuriate the RKBA.]

Fringe, it’s not just a TV show

Today I am pleased to see that gun manufacturers, dealers, and gun rights groups are breaking with the NRA on background checks. Even better, Democrats are flipping the economic threat around on the gun industry, with big-city mayors and their budgets for guns and ammo looking for manufacturers that will work with them on legislation.

This is a promising turn of events. In some previous work I’ve documented gun manufacturers like Barrett Firearms Manufacturing punish law enforcement in California with a ban on sales in retaliation for California’s strict gun laws, and Magpul, which makes ammunition magazines and other gun ‘accessories,’ threaten to pull their manufacturing plant and hundreds of jobs out of Colorado if Democrats pass gun control legislation. And the NRA has orchestrated boycotts to punish anyone who steps out of line, so anyone breaking up the coalition now is asking for it.

And yet, they are, showing that NRA’s leadership is out of touch. Not only with vast majorities of Americans, Democrats, gun owners, and NRA members, but now, even gunmakers and gun rights advocates.

*****

History shows why the individual manufacturers, gun enthusiasts or gun rights groups have reason to fear the NRA; that is, when the rest of the industry is lined up behind them. In 2000, they turned on Smith & Wesson for signing an agreement with the Clinton administration. Since I’m no gun expert, I looked them up and I guess it was their .44 Magnum Model 29 featured in the old Clint Eastwood movies. He couldn’t save them from the NRA, I suppose.

May have been busy, yelling at a chair

In March 2000 Smith & Wesson was the only major gun manufacturer to sign an agreement with the Clinton Administration.[5] The company agreed to numerous safety and design standards as well as limits on the sale and distribution of its products. Gun clubs and gun rights groups responded to this agreement by initiating large-scale boycotts of Smith & Wesson by refusing to buy their new products and flooding the firearms market with used S&W guns.[5][6][7] After a 40% sales slide,[8] the sales impact from the boycotts led Smith & Wesson to suspend manufacturing at two plants.[9] The success of the boycott led to a Federal Trade Commission antitrust investigation’s being initiated under the Clinton administration,[7] targeting gun dealers and gun rights groups, which was subsequently dropped in 2003.[10] This agreement signed by Tomkins PLC ended with the sale of Smith & Wesson to the Saf-T-Hammer Corporation. The new company (Smith and Wesson Holding Corporation), which publicly renounced the agreement, was received positively by the firearms community.[11]

This agreement was intended to increase gun safety by mandating safety devices on their guns, such as gun locks. Also, among other things, it barred gun sales — including gun show sales — without a background check on the buyer. Interesting, eh? Following more links, I see that the Bush regime dropped the antitrust investigation and scrapped Clinton’s agreement, but for S&W the damage was done. Bush’s failure to investigate was summed up, perhaps with unintentional irony, by FTC spokeswoman Brenda Mack:

Thanks for nothing — as usual

“This does not mean that a violation did or did not occur, so the commission reserves its right to take action again in the future if necessary,” said Mack.

With that history in mind, it’s encouraging to witness these cracks in the monolith. Like a trade group for gun manufacturers breaking with the NRA over universal background checks.

“That’s more the NRA’s issue,” Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), said in an interview. “From the commercial side, we’re already there, and we’ve been there, and we were the ones that have been the strongest proponents of an effective, complete background check.”

The Washington Post reports that, behind the scenes, gunmakers, dealers, and gun advocates are expressing support for background checks. The NSSF president is a brave fellow for putting his support on the record. Hopefully the target on his back will be rhetorical only. But with the death threats gun control advocates and politicians are receiving, well…who knows.

And as gunmakers have tried their intimidation tactics on lawmakers, like Magpul in Colorado, it seems that some Democrats are putting their own economic leverage to use. Big-city mayors, after all, must spend quite a bit of money on firearms and ammunition for police departments.

“Our residents want to ensure that the tax dollars that are being used to purchase guns for our police departments are going to manufacturers that share our values and support our strategies,” Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, who leads the National Conference of Democratic Mayors, wrote in a letter to Glock and the NSSF.

The NRA has been against universal background checks from the beginning. Their executive VP Wayne LaPierre is on record, repeatedly, claiming these background checks will lead to gun registration — pointedly silent about the existing federal law his organization worked to pass that forbids any such registry at the federal level. The NRA’s lies were debunked by Mark Kelly in an op-ed at Politico at the end of February, and I spent some time digging into the details. Instead of the truth, they offer this lie by omission, along with threats of confiscation and false comparisons to Nazi Germany. In spite of this consistent message, even here I see folks trying to soften the NRA’s image. They challenge this simple reality that the NRA is out of touch, increasingly isolated in their opposition to universal background checks.

Not all of the NRA’s traditional allies share this sense of alarm. For example, the founder of the pro-gun Second Amendment Foundation tentatively backed a proposed compromise bill in Washington state last month that would expand checks while limiting state firearms record-keeping.In addition, the head of the nation’s largest police union, which was allied with the NRA in a major legislative battle in the past, has joined the movement for expanded background checks.

Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, said in an interview that he now supports extending checks to gun shows and other venues where they are not required.

The Washington Post article notes the negotiations underway in the Senate as another break with the demands of the NRA’s leadership, in that NRA-supported Republican Senators have agreed in general on expanding background checks. True enough. But the remaining sticking point — record keeping — shows that these Republicans seek a watered-down, toothless universal check. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), for example, who wants no record-keeping, in other words, no accountability, no enforcement.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-not-so-OK)

While the NRA’s extremism has managed to drive away some allies, on the issue of background checks it still has the support of at least one key legislator. The Huffington Post reports that Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Joe Manchin have been trying to hammer out a bipartisan deal, but they’ve still made no progress with Republican Senator Tom Coburn. For weeks, Coburn, who has an “A” rating from the NRA, has insisted that the legislation must not require records of private gun sales to be kept, since supposedly that’s the first step toward a national gun registry. The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to consider several gun control bills on Thursday, so if Coburn doesn’t come around by then, Schumer may file his old background check bill as a placeholder. Getting the bill passed without the Republican senator’s assistance wouldn’t be impossible, but it’s not a good sign for what was supposed to be one of the easier gun control measures to get through Congress.

Tom Coburn may well be an intractable roadblock, but the Senate Judiciary Committee could all use a push on this issue, as some votes are supposed to take place tomorrow. One of the Senators on the committee, Jeff Flake, is from my state. Although I don’t expect this Republican to vote my way on this issue, I’m still making a point to contact him. Nothing but endless ringing at Flake’s office number this morning, so the NRA’s mobilization effort may already be underway, but I mean to try again.

Here are all of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee considering the background check law, among other gun control proposals. If any of these are your Senators, perhaps it’s worth a moment of your time to call them? The United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 can connect to any Senate office upon request.

Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman, D-Vermont Dianne Feinstein, D-California Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member, R-Iowa
Chuck Schumer, D-New York Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah Dick Durbin, D-Illinois
Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina
Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota John Cornyn, R-Texas Al Franken, D-Minnesota
Michael S. Lee, R-Utah Christopher A. Coons, D-Delaware Ted Cruz, R-Texas
Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut Jeff Flake, R-Arizona Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii