Democrats Divided On Gun Legislation

NPR ^ | May 14, 2009 | David Welna

[neverdem]

Listen Now [4 min 19 sec]

The National Rifle Association's annual meeting kicks off in Phoenix on Thursday — and its members may have good reason to party.

The NRA has been scoring early and often on Capitol Hill despite a new president who has long supported tighter gun laws and in the face of bigger Democratic majorities in Congress.

Democrats may enjoy a near filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, but when it comes to voting on guns, it's a party divided. In February, 22 Senate Democrats joined most Republicans to amend a District of Columbia voting rights bill so that it essentially forbids the city from restricting gun ownership. And when a GOP-backed amendment came up this week on credit card legislation that would allow carrying concealed loaded weapons in national parks, 27 Democrats voted for it.

"Initially, it looked like we might stop that amendment," says Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the party's chief vote counter. "There were some encouraging votes early on, but then the momentum started moving in the other direction and became a landslide. Half of our caucus voted for it."

Big Gun Lobby 'A Fact Of Life Here'

Durbin says some fellow Democrats who did vote for loaded guns in national parks asked him later how many more times they'd have to face such votes. His answer: I don't know. Tellingly, all but one of the seven Democrats elected in November to seats previously held by Republicans voted for the gun measure.

South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune says it may well have been a tough vote. "But I think there are a lot of people here who are afraid to vote against the Second Amendment," he says. "There are a lot of red-state Democrats, in the Senate at least, who view these issues a little bit differently than some of their other members of their caucus."

Indeed, several House Democrats had a news conference Wednesday to announce that they will try to reinstate a ban on assault weapons that expired five years ago.

"Our gangs are getting assault weapons, our police officers are being killed, and my voice will not be shut until we have a law here that will protect the average citizen," says Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), a lead sponsor of the assault weapons measure.

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein says she'd also like to see the assault weapons ban restored but that the votes simply aren't there in the Senate — and she blames the NRA.

"The NRA is a very powerful lobby," Feinstein says. "You know, when I came here, people said, 'Oh, you gotta watch out for big oil, big labor.' I found it was big guns, and that's just a fact of life here."

Fear Or A Shift In Public Sentiment?

But others espousing tighter gun laws say lawmakers are overly fearful of the NRA.

Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says, "A lot of politicians do fear the NRA. The NRA, I think though, has become more of a paper tiger. I think they really have less clout today than they used to, and I think a lot of what they're trying to do is to get as much as they can before they fully lose that clout."

NRA spokesperson Rachel Parsons counters that it's simply untrue that the group has lost any standing. She says there may be less clamor for new gun laws now, but gun owners are not about to let down their guard.

"While President Obama said that he just doesn't have the support for gun bans in Congress right now, he still says that that's one of his top priorities," Parsons says. "Gun owners know that. That's why they're going out in droves, purchasing firearms and ammunition across the country."

And although police officers in Oakland and Pittsburgh have been killed in recent weeks by gunmen armed with assault weapons, Senator Durbin says lawmakers appear unmoved.

"The climate when it comes to debating guns in Congress is very negative. People don't want to talk about it," he says.

Durbin calls it fear. But Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, says it has more to do with a shift in public sentiment against tougher gun laws. "Democrats seem like they've moved toward Republicans on these issues because they know where the country is," Cornyn says.

Judging by the votes taken so far, easing restrictions on guns may be one of the few issues in Congress this year with truly bipartisan backing.

[AvOrdVet]

Join now if not a member! Even if you don’t own a gun, support the NRA!

Don't just stop there...

Gun Owners of America (GOA)

National Rifle Association (NRA)

Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO)

Alarm and Muster – The document that started a movement.

Alarm and Muster – The Modern Day Call Tree for Emergency Preparation.

AND your State/Local Gun Rights Group.

[El Gato]

'Oh, you gotta watch out for big oil, big labor.' I found it was big guns, and that's just a fact of life here."

It's not "Big Guns" it's over 4 Million members, plus a whole bunch more who follow what the NRA has to say, even if they aren't dues paying members. Most of 'em vote too. That's what gets the attention of the CongressCritters.

BTW, how many dues paying members, or any sort of members, does the Brady Bunch have?

[El Gato]

And when a GOP-backed amendment came up this week on credit card legislation that would allow carrying concealed loaded weapons in national parks, 27 Democrats voted for it.

Is this still more socialist control of the banks by government. See where that has gotten us.

While the second amendment is very important, the Constitution has other parts too, none of which authorize this sort of crappola.

You don't like the terms your credit card company offers? Get another one. Don't use your credit card as a source of long term credit. (Or even short term except in MAJOR emergencies.) You'll be fine. Government gets into the mix, who knows what they might mandate. Maybe the end of the "no interest" period, so that all purchases are treated like cash advances. Maybe that would get everyone using debit cards instead. The only thing I've used my credit card (singluar!) for is to buy some stuff that is on backorder, and won't be shipped right away. I've saved for the stuff, and any paying out of that savings, but I don't want to have to move the money to checking waiting for the stuff to be charged to debit card. I just paid my latest bill in advance, and in full, today. I still have 500 rounds of ammo and the AR kit on backorder however, and I'll pay for those when they come in as well.

OTOH, this provision may act as a poison pill to the "must pass" legislation.

[El Gato]

The last time that the RATs were aggressive against the 2nd Amendment was in 1993. Guess what happened in 1994?

Actually it was in early '94. They've learned their lesson. They'll bring new gun control after an election, not right before. There's still time, it's early in this Congress, but it's beginning to look like they'll wait until the lame duck session in 2010.

Or they'll do it by Treaty, where only a majority of Senators *present* must vote "Yea". Then they'll (where "they" means Eric Holder and the BATFE) implement via regulations.

[neverdem]

BTW, how many dues paying members, or any sort of members, does the Brady Bunch have?

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/annual-reports/2007.pdf

The window froze when I tried to open it. It looked like it was opening correctly. I tried to use the edit function. IIRC, it is 20 pages long. Their About Us page didn't mention donors or members.

[ought-six]

“Never underestimate the arrogance of the left. These people will overturn the 2nd amendment one day, whether by direct or indirect means. Our reaction will be what counts.”

I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said (and I’m paraphrasing here): “The Second Amendment is for when they try to take it away.”

[neverdem]

I used the edit function to scan member, membership, donor and donors. I couldn’t get a headcount.

[El Gato]

The window froze when I tried to open it. It looked like it was opening correctly. I tried to use the edit function. IIRC, it is 20 pages long. Their About Us page didn't mention donors or members.

Worked OK for me. Brady Bunch is really several organizations. Brady Campaign has total revenues of $4.28M, only 40% of that from "membership". 58% from General Contributions. They spend 14% on membership services, so presumably they do have some members, but 23% on fundraising. They claim to spend only 0.5% on "political action", but spend 33.5% on "Legislation and Adjudication", and 19% on "Public Education". S

The Brady Center has about the same revenues, but spends "only" 18% on fundraising. And 69% on "Public Education" and "legal Action".

Couldn't find any mention of how many members either group might have. Or the sources of their outside funding.

They don't even have a "join" button on their homepage. They do however have several places that lead to etheir getting on their mailing list and/or volunteering, but no mention of any dues. So where do those "membership" monies come from?

NRA has a "Join" button on their homepage. And, generaly speaking, you have to put your money where your mouth is, to the tune of $35 for a regular single year membership. $85 for three years. No tickee, no joinee. You can join for $10, but you then don't get one of the magazines, or the hat.

[steamroller]

Schumer talks tough,but in his miserable little cowardly,un- American heart,he’s scared.
Boxer is too stupid to be afraid-she thinks the water under the ice is warm,and only 6” deep.

[William Tell]

El Gato said: Or they'll do it by Treaty, where only a majority of Senators *present* must vote "Yea".

Is my copy of the Constitution out of date? Mine contains:

"He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur ..."

[Shooter 2.5]

The NRA has a free membership drive at the moment with the magazine.

[El Gato]

Is my copy of the Constitution out of date? Mine contains:

You are of course correct. Brain fart. I was concentrating on the "of the Senators present, rather than the fraction. Given that many gun control laws have been passed, or critical amendments to bills added, at Oh Dark Thirty "by unanimous consent", or "without objection", it could happen that nearly 100% of the 51 Senators present would vote to approve the Treaty.

[El Gato]

The NRA has a free membership drive at the moment with the magazine.

So I've read. But it wasn't obvious on the page I got to from the "Join" button, and I didn't have time to search it out.

[El Gato]

I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said (and I’m paraphrasing here): “The Second Amendment is for when they try to take it away.”

So folks have said, but I don't think so. Nor did he say something like

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. --- Falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson.

Occasionally the Jefferson quote is given with the following citation: Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950). The publication exists, but the quote does not. The editor's correct name is Julian P. Boyd, not C.J. Boyd.

See Second Amendment Foundation for this and other false "quotes".

That once I tried to search out out, years ago, in a copy of the papers edited by Julian P. Boyd, plus another set at the same library.

SAF also has a page on bogus "quotes" supposed to be from the Gun Grabbers.

Jefferson and the founders had plenty of good things to say about guns and the RKBA, as there are plenty of true quotes from the Gun Grabbers, that we should not be using demonstrably false ones, in either case.

[neverdem]

Or they'll do it by Treaty, where only a majority of Senators *present* must vote "Yea". Then they'll (where "they" means Eric Holder and the BATFE) implement via regulations.

I wish I answered this earlier before I was distracted with the Brady membership question. 27 rat senators voting in effect for concealed carry in national parks means that treaty ratification even with the two thirds present seems to be a pretty high bar to cross.

Here's the NAY vote:

NAYs ---29 Akaka (D-HI) Alexander (R-TN) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Burris (D-IL) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Gillibrand (D-NY) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaufman (D-DE) Kerry (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Udall (D-NM) Whitehouse (D-RI)

Primary Alexander. Some rats may be vulnerable. Most are safe.

[neverdem]

You are of course correct. Brain fart. I was concentrating on the "of the Senators present, rather than the fraction. Given that many gun control laws have been passed, or critical amendments to bills added, at Oh Dark Thirty "by unanimous consent", or "without objection", it could happen that nearly 100% of the 51 Senators present would vote to approve the Treaty.

Don't they need a quorum, 60 votes, to conduct business?

[Gator113]

If such a treaty were approved, what then?

How will the patriots respond?

Where do we go from there?

[Carry_Okie]

Don't they need a quorum, 60 votes, to conduct business?

Legally, "Senators present" does not denote such a requirement. Historically, no, there have been treaties ratified without record of a quorum anywhere near the time of the vote.

[Carry_Okie]

Looks like gun owner registration to me.

Progressing quite nicely too.

[Joe Brower]