Las Vegas Sun

July 5, 2015

Currently: 91° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account


Gun control is only a matter of time

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

Although overshadowed by the Boston Marathon attacks, the low point of Barack Obama’s presidency may have come when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid bowed to the reality of a Republican filibuster and tabled the bipartisan Toomey-Manchin bill to broaden gun background checks. At a press conference afterward, surrounded by weeping families whose children were massacred in Newtown and Tucson, Obama let himself get angrier than he had before in public. Reid vowed that it would be “only a matter of time” before Democrats passed meaningful gun legislation.

To most people, this assurance rang hollow. As several commentators pointed out, the impediment of the filibuster; the disproportionate power that the Senate imparts to rural, pro-gun states; and the fact that even the slaughter of 20 children could not get Congress moving all seem to indicate that curbing gun violence through legislation might be impossible.

But while it may be cold comfort to people stunned by Congress’s failure to act, Reid is probably right. There are at least four reasons for optimism about gun control in the years ahead.

1. Gun control is no longer taboo. Most Americans mistakenly believe that politics really works the way it does on “The West Wing,” where an impassioned speech by President Bartlett can rouse the country and bend the opposition. In the real world, things work differently. One reason gun legislation is so hard to pass is that Democrats abandoned the issue in the mid-1990s, convinced that it harmed their ability to attract the blue-collar voters on which they relied.

When Democrats ceded the debate to the National Rifle Association, public opinion followed. In 1990, 78 percent of Americans favored stricter gun laws. On the eve of the 2012 election, that number had fallen to 44 percent. As recently as last October, Obama was terrified of the issue. Asked about gun control at a town-hall debate, he delivered a paean to the Second Amendment.

Newtown changed this. Public support for stricter gun laws shot up to 58 percent. And many politicians — most, but not all, Democrats — seem to have been genuinely moved to act.

2. Governors are making big advances. In the past, public clamor for stricter gun laws after mass shootings proved fleeting. This time it will probably endure because even as legislation collapsed in Congress, governors were making huge strides at the state level. In New York, Andrew Cuomo pushed through an assault-weapons ban. In Maryland, Martin O’Malley will soon sign a law banning 45 types of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, and requiring gun buyers to obtain a license and submit to fingerprinting. In Colorado, John Hickenlooper has signed legislation banning high-capacity magazines and requiring background checks, and he may soon sign additional measures to seize guns from those convicted of domestic violence and to require training to receive a concealed-weapons permit.

All three governors are Democrats. But Republican governor Chris Christie of New Jersey just announced that he will seek to expand background checks and ban certain high-caliber guns.

3. Guns have become a litmus-test issue for Democratic presidential aspirants. Can these state laws influence national politics? Yes, because each of the governors pushing them is thought to be eyeing the White House. For Democrats, guns have become a good issue on which to run. The blue-collar men whom the party once feared losing have mostly left. They’ve been replaced by a rising coalition of “Obama Democrats” — young people, minorities and suburban women — who strongly favor stricter gun laws.

4. Opposing gun control will make it harder for Republicans to win the White House. The same demographic pattern that gives pro-gun Republicans outsize power to block gun legislation in the Senate hurts them in presidential elections. In the Senate, small states such as Wyoming have identical representation to huge states such as California. But power in the electoral college is allocated proportionally: Wyoming has three votes, California 55.

As Ronald Brownstein noted in National Journal, tallying up the electoral college votes of the 21 states in which both senators supported Toomey-Manchin yields 261 votes — nearly the 270 needed to win the White House. The 17 states in which both senators opposed it yields just 146 votes. This suggests that unfettered opposition to gun control will harm the Republican nominee in 2016, a thought that may have occurred to Christie.

None of this means that passing national gun laws will be easy or that legislation will be sweeping or comprehensive. But it does suggest that Reid was onto something when he declared, “The stand of the Republicans is not sustainable.”

Joshua Green is national correspondent at Bloomberg Businessweek.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 4 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Columnist is wrong. Harry Reid and President Obama lost the Democrat support for gun controls even on the least of the least of amendments: Expanded background checks. Why? Badly written Amendment by Senators Toomey and Machin to start. Failure to address real concerns of restrictions to the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment with regard to prohibition for a national registry [verbiage but no legal enforcement for violation] and decriminalizing private gun transfers. Family was addressed. Not friends, in-laws, and neighbors. Congress did what it's supposed to do when laws are poorly written. Oppose on principle. President Obama refused to sign a law dealing with the FAA furloughs that passed by an overwhelming majority. Why? Spelling errors in the proposed law. Get the laws right or don't get them at all.

    Carmine D

  2. Remember not to lump all of us gun owners and CCW carriers in the same vein. Af Wesley Clark, I spent more than enought time dodging bullets over twenty plus years in the Army so I figure I've earned the right to own and carry.

    That being said I don't really understand the issue with more stringent background checks. I would take things even further, requiring any CCW holder to have some mandatory training on sceharios like ensuring you have a clear background, the actual laws in your state and the importance of being a good witness first, not engaging the next active shooter on your own.

    AS I've said before, If I encountered a shooter, my first priority is to get my family and others to safety. If no choice, engage as a last resort. I honestly believe that most gun owners and CCW holders agree, but there are some that fear that a more defined registry is the first step in eventaul bans and confiscation. I think that's atretch, but some really feel this way.

    I've always believed in the 2nd amendment, but I don't think being a little more stringent on checks and mandating training is bad. As far as bannig certain wespons, limitimg magazine capacity, etc that's a different subject.

    There are some that feel these bans will or would've prevented the last several active shooters, but I disagree. A dedicated person will find a way around the riles and act. A perfect example is the Va Tech shooter, who used two Glock 22 pistols and 10 rd magazines to commit his eveil. All perfectly legal under many of the proposed bans. Bans aren't not the total solution to anything, but yep, something needs to be done.

    There is evil in this world, I've seen it up close and personal. I hope no one here has to. It's why my philosphy on home defense is simple. If someone enters my house and my family is home, I will use lethal force, becuae I have to believe that if something happnes to me my family is in throuble.

    Trust me, I hope it never happens, I like to be optimistic that my family and I will always be safe, but I am prepared. Again, it's only an opinion, I'm no more right or wrong than anyone else. Be fae all.

  3. JeffFV:

    I'll make you a mutual deal. I tell you what it's like to be the smartest person in the room, if you tell me what it's like to be the dumbest.

    Carmine D

  4. Jeff Bradley:

    A very lucid and cogent post. Thank you. Obviously when it came to the line of Jeff's, you got all the smarts and the other Jeff here didn't.

    Carmine D