Well, the bulls have been slaughtered and the Coronation looms in two months, but the world doesn’t look too different today. Of course, you wouldn’t know that living in the gun culture.
There’s an atmosphere of sweaty desperation and paranoia running wild that I just don’t get. Yes, the gains we’ve been making will probably stall for the next two years. What I don’t see happening is us losing any significant ground.
So let’s all take a deep breath and look at the situation.
First off, there will be no new Assault Weapons Ban. The Left may be sneaky, but they’re smart, and they’ve got a long memory. The last one cost them both houses of Congress in 1994, and it cost Al Gore the Presidency in 2000.
Gun control as an issue is a non-starter for them, and they know it. We didn’t hear a word about it during any of the debates, and the only time any candidate mentioned it was when prodded to do so. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who both share a past of naked hostility towards the 2nd Amendment, hemmed and stuttered that individuals have the right to bear arms.
You’ll notice that they studiously avoided any mentions of firearms regulation. That’s because they know it’s a political tarpit for them.
Even if we set that aside, there is the issue of Heller vs. District of Columbia. As Scalia noted:
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service–M-16 rifles and the like–may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.
Scalia left a few breadcrumbs in the Heller decision that make it clear that “assault weapons” are weapons “in common use,” and are therefore protected (1). If the Democrats want to sail a ban through the legislature, two things will happen.
First, they will have trouble getting the votes. Many of the Democrats who gained seats in the 2006 midterms were moderates, and more than a few are NRA members (2). Even those who might be supportive have political futures to worry about, and they’re not going to take the risk.
Second, even if they were able to get a bill passed and signed, it would immediately be measured against the Heller decision (3) and found wanting. Any potential ban would get tied up in the courts immediately, and a further decision affirming Heller would have dire effects on future gun-control legislation.
So let Helmke make his pronouncements and take credit for things his organization didn’t really affect (4). Democrats need to coalesce their power base now, and they need to do so quickly and decisively. For that, they need a bunch of quick, easy, sexy wins. They need feel-good legislation that makes us all want to hold hands and sing songs.
That ain’t gun control.
OK, so the next Assault Weapons Ban is off the table. Can they still make things hard for us? In the words of Sarah Palin, “you betcha!”
Watch for excise taxes on ammunition. One way to discourage owning and shooting firearms is to make the ammo prohibitively expensive. Ammo prices are already painful for those of us who shoot regularly, and further taxes would strongly discourage casual shooters.
Then there’s OSHA and the EPA. Last year, OSHA sought to impose the 1910.109 standard, under which the definition of “explosives” would be expanded to include “small arms ammunition, small arms ammunition primers, [and] smokeless propellant,” lumping such things in with dynamite and high explosives. The new standard would have made it impossible to run a shooting range of any sort.
Luckily, the NRA caught wind of it and put the brakes on, but this is the kind of thing they’ll try. There are tons of potential regulatory back doors like this, and we have to be vigilant. “Lead” is a scary word for the EPA, and they’ll likely be encouraged to enact higher standards for facilities that allow for any sort of exposure to it.
Also, keep an eye out for taxes on components, such as lead, brass and KNO3. Like I said, they’re sneaky.
Still, they’re going to have their hands full for the next term. They can’t afford to appear distracted from the larger issues. The economy and foreign policy will be their cross to bear, and that’ll keep them busy enough. Even so, it won’t hurt to stay wary.
(1) By the way, the term “assault rifle” is a misnomer. The official definition indicates:
(…) short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.
Those have been heavily taxed and regulated since 1934 and are not in common civilian use. Though possible to possess, the cost and paperwork are prohibitive to all but the most affluent.
The weapons currently referred to as “assault weapons” are in fact semiautomatic clones of military-pattern rifles. These are “intermediate in power” but lack selective fire. In essence, they are low-powered, short range (<300 yards) weapons that just happen to have large magazines and scary-looking doodads attached.
(2) Democrat doesn’t always mean rabid Socialist.
(3) Can they get Heller countermanded? Unlikely. To do so, they’d have to get a case to the Supreme Court in which the Constitutionality of the 2nd Amendment somehow violated someone’s Constitutional rights. That, or perhaps a city will decide to ban handguns, get sued under Heller for acting unconstitutionally, then petition the Court for relief.
Yeah, I’m casting about here. I don’t see a way to depose Heller, no matter who Obama gets to appoint. Bear in mind, the next two seats to vacate already belong to liberals, so he won’t be doing any damage by replacing them with younger liberals, at least not for the next decade or so.
(4) From the Brady Campaign release:
We know of no candidate, at any level, for any office, who lost because they supported common-sense gun legislation.
How short memories are, Mr. Helmke. The Democrats are still stinging from the political fallout of the last round of gun control.