Don’t hold your breath for new gun laws

posted at 12:31 pm on July 22, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

We’ve already seen the sadly inevitable rush to capitalize on the tragedy in Colorado as an excuse to start passing strict gun laws, ranging from Bloomberg to Rendell and more. But as we sort through the aftermath of the disaster and the victims begin to pick up the pieces, is this opportunism going to result in any new legislation along those lines? One study linked by the AP seems to indicate that the gun grabbing crowd may wind up being disappointed.

Once, every highly publicized outbreak of gun violence produced strong calls from Democrats and a few Republicans for tougher controls on firearms.

Now those pleas are muted, a political paradox that’s grown more pronounced in an era scarred by Columbine, Virginia Tech, the wounding of a congresswoman and now the shooting in a suburban movie theater where carnage is expected on-screen only.

“We don’t want sympathy. We want action,” Dan Gross, president of the Brady campaign said Friday as President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney mourned the dead.

As this look at history lays out, there was a time in the nineties when gun control garnered a lot more public support. A ten year ban was placed on certain types of rifles while Bill Clinton was in office and the Brady Campaign obviously felt like they were winning the day. But then, slowly but surely, the tide began to shift.

By 2004, when the assault weapon ban lapsed, congressional Democrats made no serious attempt to pass an extension. President George W. Bush was content to let it fade into history.

Public sentiment had swung.

According to a Gallup poll in 1990, 78 percent of those surveyed said laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter, while 19 percent said they should remain the same or be loosened.

By the fall of 2004 support for tougher laws had dropped to 54 percent. In last year’s sounding, 43 percent said they should be stricter, and 55 percent said they should stay the same or be made more lenient.

While many of the Democrats in this article bemoan the ascendency of the NRA in the modern era, the fact is that they have deftly handled a campaign of public awareness which has been winning support on both sides of the aisle. There are some cycles where their financial support to campaigns has been almost exclusively to the GOP. This year 12% of their donations went to Democrats. And the far Left side of the Hill hasn’t been able to swing anything close to a majority of their own members to take a big stand on this. Obama himself said we must protect our 2nd amendment rights after the tragedy. The issue is simply too politically toxic.

This isn’t to say that 2nd amendment supporters shouldn’t be vigilant in the weeks and months ahead. But I also don’t think it’s time to panic.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8

Not advocating for or against such a sentence, only pointing out that placing restrictions on someone’s rights for the rest of their live is not without precedent. Restricting someone to prison for life certainly restricts their rights for life.

Of course it does, but that’s why you have life in prison as a sentence – to restrict rights for life. If a person is deemed punished enough to return to life as a free man, why are we revoking from him the most crucial freedom of all – the freedom to defend their life? Again, what other rights do we remove from those have have done their time?

Also, if a life in prison sentence can be shortened then it should also be possible to shorten any other lifetime right restriction. So a felon should be able to appeal and win a shortening of his lifetime sentence to not own a gun.

farsighted on July 23, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Again…if the person wasn’t sentenced to life, or they demonstrated that they don’t deserve life in prison, why should they receive any other government-imposed life sentence? There shouldn’t be a need to appeal for the most fundamental right of American citizens.

Additionally, given how many crimes are now considered felonies(like most drug charges), it’s clearly an open door for the government to restrict gun rights in the shadows. Free people should not have to appeal for their rights. Government should have to appeal to free people to remove the rights of a free person.

MadisonConservative on July 23, 2012 at 11:07 AM

JellyToast on July 23, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Speaking of perverting things…

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Why are you eager to deny fundamental rights?

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 10:43 AM

You make too many baseless assumptions…which is why I normally ignore your posts.
You have the nasty, childish, leftist habit of carrying something too far and accusing people of things (EAGER to deny rights) when they don’t accept your opinion as Revealed Word.

Carry on.

Solaratov on July 23, 2012 at 11:09 AM

What would be a good gun for someone only interested in having at home for home defense? Cheaper is better.

thuja on July 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM

What would be a good gun for someone only interested in having at home for home defense? Cheaper is better.

thuja on July 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Either look at a basic shotgun like a Remington 870 or Mossberg 500, or a handgun from a cheaper company like Ruger, Bersa, Taurus, etc. 300-400 dollars is a safe bet for a reliable home defense weapon. Good rifles tend to extend beyond that price range.

MadisonConservative on July 23, 2012 at 11:16 AM

So your position is that rights are not inalienable, and that they can be taken away because a group of people decide so?

That’s why it’s imperative that our Justices must be chosen on the basis of good moral character and a sound mind instead of political favoritism. An idealistic proposition, I understand.

I just want to know why you think felons should not be able to keep and bear arms.
Dante on July 23, 2012 at 10:19 AM

I haven’t studied the issue enough to know what the original reasonings were but, in general, I am not prepared to arbitrarily reject them on the flimsy argument, if extended to its logical conclusion, would prohibit incarceration at all since it is an infringement on a person’s “inalienable right” to liberty.

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Either look at a basic shotgun like a Remington 870 or Mossberg 500, or a handgun from a cheaper company like Ruger, Bersa, Taurus, etc. 300-400 dollars is a safe bet for a reliable home defense weapon. Good rifles tend to extend beyond that price range.

MadisonConservative on July 23, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Thanks. This is something I need to do, but keep putting off. I feel like hypocrite defending the NRA to liberals and not owning a gun.

thuja on July 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM

What would be a good gun for someone only interested in having at home for home defense? Cheaper is better.

thuja on July 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Consensus of the people I know (all prior military) is the ideal for home defense is a 12 gauge pump shotgun, 18 inch (tactical) barrel with smaller size (around 7) shot. If the distinctive sound of the action doesn’t scare them out of the house, the right shot size will do a lot of damage without going through the drywall behind – meaning no fear of other family members getting hit through the wall. Just my 2 cents FWIW….

dentarthurdent on July 23, 2012 at 11:29 AM

What would be a good gun for someone only interested in having at home for home defense? Cheaper is better.

thuja on July 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Check your gun stores for used .38Special or .357Mag revolvers that are in good condition. (Remember, exterior finish does not tell the whole story.) Sometimes gun stores also have law enforcement trade-ins, too. (When agencies & departments decide to upgrade, they often sell off their old guns.)
[Also, don't believe everything you hear about a 12gauge shotgun for home defense. You DO have to aim; and simply racking the slide will NOT make an intruder wet his pants and run.]
A double-action revolver is basic, simple, reliable and adequate to most situations – especially for someone not well-versed in gun handling and who is not going to put in a lot of range time.
Look for S&W, Colt, Taurus and Ruger. The Colts and S&W will cost the most – even used – the Taurus probably the least. And the Ruger about medium – but it’s the strongest of the lot.
And, for home defense, you needn’t go with the short (2″) barrel – unless you plan on carrying it concealed at some point. A 4″ will serve nicely and will probably be easier for a beginner to shoot accurately. (The 4″ can be carried concealed, too. It’s just a bit more problematic to conceal reliably.

Find a good gun store and start asking questions. If they don’t want to bother with your questions – or tell you “what you have to have” – find another store where the people will help you pick the right gun FOR YOU.

Solaratov on July 23, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington believed that no “FREE man” should be disallowed the right to own a firearm. Now with regard to your suggestion that “what crimes should be felonies” that is indeed a very good question.

SWalker on July 23, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Did their definition of Free man include felons who had served their time? Not sniping, I am just asking because I don’t know. At that time, a firearm was often needed just for survival because that is how people gathered food and sustenance (by hunting), so I can certainly see that viewpoint.

AZfederalist on July 23, 2012 at 12:33 AM

Yes it did.

SWalker on July 23, 2012 at 11:31 AM

MadisonConservative on July 23, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Maybe my point is not clear. A convicted felon has been sentenced to a lifetime restriction on owning a gun, as part of their overall sentence, a sentence which can also include jail time and/or fines and/or community service and/or restitution, etc.

Whether or not all felons should receive a blanket lifetime restriction on gun ownership is another matter. I am not arguing that either way. I am only arguing that a restriction of rights beyond time served in prison is not unusual or unique.

Even when people are released from prison they still have some of their rights restricted while they are on parole. Or even after parole. As part of his sentence Milken received a lifetime ban on involvement in the securities industry.

farsighted on July 23, 2012 at 11:33 AM

As part of his sentence Milken received a lifetime ban on involvement in the securities industry.

farsighted on July 23, 2012 at 11:33 AM

There is no right to engage in certain kinds of business. I ask again: what other rights do we revoke from citizens who have served a sentence for a felony? You say a restriction of rights beyond time served in prison is not unique. So what other rights do we restrict beyond gun ownership after they’ve served their time?

MadisonConservative on July 23, 2012 at 11:46 AM

listens2glenn on July 22, 2012 at 11:40 PM
.

Including law enforcement? And why shouldn’t a felon be able to keep and bear arms?

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 12:06 AM

.
Neither Thomas Jefferson nor George Washington believed that they should be prohibited from owning firearms, which is good enough for me.

SWalker on July 23, 2012 at 12:18 AM

.
Apologies for the lateness of this reply.

No, NOT including law enforcement; I probably should have included that disclaimer.

As long as our current law forbids felons from firearms possession, they shouldn’t “possess”.
But if you’re claiming that this is an unconstitutional law that should be rescinded; that’s a different matter which I would agree with you on.

Now then, what Congressman (or woman) would be willing to sponsor such legislation ?
I don’t believe even Ron Paul would touch that one.

listens2glenn on July 23, 2012 at 12:05 PM

As part of his sentence Milken received a lifetime ban on involvement in the securities industry.

farsighted on July 23, 2012 at 11:33 AM

There is no right to engage in certain kinds of business

MadisonConservative on July 23, 2012 at 11:46 AM

A restriction on doing with one’s property (money) what everyone else can do (buying things like securities) is a restriction on one’s rights.

You say a restriction of rights beyond time served in prison is not unique. So what other rights do we restrict beyond gun ownership after they’ve served their time?

People on parole often wear ankle bracelets tracking their movements, which are redistricted. People on parole often cannot leave the state without permission, they often cannot drink alcohol, they often cannot associate with convicted felons, etc.

farsighted on July 23, 2012 at 12:10 PM

That’s why it’s imperative that our Justices must be chosen on the basis of good moral character and a sound mind instead of political favoritism. An idealistic proposition, I understand.

I haven’t studied the issue enough to know what the original reasonings were but, in general, I am not prepared to arbitrarily reject them on the flimsy argument, if extended to its logical conclusion, would prohibit incarceration at all since it is an infringement on a person’s “inalienable right” to liberty.

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2012 at 11:24 AM

What does this have to do with justices? So to be clear, your position IS that rights are not inalienable.

You are simply avoiding the question. Clearly you believe felons should not be able to have firearms, yet you are unable to give a reason for this belief.

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 12:48 PM

You make too many baseless assumptions…which is why I normally ignore your posts.
You have the nasty, childish, leftist habit of carrying something too far and accusing people of things (EAGER to deny rights) when they don’t accept your opinion as Revealed Word.

Carry on.

Solaratov on July 23, 2012 at 11:09 AM

This coming from the guy who tried to reframe my stance as saying that people should not be responsible for their actions.

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Apologies for the lateness of this reply.

No, NOT including law enforcement; I probably should have included that disclaimer.

As long as our current law forbids felons from firearms possession, they shouldn’t “possess”.
But if you’re claiming that this is an unconstitutional law that should be rescinded; that’s a different matter which I would agree with you on.

Now then, what Congressman (or woman) would be willing to sponsor such legislation ?
I don’t believe even Ron Paul would touch that one.

listens2glenn on July 23, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Not including law enforcement. So then you think they should be gun friendly zones, but only if government is armed. Make up your mind.

Why do you want government to be armed and citizens to not be?

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 12:51 PM

People on parole often wear ankle bracelets tracking their movements, which are redistricted. People on parole often cannot leave the state without permission, they often cannot drink alcohol, they often cannot associate with convicted felons, etc.

farsighted on July 23, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Parole: “The release of a prisoner temporarily (for a special purpose) or permanently before the completion of a sentence, on the promise of good…”

The person on parole is still serving their sentence. It isn’t occurring after the sentence has been served.

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 12:56 PM

You are simply avoiding the question. Clearly you believe felons should not be able to have firearms, yet you are unable to give a reason for this belief.
Dante on July 23, 2012 at 12:48 PM

I gave you my reason in my initial post to you on this matter but it was insufficient for you. What more can I say?

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 12:49 PM

I asked you a question, you lying sack of offal.

Don’t you know the difference between a question and a statement? (That’s a question, by the way.)

You’re a pip, boy. “All government is tyrannical.” Go live on an island, doofus. Rave to the trees.

Solaratov on July 23, 2012 at 1:50 PM

I asked you a question, you lying sack of offal.

Don’t you know the difference between a question and a statement? (That’s a question, by the way.)

You’re a pip, boy. “All government is tyrannical.” Go live on an island, doofus. Rave to the trees.

Solaratov on July 23, 2012 at 1:50 PM

I didn’t say anything about a statement or a question. I said you tried to reframe my stance, which you did. That isn’t dependent on your making a statement or asking a question.

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 1:58 PM

I gave you my reason in my initial post to you on this matter but it was insufficient for you.

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2012 at 1:27 PM

No, I’m sorry, but you didn’t.

Here was your initial post to me:

It would be nice if ALL consequences of crimes committed would be eliminated by “time served” but that’s just wishful thinking.

Makes nice theory and will make some of us feel good but doesn’t work in real life.

and your next post:

The loss of gun rights along with voting rights and jail time is part of the consequence of violating certain laws. The jail time has a limitation in some cases. The others don’t.

I specifically requested that you give me something other than circular reasoning, and I asked why you feel felons should not be able to keep and bear arms. You have yet to answer this question, even though you harbor the belief that they should be denied these rights.

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Ah, I see. You want me to give you the justification for these restrictions on a felon’s “rights”. Well, I can’t do that, not having dwelt on the issue long enough to have formulated a justification for the policy. However, on the surface it seems like a reasonable course of action for a civil society to establish and I see no basis for rescinding the practice at this time. Particularly not on the basis of the argument that it is an unconstitutional restriction of personal liberties when we have already established that the consequences of violating social order will be the restrictions of individual rights.

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2012 at 2:46 PM

CorporatePiggy on July 23, 2012 at 2:45 AM

Once again, you posted arrogant and clueless inanities.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Ah, I see. You want me to give you the justification for these restrictions on a felon’s “rights”. Well, I can’t do that, not having dwelt on the issue long enough to have formulated a justification for the policy. However, on the surface it seems like a reasonable course of action for a civil society to establish and I see no basis for rescinding the practice at this time. Particularly not on the basis of the argument that it is an unconstitutional restriction of personal liberties when we have already established that the consequences of violating social order will be the restrictions of individual rights.

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2012 at 2:46 PM

No, I just wanted you to explain why you believe a felon should be denied his rights, since you believe he should. What you’re saying just comes of as, “well this is the way it’s always been, so …” It’s not an examination of why one believes something, just that they were taught to believe something and can’t explain why they believe it apart from “just because.”

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8