ASSAULT WEAPON BAN IS EITHER ON THE TABLE OR IN THE FREEZER

Guns, Sex, Lies, and Democrats

By Bill Schneider, 3-22-07

Before I fire another shot at the issue of gun control, I wanted to clear up a little confusion that has come to my attention. I am not the only Bill Schneider in the media world. There’s also that political guy back in Atlanta on CNN, you know, the distinguished-looking, silver-tongued gent who hangs out with likes of Lou Dobbs, Larry King and Wolf Blitzer. Everybody knows him. Google up Bill Schneider, and you’ll wade through a lot of Political Bill before you find any Wild Bill.

No jealousy here. I just wanted to make sure all my new gun nutty friends know that I’m not that political guy. I’m the not-so-political guy, the outdoor guy, from Montana, who never wears make up and hangs out with regular guys nobody knows.

I needed to clarify that because today I’m writing about politics--outdoor politics, I should say. Unlike the CNN guy, I’m not a political expert, but I did stay at Bubba’s Hunting Lodge last night.

Over the last few weeks, I’ve been writing about guns, lies, and the National Rifle Association--and a crusty old hunter converted to gun rights mouthpiece named Jim Zumbo. Today, I’m adding Democrats to my list. (Only kidding about sex; just thought it looked good in the headline.)

In the days after I posted those two columns, NewWest.net hosted an incredible discussion in the comments sections. If you ever wondered what the debate over assault weapons and hunting, you can check it out here and here. Make sure you have a full cup of coffee.

Out of this great exchange of ideas and accusations, plus heavy dose of name-calling, hundreds of comments, came a strong counterargument to my assertion that the Democratic Party has taken the issue of gun control off the table. During the election mega-coverage late last year, many political pundits credited the dem’s retreat from one of their core issues, gun control, as one reason the Blue Party won many key races, even in traditionally republican western states--with the marquee match up in Montana where pro-gun dem Jon Tester narrowly shot down pro-gun GOP stalwart Conrad Burns. The end result was, as we’ve all discussed and cussed, our New Blue Congress.

Now, unexpectedly out of the Blue, comes a big gun control bill, H.R. 1022 introduced by democrat Carolyn McCarthy of New York. Officially, it’s called the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. It reauthorizes of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004. Attempts to renew it three years ago failed miserably in part because many dems wouldn’t touch any issue remotely smelling like gun control.

I’m sure Carolyn McCarthy, who sits on the boards of several anti-gun nonprofits, considers H.R. 1022 a common sense, crime prevention bill, but it’s already way too late for such sugar coating. The gun blogsphere, which we’ve recently learned has a lot of anger and muscle, plus a hair trigger, already considers the bill the most sweeping gun ban ever introduced into Congress. One of the many gun rights bloggers, Les Jomes, put it this way: “Well, all you folks who voted for anyone but a republican now know what the next 2-10 years are going to be like.”

Based on the slimness of the 2006 victory, you’d think the dems wouldn’t take on the politically risky and volatile issue like gun control when they hope to win the White House next year. At least 80 million Americans own guns at least 200 million guns (not counting the millions we don’t know about), and avid gun owners obviously vote as a block--not all 80 million, but you can bet that 5-10 million of them base their vote primarily on the gun issue, enough to tip any close local or state race, if not the presidential election.

Here’s why this is so important to an outdoor guy who likes wild, public land, likes hunting, and likes guns, but doesn’t worship them. After barely surviving six years of an anti-environmental Congress supported by an anti-environmental president, I don’t want to give up a chance to keep a pro-environmental Congress in power and elect a pro-environmental president. For outdoor folks, there’s too much at stake. For the last six years, we’ve been fighting back repeated attacks on wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation--selling off federal lands, overzealous fee charging to reduce access to public lands to common folks, runaway escalation of fossil fuel drilling, no support for protecting roadless lands, and more.

So, any bill even remotely seeming like gun control could be a tipping point and defeat efforts to achieve meaningful reform on these vital environmental issues. I view it as a small but certain defeat that prevents us claiming a big victory. I suppose the same could be said for major not-outdoor issues like health care, immigration, and getting out of the Trillion Dollar War.

Do dems want only two years of power before reverting back to what we’ve had for the past six years? I doubt it. If they want to move forward, they should truly take gun issues off the table.

Realistically, H.R. 1022 has a slim chance of becoming law--and even if it does, it likely faces a veto. In 2004, President Bush actually said he’d sign a re-authorization of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, but few people believed him. And no, you’d didn’t see the NRA attack dogs trying to destroy his career for saying it. Instead, political wisdom figured Bush was banking on the republican Congress to keep him from having to make a veto decision, which is precisely what happened. But now, we have a new game: Bush still has his words on record, but now, the democratic Congress could give him his chance to back it up.

Like any group, democrats can’t control all their members, so it isn’t fair to paint the entire party as anti-gun because of one maverick representative--no more than it’s fair to equate all gun owners with the wacko that shoots up a shopping mall. But it’s much easier for the gun lobby and the GOP to do this with H.R. 1022 in the congressional grinder.

After all the shots I took over my Zumbo columns, I’m not even sure what I think about assault rifles or even if I’d know one if I saw one, but I do know that the 1994 ban didn’t work. It didn’t stop the sale or distribution of assault weapons or knock offs from them. But it did help elect a pro-gun, anti-environment republican Congress and keep it in power.

Maybe it’s only a matter of time. If we keep re-authorizing the assault weapons ban, it might start to accomplish its goals after a few more decades. Or not. My point is: do dems what to take this risk? Politics is, after all, about the next election, not next generation, so frankly, I’m surprised H.R. 1022 even exists.

This re-authorization goes much farther than the original ban, taking many other types of weapons off the market. With the education I’ve received lately, I now know it’s nearly impossible to define some “assault weapons,” especially in long-lasting legislation while gun manufacturers turn out new models every year.

To me, defining and banning assault weapons not only seems hopeless, but it stands in the way of needed progress. If the legislation lists specific guns, which H.R. 1022 does, manufacturers can replace them with new models before the ink dries, which is what happened after the 1994 ban passed. If a bill puts general guidelines into law, it gives agencies too much flexibility to interpret language and include traditional hunting weapons like semi-auto shotguns, which also would happen if H.R. 1002 passed.

I read every word of H.R. 1022 (you can, too, by clicking here), and it seems vague and open to interpretation. If passed and aggressively enforced by authorities, it could cause a major revolt among gun owners, and not only among the zealous 5 percent with trigger itch who live in the blogsphere. Right now, the dems can bank on losing the votes of hardcore gun owners, but with H.R. 1022 in play, that loss could easily double or triple and give the 2008 election a Red Party.

So, here’s a message for the Big Dems back in the Beltway. Do lunch with Representative McCarthy and suggest she pull her bill before any more political blood is shed and it defeats enough dems to lose Congress back to the GOP and keeps you out of the White House. And when you do squash H.R. 1022, make sure everybody knows you did it.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.