The new Democratic majority in the House is ready to take on gun safety. But how seriously? There are a couple of ways this can go. The Democrats can pass some very tough legislation. Perhaps a few right-wing extremist Blue Dogs like Henry Cuellar (TX), Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Anthony Brindisi (NY), Collin Peterson (MN)... will cross the aisle and vote with the GOP and there may be a few mainstream conservatives left-- say Brain Fitzpatrick (PA), Peter King (NY), John Katko (NY), Elise Stefanik (NY)-- who will cross in the other direction, but it will hardly be a legitimate bipartisan effort. And then the Senate will either vote it down or McConnell will refuse to bring it up. It'll never get to Trump's desk. Then the Democrats can tell their base, "we tried but the Republicans wouldn't budge" and the Republicans can tell their base, "we protected you from gun-grabbing Pelosi." And then someone will shoot up another school and kill some more kids and the public will hate Congress even more and Trumpanzee will say we're going to have the best gun policies ever.Or, the two parties can seek some common ground where there is some actual agreement, at least as a first step... or a baby step like expanding background checks to include Internet sales and gun shows. That's immensely popular with the American people and although the NRA is ready to light its hair on fire over it, there are a meaningful number of Republicans who can accept it as a stand-alone item. In the past, when the GOP had the majority, they could-- and did-- hold that hostage for an agreement to honor reciprocity laws that would allow people with hidden gun permits from states like Alabama and Texas to legally carry guns in civilized places like Boston and San Francisco. But the Republicans don't have the clout to do that now. Let's see if Pelosi-- and her "gun violence prevention task force," led by pet Blue Dog Mike Thompson-- still have the skill to turn that into something real and not just partisan talking points.Yesterday, Team Politico took a look at early posturing about the Democratic efforts to get something passed: "federal background checks on all gun sales, part of a broader effort by the party to advance long-stalled gun control measures." Key paragraph: "While the proposal won't get through the Republican-run Senate, much less become law, getting through the House will be a win for the gun-control movement, which has little to cheer about since President Donald Trump was sworn into office."Thompson, the Napa Valley Blue Dog who votes least with the Blue Dogs and most with normal Democrats: "It will be strong legislation to expand background checks, and I will have a very respectful show of [co-sponors]. I think you will see it happen in the first 100 days." Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler (D-NY) is ready and told Politico Thompson's bill is "one of our top priorities. We told the American voters that we do mean to do this, and we do mean to do it." And before the end of winter.
Thompson's legislation will require federal background checks on all gun sales, including private transactions. There likely will be some small exemptions, such as transfers between family members, or temporary use of a gun for hunting. Gun-control groups estimate that roughly one-fifth or more of gun sales don't include background checks.Thompson, Republican Peter] King and more than 200 other lawmakers-- including 14 Republicans-- introduced similar legislation in November 2017, but it went nowhere."The American people want this. They're way ahead of the Congress, they're way ahead of the White House," Thompson insisted.Thompson's proposal, like many that House Democrats will pass in the new majority, may end up more as a messaging bill meant to show the American public that they listened to those who marched for action after the February 2018 shooting in Parkland, Florida, as well as proving they won't shy away from talking about gun control ahead of ahead of the ultimate 2020 battle with Trump.Any legislation will be loudly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups, who suggest it's the opening move by gun-control advocates in a campaign to create a national gun registry.Such a registry, they argue, could eventually lead to the federal government taking away citizens‘ guns. It’s the thread that runs through virtually every argument made by gun-rights groups-- the government first wants to know whether you have a gun so it can take it away from you someday-- and continues to mobilize their activists in the never-ending struggle over gun laws."Universal background checks has always been a red herring," said Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), a key NRA ally in the House. "It's something that sounds very commonsense and probably polls very well, but there's not a single commercial gun transaction in America that doesn't have a background check.""People who are putting this forward, I think they have good intentions. They don't want the wrong people to have guns," Hudson added. "But the wrong people are not going to report gun sales. So you will need a registry to know where every gun is."While the NRA will staunchly oppose the Thompson bill-- as it has opposed calls for expanding background checks in the past-- this debate comes at a critical time for the organization, and the broader gun-rights movement.The NRA has suffered a steep decline in fundraising during the last few years, according to its own reports. While the organization still spent millions of dollars during the 2018 midterms-- and its endorsement is eagerly sought by GOP candidates and incumbents-- its spending has dropped steeply from previous cycles.In addition, the NRA has found itself embroiled in a Russian spy scandal. Maria Butina, a Russian gun-rights advocate, pleaded guilty in federal court last week to conspiring to act as an unregistered agent of the Russian government. Butina tried to infiltrate the NRA and conservative political circles in 2016.
Uh... "found itself embroiled in a Russian spy scandal" is a misleading way to describe how the NRA allowed itself to be used, illegally, to funnel at least $30 million from the Kremlin to Trump's 2016 campaign.
[G]un-control groups such as Giffords and Everytown for Gun Safety argue that the political environment has moved decisively in their favor. They point to the fact that Democratic candidates who embraced gun-control measures did well in November, especially with suburban voters horrified by repeated mass shootings targeting children or schools."For the first time in years, the House of Representatives is going to be able to debate,” and pass strong gun-safety laws, which is something they haven't been able to do during this modern gun-safety movement," which began with the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, said Robin Lloyd, director of government affairs at Giffords. Giffords was founded by former Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords (Ariz.), who was severely injured in a January 2011 shooting that left six people dead and 13 wounded."The public has been demanding commonsense gun laws for years," added John Feinblatt, Everytown's president. "The public is ready for the Congress to act. The new leadership that's coming to the House in 2019 is listening to voters, and that's what they should be doing."Everytown was started by Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire businessman and former New York City mayor. Bloomberg dumped tens of millions of dollars into the midterms to help Democrats, and he's now considering a run for the White House in 2020.Democratic presidential hopefuls will also have to be much more aggressive in talking about gun control, even if proponents can't get such measures through Congress, say lawmakers and party activists.“Any Democrat running for president or dog catcher has to be talking about gun policy,“ said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who has led the drive for more restrictions of guns since Sandy Hook.“Republicans can’t win the House back if their position on guns doesn’t change,” he added. “This is now a top two or three issue for swing voters in suburban districts and until Republicans break from the NRA, they’re not going to win back the seats that they lost in 2018.“
As recently as 3 years ago there were still Democrats on the payroll of the NRA and other gun-nut groups-- like these ladies and gentlemen:• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- $84,500• Gene Green (TX)- $46,750• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)- $47,815• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- $25,450• Tim Ryan (OH)- $20,996• Ron Kind (New Dem Chairman-WI)- $32,482• Mike Thompson (Blue Dog-CA)- $50,379• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- $2,900• Tim Walz (MN)- $18,950• Jim Clyburn (SC)- $9,900• Ben Ray Luján (NM, Chairman DCCC)- $5,500• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog Chairman-OR)- $5,000• Loretta Sanchez (Blue Dog-CA)- $1,500You won't see some of these faces in Congress next month-- Gene Green was forced to retire and a progressive, Sylvia Garcia, is taking his place; Loretta Sanchez is long gone; and Tim Walz is now governor of Minnesota. Former NRA ally Ann Kirkpatrick is back in Congress, but she claims she's seen the light and will no longer back the NRA. Of the 9 NRA supporters the DCCC backed for Congress, 4 failed (Brad Ashford, Paul Davis, Brendan Kelly and Dan McCready, although McCready may yet winch NC-09 seat). That leaves at least 5 NRA Dems in the new Congress to vote with the GOP: Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY), Conor Lamb (Blue Dog-PA), Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT), Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY), Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ).This cycle the gun nut groups only paid half a dozen Democrats:
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- $21,400• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- $13,950• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)- $7,500• Ron Kind (New Dem-WI)- $6,500• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)- $5,000• Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX)- $1,000
There were also seven weird $13 payments to Democratic candidates, all of whom won their races-- but not all of whom support the gun nut agenda: Colin Allred (New Dem-TX), Jason Crow (New Dem-CO), Lizzie Fletcher (New Dem-TX), Josh Harder (New Dem-CA), Mike Levin (D-CA), Jennifer Wexton (New Dem-VA) and Susan Wild (New Dem-PA).Don't Shoot by Nancy Ohanian
