Alphecca

Yearly Check on the Bias...

Ah, the Christmas season, peace on Earth and goodwill to all, so let's talk about guns... Okay, call me cynical but guns are what mostly keep the peace. True, there are mutants out there who criminally misuse them but it also is true that the law-abiding folks of this nation who own guns or use them (as officers of the peace do) are the ones keeping those mutants in check.

With the year coming to an end, it's time to look back on the stories of the past year that defined guns, gun control, and the Second Amendment.

I think we can all agree that the "best news", if you want to call it that, was the demise of the ridiculous "assault weapons" ban. I base that on a post last week asking you what YOU thought was the big story. Under President Bill Clinton in 1994, nineteen rifles were defined as "scary looking" and therefore banned under federal law. President Bush had claimed that he supported an extension of the law and would sign it if it crossed his desk. It never did. And he certainly didn't expend any political capital to push for it.

So what happened? Last Spring, a bill came before Congress that would limit (not eliminate) liability lawsuits against gun makers. They would be held accountable if they sold or distributed their products in an unethical manner but would be exempt from frivolous lawsuits resulting from the criminal misuse of their firearms.

Sounds good to me and I hope a similar bill is introduced this coming year. The House passed the measure -- no problem -- but once it reached the Senate, (mostly Democratic) opponents began attaching amendments to it such as an extension of the "assault weapons" ban (AWB). In addition, they included a measure to close the "loophole" at gun shows where two people in a parking lot could transact without a background check.

Rightly viewing this as a "poison pill", the bill's sponsor, (R) - Idaho - Larry Craig decided to scrap the whole thing. The NRA agreed. Many in the media didn't. Here's an example from USA Today:

Democrats won close votes to extend a ban on military-style assault weapons for another decade and to require background checks at gun shows. But their victories were short-lived. Republicans, angry that the gun-control measures were attached to a bill immunizing the gun industry from liability lawsuits, scuttled the package after hearing from the 4-million-member National Rifle Association.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, sponsor of the immunity bill, blamed a ''growing element of presidential politics'' that he said will likely doom any gun legislation this year. The assault weapons ban already faces opposition from House Republican leaders.

Notice how the bias of the article accuses Republicans of jumping to the tune of the NRA?

So that was the first part of the story.

Then, the presidential campaign started heating up and here's where it got interesting. Besides owning the most liberal voting record in the Senate, Democratic candidate John Kerry also had a perfect (and I don't mean that in a good way) record of voting FOR every single gun control measure ever presented to him. He needed to redefine himself (some would say, "yet again") by declaring that he "believed in the Second Amendment" because he was a hunter himself. Never mind that the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with bearing arms for defense of country and self.

Suddenly we were treated to all sorts of photo-ops of Kerry wielding a shotgun and hunting turkeys and pheasants and what have you. The liberal press (no doubt at the urging of excited Democratic operatives) gleefully took lots of pictures to show all of America that, "See, Kerry IS the NRA!" Of course we (on our side of the issue) all laughed at the silly photos of Kerry in his brand-new, never used camouflage jacket refusing to even carry a turkey because he was "too tired" and pretending to be the quintessential gun enthusiast:

But this was all setting the stage for what I actually consider the BIG story of 2004: The Democrats distancing themselves from gun control.

Most Democrats (and Bill Clinton stated as much in his tiresome book) admitted that Al Gore's vocal gun-control stance cost him at least 5 states in the 2000 election. While Kerry did say he supported an extension of the "assault weapons" ban bill, he did it quietly and rarely before the cameras. Of course, we all knew he passionately supported it, he even said that if someone wanted to own an "assault rifle" they should enlist in the military. As he did. As he told us he did. Endlessly.

At the Democratic Convention, nary a word was heard during prime-time about gun control and "assault weapons". In fact, the issue was completely absent except for one lone speech during the "off-hours" by (D) - NY - Representative Carolyn McCarthy who blathered about it for a few minutes.

McCarthy on left with the Bradys...

And in the final months of the campaign, even the usual suspects were rather mum about the issue because they knew that gun rights was an issue that could cost them the election. Only Dianne Feinstein took up the torch during the final days before the AWB expired. She appeared almost everywhere including the NBC Today Show. The liberal press tried to make an election issue out of it with all sorts of self-righteous anger. From the New York Times:

As regressive milestones go, few are as frightful in this new era of homeland security as the decision by Congress and the Bush administration to allow the expiration of the 10-year-old law protecting the public from assault rifles and other rapid-fire battlefield weapons. The law - a far from perfect but demonstrably effective restraint on high-tech gunslingers - expires on Monday with not a whimper from the White House.

When George Bush was a candidate four years ago and under campaign pressure from moderates, he announced that he did support the renewal of this highly popular law. It turned out that he was shooting rhetorical blanks; his support depended on the renewal's ever getting through Congress in the first place. As president, Mr. Bush has never once demanded that his G.O.P. leaders cease playing first responder to the demands of the gun lobby and take the initiative on this public safety issue.

And the SFGate said:

Chalk up another one for the National Rifle Association. Because of the organization's enormous political influence, Congress and President Bush are poised to allow the 10-year-old federal assault-weapons ban to expire after midnight Monday. As a result, military-style firearms like semi- automatic AK-47s and Uzis will be legal again nationwide, unless banned by state or local laws.

We should be deeply disturbed by this turn of events. Assault weapons are a class of semi-automatic firearms designed with military features, such as high-capacity ammunition magazines (some capable of holding 100 bullets) and pistol grips, to allow rapid and accurate spray firing. They are not designed for "sport"; they are designed to kill humans quickly and efficiently. Assault weapons have been used in many mass shootings...

But from Kerry himself, and most other Democrats campaigning for him, almost complete silence on the issue. Not -- you understand -- because they believe in the Second Amendment, but simply because they wanted to deceive the American people into believing that the party does stand for gun rights. They were afraid the issue, their true stance on it, would cost them votes.

I'm sure it did, but as I've said before, I don't think it cost them the election. In reality, the 2004 election hinged on homeland security and terrorism. I believe that this time 'round gun rights was a minor player in the stack of issues. But the Democrats didn't know that, and so to me the big story this past year was their fear of the "gun" issue. That, and a slim majority in Congress, led to the AWB being allowed to fade-off into the sunset...

Other good stories during the past year? Certainly I would posit that Ohio finally allowing concealed-carry was a plus. I would add that the court in Louisianna supporting (or at least dismissing the "funding" lawsuit) concealed-carry there was a good thing too.

Lastly, just last week, the Department of Justice released a report (actually they did it awhile back but it only became known last week) clearly stating that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right. I mentioned it in last week's report but aside from myself and some other pro-2A bloggers, you would otherwise have never known it since the press has been mostly silent about it.

Granted, this is John Ashcroft's DOJ and I suppose the outcome wasn't too much of a surprise but still, the silence from the media is deafening.

One more good news story: In Illinois, the superior court threw out two lawsuits against the gun industry. Pity the NY Times:

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday that gun makers and dealers cannot be held responsible for crimes committed with the weapons they make and sell.

In a unanimous decision, the justices said they did not have legal authority to tighten restrictions on the manufacture and sale of guns.

"We point to the virtue of judicial restraint," they wrote. "Any change of this magnitude in the law affecting a highly regulated industry must be the work of the Legislature, brought about by the political process, not the work of the courts."

The ruling was the latest setback in efforts by gun control advocates to use "public nuisance" laws as a way to force courts to tighten restrictions on the sale of firearms. Several cases brought by other cities have been dismissed by the courts, and 30 states have passed laws granting the industry immunity from suits. In Illinois, the justices said they could not accept a "novel application" of laws against public nuisances.

Chalk up another brief victory (and it's only temporary, folks) for us The lawyers and strategists are gathering like storm clouds on the other side...

Now for the gloomier side of things: I'll keep it short...

What would be the worst news of the past year for pro-gunners? Certainly the ban by California against .50 caliber guns comes to mind. SF Gate tried to turn it into a terrorism issue:

Contra Costa County's move to ban the sale of .50-caliber rifles is the opening salvo of what could be a fierce battle pitting terrorism fighters against firearms owners.

As if folks who are against weapons bans are somehow FOR terrorists...

The defeat of federal legislation to protect gun makers was another.

I suppose that the worst news, for the three or four people living in San Francisco who still believe in the Bill of Rights is that the town supervisors have submitted legislation that would ban private handgun ownership. This just happened and I reported on it extensively last week and won't repeat myself here except to gawk at such folks that think Chicago and Washington DC, which are number 1 and 2 in the nation in violent crime, are somehow models to be emulated by disarming law-abiding citizens.

There were plenty of other stories on both sides of the issue but I know that blog readers have short interest spans so I'll end this now. Next week I'll be taking an extended "New Years" holiday so this Weekly Report will return in two weeks. I really do appreciate your support and comments. Thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at December 27, 2004 06:06 AM