Silence on gun control...the new Democratic strategy?

[spin]

Nevertheless, it's tough to dispute the recent political success of the Democrats' surrender on guns. They knew they'd never recapture Congress and the White House unless they connected with rural and working-class voters, and that meant pledging vocal fealty to the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. The strategy clicked in 2006, when the Democrats won both congressional chambers by running gun-rights candidates in culturally conservative districts and states. Then they all sat silent in 2007 when a whacked-out Virginia Tech student, taking advantage of easy legal purchase, shot and killed 33 innocent people.

Silence is the new Democratic strategy. The majority party has a big tent now. Its denizens are diverse, from coastal lefties to backwoods righties. Priority one is to protect the centrist and conservative freshmen from political harm back home; after all, there's an election next year. There's no appetite for doing anything that would put those Democrats in the crosshairs of the gun lobby.

That's why Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, was basically told to zip his lip about any restoration of the assault-weapons ban. Three months ago, he came out for restoration; he had the wild and crazy idea that such a ban might help stanch the easy flow of assault weapons to the Mexican drug gangs who are wreaking havoc at the border. The NRA swung into action, and 65 House Democrats -- many from swing districts -- formally protested Holder's idea. Holder got the memo. By April, he was saying: "I respect the Second Amendment," and little more.
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/05/democrats_abdicate_on_gun_cont.html

[Mythsaje]

1. Good... It's always been a fucking anchor. n/t

[jody]

2. Obama should say "I will veto any bill that renews AWB or other bill that infringes upon the right

of citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense".

Until he does that, pro-Dems who support RKBA and other voters will continue to believe Obama has not changed from his historic stance supporting laws that ban handguns and other classes of firearms.

[safeinOhio]

4. Dang, didn't he just signed a bill allowing ccw holders in National Parks?

Puts him way out in front on the issue. :)

[jody]

5. Agree but AWB will remain on the table until Obama takes it off, not a spokesperson but Obama. n/t

[virginia mountainman]

7. I think now..

Even if the AWB was to come up, the Congress and Senate would send it back so hard, that it redefine light speed, and "to prove" their second amendment credentials, promptly pass some pro gun legislation in its place...

Much like has been happening in most of the states over the past several years..

But I agree, that Obama would sign it if he had half a chance, and thought it would not hurt him too bad at he polls.

But hey, no one is perfect..

[TheWraith]

9. Obama's never going to publicly put the AWB to bed.

To do so would alienate the gun-control groups.

[virginia mountainman]

13. Let us not forget...

Bushco gave the AW Ban slightly LESS lip service than Obama is...

[Howzit]

28. "To do so would alienate the gun-control groups"

Are you suggesting that he does not actually believe more gun control is better?

[TheWraith]

29. I think whatever way he feels, he recognizes that it's not happening.

I seriously doubt he wants to waste the time, energy, and political capital passing a deeply unpopular law that doesn't work.

[X_Digger]

14. Never happen..

He's walking the razor's edge between pro-gun-control elements and pro-2nd supporters on the other side.

To go in either direction would get him slammed by someone. Right now, the grumbling, dull roar from both sides is tolerable.

[TheWraith]

35. Exactly. It's going to be left quietly behind until people forget about it.

Doing anything else would set the whole thing on fire again.

[virginia mountainman]

3. They need to be silent on Gun Control..

And LOUD on Gun Rights....

Just like we are on the rest of the Bill of Rights..

[depakid]

12. No one's going to ally themselves with extremists

except maybe Republicans- and people can all see where that's gotten them and us.

[virginia mountainman]

15. Yep, that is what has finally happened to McCarthy. NT

[depakid]

16. Precisely

Though one gathers you miss the irony in that statement.

[rl6214]

18. The only extremists are

McCarthy, Feinstien, shumer and the like.

[depakid]

19. I'm quite certain that's what you think

Which is further evidence of my point.

and also motivation for Homeland Security's warning.

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. Would you have us relegated to minority status again...

...for the sake of purity on gun control?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. He doesn't care he's Australian.

[Tim01]

32. Australian? You're freakin' kidding?

An Australian is going on and on about rights he doesn't even have? They gave up their guns. No wonder he is an anti-2nd amendment radical.

What the fuck does he care what goes on in our country anyway?

I've heard about Australian girls. I KNOW I could find something else to do instead of butting into other countries business.

WOW! What a waste of time.

[spin]

36. Sometimes I check out the posts on a knife forum in the U.K.

The Brits seem to have a problem with young people and knives, so they have enacted draconian knife laws in what appears to be a futile attempt to control the problem.

I have considered joining the forum and giving my viewpoint on weapons, law and self defense. So far I have resisted as I realize that my opinions are irrelevant and impolite.

However, we do get posters here on DU from Australia, the U.K. and Canada. I enjoy their comments and replying to them.

I may just change my mind and see if I can sign up and post on the U.K. knife forum. It might be fun to point out that not only can I carry a concealed firearm, but I can also carry knives, including switchblades, that would be highly illegal in public in the U.K. I will also criticize their laws and suggest changes that would allow the legal use of weapons for legitimate self defense.

But if I do, I will point out that I live in Florida in the good old USA.

The forum is at: http://www.britishblades.com/forums/index.php

The sub forum on British laws is at: http://www.britishblades.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=39&order=desc (The sticky on "Ask a cop" is fascinating.)

Today I found a link to this interesting article on requiring ID to buy teaspoons.

Are you under 18 years of age? Do have have an urgent need for teaspoons? Well, avoid Asda's Halifax tentacle where the powers that be are determined to prevent this potentially-lethal item of cutlery falling into the hands of murderous yoof.

The proof of the clampdown comes from Nanny Knows Best - a site "dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain".

According to the background info, the lady shopper in question was told by an Asda assistant that she'd have to prove her age "because someone had murdered someone with a teaspoon, and therefore ID was now required".

Suitably outraged by this "complete and utter bollocks", another Nanny Knows Best reader's wife decided to put Tesco to the test - provocatively turning up at the check-out with two latte teaspoons (long-handled, for the record).

Sure enough, "an assistant was required & she was asked for proof of ID".
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/11/asda_teaspoons/

If nothing else, the British slang is entertaining. For example: "Yoof and Yob".

[Deadric Damodred]

37. The UK is the great example of where draconian gun control leads.

The UK started with banning handguns, then it led to banning all guns, then it led to knife bans, and now you have no right to defend yourself at all. If you do, you will go to jail; period. Let's take a look at a few examples of getting in to trouble for self-defense:

This poor guy just wanted a barb wire fense around his property to protect from theives. The UK isn't going to let that fly, as they feel theives might get hurt when they try breaking in:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1075809/No-barbed-wire--hurt-thieves-allotment-holders-told.html


This dude was under attack for months from "yobs" throwing rocks at his house. So one day he was under fire while they were throwin rocks into his house, where family were and could have been hit by broken glass or a rock in the head. He called the cops, but they didn't show up for two hours. So what did he do? In self-defense he chased them off with a board. What did the UK police do? They arrested him and let the "yobs" go. How dare that bastard defend himself against rock throwers:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1033266/Yobs-threw-rocks-house-years-But-father-fought-arrested.html


Another one, which I can't seem to find right now, but I assure you it exists: A guy was arrested for having hard candy in a sack. They called it an offensive weapon. That's right folks, if you have candy in a sack, you'll get arrested in the UK.

And the winner goes to Tony Martin, who shot and killed one intruder, while wonding the other. He got 5 years in jail, and the surviving burgler got to sue the man. You defend yourself in the UK, you might as well prepare yourself to be the one that gets arrested, as well as be prepared for the criminal to not only not get charged with anything, but to get to sue you for your disgusting want to stay alive:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3087003.stm


And while we're on the subject, let's talk about "offensive weapons", as I talked about earlier. In the UK, anything you use to defend yourself besides your bare hands is considered an offensive weapon and is therefor illegal for you to do. If you are a small person and getting the crap kicked out of you by some "yob", and you grab a near by tire iron to fight them off, the cops will arrest you, let the criminal file a report, put you in jail, and the criminal will be suing you.

I wouldn't even fly over the UK, much less set foot on it's soil.

[spin]

38. Which is why we shouldn't pay to much attention...

to anti gun posters from the U.K.

Or for the matter, Australia or Canada.

What ever they do in their country is their business. While it's fine to post their opinions on our laws here on DU, it would be nice if they would be upfront and state the country they come from.

I don't always check the profile page before I reply.

[Hoopla Phil]

6. Unfortunately some of them cannot help themselves. It is their banner issue.

[spin]

8. Draconian gun control probably appeals to the base

of the politicians who push it. Many of the politicians hail from the very liberal big cities. Dianne Feinstein, for example, is the senior Senator from California who started her career in San Fransisco.

[TheWraith]

10. "Big cities" has more to do with it than "liberal," I think.

An area where there's more crime makes it easier for somebody to demonize guns and gun ownership as being antithetical to the common way of life. Kind of the way that the rural Republicans treat gays. The fear of the unfamiliar.

[spin]

11. Sometimes I believe that the politicians in the big cities...

push gun control as a solution to the crime and violence problems in their communities.

The actual solution to the problem would be very expensive and complex. It would involve facing the root causes such as education, poverty and opportunity. More police on the streets might be required to take illegal firearms from criminals. The expense of the trails and incarceration of the bad guys might prove prohibitive.

It's far easier to pass "feel good" laws. These laws show the voters that the politicians are actually trying to solve the problem. Words on paper are cheap and while they accomplish little or nothing, the politician can campaign on the fact that he supported measures that would reduce the number of firearms in his city or state.

[TheWraith]

30. Yup. That's what I've been saying for a very long while.

Harsher laws against legal guns are like mandatory sentences for drug users. Someone who's breaking the law is already not deterred by the threat of prison, so what the hell good are you doing? There's been a long history to prove that gun control does nothing to affect crime. Just look at Chicago, LA, Washington. What DOES affect it is more police; drug rehab for nonviolent offenders; prison reform and education programs; and MOST importantly, reduction of poverty. But all of that takes work, and it's a lot easier to shout "tough on guns, tough on drugs, tough on crime!"

[Euromutt]

39. Valid point

It's not difficult to find Republicans from the north-east who are more anti-gun than Democrats from the South or West. Compare Rudi Giuliani to Bill Richardson, for example.

[jody]

17. CA's Supreme Court said its state constitution does not protect an"inalienable right" against the

vote of a simple majority, i.e. CA's constitution does not mean "inalienable" when it says "inalienable".

[Statistical]

20. CA supreme court said no such thing.

From another post I made on the subject.

Quotes are from the CASC opinion.

At the same time, as numerous decisions of this court have explained, although the initiative process may be used to propose and adopt amendments to the California Constitution, under its governing provisions that process may not be used to revise the state Constitution. Petitioners’ principal argument rests on the claim that Proposition 8 should be viewed as a constitutional revision rather than as a constitutional amendment, and that this change in the state Constitution therefore could not lawfully be adopted through the initiative process.

Now we are getting to the legal nuts and bolts. Previous case law has found the initiative process can amend but not revise the constitution. The petitioner chose to centralize their case around one simple argument:

Prop8 revises not amends the Constitution.

They drew a line in the sand.

If the courts agree that Prop8 revised the CA Constitution then the method used for Prop8 (public initiative) is invalid and it gets thrown out WITHOUT the court ever looking at the Constitutionality of its effects. This was a calculated move. Keep it very black & white and force the courts hand with a narrow scope. Sadly it didn't work out but the petitioner chose the scope. The state can only respond to questions posed by the petitioner. The petitioner never proposed that the result of Prop8 was unconstitutional. The petitioner never argued that or presented evidence to support that. The state was never allowed to present arguments against that assertion. To believe the courts could answer a question not asked is simply illogical. The courts have NEVER had that power. Judges have been removed for basing decisions on facts not entered into evidence. It is a cornerstone of our legal system. The case never was and never was going to be decided on the issue many people thought it was about.

In analyzing the constitutional challenges presently before us, we first explain that the provision added to the California Constitution by Proposition 8, when considered in light of the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757 (which preceded the adoption of Proposition 8), properly must be understood as having a considerably narrower scope and more limited effect than suggested by petitioners in the cases before us. Contrary to petitioners’ assertion, Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases — that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage” (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829). Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

Here is the reasoning. The court found that Prop8 doesn't limit existing rights, it simply limits the name "marriage" (courts opinion not mine). If Prop8 had restricted civil unions it would have been found to be revising (not amending) the constitution. The courts found that using the term "civil union" instead of "marriage" (and limiting the term “marriage” to only opposite sex couples) does not rise to unequal protection under the law. As noted in the first quote the court isn’t looking at the benefit of such policy, or even if it is wise.

Even the dissenting judge followed this line of reasoning. He had to because that was the only question before the court. He didn't rule on the Constitutionality of effects of Prop8 he simple reached the conclusion that limiting the term "marriage" did modify the Constitution rather than amend it. It did so because in his opinion restricting the term “marriage” is unequal protection under the law. In doing so a revision instead of an amendment is not valid via the initiative process.

Essentially since CA has "civil unions" and Prop8 only restrict a name which the court found doesn't limit rights then Prop8 is a amendment not a revision since the CA constitution has no sections on the meaning of marriage.

Since Prop8 is a amendment the plaintiffs assertion that it is an unlawful revision fails and the courts decided as such.

The ONLY thing the case was about is:
Did Prop8 revise or amend the Constitution. Thats it.

If CA had no "civil unions" or if Prop8 attempted to restrict rights then likely the court (based on their opinion) would have ruled differently.

[jody]

21. So we still disagree. CA court told Brown the voters could amend the constitution to take away any

inalienable right cited therein.

That ignores the accepted meaning of "inalienable right" or "pre-existing right" as SCOTUS said; "As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

SCOTUS' use of "pre-existing" means any "inalienable right" recognized by CA's constitution is "not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Either SCOTUS is wrong about an "inalienable right" or "pre-existing right" or CA's Supreme Court is wrong.

I'll put my money on SCOTUS.

[Statistical]

22. What inalienable right?

Right to privacy?

CASC stated that they believe right to privacy was NOT VIOLATED by Prop8 due to the fact that civil unions provide benefits of marriage without the name. That by Prop8 ONLY limiting a name that no violation exists.

Now you might disagree but that is a huge leap to saying the court
1) know that Prop8 violates an inalienable right
2) allow it the constitution to be amended to take it away.

[jody]

23. Read Attorney General Brown's response to amicus curiae briefs, link below.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/agresponse.pdf

See also CA court's opinion and comments to Brown's arguments at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF

[Statistical]

24. The CA attorney general?

Look maybe you want to show me an excerpt.

The CA attorney general assessment that Prop8 revised the constitution is simply wrong.
The court clearly in the excerpt I showed stated that it did NOT revise the Constitution. Period.
Maybe you think that ruling is wrong but it still doesn't reach the level of the court saying that inalienable rights are not protected.

You still didn't answer the question.

This is (in one sentence what the court said)
Prop8 does NOT revise the Constitution. Prop8 does not limit or take away ANY existing right. It simply defines the name "marriage for same sex couples". Prop8 stands.

this is what you seem to be thinking the court said:
Prop8 DOES revise the Constitution. Prop8 limits existing rights. Prop8 stands.

Maybe you (as I do) agree the court is wrong. That the name "marriage" is more than a name. That doesn't change the opinion though. Right or wrong the court is saying Prop8 stands SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT REVISE THE CONSTITUTION.

Where you get this idea that the court said otherwise I don't know. If you don't point it out making the same claim over and over is kinda useless.

[jody]

25. Have a good evening. n/t

[TheWraith]

31. Civil unions do not provide the same benefits as marriage.

I know that it's not your argument, but I just have to say that what that CASC said is NOT the truth. For starters, a civil union is only valid in the issuing state unless specifically validated elsewhere by agreement with other states. Second, it presents the front of a "seperate but equal" system.

[Statistical]

33. I agree 100%

However that is not was jody is implying.

He is implying (because he wont give me quote) that the court said it is a violation and it is still ok for the prop to stand.

The court (wrongly) decided that is ok to stand because it is not a violation. Now I don't agree with the decision but it would be a far worse (and wide scope) decision if the court found Prop8 did revise the Constitution and still allowed it to stand.

In this case the end result would be the same but as a precedent it would be bad for all rights.

Of course the court did NOT say that so it is academic.

[TheWraith]

34. And I agree with what jody was saying--but the fact is that the court is wrong in this case.

Technically this may comply to the letter of California law. They'd know that better than I would. Maybe they were--understandably--afraid about the consequences of overturning a voter-sanctioned amendment. But from a strictly bill-of-rights perspective, it's a load of crap.

[Euromutt]

40. It's not what I'd call a strategy; more a lack of one

Okay, I admit that "the decision not to make a decision is, in itself, a decision" as my political science profs taught me, but right now, the Democratic position is fish nor fowl. It's fairly obvious the party doesn't want to touch gun control with a 10-foot pole right now, for fear of the 2010 mid-terms turning into 1994 redux, but at the same time, as long as they're not willing to explicitly distance themselves from gun control, the various pro-gun groups (such as the NRA, the GOA, the SAF et al.) are going to maintain an anti-Democrat stance, which means the single-issue pro-gun voters are going to keep voting against Democratic candidates.

There's a good chance that the votes of the single-issue voters won't matter enough to swing the balance, as long as gun owners who are sympathetic to the Democrats as long as no major gun restrictions are imposed do vote Dem. But it does mean those of us who frequent gun owners' boards are going to have to keep seeing the same annoying sig lines for the time being.

[spin]

41. It might be a great tactical maneuver for Obama...

to come out with a statement that he will not sign into law legislation such as the Assault Weapons Ban. He could support more police on the street and the enforcement of existing law.

He might say that gun control laws should be up to the states and the courts rather than the federal government. By keeping gun control to a local issue, he might be able to keep some of the very liberal portion of the party on his side as they live in the very liberal cities such as Chicago.

He could even work together with the NRA and gun rights organizations in order to come up with effective laws to reduce the criminal misuse of firearms. Perhaps he could support a measure which would allow or require private owners to access the NICS background check when selling firearms. He could fund the states so they could put more criminal records into the NICS database and find a better way of stopping legal sales of firearms to those who suffer from serious mental disorders.

By taking such actions, he would defuse the propaganda campaign by the NRA-ILA and might gain support for Democrats and his second campaign. The Republicans would lose one of their few remaining issues and continue their fade into political obscurity. We might actually be able to finally get universal medical care and curb the big corporations desire to turn workers into wage slaves.

But of course, he would have to stick to his statements, unlike Bush the Senior who said, "Read my lips, no new taxes."