Congress Stops an NRA-backed Gun Law? What's This Country Coming To? (Joe Rothstein's Commentary)

July 25, 2009

By Joe Rothstein
Editor, EINNEWS.COM

Anyone wanting to comment on my articles, or to engage me on any topic at all can find me at joe@einnews.com.

I'm saying this up front, because before many readers get to the end of this particular column they will likely be quite angry----even angry enough to write. I know from past experience that when I talk about guns, an army of weapon defenders is quick to unload on me.

My first encounter with the NRA occurred decades ago, when as a political consultant I was working to elect a highly qualified candidate for Congress. My client was an Athabascan Indian who had grown up in Interior Alaska, hunting, fishing and living the subsistence life so common to this day to Alaska's village people. He owned guns, loved guns and used them frequently.

But at one campaign stop, when asked what he thought about an effort then under way in Philadelphia to control hand guns, he had the temerity to say something quite reasonable. He said if the people living in Philadelphia were concerned about public safety and felt gun control was an appropriate way to make the city safer they should have the right to make that decision---for Philadelphia.

This statement was fed through the NRA's political static filter and came out as political media portraying the candidate as someone who would take away everyone's guns if elected.

The NRA won that fight. My candidate lost. And it's hard to think of a fight the NRA hasn't lost over the past 30 or so years. Because of the NRA, it's okay for people in the U.S. to buy automatic assault weapons, to circumvent permit laws, to carry concealed weapons, to be armed at bars, schools and churches, and essentially to buy, sell, do or use any weapon. The purchaser's mental health doesn't seem to matter. Neither does past criminal activity. Nor does the opinion of law enforcement officers who face the real threat of being outgunned by law breakers.

Each time there's mass murder at a Columbine or a Virginia Tech or elsewhere, the blame for carnage is placed everywhere and anywhere but on permissive weapons laws. Each new legislative victory encourages the NRA to expand its horizons and reach for more.

I've often thought that soon there will be nothing left for the NRA to lobby for than a law requiring every citizen to own a weapon.

But this week something most unusual happened. The U.S. Senate put the brakes to an NRA effort to over-ride the gun laws of individual states. The measure before the Senate would have permitted people to carry concealed weapons across state lines, undermining any restrictions that might be on the books of individual states.

Some states look unkindly on the possession of concealed weapons by spouse abusers, alcoholics and those who've never gone through the most elementary gun safety training. If the proposal had been enacted, people with concealed carry gun permits from states with few restrictions would have the right to carry those guns in states where citizens actually consider them deadly weapons, to be monitored with more care.

This was not an overwhelming defeat for the NRA by any means. They needed 60 votes to pass the amendment and got 58 senators to agree to it. So we can expect the measure to be reborn in different form, attached to later legislation. And expect the NRA to throw lightning bolts during the next election at those who didn't support them this time. In the world of the NRA any deviation is considered a political death sentence.

Elsewhere, the NRA agenda continues to march along, largely unhampered.

In Tennessee, for example, the Legislature overrode the governor's veto of a bill that allows gun owners to carry weapons into restaurants that serve alcohol. Arizona enacted a law allowing gun owners to keep weapons in their cars at work, and South Carolina Governor Sanford signed legislation allowing people to keep guns in cars at schools. On the judicial front, the NRA won its case at Ohio's supreme court, overturning the city of Clyde's attempt to keep illegal weapons out of its municipal parks. And so on.

No one should fear these days that their right to own guns is in jeopardy. Rather, the big fear should be that people are carrying guns everywhere, and that many people have serious arsenals of weapons, including grenades and other explosive weapons, legally purchased. According to the GAO, in recent years hundreds of known or suspected terrorists have been cleared to buy guns. Under current law, it's difficult, if not impossible, for federal and state agents to stop these sales.

But let's not lay all the blame (or credit, depending on your point of view) on the NRA for this state of affairs. After all, the NRA doesn't manufacture weapons. Behind the NRA is an entire industry of weapon makers and distributors. This is big business, both within the U.S. and for export to other countries. In 2006 there were about 30,000 gun deaths in the U.S. While that's far more than most industrialized countries (264 in Canada, for example) it pales when compared with the deaths from firearms in the third world, where many products from U.S. gun manufacturers wind up. Just last week, there's was an international agreement at the UN for a common effort to halt the small arms trade.

All I can say about that is, “good luck.” Until the U.S. political system decides to get serious about controlling the possession and flow of small arms within our borders, there's not much hope for the rest of the world, especially those who are being victimized in societies where guns are plentiful and restraints are few.

For the moment, those of us who favor some reasonable control of weapons can enjoy a rare congressional victory. Until we see more of them, though, don't consider it a trend.

(Joe Rothstein can be contacted at joe@einnews.com)