The Gun Vote and 2014: Will There Be an Electoral Price? 538

[elleng]

Did the senators who voted against a proposal last week to expand background checks on gun buyers take an electoral risk?

At first glance, it would seem that they did. Background checks are broadly popular with the public. Overwhelming majorities of 80 to 90 percent of the public say they favor background checks when guns are purchased at gun shows, at gun shops or online. Support for background checks drops when guns are bought through informal channels, or gifts from family members — but the amendment that the Senate voted upon last week, sponsored by the Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Pat Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, would have exempted most of these cases.

And yet, the Senate did not behave as though this was a piece of legislation favored by 80 percent or more of the public. The analysis that we posted last week suggested that, if anything, senators who are up for re-election in 2014 were less likely to vote for the bill.

It’s worth considering in more detail how the senators’ re-election status might have affected their votes. Doing so yields a more subtle conclusion than we’d reached initially. Senators who are up for re-election in 2014 were more sensitive to attitudes toward gun-ownership in their states. However, this influenced behavior in both directions. Senators running for re-election were especially likely to vote for Mr. Manchin’s amendment if they represented states with low rates of gun ownership, but especially unlikely to do so if they came from states where gun ownership is common.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/the-gun-vote-and-2014-will-there-be-an-electoral-price/?hp

[rrneck]

1. That 90% was from a poll

early in the legislative process as I recall. I don't have links, and I'm not in a place to chase them down, but I believe that as people began to understand what mandatory background checks would entail in terms of record keeping and privacy, support began to swoon.

I was never able to figure out how to have mandatory background checks without some sort of firearms registry. Apparently neither was the senate.

[Hoyt]

4. As Bill Maher said, even felons who can't legally own guns are for BG checks.

[rrneck]

5. Bill Mahar is a comedian and gets paid to say things like that. You know, money. nt

[Hoyt]

7. NRA and gun cultists have their own sick reasons for promoting/toting/accumulating guns too.

[rrneck]

11. And there it is...

"NRA and gun cultists have their own sick reasons for promoting/toting/accumulating guns too."

It's an obsession like yours that keeps the NRA in business. (Certain) people (we don't know or won't say who) have (certain) perversions that makes them morally unfit and a danger to society. That same argument has been used over and over by various obsessed idolaters throughout history. Yeah, you're just as big as a gun cultist as any gun nut. For you guns are an evil totem that are the source of any number of specious moral failings of those associated with them.

The NRA thanks you for your support.

[Thinkingabout]

26. Wayne La Pierre also says anything the puppet master wants him to say, he will say and do anything

even if it is not reasonable and sensible. I think on the background checks there will be some consequences for those who voted with the criminals, terrorist and mentally stable. The no vote also continues the ability to have a national gun register which could begin from social security list, drivers license or voters rolls. Great win for those who does not want a national gun register.

[rrneck]

27. A national gun registry is not reasonable or sensible. `

If there were a way to do it without violating people's security and privacy, it would have already been done. It's just much easier to blame the NRA for some sort of evil mechanization than actually either produce workable legislation or admit they can't do it. The culture wars and the people who profit from them are the winners.

[Thinkingabout]

30. Then why are those praised for protecting 2nd Amendment rights which voted NO on a bill which made

it a crime to create a national gun register, they just voted against the wishes of some gun owners. Let the national gun register begin and it will be grandfathered before there are enough smart Congressional members are able to stop it.

[rrneck]

31. What (I think) you just advocated has already happened.

It sounded like a good idea at the time until people looked at it and figured out what would be involved in actually implementing the law. Senators, not to mention congresspeople, are fairly aware of their constituencies desires since that's how they get elected. They took a look at the legal and political ramifications of a registry and walked away from it.

Everybody was watching, so there was no possibility of "letting it begin" without examination. Liberal partisans on the far left forget, as partisan will, that there are a lot of liberal gun owners who would be adversely impacted by the law. That makes support from the left soft. Resistance from the right was energized and vociferous. It never had a chance from the beginning.

The truth is that gun control laws are about as good as they can be. Tightening them further endangers people, invades their privacy, and infringes on their constitutional rights without offering any remedy. Democrats are supposed to be "reality based" but legislation like Manchin/Toomey was anything but that.

[Thinkingabout]

32. why should there not be a national gun register, the Senators who voted NO has prevented

this from being a crime. Why do you think this happened? It tells me these NO voters wants a national gun register. Now it needs to happen, for those who are against this needed to tell their senators they wanted a YES vote, but what do you think they did? Oh, BTW, the No voters just voted to allow criminals, terrorist and mentally incapable to purchase weapons, these NO voters are on the side of the criminals, terrorist and mentally incapable. Let them hang with the thugs.

[rrneck]

33. It's over.

Congress knows it. We had a mass shooting in a school. Defenseless children died at the hands of a mentally unstable person with an "assault weapon". And the ensuing legislation failed. It failed because it was bad legislation. You can't have a law that cannot be enforced without documentation of chain of custody, and at the same time make that documentation illegal.

The NO voters didn't want a national gun register because their constituents didn't want a national gun register. How many YES votes voted that way knowing the bill had zero chance of passage in the senate, not to mention the house? The entire charade was political theater to feed the respective base of both parties. The republicans got steak, Democrats got a Big Mac.

Nobody wants bad people to have guns. But if you want to pass a law that will come any closer to that objective it has to pass constitutional and political muster. Manchin/Toomey did neither. The second amendment has less to do with the issue than the requirements of due process and the rules of evidence. And those are issues that cross party lines a lot more than concerns about the second amendment.

[Thinkingabout]

34. You like Crazy Cruz did not read the bill, so much for those who did nit want a national

Gun register, hope all enjoy their names on the gun register.

[rrneck]

35. Text from the bill...

http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968

(c) Prohibition of National Gun Registry.-Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
&quot m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the-
&quot 1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by-
&quot A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
&quot B) an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or
&quot 2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity."

You might have missed this as well.

&quot 2) VOLUNTARY BACKGROUND CHECKS.-Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2013, the Attorney General shall promulgate regulations allowing licensees to use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System established under this section for purposes of conducting voluntary preemployment background checks on prospective employees.".

This appears to be intended for licensed gun dealers to use NICS to screen employees hired to handle guns in the store. Has it occurred to you that any corporation with a legal department, that means all of them, could get an FFL and use NICS system to screen prospective employees as well? In fact, anybody with a clean record could get an FFL and use it to pry into people's private lives. As I recall, you don't even need a SSN to run the check.

[Thinkingabout]

36. Good for the USA, to have a data base in which to access in order to know if a gun buyer is a

criminal, terrorist or mentally incapable of possession of a weapon. There hare a lot of what if's, when NRA says criminals will have weapons, yes, if we follow the ways of NRA criminals will still be able to purchase weapons. A sensible reasonable gun owner would not want the criminals to have weapons. If an employer does background checks on their employees the data bases of criminal activity is available to them already. If a potential employee has a clean record then they don't have anything to worry about. These are records which are accessed everyday, they are part of public if charges has been levied against a person. If the NRA is using this as an excuse to prevent background checks then this is a dumb silly position, even the NRA should know these records are already available.

[rrneck]

37. You don't get it do you?

If an employer does background checks on their employees the data bases of criminal activity is available to them already.

Did you overlook the controversy about lagging mental health reporting? It would appear that anybody with a clean record can get an FFL. That gives anybody that wants it a window into your private life whether you want to buy a gun or not, or whether you want to work for them or not. All they need is a name, address, and date of birth.

And that's just one small problem with the legislation. Don't forget that it mandated background checks while making it illegal to document chain of custody to enforce the mandate.

How would you write the bill to make it work? Why don't you provide some solutions instead of non sequiturs for a change. This legislation was not a product to be consumed because it sounds good and you don't think it will inconvenience you (just those other people).

If a potential employee has a clean record then they don't have anything to worry about.

That sounds like something a lifetime member of the NRA would say. In a country with more people incarcerated than any other in the world, lets find another way for corporations to fuck people after they have already been fucked by the corporate penal system.

I'll ask you again. How would you make a law that mandates background checks work without violating peoples privacy, trashing the rules of evidence, or funneling yet more money and power to the 1% via invasive hiring practices? See, the closer we look at this legislation, the worse it gets. Exactly the same thing happened in the Senate. And while people like you were bleating "90%" and "NRA", district attorneys were calling senators and telling them there would be no way to enforce the law, the ACLU declared it an invasion of people's privacy, gun owners on the left and the right cried foul, and lawmakers, you know, those people who write laws, saw how absurd it was. That is why it failed.

ETA:

Backing this legislation, and supporting the power it gives to corporate America, makes Republicans the defenders of the rights of working Americans. And that's how Democrats shoot themselves in the foot by proposing authoritarian legislation in the service of blinkered ideology.

[Thinkingabout]

38. Once a person steps over the line and becomes a criminal "rights" are lost, stepping

Over the line was a choice made not by the public but by the person doing the crime. Why would we want the criminals, terrorist and mentally unstable to have weapons? Because they may infringe on the rights of the general public to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. If you are not in these categories then you will have the right to purchase weapons. This bull about not being able to enforce the laws, even NRA says we should enforce the current laws. I know, they change their minds frequently so what is new. There are speed limits and rules of the road, licenses, inspections and requirements for insurance and the roads are full. There are no fly list and the US continues to survive. This is a 90/10 issue, it is sensible and reasonable, has the refusal of a business to sell guns to someone prevented deaths, yes it has, I still have a daughter and grandson to prove this.

[rrneck]

39. Lovely,

yet another fine right wing authoritarian opinion. Are you sure you're on the right site? What happened to the liberal concept of helping people become productive members of society? What happened to rehabilitation? How many people are currently incarcerated because of draconian drug laws? How many people suffer from a lack of proper mental health care? You are aware that health care is supposed to be a priority for Democrats?

Yeah, yeah, yeah I know, "90%", "NRA". Those are corporate media sound bytes. I will ask you again. How would you write a law that will mandate universal background checks and preserve people's privacy, conform to the rules of evidence, and not funnel money and power to the corporate kleptocracy?

The law was not "sensible and reasonable" and I have already explained why. Are you able to step outside your corporate written litany and produce a better solution? I will ask you yet again, how would you require universal background checks and preserve people's privacy, conform to the rules of evidence, and and avoid funneling money and power to the 1%? Explain how it will work, and whether or not it will actually work in the real world.

[Thinkingabout]

40. You are wrong on some points but to make it really simple, if you dont care to drive,

Then do nit attempt to get a drivers license, do not get behind the wheel of a vehicle and you will not be subject to any checking which may or may not occur but the rest of those who drive expect all drivers to know how to handle the vehicle and rules of the road and be insured to take care of damages they may cause during driving on our roads. If you fly you are subject to a check to see if you are on a no fly list, security screening and other rules the airline you are flying on may have. If you teach in schools you are subject to background checks. All of these privileges we have available are with strings attached. Why should there not be rules for gun owners simply because 10% of the population thinks suddenly someone is violating their privacy. Most hun owners are responsible, sensible and reasonable and understands why safety is first and foremost.

BTW, of all things I am not RW, if so I would not enjoy this site but do realize as long as we have a civilized society there will be rules.

[rrneck]

41. Okay

All that stuff you listed entails regulation. Those regulations are specific to the function of those objects and activities. Guns have regulations as well which are specific to their use. But you have yet to justify the regulations you endorse with any reference to their efficacy. And you have yet to offer any explanation why people should accept the erosion of security and privacy they will entail. You want more strings? Fine. Prove they will work and worth relinquishing a measure of our civil rights to have them.

There is a huge difference between advocacy and citizenship. Just because someone with a "D" behind their name proposes something doesn't mean we should leap to support it. That's an authoritarian/Republican trait. Legislation is not a consumer product. That legislation wasn't written just for you, and nobody is obligated to support it just because you say so. Any true liberal would consider the impact of that legislation on law abiding citizens as well as criminals.

And a note on "no fly lists". They were a Bush era policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List

The No Fly List, the Selectee List and the Terrorist Watchlist were created by the administration of George W. Bush and retained by the administration of Barack Obama. U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (ed. that name sounds familiar) (D-CA) said in May 2010: “The no-fly list itself is one of our best lines of defense.”[11]

So you're supporting the policies of the Bush administration, asserting the authority of rules exclusive of their practicality, offering punishment as a solution to social problems, demanding legislation to satisfy your personal proclivities without evidence, and ignoring how your policy proposals will affect others. That's a pretty sweet cocktail of libertarian/authoritarian thinking there.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Got an email about a more recent poll

Claim was the it was 49% to 45% in support the the President's gun agenda. I emailed back asking for the source etc. Have not heard back yet.

[pipoman]

2. No..the numbers of voters for whom

gun control is a deal breaker are exceedingly small...IMO

[bobclark86]

9. In many places, yes...

But in red states who chose moderate Democrats because of their gun and abortion positions, it sure can be a deal-breaker.

How big of a deal breaker? Pretty nasty, actually... Here's why:

In '14, 35 senate seats will be up for grabs (the normal 33 plus one from the other two classes). Of those, 21 are Democrats -- and seven are from states that went for Mittens in 2012 (Oh, and three of those are retiring). Only 14 Republicans will be up, with one being from a '12 Blue state.

BTW, six (6) is the number of new seats needed to hand the Senate to the GOP. Six of the 21 Democrats need to lose (or three Democrats need to lose and the three races with no incumbent in Red states need to to to Republicans). Those seven states will make the difference between NOTHING being done in the last two years before '16 and potentially veto-overriding right-wing shit getting through.

Oh, and pissed off people (i.e.: conservatives with a bug up their asses over "a black Muslim tryin' to take mah guns and Bibles!&quot go to the polls more than anyone else. The GOP doesn't need to wipe the floor with us, they just have to show up in a few select races to fuck everything up.

And THAT is why even an "exceedingly small" number of voters pissed about gun control and ruin a country.

Isn't math fun?

[Eleanors38]

3. The sad thing about this is Democrats had a shot at extended b.g. tests...

But the debate was dominated from the first by those who wanted to ban whole categories of guns & magazines, leaving any practical legislation in jeopardy. Even the patched-up legislation which did emerge was decried by the ACLU for how it was worded, and for (according to the ACLU) the danger it posed for government misuse.

Perhaps, the time for making any legislative changes is before a shooting tragedy, not during it. I suppose there were some who felt the need to "discharge" a powerful hatred and frustration. That kind of emotion must be controlled when hammering out even crappy legislation. I say this knowing that there will be some who will think me insensitive or uncaring. But addressing injustice and tragedy needs a lot more than personal feelings.

[graham4anything]

6. If there is an election backlash, then the democratic party will easily win the house

and as bad as that Brian Schweitzer is, he is 100 times better than Max B. so its a win/win
to ditch Max and get Brian.
Now, if Brian don't win anyhow, Max most likely wouldn't

And the house can be won.

Thank God for Harry and the 60 because the single worst thing in the world would have been that recipriocity bill thingydingy passing and that would have gotten rid of NY/NJ/Calif/Ill laws, which would have been simply horrible.

Best that the repubs stopped everything, because it will make a future reinterpretation of the 2nd and 4th, and the only ones not wanting that are the NRA and gun lovers.

It's a coming, and the world shall applaud that day.

Shame, the NRA had a chance to compromise. Now with compromise out of the way
a complete end to guns in the streets can happen.

and will. Shame thousands more will die. But, its like a panademic. Eventually a total cure is found. A reinterpretation will be the total cure.

[premium]

13. Why do you continue to push that lie

that a reciprocity bill would negate the gun laws of states? You've been corrected several times and yet you continue to push it.

Reciprocity would not negate state gun laws, you would still have to obey state gun laws, it would be just like driver license's, if you have a Nevada driver license, and go to NY, you still have to obey NY's traffic laws, same thing.

[graham4anything]

14. because your version is just not true, and the NRA knows it.Which is why they want it.

It would mean the state with no gun control, would be the one that all 50 states had to do.

and you know it.

[premium]

15. Continuing to push that lie.

http://www.carryconcealed.net/national-right-to-carry-reciprocity-act-of-2012

S. 2188, like H.R. 822, would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed handgun in any other state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes. A state’s laws governing where concealed handguns may be carried would apply within its borders.

Here, this proves you wrong.

[graham4anything]

16. Yeah, straight from the NRA website. We will agree to disagree. you are 100% wrong.

[premium]

17. Here.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s2188/text

‘(c) Conditions and Limitations-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- An eligible individual carrying a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions and limitations imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, except as to eligibility to carry a concealed handgun, that apply to residents of the State or political subdivision who--

‘(A) have a license or permit issued by the State or political subdivision to carry a concealed handgun; or

‘(B) if the State does not issue licenses or permits described in subparagraph (A), are not prohibited by the State from carrying a concealed handgun

Care to now admit that you are 100% wrong?
And this isn't a pro gun site.

[graham4anything]

18. No, you are 100% wrong. It says so right there. End of discussion. It is not definite.

Once again you seemed to miss the word OR
meaning either OR

meaning its vague, and is a loophole 100 times over

[premium]

19. Sorry, but you are completely wrong as usual.

It's right there in black and white, you still have to obey state CHL laws.

‘(c) Conditions and Limitations-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- An eligible individual carrying a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions and limitations imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, except as to eligibility to carry a concealed handgun, that apply to residents of the State or political subdivision who--

‘(A) have a license or permit issued by the State or political subdivision to carry a concealed handgun; or

‘(B) if the State does not issue licenses or permits described in subparagraph (A), are not prohibited by the State from carrying a concealed handgun

You just can't admit that you're wrong, but that's ok, anyone else reading this will know.

[graham4anything]

20. No, it says either OR.. Thank God the bill is dead. It won't return either.

it specifically says federal or state

and the bottom applies to people who live in states that can get it.

It does NOT say what happens when someone from SC bring it into NY and you know it.

it's not NYers that are the problem. Its gun ticklers in other states coming in=they would not be able to be stopped

[premium]

21. It means that you can carry concealed from SC into NY without fear of prosecution

but you still have to obey NYS firearms laws. It doesn't nullify any state laws concerning where you can or can't carry.

Don't count on it not returning, it damn near passed this time.

[graham4anything]

22. Thanks for admitting it. Once it is in, it can be used. Do you think these perps care about law?

Which is why 100% zero tolerance is only way to stop it.

[premium]

23. I didn't admit anything,

I proved that you were wrong that national reciprocity would negate state laws, it doesn't.

CA, NY, have some form of CC and IL will soon per federal court ruling.
You still have to obey federal, state CC laws.

[graham4anything]

24. As said, thank God that SC couldn't come in with a gun. That is important.

and your statement here- federal/state what if both are different? Then you have a constitutional crisis-so again, beware of what the NRA wishes...that could be a future way of getting a better SCOTUS to reinterpret.

[premium]

28. More word salad.

Are you finally admitting that you were wrong about national reciprocity? It's ok to admit it, I do when I've been proven wrong.

You go ahead and hang onto your pipe dream of a re-interpretation of the 2A, I, and others, will meantime, live in the land of reality.

[graham4anything]

29. A land where 35 a day die violently from a gun, 100 wounded, countless others mourn

A question for you about it-
If you love and desire it so much-

what if the ruling states that the federal guidelines will be such natoinally, that they are the toughest state rule-
i.e.-New York.
So it rules that all the states have to adapt to NYS standards.
If you are true to your belief, then I am happy you like NYS standard, and agree to this, based on what you have said in about 593 of your 700something posts.

[Doctor_J]

8. No, bcause the Dems won't jump on it

If we had media control like the repukes do it would make a major difference. As it is, ...won't mean shit

[Stuart G]

12. k & r thanks for posting..... nt

[Brimley]

25. There'd BETTER be an Electoral Price!

If not, my American friends, you might as well become a province of China.