More

Michael Bloomberg Takes On The National Rifle Association -- And Wins


First Posted: 11/05/10 04:11 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:10 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- The National Rifle Association (NRA) has long been one of the most formidable foes in politics, with many lawmakers unwilling to speak too loudly on gun control out of fear of waking the behemoth's wrath (and massive political operation). But Tuesday's election results showed a possible path for gun control advocates to take on the NRA -- pushing measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. With this strategy, the nonpartisan advocacy group backed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Americans United for Safe Streets (AUSS), took on NRA candidates in a handful of races -- and won.

The scope of AUSS is relatively narrow, targeting specific areas that may even divide NRA members from the national leadership. One major issue AUSS targets is closing the gun show loophole, a gap in the law that allows some vendors at gun shows to sell weapons without conducting a background check of the purchaser. Another area targeted by AUSS is the "terror gap," which allows persons on the federal watch list to legally buy guns and explosives in the United States.

AUSS went up against five NRA-backed candidates, with some pundits doubting whether it would have any impact. It was successful in three races and lost in one. Another is still too close to call, but it looks like it will be another AUSS victory.

AUSS ran campaigns against Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray (D), Michigan congressional candidate Rocky Raczkowski (R) and Ohio congressional candidate Tom Ganley (R), all of whom lost. Pennsylvania Republican congressional candidate Pat Meehan won over Democrat Bryan Lentz, and in Virginia's 11th district, Rep. Gerry Connolly (D) is currently winning over Republican Keith Fimian, who was opposed by AUSS.

"Nationally, there is no question that this election was driven by concerns about the economy, but in the races where the issue of illegal guns played a key role, candidates that opposed common-sense efforts to crack down on illegal guns suffered at the polls," said Alex Howe, AUSS spokesman. "In Colorado, Senate candidate Ken Buck's decision as a prosecutor to scuttle a case against a gun dealer accused of illegal activity became a major issue in the campaign -- and he lost a race that a month before the election he was heavily favored to win. And in Virginia, Keith Fimian lost a close race after he put himself on the wrong side of Virginia Tech massacre survivors and family members for his opposition to closing the gun show Loophole."

Gun issues played an especially large role in Fimian's race. Late in the campaign, Fimian said that the tragedy at Virginia Tech could have been prevented if "one of those kids in one of those classrooms was packing heat." Fimian eventually apologized after being widely condemned. "It's hard to believe a candidate for the U.S. Congress doesn't appreciate the gravity of the massacre at Virginia Tech," said Omar Samaha, whose sister was killed in the attacks. There are indications that Fimian lost votes specifically because of these comments.

AUSS spent $450,000 in the VA-11 race, bringing attention to Fimian's comments, the gun show loophole and the recent law allowing guns in bars in Virginia.

In Ohio, AUSS also went aggressively after the gun show loophole, sending mailers to 175,000 households and spending a combined $350,000. One mailer targeting the attorney general, for instance, read, "Florida took Lebron. What did we get in return? They sent us 92 illegal guns and gun-toting criminals. And Richard Cordray is letting them do it."

Bloomberg is AUSS's major funder and its most prominent backer, and he has made gun control one of his signature issues. In May, he told the Senate Homeland Security Committee that Congress should close the terror gap in the nation's gun laws. "If society decides that these people are too dangerous to get on an airplane with other people, then it's probably appropriate to look very hard before you let them buy a gun," he said.

The NRA quickly criticized him, saying he was "abusing the word 'terrorist' to resurrect and pursue a gun-control agenda."

But there's evidence, including by these recent wins, that the NRA may be overreaching. A 2009 poll found that 82 percent of gun owners and NRA members support "prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns," while 69 percent favor "requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns" -- two issues the NRA has fought against, and two issues boosted by AUSS.

Forty-nine Democratic incumbents lost on Tuesday; 29 of them (59 percent) had an A rating from the NRA, and 25 received financial support from the gun-rights group.

Of the 176 Democrats who won re-election, 32 had NRA endorsements. Only two of the 101 Democratic House members who co-sponsored legislation closing the gun show loophole lost.

These numbers don't point to the NRA necessarily being a liability for Democrats. They are, however, an indication that running with the blessing of the group isn't a sure bet, and running without it isn't necessarily a death sentence.

An October poll by Roanoke College found that 80 percent of respondents said it made no difference to them that Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.) -- who eventually lost his seat -- was backed by the NRA.

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said that although some races are still being decided, the group made a total of 262 endorsements in House races and 225 of those candidates won. He added that the number of A-rated candidates in the House will be going up since 2008 as well. The vast majority of the group's endorsements are Republicans.

"I think that numbers speak for themselves," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "I think if you look at elections in recent history, we have candidates from both sides of the aisle, reluctant to touch gun control because they know that it's bad politics to be on the wrong side of the gun issue during an election. Voters overwhelmingly have rejected the gun control agenda. NRA, on the other hand, has been saying since time immemorial that, rather than enacting new gun control laws, the focus should be on strict enforcement of gun control laws. And I think that just looking at the facts -- our numbers in both chambers have increased since 2008 to 2010, I think that totally negates whatever talking point that this other group is trying to put out."

Arulanandam added that in some races, incumbents who had A ratings from the NRA were challenged by candidates who also had A ratings.

But Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, believes that this election should serve as a warning to Democrats.

"On the gun violence issue, the Democratic leadership has too often been paralyzed by the perceived need to protect the NRA stalwarts in their caucus," he said. "Now we see that appeasing the gun lobby did Congressional Democrats little good, while Democratic candidates supporting common-sense gun restrictions won overwhelmingly. This attempt to placate the NRA meant that we just lost another two years in dealing with the plague of gun violence that takes too many innocent lives."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- The National Rifle Association (NRA) has long been one of the most formidable foes in politics, with many lawmakers unwilling to speak too loudly on gun control out of fear of waking the...
WASHINGTON -- The National Rifle Association (NRA) has long been one of the most formidable foes in politics, with many lawmakers unwilling to speak too loudly on gun control out of fear of waking the...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,806
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (12 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Shawn Wake
09:51 PM on 12/24/2010
it is funny this so caller artical just says a poll and dosnt list wich one I am farely sure it is a bias one and I would be for not allowing people to have guns that are on the terriost list if it wasnt for a couple things one is that this list has been proven to be very untrustworthy as it has had babys on it. Two if you are mistakenly put on this list there is no way to contest it becouse you cant even find out what makes them think you are a terrorist in the first place. So no I do not think this kind of info is good enough to take away a right from a U.S. citizen. As for gun shows I think they are great it is a good place to go and trade buy and sell your guns kind of like a coffe shop on steriods lol
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
hornedcog
Tax Tea Now!
10:35 AM on 12/01/2010
The NRA is a tool of the Republican party. If you look at who they have supported in the last thirty years, it is not all to the advantage of gun owners. Pete Wilson is a good first look.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
johnny g locker
02:04 PM on 11/24/2010
In NYC, 95.1 percent of all murder victims and 95.9 percent of all shooting victims in New York City are black or Hispanic.

We have a gang problem, not a gun problem.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:31 AM on 11/27/2010
Where's proof?
05:07 PM on 11/27/2010
If "95.9 percent of all shooting victims in New York" are gang members, solely by merit of their race or ethnicity, apparently, then why do gun rights advocates feel it necessary to arm "law-abiding" citizens?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Herz
11:29 AM on 11/16/2010
Most fire arms are now priced beyond the means of lower class persons. Ammo can average a buck a shot. Most serious shooters I know are pretty well-to-do; homeowners, business guys, professionals and craftspersons. In short, not likely to be your average street mugger.
Then also, is not the economic and social abandonment of our working class, of the black (in particular) minority, the ultimate cause of street crime?
Then too, are not the most awful criminals to be found on Wall Street, the House the Senate and the White House?
Then too, these last have worked tirelessly to whither all our constitutional liberties; why aid them in wrecking yet another?
Bloomberg's cops regularly gun down people. Why give him and his a monopoly on the use of firearms?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
05:54 PM on 11/17/2010
Welcome to our battle for freedom, Chris! Congrats on your very first post here. Stick around.
Faved! (Means marked as a favorite post, since you're new here.)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:24 PM on 11/18/2010
" ... lower class persons ... " Thanks to the NRA, buying and selling guns remains real easy in the USA -- negotiable, bargains, trades. Families might not be happy about grocery money spent on gun "hobbies." Our culture is flooded with lethal weapons -- that's not "freedom;" that's dangerous.
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and combat vet
12:39 AM on 11/19/2010
"Families might not be happy about grocery money spent on gun "hobbies.""

And this has what to do with firearm laws? This is a family issue, nothing more.
photo
75thRanger
Though I Be The Lone Survivor
03:03 PM on 11/15/2010
Bloomberg is a joke.

RLTW
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
07:13 PM on 11/15/2010
Gun control map by states. http://www.opencarry.org/maps.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:08 AM on 11/16/2010
He may be a joke, but he is a joke that is rich and powerful enough to weasel and buy his way out of his own wrong-doing (ex: his little Southern States Gun Store Sting operation), and he's very driven! He's a dangerous foe!

At least, that's my opinion!
Old SF MJT
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:04 PM on 11/17/2010
He is indeed dangerous. What if he decides to buy himself the White House some day?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
barefoot2626
02:01 AM on 11/14/2010
Seems the original comment was removed. One that in no way conflicted with any of the huffington posts guidelines. Funny how that goes.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:50 AM on 11/14/2010
It may strain belief, but on this point I totally agree with you! Strange! Very strange!

Old SF
photo
Sugarmaker
Act like what you do makes a difference, it does
08:29 PM on 11/15/2010
Happens to me often also - I don't consider myself an incendiary poster, but this area is a bit "prickly" and apparently prone to heavy pruning.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
barefoot2626
11:26 PM on 11/15/2010
Umm... yeah.

The left side of the bush gets the heaviest trim.  A lopsided bush, as it were...
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
10:48 AM on 11/12/2010
The Second Amendment is still in the Constitution. Did Bloomberg eliminate the NRA yet?
12:20 PM on 11/12/2010
the NRA is still going --even in the People's Republic of Kalifornia
09:20 PM on 11/09/2010
Take away the guns, they should be illegal
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dimensio
I just don't know what went wrong!
09:39 PM on 11/09/2010
Your proposal is unjustified and Unconstitutional.
11:22 PM on 11/09/2010
after Heller and McDonald--NOT going to happen
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:16 AM on 11/09/2010
I'm sorry NOT overlook as well as other grammar errors.My left eye is having problems.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:12 AM on 11/09/2010
Once a Bill is singed into law. The task at hand is enforcement of that law. then there's show on investigative discovery which has a scale that this psychiatrist has come to rate criminals 1 to 23 I believe. Someone who falls under the category of torture killer such as BTK if guns are not he has no way of obtaining then He would have to careful plot and scheme how he hunt his prey. There are couple of items that you should overlook. crossbows and longbows can be purchased legally regardless psychiatric history, or criminal record. It can be more effective then some gun calibers(.25) , and not malfunction like certain brands(Jennings). I am not a fan of Texas political establishment. I believe that our economy would several times greater if victimless crimes such as casino gambling, and regulated prostitution through brothels were repealed, and marijuana decriminlization. policies were implemented. Catching small fish and intimidating with methods that IA do not approve yet are rarely notified of as a method to twist them to roll over on the big catches not offering any form of witness protection. A free society cannot remain free if the trend becomes worse. How many of you have honestly had their civil right violated by those whom took an oath to serve and protect.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
barefoot2626
10:13 AM on 11/09/2010
q> There are couple of items that you should overlook. crossbows
q> and longbows can be purchased legally regardless psychiatric
q>history, or criminal record. It can be more effective then some gun
q> calibers(.25) , and not malfunction like certain brands(Jennings)

Kind of hard to put a crossbow in your front pocket.
11:55 AM on 11/09/2010
BF--my compliments on your ability to channel George Wallace with your civilian disarmament now and forever stance--the point under discussion was EFFECTIVENESS, not concealability, as far as that goes--my EDC pocketknife will do much more damage than a 25 acp piston
01:56 PM on 11/09/2010
"Kind of hard to put a crossbow in your front pocket."

Yet, they are forbidden in the State of NJ . Perhaps you should relocate, if you are not there already.
07:47 PM on 11/08/2010
Curiously, Brady dropped many 2008 endorsees, mostly in at-risk states – to them – perhaps because of the justifiable apprehension that Democrat endorsees would lose. These states had higher rates of Republican wins, and all but 2 Brady endorsees are Democrats.

In an apparent first, Michael Arcuri (NY-24) went from Brady- to NRA-endorsed (2008-2010) because he became pro-rights, voting for concealed carry in national parks and cosponsoring NRA-supported BATFE reform.

Arcuri and 44 others lost their 2008 Brady endorsement; 36 maintained their NRA F-grade and three their 2008 D-grade. Curiously, Pelosi lost hers despite a solid anti-rights record. With few exceptions, Brady kept endorsements in “safe” states, earning the highest grades in their latest scorecard: Brady’s top 6 states (scoring 50+) contained a majority (59%) of Brady’s endorsees.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-did-the-election-impact-the-second-amendment/?singlepage=true
08:40 PM on 11/08/2010
Does this material refute, in any way, the specifics referenced in Terkel's article?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dimensio
I just don't know what went wrong!
10:25 PM on 11/08/2010
Yes; the author's claim of a "victory" over the National Rifle Association is a demonstrable lie.
07:07 AM on 11/09/2010
Yes.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
04:08 PM on 11/08/2010
Satire follows:
Mayor Bloomberg yesterday boosted his anti-gun rhetoric, insisting
that the only reason to carry a gun in New York City is to "kill
somebody".  http://www.nysun.com/article/25477  In keeping with the
mayor's pronouncement, he announced that he was giving up his armed
bodyguards, who, until now, have protected his person and family 24/7.
"I know it will seem foolhardy to many," replied the mayor, "but most
ordinary New Yorkers cannot get a permit to keep a handgun in their
homes, let alone to carry one with them when they venture outside.
Why is my life, and that of my family, more precious than that of a
regular person?" said the mayor.  "As of tomorrow, my security team
will only use methods approved for ordinary citizens to defend me and
my loved ones" insisted Mayor Bloomberg.  "That means no Glocks or
pepper spray or electronic stun guns or Tasers" the mayor said.
"We'll rely solely on un-armed self defense techniques" he insisted.  Sarah
Brady of Handgun Control hailed the mayor's move as "Breathtaking",
she called it a "heroic and principled stand."  Wayne LaPierre of the
N.R.A. was quoted as saying, "Well, it's his safety at stake, he can
do as he pleases."  It is too soon to tell if other high flying
celebrities in music, show business, motion pictures and
the entertainment industry, who often tout gun control while being
protected by armed bodyguards will follow mayor Bloomberg's lead.
07:58 PM on 11/08/2010
It is customary, even among propagandists, when copying and pasting others' material, to acknowledge the source.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
11:00 PM on 11/08/2010
Just for your information that was my own original tiny contribution to the cause of freedom from almost four years ago. Google a significant portion of it and you will find it under some of my various nomes de plume.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
mackbolan
Libertas inaestimabilis res est
02:49 PM on 11/08/2010
as i have said so before...i will gladly accept background checks for everyone for everything if the outcome is that i can carry the gun of my choice anywhere and anytime...but that is not what the anti-gunners are after...they want to take away my right...period...
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
barefoot2626
03:13 PM on 11/08/2010
q> .i will gladly accept background checks for everyone
q> for everything if the outcome is that i can carry the gun
q> of my choice anywhere and anytime
Too bad.  You don't get special rights to carry any gun any time anywhere and  background checks are coming inspite of gnutter attempts to block legislation.
Tick tock.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
03:27 PM on 11/08/2010
I do not accept background checks on my civil rights!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
mackbolan
Libertas inaestimabilis res est
03:39 PM on 11/08/2010
just pointing out how the anti-gunners are so dishonest...
03:14 PM on 11/08/2010
Which right do they want to take away? The right to buy guns in secrecy or the right to carry any gun, anywhere, anytime?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
03:28 PM on 11/08/2010
What difference does it make, rights are rights, one and indivisible. No prior restraint is persmissable on enumerated rights.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
rikilii
Hush, was the first word you were taught...
03:41 PM on 11/08/2010
If I demanded the right to carry any gun, anywhere, any time, and I was also a hardcore liberal, I'd would insist that the government not only allow me to do it, but pay for someone to assist me in lugging around my 80mm mortar while swimming.
So tell us again who's demanding the right to carry any gun, anytime, anywhere?
11:38 AM on 11/08/2010
Okay, Baghdad Bob...I mean Baghdad Bloomberg.

The gun-control advocates got smoked in this election. No US Senate seats switched from pro- to anti-gun, and about 7 did the opposite (Ohio, West Virginia, North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania). Reid held on to his seat, so we'll still have a pro-gun Senate Majority Leader until 2012. Huge gains in the house got the pro-gun side within spitting distance of a presidential veto override. Kansas voters passed a constitutional amendment clarifying that the state constitution's right to keep and bear arms applied "for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose", a refutation of Salina v. Blaksley and the collective rights interpretation.

And lets not forget our friend, Bloomberg. How much money did he spend this year in Pennsylvania, only to win approximately none of the races that he put money into? Toomey won the Senate, Corbett won the governorship, and the Pennsylvania legislature had several gains for the anti-gun-control side and is expected to have enough votes to finally pass the Castle Doctrine there this coming session. Notice, also, the phrasing in the article mentioning Pat Meehan winning over Bryan Lentz without clarifying which was the Bloomberg-endorsed candidate (it was the loser, Lentz).

But if Bloomberg wants to celebrate these midterms I won't get in his way. Hey Mike, here's hoping you have a similar victory in 2012.
12:02 PM on 11/08/2010
Thank you for that election re-hash. Does it refute, in any way, the specifics outlined in the article?
02:29 PM on 11/08/2010
I'm saying the article is disingenuous. Bloomberg et al are trying to say "look at this handful of minor races we won!" hoping nobody sees the cascade of major elections they lost. Bloomberg spent a lot of money in Pennsylvania on the Senate and Governor's races and lost big. For good measure they throw in the "82% of NRA members and gun owners support prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns" ridiculousness. Of course if you call someone up and ask something along the lines of "should suspected terrorists be allowed to buy guns?" they're going to say no. You could probably ask if suspected terrorists should be thrown in jail and you'd get the same answer.

The Brady Campaign is adding its own spin, as well, saying that a lot of the Dems who kept their seats are anti-gun. Of course they are, in the middle-American contested seats anti-gun candidates simply can't win primaries, and wouldn't win a general election anyway. Is anyone surprised that urban Democratic candidates in safe Democrat seats are keeping their jobs?

This notion that being NRA-endosrsed simply doesn't matter is also taken out of context. In all of the hotly contested races involving pro-gun Democrats, the opponent was a pro-gun Republican. Voters weren't saying "the gun issue doesn't matter to me", they were saying "all else being equal, I'll take the new guy over the incumbent."
12:39 PM on 11/08/2010
Yah, Bloombergs great victory is a sham.
12:50 PM on 11/08/2010
As are your continued attempts to spin the contents of the article into something they're not.
01:37 PM on 11/11/2010
Especially since Bloomberg's group is a prime example of politcal astroturf