Obama and the Gun Lobby: A Policy of Appeasement?

"Appeasement." What word better describes the current attitude of the Obama administration, and many in the Democratic Party, toward the gun lobby?

The word recently was invoked by syndicated columnist Marie Cocco referring to the approach of the White House to the gun issue. "Obama and the Democrats haven't stared down the gun lobby," she wrote. "They've enabled it."

Is it a stretch to envision President Obama as the Neville Chamberlain of the gun issue? Consider the record so far. The President broke his campaign pledge to seek repeal of a set of Bush-supported appropriations riders (the "Tiahrt Amendments") that have weakened the Brady Act and other federal gun laws. Despite his personal commitment to voting rights for District of Columbia residents, Obama was silent as the NRA held the voting rights bill hostage to its vision of the District with virtually no gun laws. With not a syllable uttered in protest, the President signed credit card reform legislation laden with Senator Coburn's ridiculous amendment to allow loaded guns in national parks. When Attorney General Holder and Secretary of State Clinton suggested that strengthening U.S. gun laws may well help to reduce the arming of Mexican drug cartels with American guns, they were silenced. Then, in surely the most bizarre example, when protesters started showing up near the President's speeches with loaded guns, instead of condemning the practice, the White House responded that it had no problem with it as long as local laws were not being violated.

The guiding principle of the Obama gun policy seems to be: whatever happens, don't rile up the gun guys.

Of course, it is worth noting that the gun guys are determined to get riled up, no matter how weak the administration is on guns. The NRA's "Obama is coming to get your guns" message has continued unabated, inspiring record breaking gun sales despite the administration's "do nothing, say nothing" approach.

The real problem, of course, is that there is no end to the gun lobby's demands. The more you feed the beast, the more it will want. Yesterday, it was eviscerating D.C.'s gun laws and allowing guns in Yosemite; tomorrow it will be limiting ATF's power to crack down on corrupt gun dealers. The forces of reason in the Senate narrowly blocked the NRA's attempt to weaken state restrictions on carrying of concealed weapons, but this wretched proposal will no doubt be back in some form.

The question is: When will the Obama administration and Congressional Democratic leaders make a stand? They have just witnessed the NRA doing everything in its power to defeat the President's first Supreme Court nominee. They have heard the NRA's silence as gun-wielding protesters use the tactics of intimidation to oppose Obama's health care reforms. What does the "gun rights" crowd have to do before the President says, "enough is enough"?

Like the rest of the political right, the NRA is determined to see Obama fail. As Marie Cocco argued, it is absurd for Obama and the Democratic leadership to believe that "if they just try to get along with the gun lobby, the gun lobby will get along with them." The gun lobby cannot be stopped by giving it the ground it seeks today, because it will seek even more tomorrow.

On the gun issue, isn't it time for Obama and the Democrats to replace appeasement with resistance?

For more information, see Dennis Henigan's new book, Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy.

 

 

Comments

[OdinsEye]

I guess Peter Hamm decided to not come back and correct his glaring errors.

[Dimensio]

Advocates of civilian disarmament are rarely concerned with the fact that their claims have no basis in reality. Some of the more extreme advocates, such as Mr. Josh Sugarmann, openly acknowledge using demonstrable lies as a means of creating public confusion.

[mike102]

"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988

[djcrsn]

And as far as that goes, I am rather surprised SL is trying to use appellate court rulings and dissenting opinions based on misreading Miller to try to support his gun banning. Neither can support overturning multiple SCOTUS decisions going the other way. Henigan also forgets that anything close to the Clinton gun bill is exceedingly unlikely to survive Congress and the common use standard of Heller

[Wilson333]

Hi Dennis! Is Paul on vacation?

[benEzra]

Obama understands that fighting to ban the lawful purchase and ownership of some of the most popular civilian guns in America doesn't go over well with gun-owning Dems and indies, most of whom are nonhunters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=95394&mesg_id=95510

Dropping the gun-ban crusade allows other issues to come to the forefront, issues that most non-gun-owners generally feel are more important than guns: health care, foreign policy, and social infrastructure.

[SewaneeLeftist]

Folks, I apologize for the two versions of my same text appearing here. As I said elsewhere, I don't believe repetition makes points stronger; I just thought they had fallen prey to the moderator, so I posted them again.

[OdinsEye]

There is sometimes a glitch in the site software where a post is submitted, goes into the moderation queue and shows in the pending counter, but then the pending counter goes to zero and the post does not materialize. By all indications it appears the post has been deleted, but then the post magically appears some time later. This glitch has tripped up many of the posters.

[OdinsEye]

Swanee's list conveniently ignores decisions like Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942).

[SewaneeLeftist]

I’m NOT playing the top of the posts game; I just don’t want to interact with the fellow travelers. But since the issue of the history of judicial decisions has come up, here are the precedents, Justice Stevens mentioned in Heller (emphasis mine). Part 3 (if this gets through):

AND A NUMBER OF COURTS HAVE REMAINED FIRM IN THEIR PRIOR POSITIONS, EVEN AFTER CONSIDERING EMERSON. See, e.g., United States v. Lippman, 369 F. 3d 1039, 1043–1045 (CA8 2004); United States v. Parker, 362 F. 3d 1279, 1282–1284 (CA10 2004); United States v. Jackubowski, 63 Fed. Appx. 959, 961 (CA7 2003) (unpublished opinion); Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F. 3d 1052, 1060–1066 (CA9 2002); United States v. Milheron, 231 F. Supp. 2d 376, 378 (Me. 2002); Bach v. Pataki, 289 F. Supp. 2d 217, 224–226 (NDNY 2003); United States v. Smith, 56 M. J. 711, 716 (C. A. Armed Forces 2001).

Stevens incidentally says hundreds of decisions have gone along with his view.

[legaleagle 45]

"Stevens incidentally says hundreds of decisions have gone along with his view."

But he cites not one case which was decided prior to 1900 which interprets the 2nd or any of the state analogs as anything other than an individual right. Nor does he cite a single commentator pre 1900 which supports that view.

[Thirdpower]

I would bet money every single one of those cases refer back through eachother to the traditional misreading of Miller. The case that was based on evidence produced by only one side.

[lcb97222]

There are thouands of gun laws that criminals already ignore. Instead of adding more, why not advocate enforcing those that already exist?

Obama and the democrats are right in treading softly as they know they will be put out of jobs if they continue to blame the vast majority for the actions of a few.

Maybe you can explain how adding more laws will prevent Mexican drug cartels from acquiring machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers and explosives. Other than a few civilians that go thru extreme background checks and stringient licensng requirements, there is no way these weapons can get into the hands of anyone with criminal intent without the weapons directly traceable to the source.

Maybe you should be looking at the military and police agencies who have easy access to these weapons as a possible source. The only other place to look is foreign markets who will sell anything for the right amount of $.

Quit looking for boogymen and open your eyes. Prosecute criminals and leave honest people exercizing their rights alone.

[SewaneeLeftist]

I’m NOT playing the top of the posts game; I just don’t want to interact with the fellow travelers. But since the issue of the history of judicial decisions has come up, here are the precedents, Justice Stevens mentioned in Heller (emphasis mine). Part 2 (if this gets through):

United States v. Wright, 117 F. 3d 1265, 1271–1274 (CA11 1997); United States v. Rybar, 103 F. 3d 273, 285–286 (CA3 1996); Hickman v. Block, 81 F. 3d 98, 100–103 (CA9 1996); United States v. Hale, 978 F. 2d 1016, 1018–1020 (CA8 1992); Thomas v. City Council of Portland, 730 F. 2d 41, 42 (CA1 1984) (per curiam); United States v. Johnson, 497 F. 2d 548, 550 (CA4 1974) (per curiam); United States v. Johnson, 441 F. 2d 1134, 1136 (CA5 1971); see also Sandidge v. United States, 520 A. 2d 1057, 1058–1059 (DC App. 1987).

[djcrsn]

You may not want to interact with us--but the only way to do that is to stop shovelling your gun banning fertilizer here

[SewaneeLeftist]

I’m NOT playing the top of the posts game; I just don’t want to interact with the fellow travelers. But since the issue of the history of judicial decisions has come up, here are the precedents, Justice Stevens mentioned in Heller (emphasis mine). Part 1 (if this gets through):

“Until the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Emerson, 270 F. 3d 203 (2001), EVERY Court of Appeals to consider the question had understood Miller to hold that the Second Amendment DOES NOT PROTECT THE RIGHT TO POSSESS AND USE GUNS FOR PURELY PRIVATE, CIVILIAN PURPOSES. See, e.g., United States v. Haney, 264 F. 3d 1161, 1164–1166 (CA10 2001); United States v. Napier, 233 F. 3d 394, 402–404 (CA6 2000); Gillespie v. Indianapolis, 185 F. 3d 693, 710–711 (CA7 1999); United States v. Scanio, No. 97–1584, 1998 WL 802060, *2 (CA2, Nov. 12, 1998) (unpublished opinion);”

[HisXLNC]

" The gun lobby cannot be stopped by giving it the ground it seeks today, because it will seek even more tomorrow."

Ironically, tha'st exactly what pro-2A people say about the anti-gun lobby.

[Ohio9]

Exactly, that's how all lobbying groups function. They don't simply declare "mission accomplished" when they win victory on a single issue. What they do is move on to the next one. For lobbying groups, there is always something to do for the cause, regardless of any past failure or success. That's how it works in the real world.

[SewaneeLeftist]

From Stevens's dissent in Heller, part II:

And a
number of courts have remained firm in their prior positions, even after
considering Emerson. See, e.g., United States v. Lippman, 369 F. 3d
1039, 1043–1045 (CA8 2004); United States v. Parker, 362 F. 3d 1279,
1282–1284 (CA10 2004); United States v. Jackubowski, 63 Fed. Appx.
959, 961 (CA7 2003) (unpublished opinion); Silveira v. Lockyer, 312
F. 3d 1052, 1060–1066 (CA9 2002); United States v. Milheron, 231
F. Supp. 2d 376, 378 (Me. 2002); Bach v. Pataki, 289 F. Supp. 2d 217,
224–226 (NDNY 2003); United States v. Smith, 56 M. J. 711, 716 (C. A.
Armed Forces 2001).

Stevens, by the way, said hundreds of judges had ruled this way, so now you can bring in your famed 39.

[Thirdpower]

And Stevens was in the Minority. From one who believes in the Constitution as a 'living document', you're sure wanting it carved in stone.

[Thirdpower]

Top of the Post, Top of the Post, we can all play Top of the Post.

Both the DOJ and Congress recognize it as an individual right:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

As for other cases recognizing an individual right, here is a partial list w/ case name and descriptor.

http://saf.org/JFPP12ch5.htm

[SewaneeLeftist]

Also from Stevens's dissent in Heller, part 1:

Until the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Emerson, 270
F. 3d 203 (2001), every Court of Appeals to consider the question had
understood Miller to hold that the Second Amendment does not protect
the right to possess and use guns for purely private, civilian purposes.
See, e.g., United States v. Haney, 264 F. 3d 1161, 1164–1166 (CA10
2001); United States v. Napier, 233 F. 3d 394, 402–404 (CA6 2000); Gillespie v. Indianapolis, 185 F. 3d 693, 710–711 (CA7 1999); United
States v. Scanio, No. 97–1584, 1998 WL 802060, *2 (CA2, Nov. 12,
1998) (unpublished opinion); United States v. Wright, 117 F. 3d 1265,
1271–1274 (CA11 1997); United States v. Rybar, 103 F. 3d 273, 285–286
(CA3 1996); Hickman v. Block, 81 F. 3d 98, 100–103 (CA9 1996); United
States v. Hale, 978 F. 2d 1016, 1018–1020 (CA8 1992); Thomas v. City
Council of Portland, 730 F. 2d 41, 42 (CA1 1984) (per curiam); United
States v. Johnson, 497 F. 2d 548, 550 (CA4 1974) (per curiam); United
States v. Johnson, 441 F. 2d 1134, 1136 (CA5 1971); see also Sandidge
v. United States, 520 A. 2d 1057, 1058–1059 (DC App. 1987).

[Thirdpower]

And Stevens was in the minority. Seems you have a problem recognizing that most higher courts have more than one judge.

I've already presented you the list of numerous cases that recognized an individual 2A right along w/ the DOJ and Congress.

Why won't you respond to that fact?

[Thirdpower]

Both the DOJ and Congress recognize it as an individual right:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

As for other cases recognizing an individual right, here is a partial list w/ case name and descriptor.

http://saf.org/JFPP12ch5.htm

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/obama-and-the-gun-lobby-a_b_287152.html

[OdinsEye]

"Until the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Emerson, 270
F. 3d 203 (2001), every Court of Appeals to consider the question had
understood Miller to hold that the Second Amendment does not protect
the right to possess and use guns for purely private, civilian purposes."

Not true. The appellate courts were about evenly split.

In fact, within three years of the Miller decision, an appelate court had ruled than the Miller 'test' was not a general rule, but rather simply a way of getting rid of the case.

[legaleagle 45]

You are quite correct (or Stevens is quite correct) in concluding that the courts interpreted Miller to protect the right to possess and use guns for purely private, civilian purposes.

What is curious however is that their rationale was contradictory, espousing different theories upon which they thought Miller meant. Some courts thought it to be an individual right but was confined to members of the well regulated militia and only covered those weapons actually used in the well regulated militia. Some courts thought it a more expansive individual right which encompassed not only those actually in the well regulated militia, but also those who had a desire to be in a well regulated militia and covered those weapons which they used in training for their anticipated service. Still others felt it was not an individual right at all, but a right of the state. The latter was the ruling in Hickman v Block, which is remarkable in that their citation of Miller failed to get the facts of the case correct, evidencing that they had not even bothered to read Miller correctly. An example of the middle position is the Rybar case which also misquoted Miller, but the error is not as blatant.or obvious...

More..

[legaleagle 45]

Continued...

What Rybar stated was this:

"In fact, the Miller Court assigned no special importance to the character of the weapon itself, but instead demanded a reasonable relationship between its "possession or use" and militia-related activity."

Miller said no such thing, what Miller stated was this:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Cases v. United States was also interesting in that it specifically abandoned the rationale of Miller:

"At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so called "Commando Units" some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon"

They got the rule in Miller right, but decided it was too dangerous to apply and so decided to make up their own rule... they were not following Miller at all and they so stated.

[Thirdpower]

So they were 'legislating from the bench" according to Sewanee. I guess it's only wrong when one side does it.

[SewaneeLeftist]

I've answered all the NRA zombie lies, logical fallacies (the straw man, the argument to absurdity, the inflating of the microscopic to the macroscopic and vice versa, the oversimplification, guilt by association, the bandwagon fallacy, and on an on), misrepresentation of history and facts, misunderstanding of the Constitution as a fossil rather than a living, constantly reinterpreted document), so I'm not going to do it again. Repetition doesn't make me any more correct. Evidently repetition confers power to gun nuts, like counting rosary beads. I can look up your posts, and you can look up mine.

The demonization of democratic socialism is just about as silly. Democratic socialism can't be totalitarian, and because any elected democratic socialist must have received a majority of votes, can't be minority rule. Therefore, your guilt-by-a­ssociation connections to totalitarian communist regimes have nothing to do with anything. I know the "comrade" stuff feels pretty devastating to you, so knock yourselves out.

Here I'm only answering Mr. Henigan's profound analysis, especially about appeasing the gun obsessives:

"Like the rest of the political right, the NRA is determined to see Obama fail. As Marie Cocco argued, it is absurd for Obama and the Democratic leadership to believe that "if they just try to get along with the gun lobby, the gun lobby will get along with them." The gun lobby cannot be stopped by giving it the ground it seeks today, because it will seek even more tomorrow."

[OdinsEye]

Nice try, but you have refuted little to nothing.

[mike102]

'Nothing', but with more than the usual healthy dose of the ad hominem.

One would expect more from a "COLLEGE PROFESSOR".

[mackbolan]

its too bad we live in a constitutionally representative republic.....now that i have debunked your theories of what our government is lets see you disprove the fact that in this country alone we have over 300 years of history of citizens carrying arms....no to mention the armed society that was here before the colonists.....

[legaleagle 45]

"misunderstanding of the Constitution as a fossil rather than a living, constantly reinterpreted document),"

Interpreting the Constituion as it was written and according to what was then intended provides security against the shifting tides of political opinion. This does not lock the Constituion into antiquated views or policies as the Constituion itself provides for an amendment process to address those concerns. Interpreting the Constituion based upon the current political enviornment is nothing more than amendment of the Constituion by judicial fiat. You are granting judges the power to make things up as they go along. This is fine so long as the judges adopt your particular viewpoint, but it is not so fine when they are in opposition to your political viewpoint.

[Berettasskeeter]

Your democratic socialism is one of the prime reasons that the Greek Republic failed. Once people found that they could vote themselves the assets of others, merely by majority rule, Greece was doomed. Your socialist friends are not searching for any sort of responsible society, but for control over the sheep!
Semper fi

[PavePusher]

And then the Romans tried the same thing... with identical results.

[djcrsn]

SL--the only one demonstrating a lack of understanding of the BOR is your gun banning allies

[Ohio9]

"The real problem, of course, is that there is no end to the gun lobby's demands. The more you feed the beast, the more it will want."

And how is that different from the gun control lobby? Tell me Dennis, is the Brady Bunch ever going to declare "Mission Accomplished", clean out their office, and send everyone home? That's not how lobbying groups work. Regardless of whether or not they support or oppose gun rights, all lobbying groups move right on to another task as soon as they have accomplished victory in their current one. That's just how it works for all of them, including the Brady Center.

Anyway, the reason the president hasn't been doing the Brady Center's bidding like the good little servant then hoped he would be (remember "We Win, they lose, let's get to work?") is because it is clear that passing new sweeping gun bans would be deeply unpopular and would cost him thousands of votes. Gun sales have been skyrocketing ever since Obama was elected on the mere suspicion he might get new gun laws passed. Citizens have been making it clear they do not want to be disarmed and defenseles, especially with the threat of increased crime during the recession. If he is facing this much opposition before working on new gun laws, just imagine how unpopular he will be if any are passed.

Obama is simply taking into account popular opposition to gun control. That's not "appeasement. It's democracy.

[beatbox]

How long before we get a Richard Aborn piece blaming he spectacular loss in the Manhattan DA race on the NRA?

(personally, I voted for Adam Schiff).

[mike102]

LOL. Yeah, that was a tough break. HA!

But, are his opponents any better?

[beatbox]

Probably not, but Aborn made more gun control a center piece of his campaign. Two problems with that.

1) There is not a lot of room to move the needle in NYC on gun control, which is already one of the most restrictive in the US., and

2) As Aborn discovered, pro-gun control people are unlikely to vote on just that issue.