“Wait ‘til next year” or any time after the elections.
Hardhats with Guns
By Tanya Metaksa
MANY OF THOSE who have studied the issue of gun control in the United States over the past forty years understand it is an issue that is politically motivated and driven.
The late Senator Thomas Dodd, (D-CT) became a national political figure on the issue of gun control. Former Congressman and now Judge Abner Mikva is another politician who became known as a gun control fanatic and got national press as a result. Today we have former Congressman and now Senator Chuck Schumer as the leading Congressional figure on the issue. And, of course, there is Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore who have embraced the issue with gusto over the past eight years. But it’s not a matter of real principle, it is a real matter of politics.
This year’s battle over gun control in the state of California is a prime example of politics over issues. With the adjournment of the California legislature on August 31st, California gun owners narrowly escaped another draconian gun law. As the deadline for the legislature to adjourn came ever closer, Representative Jack Scott kept pushing his compulsory training, registration, and licensing bill for handgun purchasers, AB 273.
When AB 273 originally passed the California Assembly, it did not include any of Jack Scott’s restrictive gun legislation. He amended the bill when it reached the Senate to include not only training, registration, and licensing for new handgun purchasers, but also for any currently owned handgun. The actual language was: A list of all currently owned handgun, which shall include the serial number, make, and model of each firearm. Although that section was eliminated in the final push for passage, it is now crystal clear what Representative Scott and many of his colleagues supporting the legislation had in mind: The same kind of law for handguns that Californians already have for so-called “assault weapons.” A law that enables confiscation of firearms by the state through state-required registration of those same firearms.
That very restrictive and onerous language was passed by the California Senate Public Safety Committee on June 27 and sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee where it languished until August. Then, with two weeks until adjournment, the California Senate decided to push for its enactment. On August 24th the Senate Appropriations Committee voted it out of committee by a vote of 9-4 and sent it on to the Senate floor for debate and votes. Four days later, on August 28th, the full Senate on the first vote on AB 273 voted 20-14 to approve. Under California Senate rules, a vote of 21 is required to pass a bill, but they can keep voting on a bill as many times as they want. On the second vote, the tally was 22-15 to approve AB 273: Two Democratic Senators voted NO and three other Democrats abstained, otherwise the vote was along party lines. Thus the new revised AB 273 was sent back to the Assembly to be voted on again.
With only three days to go before required legislative adjournment, the situation in Sacramento was extremely tense. Bills were being passed at record rates while legislators debated every issue: the water crisis, the electricity crisis, the education crisis, and any other crisis that was exploitable. On August 29th, AB 273 was reported to the Assembly Public Safety Committee. The pressure on the members of that Committee was at an all-time high. Lobbyists in Sacramento reported that the legislators’ phones were ringing off the hook and most of the calls were about the crisis over AB 273. When the Assembly Public Safety Committee met on August 30, it failed to bring up AB 273 for a vote - a curious turn of events, for time was running out.
Then it became apparent that political maneuvering was going on. California Governor Grey Davis, who ran on the gun control issue in 1998, had made his position on AB 273 clear. This year he vowed to veto the measure should it reach his desk. So Jack Scott and the Assembly Democratic leader Keven Shelley agreed that it was best not to “jam” the Governor with a bill he didn’t want. According to Emily Bazar, reporting in the Sacramento Bee, “‘We don’t want to put him in an uncomfortable position,’ Shelley said. ‘I think the governor has indicated strong support for this next year.’”
“Wait ‘til next year” is not only a phrase used by losing baseball teams, it has become the cry of politicians who know that passing gun control legislation during the last three months of an election year is political suicide. The gun control issue is one that has the ability to anger the electorate into voting out those supporting restrictive gun measures. Since their convention, the Democrats have become very quiet about their support for more gun laws. They know it hurts them with union members and according to reports, many of those calling against AB 273 were very angry union members. They also know that passing restrictive gun-control legislation energizes the vote of those who are affected by the legislation, thus tipping the scales against the anti-gun legislators.
It has happened before. Clinton remembers the 1994 Congressional elections. Politicians in Washington state remember the initiative 676, a gun control law, which was supposed to win in 1997, but not only lost by 72%, it took down all the other initiatives on the ballot. Even in California, they remember Proposition 15, which lost overwhelmingly and that was back in 1982! California gun owners will remember AB 273 this November, and may just decide to vote the rascals out.
Tanya K. Metaksa is the former executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action. She is the author of Safe, Not Sorry, a self-protection manual, published in 1997. She has appeared on numerous talk and interview shows such as "Crossfire," the "Today" show, "Nightline," "This Week with David Brinkley" and the "McNeil-Lehrer Hour," among others
[This message has been edited by Oatka (edited September 07, 2000).]
Hardhats with Guns
By Tanya Metaksa
MANY OF THOSE who have studied the issue of gun control in the United States over the past forty years understand it is an issue that is politically motivated and driven.
The late Senator Thomas Dodd, (D-CT) became a national political figure on the issue of gun control. Former Congressman and now Judge Abner Mikva is another politician who became known as a gun control fanatic and got national press as a result. Today we have former Congressman and now Senator Chuck Schumer as the leading Congressional figure on the issue. And, of course, there is Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore who have embraced the issue with gusto over the past eight years. But it’s not a matter of real principle, it is a real matter of politics.
This year’s battle over gun control in the state of California is a prime example of politics over issues. With the adjournment of the California legislature on August 31st, California gun owners narrowly escaped another draconian gun law. As the deadline for the legislature to adjourn came ever closer, Representative Jack Scott kept pushing his compulsory training, registration, and licensing bill for handgun purchasers, AB 273.
When AB 273 originally passed the California Assembly, it did not include any of Jack Scott’s restrictive gun legislation. He amended the bill when it reached the Senate to include not only training, registration, and licensing for new handgun purchasers, but also for any currently owned handgun. The actual language was: A list of all currently owned handgun, which shall include the serial number, make, and model of each firearm. Although that section was eliminated in the final push for passage, it is now crystal clear what Representative Scott and many of his colleagues supporting the legislation had in mind: The same kind of law for handguns that Californians already have for so-called “assault weapons.” A law that enables confiscation of firearms by the state through state-required registration of those same firearms.
That very restrictive and onerous language was passed by the California Senate Public Safety Committee on June 27 and sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee where it languished until August. Then, with two weeks until adjournment, the California Senate decided to push for its enactment. On August 24th the Senate Appropriations Committee voted it out of committee by a vote of 9-4 and sent it on to the Senate floor for debate and votes. Four days later, on August 28th, the full Senate on the first vote on AB 273 voted 20-14 to approve. Under California Senate rules, a vote of 21 is required to pass a bill, but they can keep voting on a bill as many times as they want. On the second vote, the tally was 22-15 to approve AB 273: Two Democratic Senators voted NO and three other Democrats abstained, otherwise the vote was along party lines. Thus the new revised AB 273 was sent back to the Assembly to be voted on again.
With only three days to go before required legislative adjournment, the situation in Sacramento was extremely tense. Bills were being passed at record rates while legislators debated every issue: the water crisis, the electricity crisis, the education crisis, and any other crisis that was exploitable. On August 29th, AB 273 was reported to the Assembly Public Safety Committee. The pressure on the members of that Committee was at an all-time high. Lobbyists in Sacramento reported that the legislators’ phones were ringing off the hook and most of the calls were about the crisis over AB 273. When the Assembly Public Safety Committee met on August 30, it failed to bring up AB 273 for a vote - a curious turn of events, for time was running out.
Then it became apparent that political maneuvering was going on. California Governor Grey Davis, who ran on the gun control issue in 1998, had made his position on AB 273 clear. This year he vowed to veto the measure should it reach his desk. So Jack Scott and the Assembly Democratic leader Keven Shelley agreed that it was best not to “jam” the Governor with a bill he didn’t want. According to Emily Bazar, reporting in the Sacramento Bee, “‘We don’t want to put him in an uncomfortable position,’ Shelley said. ‘I think the governor has indicated strong support for this next year.’”
“Wait ‘til next year” is not only a phrase used by losing baseball teams, it has become the cry of politicians who know that passing gun control legislation during the last three months of an election year is political suicide. The gun control issue is one that has the ability to anger the electorate into voting out those supporting restrictive gun measures. Since their convention, the Democrats have become very quiet about their support for more gun laws. They know it hurts them with union members and according to reports, many of those calling against AB 273 were very angry union members. They also know that passing restrictive gun-control legislation energizes the vote of those who are affected by the legislation, thus tipping the scales against the anti-gun legislators.
It has happened before. Clinton remembers the 1994 Congressional elections. Politicians in Washington state remember the initiative 676, a gun control law, which was supposed to win in 1997, but not only lost by 72%, it took down all the other initiatives on the ballot. Even in California, they remember Proposition 15, which lost overwhelmingly and that was back in 1982! California gun owners will remember AB 273 this November, and may just decide to vote the rascals out.
Tanya K. Metaksa is the former executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action. She is the author of Safe, Not Sorry, a self-protection manual, published in 1997. She has appeared on numerous talk and interview shows such as "Crossfire," the "Today" show, "Nightline," "This Week with David Brinkley" and the "McNeil-Lehrer Hour," among others
[This message has been edited by Oatka (edited September 07, 2000).]