President Obama's press conference on gun violence is being hailed as "sweeping" and "the biggest gun-control push in generations".
The president announced 23 executive actions, which he admits "are in no way a substitute for action from members of Congress". He then proposed Congress "must act soon" on universal background checks on gun purchases, limiting high-capacity magazines, and restoring the ban on so-called assault weapons.
Should we expect any of this to actually pass?
Anyone who thinks this is a slam-dunk is kidding themselves. Any gun control legislation would have to pass the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
But you already thought of that. More interesting is the fact that Senate Democrats will likely pose an even bigger hurdle.
Still scarred from overreaching on this issue a decade ago, in 2014 Democrats will have to defend Senate seats in states like Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina and South Dakota. (Until recently, West Virginia would have been on this list; Senator Jay Rockefeller's decision to retire only serves to reinforce this message.)
Do we really think Harry Reid wants to put his vulnerable Senate members on the line by having them cast a tough vote that might be moot anyway, if the House rejects the legislation?
On the other hand, Newtown does seem to have resonated more than past shootings. Meanwhile, from a ridiculously mishandled press conference, to producing an unwisely conceived video mentioning President Obama's daughters, to releasing an ill-advised target-shooting video game app, the National Rifle Association seems to be, well, shooting itself in the foot. It's almost as if they're trying to help Obama.
What is more, the White House might have powerful allies in this fight. As I've noted, they appear to be attempting to co-opt "stakeholders" like Walmart (the largest gun retailer in the nation).
Just as the White House enlisted Big Pharma to pass Obamacare, enlisting a big business with red state bona fides – as opposed to the effete, big city brand of, say, a Michael Bloomberg – would certainly provide cover for red state Democrats. And that would dramatically increase the odds of passing something.
Why might Walmart play along? For one thing, a law requiring universal background checks – closing the so-called "gun show loophole" – would presumably be good for the bottom line.
Pushing for the return of an assault weapons ban is probably a bridge too far, politically. It didn't have an appreciable impact, in terms of curbing gun violence, after Bill Clinton championed it in the 1990s, but it did lead to more gun sales – and more Democratic loses. As liberal Bill Scher concedes, over at the New Republic:
"Obama doesn't need an assault weapons ban."
Assuming congressional leaders craft legislation that pushes for background checks and banning high-capacity magazines, even that would require running an actual campaign. President Obama would have to enlist a disparate coalition of stakeholders and political leaders, and probably also barnstorm the nation to sell it. (And if it passed, groups like the NRA would still to continue to lobby against the law, though perhaps not competently.)
It won't be easy. The smart money's still on stasis, but the unknown factor remains how much Newtown has changed the political environment.
The nation would have to be convinced this is not a liberal scheme to slouch down a slippery slope toward universal registration, leading inexorably, in the minds of second amendment advocates, to confiscation. Instead, they will have to be persuaded that this really is a common-sense approach to keeping our kids safe.
The president announced 23 executive actions, which he admits "are in no way a substitute for action from members of Congress". He then proposed Congress "must act soon" on universal background checks on gun purchases, limiting high-capacity magazines, and restoring the ban on so-called assault weapons.
Should we expect any of this to actually pass?
Anyone who thinks this is a slam-dunk is kidding themselves. Any gun control legislation would have to pass the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
But you already thought of that. More interesting is the fact that Senate Democrats will likely pose an even bigger hurdle.
Still scarred from overreaching on this issue a decade ago, in 2014 Democrats will have to defend Senate seats in states like Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina and South Dakota. (Until recently, West Virginia would have been on this list; Senator Jay Rockefeller's decision to retire only serves to reinforce this message.)
Do we really think Harry Reid wants to put his vulnerable Senate members on the line by having them cast a tough vote that might be moot anyway, if the House rejects the legislation?
On the other hand, Newtown does seem to have resonated more than past shootings. Meanwhile, from a ridiculously mishandled press conference, to producing an unwisely conceived video mentioning President Obama's daughters, to releasing an ill-advised target-shooting video game app, the National Rifle Association seems to be, well, shooting itself in the foot. It's almost as if they're trying to help Obama.
What is more, the White House might have powerful allies in this fight. As I've noted, they appear to be attempting to co-opt "stakeholders" like Walmart (the largest gun retailer in the nation).
Just as the White House enlisted Big Pharma to pass Obamacare, enlisting a big business with red state bona fides – as opposed to the effete, big city brand of, say, a Michael Bloomberg – would certainly provide cover for red state Democrats. And that would dramatically increase the odds of passing something.
Why might Walmart play along? For one thing, a law requiring universal background checks – closing the so-called "gun show loophole" – would presumably be good for the bottom line.
Pushing for the return of an assault weapons ban is probably a bridge too far, politically. It didn't have an appreciable impact, in terms of curbing gun violence, after Bill Clinton championed it in the 1990s, but it did lead to more gun sales – and more Democratic loses. As liberal Bill Scher concedes, over at the New Republic:
"Obama doesn't need an assault weapons ban."
Assuming congressional leaders craft legislation that pushes for background checks and banning high-capacity magazines, even that would require running an actual campaign. President Obama would have to enlist a disparate coalition of stakeholders and political leaders, and probably also barnstorm the nation to sell it. (And if it passed, groups like the NRA would still to continue to lobby against the law, though perhaps not competently.)
It won't be easy. The smart money's still on stasis, but the unknown factor remains how much Newtown has changed the political environment.
The nation would have to be convinced this is not a liberal scheme to slouch down a slippery slope toward universal registration, leading inexorably, in the minds of second amendment advocates, to confiscation. Instead, they will have to be persuaded that this really is a common-sense approach to keeping our kids safe.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment, just make sure they are not vulgar or they will be removed.