When Americans nominate their presidential candidates next year,
the Second Amendment won’t be the first thing on their minds. The
issue didn’t even appear in a recent CNN poll that found that the economy, Iraq,
health care, immigration, and terrorism are the nation’s biggest
concerns.
But in a country where 36 percent of Democrats and 48 percent of
Republicans have firearms in their homes, the issue is still a locked and loaded
one for candidates of both parties.
Republican presidential hopefuls, as expected, worked hard to
win over the members of the National Rifle Association at the
organization’s convention in September. But even otherwise gun-shy
Democrats are expressing Strange New Respect for gun owners.
Recently, Senator Barack Obama told a Harlan, Iowa, crowd that his wife
Michelle had been traveling “up…in eastern Iowa…and she said
‘Boy, it’s really pretty up here,’ but she said, ‘But you know, I
can see why if I was living out here, I’d want a gun. Because, you
know, 9-1-1 is going to take some time before somebody
responds.’”
So now we know that Obama’s wife has some vaguely pro-Second
Amendment views. Her husband, and many other presidential
aspirants, are proving harder to get a bead on. Before they cast
ballots for president, there are two Big Questions that informed
gun owners want answered. They are:
1. Will candidate X veto anti-gun legislation?
And by “anti-gun legislation” we mean assault weapon bans; gun
registration; and attempts to repeal the Protection of Lawful
Commerce in Arms Act (Lawful Commerce Act hereafter), which
prohibits lawsuits against firearms manufacturers when criminals
use their products.
2. Will he appoint judges who will strike down
gun-control laws? This is especially important because the
Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of D.C.’s handgun
ban next summer. A little judicial-branch muscle in the aftermath
of a pro-gun ruling could set the tone for the next several
decades, at least.
TO TAKE THE DEMOCRATS first, it’s worth mentioning that not one
official website of the three frontrunners prominently features the
candidate’s stance on the right to keep and bear arms.
However, the issue isn’t totally ignored. John Edwards actually
makes some pro-gun statements under his plan for “Restoring
Hope to Rural America.” He supports gun rights in a limited
fashion, but usually links them to hunting rather than
self-defense. Edwards also opposed the Lawful Commerce Act — what,
you thought a former trial lawyer would vote to limit
legal liabilities? — and supports assault weapon bans.
The other leading Democrats candidates have clearer positions
that they’re currently trying very hard to ignore. Clinton has a
long-established anti-gun record. While in the Illinois
legislature, Obama voted against giving leniency to people caught
defending their homes with banned handguns.
Edwards’s stance could peel off rural voters while ceding some
big-city liberal votes to Clinton and Obama in the primaries. This
is part of his overall strategy, including his faux working-class
image and an emphasis on rural poverty.
It could work. Rural-dwellers made up a quarter of 2004
presidential election voters, and they’re under-served by the other
two candidates. Many big-city heavy states (California, New York,
Massachusetts, Illinois) won’t hold their primaries until February
5, giving Edwards time to build momentum in smaller states.
Edwards’s moderate pro-gun position could help even more come
general election time. Republicans only narrowly won rural areas in
the 2006 midterms and aren’t making much progress. In a general
election, increased rural support won’t mean decreased urban
support, because city liberals will still vote Democrat.
THERE ISN’T A LARGE constituency in the Republican Party for gun
control. Half of Republicans have firearms in their homes and few
want to go grab guns from others. As such, Republican contenders
play down any gun-grabbing tendencies they might have at least
until the general election, and preferably until after they’ve left
the White House and started writing their memoirs.
Those Republicans who aren’t gung-ho about the Second Amendment
walk a tightrope. They don’t want to lose gun owners’ support by
not coming far enough in their direction, but the candidates are
also wary of moving too far away from their former position, too
fast. The shift can attract the “flip-flopper” label, which
endangers their standing with both pro- and anti-gun voters.
Republican voters are a little more demanding than Democrats on
this issue. They worry not only about stated positions but also
about trustworthiness. Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee and John McCain
have basically strong, consistent records. Though McCain supports
some control measures, he’s done so pretty regularly. Rudy Giuliani
and Mitt “I shot me some varmints” Romney, on the other hand, are
coming off stints as Northeastern RINOs. They’re praying to a
benevolent Judeo-Christian Deity that voters won’t hold their
records against them.
Giuliani ran a city with a handgun permit system that bordered on a ban, and even today professes a
sort-of federalist, ruralist interpretation of the Second
Amendment. He’s said, “maybe you have one solution [in a big city]
and in another place, more rural, more suburban, other issues, you
have a different set of rules,” which would put him in roughly the
same category as John Edwards and Michelle Obama. He has claimed to
think D.C.’s outright ban is unconstitutional, but he’s never
bothered to explain why it’s unconstitutional while the law he
enforced is A-OK. Also, as mayor he sued the gun industry for legally distributing
its products to government-licensed dealers.
As an olive branch to conservatives, Giuliani has promised to
appoint “strict-constructionist” judges and stressed his respect
for federalism. Conservatives have been skeptical on both fronts,
reacting cooly to his NRA address and wincing at the notion that a
fundamental constitutional right should depend on regional politics
or population density.
As Massachusetts governor, Romney defended the state’s “tough gun laws.” He waited
for his presidential campaign to join the NRA and discover that the Second
Amendment protects an individual right. He claims the only gun law
he would sign is an assault-weapon ban, and like Giuliani he
professes strict-constructionism.
If Giuliani or Romney manages to escape hostile fire in the
primaries, the nominee’s positions might prove attractive to some
moderates. But he would have a much harder time than any of the
basically pro-gun candidates in bringing home the normal pro-gun
vote, if the Supreme Court strikes D.C.’s gun ban down, or
harnessing the anger of tens of millions of Americans, if the
Supremes narrowly decide to ignore the clear meaning of the Second
Amendment.
THE GREAT WILD CARD in all this is the National Rifle Association.
The Washington Times recently reported that the organization was considering
breaking with tradition by making a primary-election endorsement.
Head lobbyist Chris Cox cited the “front-loading” of the process —
if neither party picks a true Second Amendment defender, there’ll
be no one worthy of a general-election NRA endorsement. The
organization doesn’t want to sit out the way it did in 1992 and 1996.
Even the NRA’s fiercest critics have to concede that its efforts
— from grassroots activism to Capitol Hill lobbying — bring
results. A recent Independence Institute study
found that, in any election for a seat in the House of
Representatives, an endorsement can increase a candidate’s share of
the vote by 3 to 5 percent per 10,000 NRA members in that
district.
If Giuliani and Romney’s gun records set them back a bit now, an
NRA intervention could tip the balance in many close primary
elections, especially if an announcement were made between Iowa and
New Hampshire…
