Here's what... someone... wrote for Daily Kos.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/8/122221/2900/784/564662
2008 Dem platform demands reinstatement of Assault Weapons Ban, Dem election losses ahead? Hotlist
Yes, you read that right. In this diary, I will lay out the history of this dubious policy, why it needs to be dropped from our Dem platform permanently, and what you can do about it.
This diary is not going to provide a case for or against assault weapons bans on said ban's social utility or harm, nor is this diary meant as a discussion of the right to arms per se. Comments about such things do not belong here.
What this diary is about (and what we should be discussing) is that regardless of your feelings on the assault weapons ban, it affects our election chances for the worse in close elections.
Yes, you read that right. In this diary, I will lay out the history of this dubious policy, why it needs to be dropped from our Dem platform permanently, and what you can do about it. <strong>This diary is not going to provide a case for or against assault weapons bans on said ban's social utility or harm, nor is this diary meant as a discussion of the right to arms <em>per se</em>. Comments about such things do not belong here. </strong> <strong>What this diary is about (and what we should be discussing) is that regardless of your feelings on the assault weapons ban, it affects our election chances for the worse in close elections.</strong>
First, here's the draft policy.
Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition,
and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use
firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together
to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show
loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons
ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly
and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional
right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
So, let's begin.
What is an assault weapon? Why are we even talking about them?
The term "assault weapon" did not exist in either the common American lexicon or appear in any federal-level position paper before about 1992. Though the term existed previous to this, its usage was confined to individual states. Its first recorded national usage in 1992 was in a Republican position paper authored with the help of the Brady Campaign, then known as Handgun Control, Inc. This paper identified several characteristics of the newly-coined "assault weapon" definition, and pointed the finger at "assault weapons" and the features that made them especially useful in crime.
The list of features that make a weapon an "assault weapon" change based on jurisdiction, political agenda, and wording. A gun may be an "assault weapon" if it has one or more of the following:
*Ability to accept a detachable magazine
*Ability to hold 10 or more rounds
*Semi-automatic operation
*A pistol grip
*A folding stock
*and many others including "military appearance", flash hiders, etc.
This diary is not meant to be an exhaustive exploration of the "assault weapon" issue, and neither should the comments be. That information is easily available elsewhere.
The federal assault weapons ban of 1994 and the 2000 defeat of Gore
The original ban passed the House on 13 September 1994 and was signed into law the same day. It had several immediate effects. The first was a jump in prices of all magazines over ten rounds.
The second was a galvanization of all gun owners under the umbrella of the NRA. Indeed, it can be said that the 1994 assault weapons ban finalized the transition of the NRA from a fairly politically bipartisan gun safety and marksmanship organization into a mostly Republican-controlled political machine (the NRA did not even endorse a candidate in the 1992 or 1996 presidential election). The NRA in its current right-tilted orientation could not exist without the 1994 law.
The third was a small eruption of immediate losses in both the House and Senate in the 1994 and 1996 congressional elections, counting a total of 39 members of Congress from both parties. Here's a paperdescribing these races.
An effort to repeal the 1994 law was stalled in the 1996 Congress after a repeal bill had passed the House, but was never allowed to come to the Senate floor for a vote.
(I am aware that Clinton won the 1996 election despite his support and signing of the Assault Weapons Ban. It wasn't a close race, and there was no NRA endorsement of Dole. This diary refers to close races with NRA endorsements.)
The last, of course, was the defeat of Gore in the close 2000 election. Gore failed to win even his home state of Tennessee (uncommon in Presidential elections), as well as the swing states of Arkansas, Florida and West Virginia. Polling indicated that Gore's support of the assault weapons ban contributed to these key losses (USA Today), and even Clinton acknowledged the NRA's role in hurting Gore (CBS interview). Yes, I know they cheated in Florida. You know they cheated in Florida. But did we have to make it so damn easy? Florida has the epithet "Gunshine State" in some circles. Think Gore's support of the assault weapons ban helped or hurt him in FL?
Again, it doesn't matter what you think about the NRA. What matters is that even Clinton acknowledged that they successfully hurt Gore's chances in a very organized effort.
And ask yourself - would we be in Iraq right now under a Gore presidency? Don't answer that yet.
The 2004 sunset of the original ban and the defeat of Kerry
On 13 September 2004, the 1994 law sunset. Efforts for a renewal were fierce. Our nominee, John Kerry, was extraordinarily vocal in his support of the renewal, and even pointedly came off the campaign trail to vote for the renewal and issued a press release giving his reasons. The NRA kicked into high gear, throwing off press releases and member notifications weekly. They called him "the most anti-gun Presidential nominee in United States history." Mostly wrong, but with a kernel of truth.
He lost. Again, gun-owning swing states like OH, TN, FL, WV, and IN were the deciding factors, and FL and OH were very close. Could not the election results have been different?
And ask yourself - would we have been on a better track towards leaving Iraq if Kerry was in office? Or some other Dem that wasn't so dead set on renewing the Assault Weapons Ban? Don't answer that yet.
The 2007 attempt at reinstatement and its complete failure
In 2007, the bill was again introduced (don't we learn?) by Carolyn McCarthy - and this time without any expiration date. She famously appeared on CNN to tout the bill, but when questioned on even the most basic parts of the law "what is a barrel shroud?" she had no idea what the terms in her own bill meant, thus adding "shoulder thing that goes up" to the national lexicon. It could hardly be easier to make us Dems look like complete morons.
Despite gathering 66 cosponsors (mostly Dems - WHY?) the bill died before being brought to the floor. 66 cosponsors is more than enough to usually get a bill out there for a floor vote. Why didn't this one get out?
Massive grassroots opposition, headed by the NRA.
There is currently a 2008 version of this bill, but it (thankfully) isn't going anywhere.
Conclusion
There is at least some correlation between Democratic support for federal level gun control and Democratic election losses, and the NRA has an effect. What the exact degree of this correlation is I will not venture to explore, but it is enough to say that it exists and that it is not insignificant. What the exact degree of the NRA's effect is I will not venture a guess either, but it is enough to say that it exists and it is not insignificant.
So, now some talking points for my fellow Dems, explaining why not supporting a federal assault weapons ban won't hurt us and might help
First, there is a non-zero correlation between Democratic gun control and Democratic losses at the federal level. I've shown this above.
Second, the US cultural environment regarding guns has changed towards liberalizing gun laws. Since 1994, more and more states have signed legislation liberalizing concealed carry, affirming the right to defend your home, and making the confiscation of firearms in natural disasters illegal. Moreover, a lot of these bills have been introduced, sponsored, and voted for by Dems.
Third, the judicial environment regarding guns has changed. Does Heller vs. DC ring a bell? Simply put, an assault weapons ban might have flown before this case, but with Heller recognizing that there is at least some right to have a gun for defense in your home, a federal ban now has much shakier ground (some would say no ground at all) to stand on.
Fourth, gun ownership is election-deciding for pro-gun people and a non-priority for everyone else. Polls right now have Obama and McCain in a statistical dead heat. If we Dems stay neutral on guns with a plank like "we will support Americans' 2nd Amendment right to own firearms" and end there, it only costs the votes of a tiny splinter our party while ensuring more stay with us. Sure, some people might want more regulations of some kind, but they've repeatedly shown that they're not going to vote based on it. For those that want more liberal gun laws, they have shown that they will vote on it. And voting issues are what matter. If we go negative on guns, all 25 million Dem gun owners (yes, 25 million. 39% of gun owners are Dems) have reason to start putting Dem candidates under a microscope. And all gun owners are already skittish because of our party's "ban semi-autos, ban concealed carry, ban assault weapons, register all guns" past. Not all gun owners are Republicans, some are Dems - and we desperately need to keep them.
Last, and most importantly, it's self-contradicting policy. The plank says: "we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne." But a federal assault weapons ban is in fact saying that what Chicago wants dern well better work in Cheyenne. How's that for talking out of both sides of your mouth? Let's just drop it.
How can you help remove this election-losing plank from the platform?
First, if you're a local party member, resolutions need to work themselves up from the ground level. Use these talking points at your local meetings. Propose resolutions and try to get them implemented locally - and pass them up the chain.
Second, write letters to your Congresscritters asking them not to support further bans, as it might cost them their jobs and as a Dem you want to see them stay in Congress.
Third, write Janet Napolitano, the author of the DNCC platform and AZ governor.
Her address is:
DNCC Chair
The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Governor of Arizona
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Telephone (602) 542-4331
Toll Free 1-(800) 253-0883
Fax (602) 542-1381
Write real letters. Emails, online polls, all mean squat. Goes the old saw:
1 email means that 1 person out there feels the same way.
1 fax means that 10 people out there feel the same way.
1 telephone call means that 100 people out there feel the same way.
1 snail mail letter means that 1000 people out there feel the same way!
Again. This diary is not about gun rights, and comments about gun rights aren't on topic. It doesn't matter what you think about gun rights, what matters is if you want to see us Dems win the Presidency. What is on topic is discussing the seeming correlation between Dem support of assault weapons bans and Dem losses - and what we should do about it.
