I think that article (and related commentary) is seriously jumping the gun.
1) Just because Republicans won widely does not necessarily speak for a boon as far as gun
advocacy. Rather, we can merely be assured it won't be "as bad" for the next few years
2) We lost every race that was directly about gun control as best I can tell. The most publicly visible governor and initiative ballots were against us.
3) Bloomberg, Gates, et. al. were not chastened by the results. The governor who went the most out on a limb to Bloomberg's influence (Hickenlooper) was not tossed out on his ear, and the initiative in Washington was a resounding victory for the efforts of big money in politics*
4) The Washington initiative victory (and to a lesser extent the minimum wage initiative victories) has given the anti's the final solution to dealing with intransigent legislatures in states dominated by city populations (which is basically all of them that have initiative processes)
To expound on these:
1) The Republicans have frequently sided with gun grabbers, or at least, broke bread with them, when the political winds blew thusly. Gun owners may not be a minority, but those who care enough to know how to protect their rights certainly are, and therefore relying on a popular political organization for protection (or even representation) is a surefire way to be betrayed. Ultimately, the Republicans know they don't need to actually
do anything for us, since they have our votes regardless, so long as they do not actively pursue our enslavement. That we tend to be aligned with them on other issues only makes this factor all the more frustrating. I do not anticipate our newfound majority in the Senate or the huge one in the House to start spamming the White House with pro-gun initiatives, nor do I expect them to try repealing anything for the same reason (gun or otherwise
)
2) Related to No. 1, simply because a Republican won, does not mean the race was about gun control. Not even if both candidates had relevant histories on the topic. The main event in nearly all the races was economy/healthcare, with gun control being a "last year" topic that was at best paid lip service. The proof will be in whether the State Houses that have been so busy the last couple years propagating gun control laws, will now being moving or accelerating in the opposite direction. It remains to be seen if there is still more appetite for gun freedom in states that have been loosening restrictions (Texas seems hopeful for OC, though we aren't there yet), because we have to remember that
none of the reps or populations in these place will ever be as libertarian on the issue as we are, and
will find a point beyond which they will not allow more freedom (my guess is
real movement to oppose Federal oversight on in-state firearms, as well as refusal to cooperate with Federal agencies regulating gun stuff)
3) Bloomberg and the other billionaires did not intend to make a single penny off of their activism. Let's state that up front. Therefore, it really does not matter what "bang for the buck" they got, so long as their quarry capitulated. Which they did, in practically every race they made a point of winning. Their losses of resources dwarf ours, but it's like losing Stalingrad; the victory itself really does matter a great deal to the greater fight (both strategically and motivationally). Bloomberg's backers, when he bothers to rely on them, are ultimately only interested if he can deliver. If his stooges in Colorado had been both recalled and lost elections years after ramming through their bill under his promise of protection,
no politician would dare stick his neck out for Mike's hollow assurances. That did not happen, therefore the billionaires are greatly emboldened. Meanwhile, our side has shown our entire hand, in terms of what resources we are capable of raising, and how effective we can be against them. It would seem Bloomberg learned a lesson or two from the recalls in Colorado, and has made his policies divorced from easily vilified personalities (and downplayed his own connection)
4) Go back and look at threads/commentary shortly after the Manchin-Toomey bill failed, and you'll see a recurring question; "where are they gonna come from next?" We discovered shortly thereafter, that the failure at the national level spurred the anti-gun groups to lobby for restrictions at the state level, where they met with mixed results. Obviously, the varying makeup of legislatures made it difficult for the anti's to get access in certain areas. Also, legislators everywhere were well aware of both the victories and losses of the UBC's across the nation, and understood the prospect posed significant risks. I suspect Bloomberg and the others found most State houses too deliberative (get it?) for the high-strung, emotional histrionics his proposals required for passage.
Enter the initiative process; our most fearful enemy. Far, far too many states left this backdoor hacker solution to governance open in their Constitution, under the assumption that a legislature could be bribed into making poor law more readily than a populace. This assumption was made before massive income taxes, block grants for social services, and nationally organized political parties became the norm. Through initiatives, the Bloombergs have found the perfect vehicle for their emotional, reactionary, arbitrary, and capricious ambitions to become reality. They must simply scare a population bad enough (either by propaganda, waiting for a crisis, or both), and present their case wrapped in self-righteous indignation. It will be passed without any deliberation, and without any legal scrutiny by practically the entire electorate, before its flaws and contradictions can be fully exposed. A lie spreads across the world before the truth gets its shoes on, and that is exactly why the initiative process is almost
guaranteed to yield poor outcomes for a given measure. Unless our side finds a way to kneecap Bloomberg on the initiative front, we could shortly see slickly-marketed "common sense-sounding solutions" to constitutionally-protected activities in every state with a functional initiative process, with no recourse but years of expensive court battles, both uncertain in result and fraught with terrible potential consequences. Perhaps there is a way to remind people that they elect representatives precisely so ordinary citizens do not have to decide the issue clumsily at the ballot box (without debate)?
So what's the solution?
-Nuke the initiative process in states where that is possible. No good can come of it in this area of governance or any other. So long as the initiative process is not active, we can engage the proper channels of power as a super-minority and seek proper protections as needed. As long as 'the people' can trump the official legislature at the drop of a hat, our détente is badly incomplete and we
will eventually suffer for it (see: Washington State)
-Continue to enmesh the philosophy and legal arguments underpinning gun rights with issues popular among our opposition as well as our (current) allies. No executive or legislature will help us when we get unpopular enough, but if our protections are woven into the fabric keeping their ox warm and happy, they will not be gored. Personal property, privacy, and contraband laws are and will be the best avenues, here. If banning Assault Weapons means banning pot once it's legal, there will be few takers (only tokers)
-And I guess continuing to spread the word and educate people about the current state of affairs can't hurt. I never see us as being a majority; I really don't think enough people are bored enough to ponder all the intricacies of good governance, and thus hire representatives to run the machine for them. But if we can get a sizable portion of the 'poltical class' on our side, or to at least understand us, we'll have an outsized voice to lobby or govern with. As complex and personal as the path to "gunnie enlightenment" is though, this evangelism would be perfect to route through highschools or universities. Sadly, we have allowed ourselves to be shut out from these places (for exactly the same reasons) in the past decades, so this must be a territory we should focus on reclaiming a place on. Safety courses/lectures, as well as gun law primers, could be a possibility, though I have no idea how one would go about setting them up (school board, deans/directors, respectively? Possibly local government intervention?)
TCB
*Human behavior is economic behavior, so of course money and politics go hand in hand. I refer instead to the rather recent phenomenon of wealthy individuals brazenly seeking to influence specific non-local elections with both public threats and use of massive monetary input many times that of their rivals.
