Too Early for 2002 General Election Post Mortem Column
December 10, 2002
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
Nov. 27—the day this column is being written—may be a little early to conduct a post mortem on the general elections held earlier this month. That is because the elections are not over.
On Dec. 7, voters in Louisiana will complete the process by electing a US senator in a special runoff between incumbent Democrat Mary Landrieu and Republican challenger Susan Terrell—neither of whom garnered more than 50% of the vote on Nov. 5. There are those political observers who claim that the run-off was part of a Republican strategy that included that party fielding three GOP candidates against Landrieu in the general election, hoping that would weaken her in the follow-up vote necessitated by Louisiana election law.
It seems like a close race with polls showing the narrow lead shifting back and forth. One recent survey had Terrell ahead by 7 points, but below 50%. Another has Landrieu ahead but with just 50.2%.
Of course, all it takes to win any election is 50% plus one vote. So, this one looks like it is going down to the wire. Based on results of the Nov. 5 balloting, the Republicans won enough seats to retake control of the US Senate. Even if Landrieu, who has a generally anti-gun record, including support for mandatory gun locks, wins, her party will still be in the minority. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) will still become chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) will still be Majority Leader.
2003 Congress Issues
This may be a comfort to many gunowners, but no assurance that they are truly safe from further infringements of their right to acquire and keep firearms for lawful purposes. Two key tests in the new Congress will come in the form of legislation to establish a national ballistic imaging database for all new firearms and the reauthorization or demise of the 1994 ban on “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines” which is due to sunset in September 2004. Both issues were given extra impetus by the recent “Beltway sniper” murders in several states.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) oppose the proposal to create the digital ballistic imaging database, but do support an alternative measure which would fund a comprehensive study of the concept. Given the fact that the anti-gunners and the media have really ratcheted up the cry for the database and the mounting evidence—including a California study that state’s attorney general, Bill Lockyer, is trying to bury—that such a database would be costly and produce little, the idea of an unbiased study that would help explain the issue to the American public makes sense.
On the question of dropping or renewing the 1994 Clinton gun and magazine ban, gunowners can expect a reprise of the whole debate. As reported elsewhere in this issue, the major national and state anti-gun organizations are gearing up for a big battle over continuing the ban. They expect to be in unusual lockstep in supporting not just the renewal of the ban, but an extension to include more of their original agenda. And if the question does come up for debate, we can expect a host of related new restrictions to be attached, including background checks on secondary sales at gun shows, matches and flea markets.
Certainly those who had hoped a more pro-gun-rights climate would prevail with the GOP in control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives have another think coming. Even if no legislation directly affecting firearms ownership and the Second Amendment is proposed or enacted, there are plenty of concerns related to traditional American liberties when the “War on Terrorism” is taken into consideration.
Many civil libertarians, gun rights advocates, and constitutional scholars are concerned about the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act and the expanded authorities granted intelligence agencies and the military to troll for electronic data on all Americans. As reported elsewhere in this issue, gun ownership will be one of the data fields in the new Pentagon experiment in privacy invasion.
Cargo Pilots Unarmed
Some have cheered the Homeland Security provision which allows volunteer, trained pilots of commercial passenger planes to be armed with handguns as a last ditch defense for their planes, their passengers and themselves. But others are concerned that the air cargo companies were able to add an amendment to the Homeland Security package which deprives pilots of FedEx, UPS, Airborne and other cargo planes of similar protection. Curiously, the crews of these planes already would seem to have less protection and greater security concerns regarding hijackers and explosives than passenger planes. And cargo planes can just as easily be used as weapons of mass destruction as passenger planes.
To give you an idea of how concerned some folks are with the direction the government is taking in the “War on Terrorism,” the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced on Nov. 25 that it plans to hire a conservative firebrand and pro-rights champion, former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), to work on informational and data privacy issues.
The announcement comes on the heels of an earlier ACLU disclosure that the outgoing Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, Richard Armey (R-TX), who did not seek re-election in 2002, is considering consulting for the civil liberties group.
While the Armey-ACLU link may come as a surprise, the tie-in with Barr should not. Barr, who lost his seat to another pro-gun Republican, John Linder (R-GA), during a primary fight for a Democrat-gerrymandered district in September, has been a go-to guy for usually Democrat-linked civil liberties groups and gun organizations since Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Oklahoma City bombing, and other events.
In fact, beginning in the early 1990s, the ACLU and other non-gun civil liberties groups as well as pro-gun organizations were joined in a coalition to stem federal law enforcement abuses and preserve habeas corpus which was under attack in the mid-90s Clinton terrorism bill. During that time, the conservative-labeled Barr was one of the principal players.
I see a parallel to another older friend, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI). A number of years ago, some devoutly Republican mutual friends asked Dingell how he could be a Democrat and such a staunch defender of the Second Amendment. The answer for Dingell, like that for Barr, is that they are both constitutionalists first and political party members second.
The Gunnies Curse
About 20 years ago, constitutional attorney, author and pro-gun activist David T. Hardy penned a column for Gun Week in which he traced the sordid conclusions to the political careers of many famous anti-gunners. Hardy’s theme was that they were all affected with mental problems, criminal tendencies or other classic failings which allowed the curse of righteous gunowners to pay them back for their transgressions. One of many principle figures in his article was Tim Sullivan of New York Sullivan Law infamy.
From time to time over the years there have been many reminders that there really is such a thing as the curse of the gunnies.
Consider the case of Wisconsin state Senate Majority Leader Chuck Chvala, who was one of the two major Democratic culprits in preventing a concealed carry bill that seemed headed for victory from coming to a vote this past March.
In October, Associated Press reported that Chvala was charged with extortion and official misconduct in a scandal that tarnished the state’s reputation for squeaky clean politics. Chvala was accused of demanding campaign contributions for himself and other Democrats and threatening to block legislation if lobbyists failed to deliver.
Chvala may yet be proven innocent, but considering his anti-gun position, the charges are certainly not surprising.
Return to Archive Index
