Gun rights an important component of 2008 elections
October 1, 2008

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

With less than six weeks left in the longest presidential campaign in American history, the road to the White House appears to run through fewer than 10 states.

These battlegrounds, many of them in either the Rust Belt or the West, could hold the key to whether Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. John McCain becomes the nation’s 44th president. And the outcomes there could turn in part on the impact of the campaign’s two female superstars: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who narrowly lost the Democratic nomination to Obama, and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain’s surprise Republican running mate.

Palin’s emergence seems to have changed some fundamental dynamics in the race. In some cases, she may have won votes for McCain; in other cases she may have turned people off, not necessarily by what she said or did, but because of what establishment media commentators and the newer bloggers may have said about her.

What is especially curious about the 2008 presidential race is that it some ways it reflects back to the 1948 race, except that the party vectors are reversed. In 1948, with bad poll numbers and a Democratic Party split three ways by Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace, every major media outlet and poll predicted a victory for the Republican candidate, New York Gov. Thomas E. Dewey. In fact, some newspapers went so far as to publish papers that claimed Dewy won that election.

As 2008 began most pundits and a lot of people were willing to bet good money that the Democrat who was nominated would be the next president. The polls gave the sitting Republican president the lowest favorable rating; energy and food prices skyrocketed; jobs were being lost; the economy was in a shambles. Some of those pundits figured that Hillary Clinton would surely be the next president, or at least they did until she lost the nomination to a new personality who was attracting new and committed voters.

Now, however, for a lot of reasons we don’t have to pursue in detail in this column, the Democrats risk the very real possibility that they will snatch defeat from a sure victory. The reason is issues and one of those issues in personal security in terms of firearms civil rights. That issue will play out differently in different states, but it will have a bearing in most of those battleground states mentioned above. Some of the nine are perennials: Florida and three old Great Lakes industrial giants of the Rust Belt—Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, with their trove of Electoral College votes.

But the country’s population shifts have put other states long considered safely Republican into play this November: Virginia and New Hampshire in the East, and Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico in the West.

Together, the nine up-for-grab states offer 121 electoral votes—45% of the 270 needed for election. Most other states are considered safely in the column of McCain or Obama, and in fact may not get to see the candidates or their TV ads.

Of course, there are a number of third party and independent candidates also running this year, and they could help shift enough votes from one major party candidate or another enough in some battleground states to determine the winner of that state’s electoral votes.

In some of the battleground states, the firearms civil rights issue is more important than others, but since all politics is essentially local, it is important to remember that all 435 seats in the House of Representatives and a third of the Senate are on the ballot this year. A surprising number of the Senate races involve open seats where both parties are fighting hard.

If the major party platforms have any relevance to the Nov. 4 election, they relate to presidential and congressional races. The platforms may be general, but here they are:

Democrats’ platform:
“We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ 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 commonsense 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.”

Republicans’ platform
“We uphold the right of individual Americans to own firearms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We applaud the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller affirming that right, and we assert the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. We call on the next president to appoint judges who will similarly respect the Constitution. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend themselves, their property, and communities.

“We call for education in constitutional rights in schools, and we support the option of firearms training in federal programs serving senior citizens and women. We urge immediate action to review the automatic denial of gun ownership to returning members of the Armed Forces who have suffered trauma during service to their country. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, which are transparent attempts to deprive citizens of their rights. We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as violations of the Second Amendment. We recognize that gun control only affects and penalizes law-abiding citizens, and that such proposals are ineffective at reducing violent crime.”

How relevant is the gun issue to the election which will be decided on Nov. 4?

Well, consider this. Some newspapers are reporting that gun sales are brisk ahead of the election, that people anticipate that the changes, which the candidates of both major parties promise, might not be for the good.

One newspaper suggested that gun sales are going boom around the country as gunowners and gun advocates brace for a potential Democrat in the White House for the first time in almost 10 years. They quote gun shop owners who say there is a definite trend that involves people of all walks of life, of all races, and all economic strata.

But there may be more to the trend than the prospect that the election could bring an unwelcome change in the gun laws. It could also be that with headlines predicting more and more economic crises and disasters of all kinds, plus the continuing concerns about terrorism and crime, that people may think this is a good time to get the kinds of guns and ammunition they might have to rely upon in the unknown future.
In times of uncertainty, some people like to look to their emergency water, food and shelter needs. Others like to put some money into precious metals and jewels with enduring values.

And still others prefer to invest in guns and ammunition that they can count on for more than recreation or investment.

This has certainly been a strange and extremely long election starting as far back as November 2004. Its dynamic keeps changing, sometimes by internal forces, sometime from external forces. And it isn’t just about the next occupant of the White House but the makeup of the Congress and, ultimately, the Supreme Court.
Return to Archive Index