Joe Tartaro, Executive Editor
by Joseph P. Tartaro | Executive Editor
The extraordinary 2016 election is over. While gunowners can be happy with the results and take some satisfaction in the role they played in the outcome, the long struggle to preserve and/or restore their full right to keep and bear arms is far from over.
With the exception of a few states on the east and west coasts and Illinois, the American heartland voted for Donald J. Trump, the candidate endorsed by the National Rifle Association in the face of the dire threat to the Second Amendment posed by the prospect of a Hillary Clinton victory.
In addition, Republicans, who tend to be more supportive of the right to keep and bear arms, kept control of the Senate and House of Representatives, and added to their control of state houses in many states. Led by the NRA, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and practically all other pro-gun organizations, voters in the American heartland expressed their desire for real change in the kind of government they have experienced for many years. An electorate fed up with government as usual—joined by millions of new voters—can now wait to see what the new president and a Congress controlled by his political party will do with this mandate for change.
What is especially telling is that the African-American vote and the Hispanic vote was not as solid for Clinton as had been predicted by many politicians and the media. Early on, the president of a largely African-American gun club commented that Trump was a “hard sell” in his community. In the end, however, Trump gained more of that vote than had been projected, and many others in the minority communities did not turn out to support Hillary as they had her husband Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Apparently, dissatisfaction with the status quo that was apparent from the results in both the Democrat and Republican primaries was more universal than imagined.
The outcome of the presidential and congressional elections, however, makes it clear that this is not a time for the voters to sit back in satisfaction or complacency. In another two years, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate will be up for election. In another four years, the White House will be up for grabs again. And in the meanwhile, there is much to be done.
The new White House and Congress will have to demonstrate convincingly that they can make changes. A column by Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman elsewhere in this issue lists many of the changes in federal gun laws and regulations that should be undertaken to “make the Second Amendment great again.” In other commentaries, especially on social media, others have provided extensive lists of changes that should be made.
But meanwhile, the election results tell us that the anti-gunners—cut off to some extent by the new leadership in Washington—will be shifting their focus to the states where they believe they have their best chance of advancing their agenda.
Voters and especially gunowners will have to keep well informed and vigilant in order to prevent Michael Bloomberg and his anti-gun allies from winning in state houses and localities what they have been temporarily denied on Capitol Hill. And the legislative process will not be the only route they take.
Bloomberg and company did score victories in November in several state referenda. They successfully pushed their “universal background check” agenda in Nevada and are targeting other states in the immediate future. As they did previously in Washington State, they spent enough money on their ballot campaign to notch another win in Nevada despite almost total opposition from the various county sheriffs there.
They also won in Oregon and Washington in November with other “soft” ballot measures that further crimp your Second Amendment rights. As with background checks referenda, voters have a hard time sorting out “soft” anti-gun questions. For example, in Washington State the initiative measure that passed would allow a court to issue protection orders to temporarily prevent access to firearms upon petition by a family or household member, or the police, for people considered dangerous to themselves or others. That initiative passed by a 71% to 29% margin, indicating that a majority of people will go along with proposals that appear to deal with specific problems.
Nobody wants criminals or dangerously mentally ill people to have access to or possess guns. Similarly, nobody wants the criminals to be able to buy guns, so there is a lot of support for the so-called “background check” approach. The problem is that background checks are not a very useful “gun control” concept. They have failed to prevent gun acquisition for a number of high profile mass murderers.
They can’t really work without a registry of who bought what gun and when. However, Bloomberg has billions of dollars he’s willing to invest in these feel good but largely worthless solutions that can’t and won’t keep people safe. He funneled more than $25 million on the questions in four states last November, and lost only in Maine. So he expects to continue to push his anti-gun agenda no matter who’s in the White House. And he will run similar campaigns in state houses where he believes he can score a victory. After all, to him it’s just money.
Meanwhile, in California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsome’s gun and ammunition control initiative, Prop 63, passed. It included: a background check and California Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition; a prohibition on the possession of large-capacity (over 10 rounds) ammunition magazines, and added procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons. The supporters of this measure raised $4.5 million versus the less than $1 million put up by the opponents.
So, while gunowners can bask in some successes this past November, the historic election was nothing more than the latest chapter in a long-running battle to preserve our gun rights. So, stay informed and stay involved.
Nothing’s really finished yet. The fat lady hasn’t even begun to sing.
