Another Report of the Demise of the 2nd Amedment

From who else, but Mother Jones:

Most postelection coverage has focused on how Republicans drubbed Democrats in the battle for Congress, but there was another resounding victory on Tuesday worth noting, and it wasn’t a partisan one. Universal background checks for gun buyers became law in Washington state, the first such measure to be passed by popular vote in any state in recent memory.

And popular it was, supported by 60 percent of voters. They agreed that buying weapons at gun shows or on the internet should no longer be possible without basic regulations. “Our goal has never been about finding a single solution that will end gun violence once and for all,” said Seattle Mayor Ed Murray after Initiative 594 passed. “Instead, our goal has been to enact a sound system of commonsense rules that can, by working in concert, make an enormous difference.” Murray noted that states with expanded background checks—now 18 of them, plus Washington, DC—have fewer women killed in domestic-violence situations, fewer law enforcement officers shot, and fewer suicides with firearms. The editors of the Seattle Times said the wide margin of victory showed that “voters feel the grim, relentless toll of gun violence.”

…The gun lobby has long tapped allies in statehouses to block firearms regulations, but the Washington experience may have just revealed a potent threat to that modus operandi. Next up? Glaze says Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, and Maine are strong prospects. Ballot initiatives tend to be expensive (and aren’t allowed in all states), but expanded background checks look to be a solid bet, consistently drawing overwhelming support in national polls.

We shall see, again the lie being toted is that this is simply a law to regulate online and gun show sales, when in fact it is a law against touching a gun you don’t own. It’s poorly written, nearly impossible to enforce, and intentionally draconian.

I can’t imagine this law behaving any differently than many of the other overbearing laws in the United States. You see there are activists like me who are quick to oppose any malum prohibitum laws because I KNOW gun laws well, and know what will do good, and what will just punish lawful gun owners. Still most gun owners and gun-friendly people in America aren’t as well versed in National and local gun laws. I frankly don’t blame them, they’re confusing, illogical, and numerous. Because of this, they can be fooled that a “Simple Law” both A) is what it says it is, and B) will actually accomplish it’s stated goal.

Again the Federal Assault Weapons ban was A) Supposed to ban certain guns, B) Lower Crime, and C) Take “Overly Dangerous Guns”, often mislabeled and incorrectly described as “machine guns” off the streets. In the 10 years of that law before it was allowed to sunset, people found out all over the nation that it was a lie. So it passed with a good degree of popularity, and it was repealed with just as much popularity.

Bloomberg is taking a victory lap before attempting to target more states. Some I’m more concerned about than others. Oregon tends to have a similar political dichotomy as Washington, so people in that state should fortify their position as a preemptive strike against Michael Bloomberg. Nevada also has some interesting political dynamics that could be exploited, but that’s a state well known for people just going off into the desert to shoot, which would become a crime if more than one party is shooting, and guns are traded. Maine I really don’t see as anything but a hill for Bloomberg to die on. They just had a similar turnout AGAINST a bill that would severely restrict the hunting of bears. Nationally hunting is on the decline, but it is still VERY popular in Maine, and this defeat by another overbearing outside organization (in this case the Humane Society of the United States) could be a canary in the coal mine for Maine. A strong hunting population will be tough to avoid when passing a similar bill as it is VERY common for friends to lend or exchange guns during a hunting season. Hunting guns can be VERY specialized, and if you have a hunting trip planned, and want a particular gun that will do better where you’re hunting than anything in your personal collection, you might ask a buddy who isn’t hunting at the time to borrow their gun. Also from all accounts I’ve generally heard, most people going out for a first-time hunt don’t buy much equipment. Blaze Orange safety clothes, guns, stands, blinds, calls et al, add up very quickly, so new hunters tend to just borrow all that stuff, and later buy their own if they decide to make it an annual pastime. Hell the only time I’ve hunted was in Colorado on Prairie Dogs. I didn’t have a rifle with me, so I borrowed one. In Colorado NOW this would have been a crime (not that law enforcement would have said peep if I was questioned).

Arizona, I just don’t see it happening. The Gabby Giffords PAC is based there, but even when Ms. Giffords was a public representative she was pro-gun. I have a few readers in Arizona, so maybe you can point out any nuance that I’ve missed in the state politics.

Last up, let’s talk money:

Groups on both sides of the background checks issue poured considerable money into the state in the hopes of swaying voters in their direction. The National Rifle Association spent approximately $450,000 trying to defeat I-594

…Everytown for Gun Safety, the organization founded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, invested a whopping $4 million into promoting I-594.

…Everytown dedicated its resources to strategy and media on the ground, as well as to voter turnout operations. The group also donated $2.3 million to the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, the committee behind the efforts to expand background checks in the state.

Americans for Responsible Solutions, the anti-gun violence group created by former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) and her husband Mark Kelly, also made its presence felt with a $500,000 expenditure on voter persuasion mail.

…Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda Gates made donations in support of I-594 that totaled approximately $1 million, as did former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and his wife Connie. Seattle-based entrepreneur Nick Hanauer contributed $500,000 to the background checks effort.

Got that? Every anti-gun PAC outspent the NRA in a twofold to over Tenfold margin for this win. When you factor in that the NRA has a constantly growing membership, and the anti-gun pacs are not member-driven groups, but top-down groups where people can choose to donate to various people to dictate political action as they feel fit, this is really a small loss for the NRA, and a HUGE expense for the anti-gun victory.

Yes they won, and won handily, but it cost them a LOT of money. Adds an ironic twist to this Brady Campaign video:

Of course the Brady Campaign really has no money anymore, the few high-dollar donors have switched over to one of the several Bloomberg driven PACs, so in a sense this video is yet another example of in-fighting in the anti-gun world.

Also let’s talk about the private actors. Bloomberg is going to steam on, but this wasn’t his only fight he was throwing money at. He’s LOADED, but all you need to do is look at amazingly wealthy celebrities who have overspent their massive pocketbooks to see how fallible the rich can be when their primary action is throwing their money around. Names like Michael Jackson, Burt Reynolds, and Nicholas Cage come to mind. This is also why Bloomberg has essentially abandoned Mayors against Illegal guns, and started groups like Moms Demand Action, and Everytown. Mayors has become synonymous with his name, which is a detriment, same goes for him personally stumping for the laws he has drafted and supplied. He is ONLY a wallet right now.

Ballmer and Gates, I don’t see as national gun control advocates, and I don’t see them spending the same kind of money in states where they don’t reside. I could be wrong, but that’s my prediction. Even if they do start and national crusade they’ll quickly get their triumphs at Microsoft overshadowed by their desire to become Authoritarian carpetbaggers.

So again, I594 was a huge loss for gun rights, I won’t belittle that, but so was the Federal AWB, and I can’t help but see strong comparisons between those two laws.