(2-17-2006) It’s too soon to call it a ‘done deal’ – after all, a bill is not yet even filed – but officials in Delaware show every sign of moving towards making theirs one of the vast majority of states which guarantee an honest citizen access to carry permits, without state police discretion turning it into a commodity to be bartered among the rich and influential.
Following the lead of the National Rifle Association, advocates are presently running a carefully crafted game plan to ensure all the pieces are place when the legislation is finally given to the Governor to advance. Stakeholders from across the spectrum – from potential opponents in the legislature, to judges whose testimony would be given great weight – are being tapped for input now so there will be fewer surprises during hearings. Assets and votes are being lined up in advance, and problems are being overcome before they risk the bill’s success.
Marylanders need to ask: how did NRA get Delaware to this point?
One thing we know their plan didn’t include, and that’s to frivolously submit shall-issue legislation year after year, as if it might get enacted by friction. A carry bill was last submitted in DE in 1996. Obviously it failed, but instead of rallying troops to futile annual hearings – as if an anti-gun legislator, upon hearing the 47th gun owner testify on why carry is important, will suddenly slap his forehead and exclaim “oh, that’s why we should pass it!” – NRA set about to get assets in place so they knew they could win when the time was right.
NRA did not train legislators to reflexively vote against gun bills. Instead, NRA started training legislators the value of working with the organization. Through a sequence of modest policy bills over the years, NRA lobbyists not only made annual gains on behalf of NRA members – range protection, right to fish & hunt provision, handgun hunting freedoms and more – they learned which legislators would work with them, which would freelance to serve their own needs, and which were politically worthwhile to replace in elections. They taught legislators that it was good to do business with NRA, and that the organization could back its promises with members at the ballot box too.
The sequence of policy gains had another effect. They built the image of an increasingly successful – and powerful – political force. Success brings success, and NRA engineered the foundation upon which the present right to carry effort is built. The unit cohesion among advocates there is strong. Passing carry legislation is still a major and costly effort, but when NRA decided the time was right, it could invest knowing their resources would not be frittered away by 20 other legislators each trying to be quarterback. Instead of having legislators submit a bill just to make a statement (then announce it to gun groups saying “hey, look what I’ve done, come testify on my bill and be sure to spell my name right in your newsletter!”), they have a team that consults experts from NRA on crafting policy.
Obviously it’s a very different world here in Maryland, where even pro-gun legislators are cynical about making policy gains. Most gun bills presently submitted got there solely because some legislator wanted to ‘make a statement.’ The sponsor can’t articulate what he expects to get us from the exercise, he has no plan to pass the bill, and, truth be told, he probably lives in private fear that the bill would be voted (and hence be open to amendment), but, gosh, he made a statement. By accepting this, we teach legislators that it suffices to reward our support with bill submissions, not enactments. Hearings on bills yield no issue advocacy benefit, because the only people present are the same pols who were trained to ignore the matter last year. (Worse, the press doesn’t waste ink on bills that even the sponsor says won’t go anywhere.) A few egos may get personal satisfaction by importantly lecturing committees at some hearing, but at the end of the day, their testimony effectively kills more pro-gun bills than they pass.
If NRA has wanted to try the same approach here as in Delaware, then it must be very frustrating for them. Here, major investments of political capital intended to enable even modest gains (like ballistic fingerprinting repeal last year) were sunk by ego-driven individuals who argued that if they could not pass their gun bill, then nobody should pass a gun bill. This session, when gunowners need additional range protection legislation, the community’s focus is fragmented by legislators ‘making a statement’ by submitting pie-in-the-sky bills on behalf of individuals who (in their own words) “declared war on the NRA.” So much for national organizations building a track record to telegraph success! (Let’s be clear: we don’t suffer these problems because a handful of people loudly and rudely demand that legislators submit bills so they can look important at committee hearings. We all suffer these problems because legislators listen to loud and rude people, whether out of fear, ignorance or greed. Even in the best light, such officials lack in leadership skills and courage, and will not be missed after an accounting next election.)
Administration is another difference with Delaware. If three years ago NRA had any hope that an Ehrlich election would give them an ally in winning policy improvements, those hopes have surely been dashed. In Dover, the governor works with NRA, whose political investments are multiplied into wins. In Annapolis, NRA must invest political capital to compensate for the governor’s anti-gun gaffes. If NRA was sizing up a plan for Maryland, then it could only conclude this is a poor place to invest except in elections. Most elected officials have failed the test.