(2007-03-20) We lead with the important news first. At this point it's safe to say – without begging fate to make this famous last words – all major gun bills are dead this session .
Okay, so we've predicted that since the election, but we've also cautioned that our community could still pass a gun control bill by screwing up – snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and all that. This was a real danger, and remains so. Splinter groups – they always get louder as they get smaller – seek confrontation instead of results. They stalk efforts of mainstream gun groups that otherwise work with one another with respect and a sense of shared mission. (In 2005 we saw how some yahoos would even cheer the killing of a pro-gun bill rather than risk it advancing without them in charge. Bad enough we fight gun grabbers, but the task is more difficult for having to ensure that advocacy plans do not needlessly expose us to attack from behind.) Fortunately, this session's strategy worked!
The showcase gun control measure, a so-called “assault weapon ban” (really a semi-auto firearm ban in disguise) was voted down in Senate committee. (SB 43 received a 5-5 vote, which under the rules means it will not advance to the Senate floor. Unlike previous years, the political terrain does not favor an end-run game of bringing the bill to a full vote outside the committee system.) You won this fight at 8PM on November 7, 2006 – election night . That's when we knew we had successfully conditioned the strategic terrain. Gun owner resources concentrated in key races made the difference, and the consequences – favorable committee assignments, a real senate filibuster capability and officials' sense of security that we are there for them like they're there for us – naturally followed. Much happened behind the scenes, but the strategics were there because you donated generously, advocated effectively and voted.
Even Ceasefire knew it was behind . It pulled out all the stops trying to pass the ban, yet hardly anyone noticed, in spite of free issue-advocacy afforded them by the Sun reporting. In contrast, bill sponsors largely just went through the motions. For a caucus that portrayed itself as the big dog in the fight, there was little fight in the dog.
The hearing was not a chance to kill this bill – all other things being equal it was already dead! – but it was a major opportunity for us to screw up. The smart strategy for handling a dead bill is to not waste the time and money of our base on efforts that could only beg legislators to change their mind; rather, the goal is to reinforce the bill's aura of defeat in everyone's minds in Annapolis. After all, we must kill it again in the future, and the fewer co-sponsors it gets (legislators don't like being tied to failures) the more fuel we take off its next launch. A bill that dies without opponents (us) appearing to break a sweat has ‘loser' written all over it. (Even mainstream media won't cover such bill if it isn't going to pass. One group crying alone for new law isn't much of a story, but two groups arguing nose-to-nose becomes a story and an editor will cover it. On gun issues, coverage generally goes against our advocacy. Splinter groups trying to make big public hoopla over assault weapons this year only advanced the Brady mission.)
We got through the SB 43 hearing without loss . Major pro-gun groups played the smart strategy by keeping it low key and submitting only written testimony. The modest turnout of those interested in speaking – a small number by historical standards – sparked no burning desire among gun grabbers to change the politics into bare-knuckle brawl. Many gunowners who spoke were sincere. Some knew the bills were dead yet testified anyway, apparently reluctant to miss a chance to grab the spotlight (i.e., their goal was to posture for fans, not kill the bill.) A few who in the past have offered to accept the assault weapon ban in trade for a mere vote on right-to-carry legislation testified again. This was a concern, since some in that group recently opined that a ban would be good , as it would “shake up” gun owners. We're pleased to report their efforts on SB 43 did not undo the desirable political outcome you enabled.
The public showing by bill proponents was equally ineffective. The sole supporters watching at the Brady press conference were senior citizens from a retirement community, bussed in from the bill sponsor's district for use as props. (Some we talked with said they thought it was an outing of their political club to tour Annapolis. They were just out for a good time, didn't know about the hearing, and wandered off after being told what it was really about.)
After the hearing, Ceasefire ran radio ads asking the public to call Senator Jim Brochin as if he was a swing vote on the committee. (There was nothing ‘swing' about him – he behaved exactly as he campaigned in spite of spin from either Ceasefire or AGC that suggested the contrary. He opposed the ban.) The radio spots backfired ! When calls ran 5 to 1 against the ban, gun grabbers voted the bill to put bad news behind them as quickly as possible.