Third Way Dispatch: Category Culture

Scalia to NRA: Get a New Argument

2008-06-30T08:52:00-06:00

Imagine this. You’ve been invited to give the keynote address at the National Rifle Association’s annual convention. You stand throngs of thousands with the American flag behind you and the words ‘… cold dead hands’ emblazoned on a screen. You begin:

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia. (Wild cheers)

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. (scattered murmurs)

“Nothing in the [DC gun ban decision] should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill (audible groans), or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings (a collective gasp), or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (booing)

“[There is] another important limitation on the right to keep and bear arms. (the sound of magazine clips being loaded)

“The sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ This limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ (a warning shot is fired into the rafters)

“Nor, correspondingly, does our analysis suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents. (Medics are called)

These are the exact words (minus the stage directions) in the Scalia decision. And if you happen to be wondering why there has been muted reaction from the NRA, why Wayne LaPierre looked so uncomfortable talking about the decision on Chris Matthews, why NRA hatchet man Chris Cox could only call it a “monumental decision” in a press statement it is because it is what it is: a stinker for the NRA.

The entire NRA argument for the past 40 years is that gun laws would lead to gun confiscation. They warned that every new restriction was a slippery slope, a potential avalanche toward the rock bottom of abandonment of gun rights. Justice Scalia just told them to get a new argument.

The Scalia decision overturns the DC gun ban and it may effect a few other local laws, but the big laws on the books and the big proposed laws are all safe – the Brady Law, assault weapons ban, gun show loophole bill, reporting of secondary sales, beefing up the background check system, and on the state level – licensing, registration, permits to purchase and limitations on concealed carry.

There is a reason the NRA never wanted this case to go to court. It wasn’t because they feared losing. They feared winning. And they won. They won the skirmish over DC and lost the war on whether gun rights and gun restrictions can coexist. The most conservative court in eons said they could and they should.

Democracy: A Journal of Ideas - Deepen Gun Ownership

2008-03-20T12:26:00-06:00

I am a big fan of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas and so I was especially pleased to be asked by them to submit a piece in their special “What’s Next?” edition. My submission is about guns and about the fact that there are 280 million of them in private hands while there are also 300,000 gun crimes. That means that 279,700,000 guns did nothing wrong last year. It also means that we need a new strategy to go after gun crime and target the 300,000 problem guns as expertly as possible, while leaving the rest alone as practically as possible. Here is the link to the article – Deepen Gun Ownership.

In recent election cycles, the greatest feat of liberal tight-rope walking has occurred not over abortion, but gun safety. Candidates talk about renewing the assault weapons ban, then mumble something about the rights of hunters. But there is a better way to take on this issue–one that would yield real reductions in violence without adversely impacting law-abiding gun owners.

There are 280 million firearms in private hands in America, and last year there were about 300,000 gun crimes. That means that at least 279,700,000 guns did nothing wrong. We also know that in 89 percent of crimes, the person using the gun was not the person who originally bought it. In 34 percent of crimes, the firearm was bought in one state and used in a crime in another. And in 32 percent of crimes, the firearm was less than three years old.

This indicates that the root of America’s gun crime problem is not the number of guns in the hands of Americans, but an extensive web of gun trafficking operations that funnel firearms to criminals. In some cases, the trafficking operations cover long distances. Nearly 40 percent of all crime guns recovered in New Jersey and New York came from Virginia, Georgia, Florida, and the Carolinas. Nine out of 10 crime guns changed hands between the first purchase (which was likely legal) to the last purchase (which was certainly illegal). What we need, then, is a new national strategy to reduce gun violence: Don’t restrict gun rights, but instead deepen the sense of gun ownership.

The first step is to make gun trafficking a federal crime, not a term of art. There is only one statute on the federal books that deals even indirectly with gun trafficking–a vague, loophole-ridden law that allows only federally licensed gun stores “to engage in the business” of dealing in firearms. Since federal law allows any individual to sell his or her own firearms to anyone else, the “engaged in the business” bar is virtually insurmountable. And since any individual may also sell firearms without performing a background check, asking for identification, or keeping any sort of record, the requirement that individuals not knowingly sell to criminals is merely a suggestion. That is why federal prosecutors in 29 states filed five or fewer cases related to trafficking behavior over a recent three-year period.

Trafficking should be redefined as selling multiple guns out of a home, car, street, or park that have two or more of the following characteristics: obliterated serial numbers, are stolen, are new in the box, or are sold to underage buyers or people with felony records. This would still allow individuals to privately sell firearms to people they know or trust, and it would put the onus on sellers to demand a background check for those they don’t.

Beyond the new law, finding traffickers isn’t that hard. Investigators can readily aggregate the crime gun trace data that we now have–data that identifies the original buyers and sellers of hundreds of thousands of guns later used in crime. They will discover that about 1 percent of the nation’s gun stores are the source of more than half of the nation’s crime guns. And they will discover that a select group of individuals repeatedly turn up as the original purchasers of guns later linked to crimes. This is not a quirk of fate; these people are gun traffickers.

Moreover, investigators can easily check every gun recovered in a crime against the National Stolen Firearms Registry, which contains the serial numbers of two million stolen guns. Under federal law, possession of a stolen firearm adds five years to a prison sentence. True, the criminal apprehended with a stolen gun is usually not the person who lifted it. But those five years are a great bargaining chip–one state and federal prosecutors consistently leave on the table–to determine the person who actually sold the criminal the gun. Play the same game with obliterated serial numbers–another five-year penalty under federal law. An obliterated serial number hides the trafficker and provides no benefit to the person using the gun in a violent crime.

Finally, we need to close the gun-show loophole. It is no coincidence that 13 of the top 14 crime-gun-exporting states do not require background checks for sales at shows. This loophole is exploited by buyers who obtain used guns to resell on the streets.

What ultimately matters isn’t the number of guns. It’s the number of bad people who have them. With a national firearms trafficking strategy, we can pull the roots out of the illegal operations that kill and destroy people and communities.

Howard Dean Picks a Winner

2007-11-26T16:04:00-07:00

In 2006, DNC Chairman Howard Dean ordered the Party to spend a bunch of money in Philadelphia. He poured money in so local organizers could put together an effective operation. For this, he was pilloried by folks inside his own party.

The catch is that this wasn’t the City of Brotherly Love – it was Philadelphia, Mississippi.

Back then, Dean was criticized by many in and out of the Democratic Party, for his “50-State Strategy.” He was widely mocked for his focus on party building in deep red states. Why, they asked, was Dean throwing away money by paying people to “wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their nose?”

Dean believed, as we did, that it was folly for a major party to write off large swaths of the United States, and that the only way to build a national party was to make it truly national.

Dean has, it appears, been completely vindicated. First, the dire warnings that his spending on the long term would imperil the Party’s short term prospects in 2006 were laid to rest with the rout that turned the Congress over to the Democrats. Now, with the retirement of John Warner and Trent Lott, it appears that the Democrats have the real prospect of picking up a Senate seats in Virginia and, of all places, Mississippi.

This is a truly extraordinary turnaround – until recently, the Democrats held only four Senate seats in the 13 states of the Old Confederacy, two in Arkansas, one in Louisiana, and one in Florida. With Jim Webb’s victory in Virginia in 2006, Mary Landrieu’s bright prospects in 2008, and the two new openings, Democrats have a real chance of holding 7 Deep South seats in 2009, with others perhaps on the way (I’m looking at you, Kay Bailey Hutchison).

Combine that with some southern House pickups and Democrat Governors in Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia, not to mention other red states like Montana, Kansas and Wyoming, it is now hard to argue that Dean’s vision of a truly national party isn’t taking hold.

I’ll bet Michael Moore (not the Sicko guy, the former AG of Mississippi and the likely Democratic Senate nominee) is pretty happy that Howard Dean helped his state party rebuild. And you’ve got to admit – Chairman Dean really knows how to pick ‘em.

Third Way Calls For a Halt to the Culture Wars

2007-10-12T07:50:00-06:00

Yesterday, Third Way and a group of national Evangelical leaders held a press conference and announced something audacious and potentially historic – we called for a halt to the culture wars.

We did so with the release of Third Way’s new paper Come Let Us Reason Together: A Fresh Look at Shared Cultural Values Between Evangelicals and Progressives. EJ Dionne devoted his Washington Post column to our paper on Tuesday, A Culture War Treaty, and I discussed it with Christian conservative radio host Paul Edwards on the Paul Edwards Program this week.

This paper not only seeks a truce in the battles between progressives and Evangelicals, it offers concrete proposals for common ground on the toughest matters that have divided the two sides: abortion, gay and lesbian issues, and the role of religion in the public square.

At the release of the paper, Third Way stood with Pastor Joel Hunter, a one-time President-Elect of the Christian Coalition, Professor David Gushee, a leading Evangelical thinker and columnist and our Evangelical co-authors, Dr. Randy Brinson, who runs Redeem the Vote and Joe Battaglia, President of the Christian media firm Renaissance Communications. The press conference was co-sponsored by Faith in Public Life, a group that helped connect Third Way with many of these Evangelical leaders. You can watch the press conference here.

The paper is supported by more than 20 groups from both sides of the divide, Evangelical and progressive. They span the gamut from the Human Rights Campaign and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State to New York Divinity School President Paul DeVries and Texas megachurch pastor Bob Roberts. You can read all of the statements of support here.

The paper includes original analysis of the most recent public opinion research on Evangelicals, which presents a new formula for understanding the diversity of the Evangelical community. We found that roughly 1/5 of Evangelicals are progressive already, 1/3 are moderates (even on tough cultural issues) and 1/2 are conservative. That means that about 1/2 of American Evangelicals – about 25 million people – are open to progressive points of view.

Our paper also offers a corresponding set of recommendations on how progressives and Evangelicals can find common ground approaches to issues such as reducing the need for abortion, respecting the role of religion in the public square and affirming the human dignity of gay and lesbian people.

I hope you’ll take a look.

Abortion Reduction Has Its Day

2007-07-23T08:53:00-06:00

The Democrats are showing signs of change on abortion. Yesterday, the Democratically controlled House easily passed an appropriations bill that contains a major – and brand new – abortion initiative. But unlike Democratic abortion bills of yore, this one brings together both sides of the debate and is aimed squarely at abortion reduction.

This “Reducing the Need for Abortions Initiative,” which grew out of a bill crafted by Tim Ryan (pro-life D-OH) and Rosa DeLauro (pro-choice D-CT) passed as part of the FY 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education funding bill. It invests real money – $647 million – in reducing the need for abortion by funding programs that address the circumstances that lead to abortion. It contains provisions that prevent unintended pregnancies, such as increasing the funding for the nation’s only dedicated family planning program (Title X) and also creates and funds a new teen pregnancy prevention program at CDC. At the same time, it includes measures designed to help support pregnant women and new families who need more support to go forward with their pregnancies, such as increased funding for child care, after-school programs, and nurse home visitation programs for new moms. It also funds an adoption awareness campaign at CDC and domestic violence prevention.

In proposing and then passing this bill, the Democrats have made a bold new statement about their changed outlook on abortion. First, they are showing that they are dedicated to finding common ground on this divisive issue. As Congressman Ryan put it: “It is our moral obligation to address those issues with which all sides agree. Whether you are pro-life like me or pro-choice like my friend Congresswoman DeLauro, the common ground we must build upon is our serious desire to reduce the rate of abortions.”

Second, – the Party is now letting pro-life Democrats inside the tent. We saw this with their loyalty to Bob Casey, Jr. in Pennsylvania – his dad was barred from the podium at the 1992 Democratic Convention for his pro-life views, but now-Senator Casey (who shares his father’s views on abortion) was warmly embraced by the Party during his Senate run last year. We are seeing it again in their decision to listen closely and follow the lead of pro-life Congressman Tim Ryan.

Third, by prioritizing an initiative designed to reduce the need for abortion, Democrats are making a clear statement that they understand the moral complexity of abortion.

The Democrats remain and will always be the party of abortion rights, but they are looking more and more like they are ALSO the party of reducing the need for abortion.

The Headless State

2007-06-28T14:27:00-06:00

At backwardsbush.com the ticker reads 571 days, 8 hours, 52 minutes, and 22.6 seconds until the end of the Bush presidency. It’s time to resynchronize our watches to 0 – the Bush presidency ended today at 11:35 am when the Kennedy-Kyl Immigration Bill died. The President’s arm twisting brought over 12 Republicans. That’s 12 out of 49. That’s 24.5% of the caucus. That’s a .245 batting average. That’s Bobby Abreu-ville.

And that’s the good news. If this bill were voted on in the House, Bush would be batting below the Mendoza line.

If it were only the immigration bill, it would be premature to order the orchids. But when you add the Lugar speech this week calling for the end of U.S. combat operations in Iraq, well, it means the president’s top two priorities – getting the immigration situation under control and starting Armageddon in the Middle East – are now totally lost.

The fact is we don’t really have a president right now. Oh sure, we have someone who can roll an Easter egg, go to a state dinner or veto a stem cell bill. We have someone who can command a national radio address or send an envoy to some unpronounceable country. We just don’t have a president that can accomplish anything, who can win a vote, who can stir the American people. Not that I’m complaining. Six years of the worst president anyone could possibly imagine for a country so great and decent as ours is plenty. But the spectacle is something to see.

See the Republicans run away from the President faster than you can say “I am the decider.” See the normally pliable Mitch McConnell hint at big changes when the Big Surge comes up for reauthorization in September. See Dick Cheney claim he’s not a part of the Administration he hand-picked (including himself), but is instead part of the Senate. (Et tu, Cheney?)

And then there are the Democrats. Six years of frustration, six years of anger, six years of being Swift Boated. Everyone get your bat, head over to the White House and start swinging at that piñata. The only thing left is the counting – counting the subpoenas that is. Waxman, Schumer, Dingell, Conyers, and Leahy are determined to re-brand the Bush presidency from being the most incompetent to being the most corrupt.

There are still some who demand an impeachment of this president. And indeed, there have been high crimes and misdemeanors galore. But why bother? He’s done.