(MintPress) – In light of a rash of gun-related public killings — including the massacre in Newtown, Conn. — President Obama proposed the widest swath of gun control legislation in American history. Included in this proposal is the requirement that criminal background checks be performed for all gun sales; a reinstallation of the 1994 assault weapons ban; a limiting of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds; a ban on privately-owned armor-piercing bullets; and a ban on third-party purchasing of weapons to avoid background checks.
Also included in the proposal is a $4 billion proposal to keep 15,000 police officers on the street; the confirmation of the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; increased funding for mental health programs; money to prepare and train individuals in emergency response plans; and a series of policy clarifications and safety standards.
Recently, law enforcement officers are speaking out against the gun control efforts. The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) has came out against the president’s proposal. Founder of CSPOA and former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack stated, “As the groundswell continues, we expect more and more sheriffs to come out of the woodwork and join our coalition against tyranny!”
Tim Mueller, sheriff of Linn County, Ore., writes in a Jan. 14 letter to the vice president, “We are Americans. We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws.
“Any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order of the president offending the constitutional rights of my citizens shall not be enforced by me or by my deputies, nor will I permit the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers within the borders of Linn County.”
In Wyoming, a bill — HB 0104, the Firearms Protection Act — has been proposed that would “nullify” any federal infringements on firearm rights as of Jan. 1. More belligerently, it would authorize the arrest and charging with a felony of any federal official attempting to enforce any statutes or policies that infringe on gun rights.
This, at best, is a stunt. The United States has sovereignty immunity, meaning that neither the United States nor its agents can be sued or acted against in court for the enforcement of federal laws and policies. In addition, federal law has sovereignty and superiority over state law, except when challenged in court. However, Wyoming is emboldened by challenges from Colorado and Washington State in regards to marijuana legalization.
The idea of law enforcement opposing gun control is a new one. In the past, major police organizations such as the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) have actively lobbied for tightened gun laws. However, in a recent blog on the LEAA’s webpage, an argument was made for private citizens’ ownership of firearms, “Many cops are firearms and shooting sports enthusiasts. (If you doubt this, count the number of law enforcement types you see next time you go to the range or on a hunting trip!) These officers know first hand that the kind of gun control popular among liberal activists will do nothing to reduce real crime or deter real criminals. They also know that the kind of extreme gun control measures being pushed by liberals today places an inordinate burden on law abiding shooting enthusiasts and legitimate gun dealers.”
However, the partisan tone of the argument suggests an ulterior motive. In a 1991 article from the Washington Post, the LEAA’s relationship with the National Rifle Association (NRA) was discussed: “For the start-up of the LEAA earlier this year, the NRA put up seed money that totaled more than $100,000, according to several sources. NRA spokesman James Baker confirmed that the organization helped with funding, but declined to confirm the amount. ‘They were very generous with us,’ said [LEAA’s head Leroy] Pyle.”
Since 1960, the NRA had maintained a Law Enforcement Division (LED), in which the NRA has actively recruited from and supported police agencies. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, the NRA actively sought partnerships with many of the leading law enforcement organizations. LED is the leading firearms-training program among law enforcement, according to an NRA press release.
While the relationship between law enforcement and the NRA is difficult to ascertain, many of the speaking points are similar. Arguments in regards to civilian self-defense and violations to the Second Amendment — in an article published by fair.org, Jeff Cohen points out that no high court has ever overturned a federal gun law for being unconstitutional — have appeared nearly verbatim in not only NRA releases and among conservative punditry, but also on Web pages, such as cspoa.org, in which a blog page starts with, “Mack to Obama, ‘You have no authority to tell me what kind of gun I can own, how big of a clip I can own, or even that I have to go through your stupid background checks. I’ll own whatever kind of gun I want, and it’s NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS! LEAVE US THE HELL ALONE!’”
However, opposition to the president’s proposal is coming from all angles, including a few friendly ones.
The opposition
While opponents have been hard-pressed to find anything in the president’s proposal to specifically oppose, the notion of gun control has been heavily panned. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) sent a telephone recording to gun owners in Kentucky, vowing to fight against the president’s gun control proposals. “President Obama and his team are doing everything in their power to restrict your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” the recording states. “Their efforts to restrict your rights, invading your personal privacy and overstepping their bounds with executive orders, is just plain wrong.
“Know that I will be doing everything in my power as Senate Republican leader, fighting tooth and nail, to protect your Second Amendment rights, so that law-abiding citizens such as yourself can properly and adequately protect yourself, your family, and your country,” the message continues.
Even within the Democratic Party, the leadership is split in its approach to the reform slate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has indicated his intentions to fast-track an amendment package through the Senate containing much of the president’s legislation. “This is an issue that we are not going to run from. It is an issue we need to talk about,” the senator told the Hill. However, Reid does not support an outright ban on assault weapons. “What I am hopeful we can do is we can get a bill reported out of the Judiciary Committee. It may not be everything that everyone wants. I am hopeful it will have some stuff in there that’s really important. And then I expect to have a free amendment process on the floor.”
Reid is strongly pro-gun, having voted for many NRA-friendly pieces of legislation, including allowing checked guns onto Amtrak trains and the extension of the assault weapon ban.
Reid is not alone. In his blog for the Washington Post, Greg Sargent mused that while the assault weapon ban would be difficult to get through Congress, “the assault weapons ban is not even the centerpiece of Obama’s proposal. Universal background checks are, and if Obama gets that it will be a major achievement in its own right. Given that huge majorities — including of Republicans and gun owners — favor universal background checks, you’d think Dems up for re-election could support them. Right?”
Sargent continues, “The picture is mixed. Thus far, only two Dems up for re-election next year are supportive of background checks, while the others either won’t say yet or have not responded to my questions.”
So, what’s the point?
In light of such resistance, one has to ask why the president is willing to spend political capital for a proposal likely to fail in Congress?
It is natural that the public debate will move toward public safety. While these cases of public violence caught the media’s attention, gun violence has became an everyday reality in America. As reported by dnj.com, 100,000 people are shot every year in the United States, which amounts to 289 shooting victims and 87 fatalities every day. Of these 87, 53 die by their own hand, two by accident, and two from miscellaneous reasons. This leaves 30 people every day who are killed intentionally as an act of malice. According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistics, there have been approximately 400,000 firearm deaths since 2000, which amounts to more fatalities than all American military operations in the 20th and 21st centuries combined.
It has been argued that reducing the number of guns available or limiting the size of the magazine of these guns will not curtail violence. Ultimately, a gun is a tool; it has no worth or use beyond that given to it by its user. A murderer is still a murderer without a gun; the first school-based killing didn’t involve a gun at all. It was a car bomb. As argued by James Allan Fox in his Boston.com blog, “Mass killers do not just snap and seize whatever weapons of destruction are handy. They are deliberate and determined; they will find the means despite the impediments placed in their path.”
What the president’s proposal suggests is responsibility. Police agencies should have the funds to do their job. Gun owners should not obtain their guns extralegally. Military weaponry should be in the hands of the military solely. America should be asking tough questions about their communities and the public health.
All of these by themselves are not outrageous ideas. In fact, in a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 53 percent of all Americans support the president’s proposals. However, in regards to perceived threats to Second Amendment rights, it falls along partisan lines — 76 percent of Democrats polled favor the proposals, while 72 percent of Republicans oppose them.
But the realities of the gun violence rates in the United States demand a response. As compiled by Zara Matheson of the Martin Prosperity Institute, the gun violence rates per 100,000 individuals in America’s major cities were compared to nations in the third world. Buffalo, N.Y. has the same gun homicide rate as Panama. Detroit, Mich. has a comparable rate to El Salvador. Minneapolis, Minn. has a rate similar to Paraguay. New Orleans, La. has a rate in line with Ecuador, Phoenix, Ariz. with Mexico (who is in the midst of a drug-based civil war) and Miami, Fla. is in line with Colombia.