Today the Supreme Court struck down the DC gun law that banned handguns and greatly restricted the storage of the firearms that were still legal to own. The decision is unsurprising given the current composition of the court, and given what could have happened, is reasonably moderate. The decision is clear about most gun control laws that currently exist being perfectly fine — it strikes down DC’s because it is so extremely restrictive that it essentially (according to the court) amounts to a ban on using guns for self defense in your home. It’s a decision that conservatives clearly support, and I think it’s important that Obama get behind it too.
I’m not totally sure I agree with the decision, and Obama has said in the past that he thought the law was constitutional (which will be a tough quote to get out of), but I really think he needs to use the decision to bolster his cause. I would be extremely surprised if many people in the US really had a problem with banning military assault rifles or requiring background checks. I think the real problem is that people feel like advocates of gun control really want much more than the current, mainstream proposals. They think advocates of gun control really want to limit guns as much as possible, up to and including banning them, and that the current proposals are just the most they feel like they can get through a legislature right now.
Obama would benefit a lot politically, I think, if he used the decision to say something to the effect of “See, you have nothing to worry about.” The right most people care about is the general ability to own the types of guns they actually want to own, with regulation that is not prohibitively complex. I think that if they feel that right is secure, they will be more willing to accept other limits and regulations that don’t touch that core. Obama needs to say, “Not only do I not want to ban guns, but now you don’t have to just take my word for it. You have a constitutional protection, upheld by the Supreme Court, that will guarantee that right.”
He’s gotten close to this, with quotes like this one:
The problem is that we’ve got a position, oftentimes by the NRA, that says any regulation whatsoever is the camel’s nose under the tent. And that, I think, is not where the American people are at. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measures that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.
I think he would benefit from being a little more explicit with the linkage. I think it’s a message that pro-gun control groups would be fine with — he would still be advocating gun control, after all. At the same time he’d be expressing sympathy with gun owners and a real understanding of what’s important to them. He’d use a pro-gun court ruling as a reason why most gun control is desirable and not worrying. I think it would be a message that is all-around acceptable, still advocates the positions he believes in, and does a bit of the rising above wedge issues and building consensus that he’s always (rightly) talking about.
Tags: barack obama, gun control, law, politics, supreme court