Gun-shy Democrats still can’t shoot straight

FYI (copy below):
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001870438_collin04.html

Thursday, March 04, 2004 – Page updated at 12:00 A.M.

Collin Levey / Times editorial columnist
Gun-shy Democrats still can’t shoot straight

No duel between a cowboy and a soldier would be complete
without a gun battle and, thanks to Congress, it looks like
we’ll get one. Yeehaw.

On Tuesday, the Senate voted on a bill to limit the
liability of gun manufacturers for the lawless use of their
products. With John Kerry in attendance, the measure was
defeated in a landslide, 90-8. That’s a result that usually
would have Democrats boogying in the aisles. But leading
Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein were
sulky: They know the result sets up the Democrats for a
doozy of an election season.

The lopsided defeat came only after the bill’s original
sponsors abandoned it, saying it had been spoiled beyond
redemption by a Democratic amendment extending Bill
Clinton’s 1994 ban on “assault weapons” (i.e., ordinary guns
with cosmetic features that make them look military).

Gun control has proved a major ball and chain for Democrats’
electoral fortunes over the past few campaigns. This fight
looks no different. The assault-weapons ban has shown no
measurable impact on gun violence. National Rifle
Association Vice President Wayne La Pierre smiled after the
vote, “I can just see (Democratic National Committee
Chairman) Terry McAuliffe cringing in his office all day
long.”

Al Gore gets credit for most of the gun shyness on the part
of Democrats. His gung-ho position on establishing a
national registry blew a hole in his Southern support. Even
campaign manager Donna Brazile called it “a big factor” in
his defeat. You’d think Democrats would have learned a long
time ago. Local hero Tom Foley, former speaker of the U.S.
House, lost his 1994 re-election bid partially because of an
unpopular stance on gun control. He wasn’t the only one.

This year’s field of Democratic contenders were quick
studies. When they weren’t keeping mum on the topic, they
were usually out pheasant hunting or boasting of the cache
of handguns they kept in their own basement. Howard Dean
practically wore an NRA T-shirt and John Kerry has endorsed
every law-abiding American’s “right to bear arms.” That’s a
far cry from the days when Democrats preferred to deny the
Constitution guaranteed such a thing.

Kerry’s position on gun control is a lot like most of his
positions ? he is and he isn’t. He has called gun owners
special interests in an effort to taint the NRA with the
same kind of malodorous quality Democrats have cheerily
ascribed to Halliburton. They constantly equate the group
with the gun industry, but the gun industry has its own
trade association, which often cringes at NRA rhetoric and
positions.

The NRA, as much as Democrats hate to admit it, is a
consumer-voter organization. Its power is not wielded by
making campaign donations but by influencing millions at the
ballot box.

Kerry wrapped his opposition to assault weapons in the
concerns of police officers. And even Feinstein struggled
to make a distinction between the NRA and its members. “We
find ourselves today on the cusp of yet another NRA
victory,” Feinstein said. “And let me be clear ? not a
victory for NRA members, most of whom are law-abiding gun
owners who might someday benefit from the ability to sue a
manufacturer that sold them a defective or dangerous gun.”
Huh?

In fact, the liability shield that was defeated in Congress
this week had nothing to do with defective guns or illegal
behavior by gun companies. It was designed solely to stop a
flood of lawsuits blaming gun makers when armed criminals
commit crimes. Feinstein’s mischaracterization
notwithstanding, Democrats were prepared to vote for the
bill in large numbers. Those from rural districts and many
Southern and Western states recognize such lawsuits for what
they are ? a backdoor way of trying to put a legal industry
out of business.

Republicans were chortling yesterday because the fault line
in the Democratic Party is much deeper than any similar
cleavage between liberal and conservative Republicans.
Urban mayors love the idea of shoring up their budgets with
gun-lawsuit windfalls while also passing the buck to
business for their cities’ crime problems. The trial
lawyers, another important Democratic donor group, love the
lawsuits for obvious reasons.

Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley insisted last week that “when
you think about the loss of jobs and Congress is telling us
that the only industry that should be protected in the world
are those that manufacture guns, I think there’s a
disconnect.”

The same reasoning could just as readily be applied to suing
Ford or GM for the behavior of hit-and-run drivers. There’s
no principle involved here: Chicago and its lawyers just
want the $443 million in windfall “damages” they’ve been
seeking since filing a suit in 1998.

Democrats like to accuse Republicans of using guns as a
“wedge issue” in the culture wars, but just ask Dean, Gore
or Michigan Rep. John Dingell: The real problem for
Democrats is a gap between their funding constituencies and
their voting constituencies. And whenever it becomes a
contest between trial-lawyer money and the voting power of
gun owners, gun owners have trial lawyers beat every time.