Ignore the speeches and demand action on guns from Congress
There’s a path to compromise legislation on guns if moderates from both parties will lead the way
Editor’s note: Contributors Mark Hester and Gary Conkling periodically write complementary pieces for The Oregon Way examining different aspects of the same issue. In the wake of the Uvalde, Texas, school shooting Mark looks at possible paths forward on gun control. Tomorrow, Gary will look at ways to attack the conditions that can lead to gun violence.
Any mass shooting should prompt us to seek ways to ensure it doesn’t happen again. But school shootings shake the public consciousness in ways that other mass assaults don’t, and shootings at elementary schools take it to another level.
So, in the wake of the murder of 19 students and 2 teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, we again are at a place in time when the public and even members of Congress are demanding action.
If we want to take advantage of this moment, something the United States has failed to do after similar moments in the past, we must be clear about one thing: Any member of Congress who is serious about reducing the likelihood of future school shootings will have to do more than make speeches.
I wish there was some way to know the last time a member of Congress changed their vote on a controversial issue because of speech. I suspect it has been decades. Any meaningful action will require deal-making, not speech-making. Tomorrow, Gary Conkling will focus on a big idea – one that should appeal to both conservatives and liberals – for addressing behavioral health issues often associated with mass murderers. Today, I will look at a potential path forward on gun control.
We are writing these columns as a package because a successful plan for reducing mass shootings should address both mental health and guns. Instead, in the hyper-partisan cauldron of Congress too many Republicans want to focus exclusively on mental health and Democrats exclusively on guns.
It’s easy to be skeptical about the possibility of meaningful gun control legislation after decades of failure. The reason for optimism is straightforward. Poll after poll, conducted under different circumstances with different wording, show that a strong majority of Americans want better gun control. The reasons for pessimism are more numerous: Poll respondents don’t agree on what type of legislation should be passed; members of Congress and state legislators are more interested in vocal base voters that poll results; getting 10 Republicans to support a bill so it can clear a filibuster is difficult on any topic – much less a controversial one.
If there is a path to success it involves old-fashioned political deal-making. At least four Republicans have shown varying levels of interest in gun-related legislation: Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), Susan Collins (Maine), Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania) and Bill Cassidy (Louisiana). Add those four to moderate Republicans such as Mitt Romney (Utah), Ben Sasse (Nebraska) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) who might be convinced to join a bipartisan effort and you’re close to 60 votes.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has asked Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas to try to negotiate a possible agreement. In most contexts, Cornyn is not a moderate, but he is when compared with Texas’ other senator, Ted Cruz. And as the most reasonable senator from the state where the most recent shooting occurred, he probably feels some pressure to do something.
The key to doing something is to accept that any legislation that can garner 60 votes will fall short of what Democrats want while placing enough restrictions on guns to potentially cost Republican senators votes in their next election – especially if they face a primary opponent.
So, what is something that could form the framework of a compromise bill? Of the restrictions that have been suggested, these offer the best combination of potential effectiveness and relatively low political risk.
Age requirements: Require purchasers of AK-47s (and any other automatic or semi-automatic weapons that don’t already carry age restrictions) to be at least 21 years old. This idea targets a demographic that often is involved in mass shootings. It also happens to be a group with relatively low voter turnout. And can anyone really make a logical argument for being able to by an assault weapon before you can legally drink?
Red-flag laws: This approach also seeks to target a relatively small group that is disproportionately involved in mass shootings – those who have shown behavior that “flags” them as a risk to themselves or others. Nailing down the details of any legislation that prevents gun purchases based on past behavior will be touchy. Even the phrase “red-flag laws” triggers some Republicans. But at the state level even Florida has a red-flag law, passed after a school shooting in Parkland, Fla., in 2018. Finding 10 Republican senators to back a bill will be difficult, but perhaps doable.
Expanded background checks: Pennsylvania Republican Toomey has been working with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) for a decade on ways to expand background checks to little avail. What makes this time different? Quite simply, Manchin never has had as much influence as he has now. He should use it by making clear to Republicans that if they don’t supply 10 votes for legislation that would close loopholes in current background-check laws and, most importantly, extend them to include online sales, they will not be able to count on his vote on issues, especially budget-related ones, where he has sided with Republicans in the past.
The majority of voters who support these measures should be vocal that they want action – and action means passing bills not just bringing them up for a vote. If Democrats introduce a broad slate of bills, as has been discussed, without first making deals and counting votes they are just putting on a show that they hope will help them in midterm elections. Leaders in either party don’t bring bills they truly care about to a vote unless they know they have the support to pass them.
The key to any successful gun-related legislation will be moderates, and they must seize the opportunity. It’s time for moderates in both parties to show that the middle isn’t just a political safe place for legislators in swing districts but a platform from which important legislation and be crafted and passed. Progressives need to accept that there’s no political path to get everything they want at the federal level. Together, they need to make it harder for would-be mass shooters to acquire guns of mass destruction.
Mark Hester is a retired journalist who, among other jobs, was an editorial writer, business editor and sports editor at The Oregonian.
Your statement about automatic weapons indicates you follow the many false liberal lines they spew. To purchase a fully automatic weapon you have to be at least 21, undergo a comprehensive background, and have written approval of the Sheriff in the county where you live. What you should be asking is why hasn’t Congress created a task force to look at all of the major incidents and determine the real facts. The gun is not really the problem anymore than the car is the problem that kills thousand of people yearly.
While it’s early in the day, Mark, please take 3 minutes and radically edit that first idea about raising the age on “AK-47s” and other automatic and semi-automatic weapons to 21. First of all, you ALREADY need a federal permit to purchase full-auto weapons (ask Betsy Johnson, she has one) - we don’t need a new law here, we should expand that law to cover all firearm purchases. Second of all, basically everything beyond a shotgun or revolver is “semi-automatic” and has been for decades. When people who haven’t taken a gun safety course or bought a gun try to suggest gun laws, even anti-gun nutjobs like me roll their eyes (I’ve taken two handgun proficiency courses and fired a Russian-made full-auto). That first paragraph should read, “The minimum for purchase and possession should be 21, with only supervised exceptions allowed.” And, “There should be a background check and three-day waiting period for all purchases, public and private.” One study in California found that a waiting period prevents more than half of gun suicides.