Dean Walks a Tightrope Over Positions on Gun Control

NASHUA, N.H., Oct. 30 — Back when Howard Dean was running for governor of Vermont in 1992, he told the National Rifle Association in a signed questionnaire that he opposed any restrictions on private ownership of assault weapons.

These days, running for the Democratic presidential nomination and appealing to a very different electorate from that of his small, largely rural state, Dr. Dean assures audiences that he firmly supports the assault weapons ban enacted under President Bill Clinton in 1994 though vigorously opposing any further federal regulation of guns.

Dr. Dean declined a request for an interview on Thursday. But a spokeswoman said there was no contradiction between his current position and what he told the N.R.A. in its 1992 questionnaire, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times by aides to a rival Democratic candidate who is a stronger advocate of gun control.

Snip>

Campaigning in Wapello, Iowa, the other day, Dr. Dean made a similar argument, saying, "We've got to get guns off the national agenda — it is not a national problem, it's a state problem — so we don't lose 20 percent of union members who vote against their economic interests for that one issue."

Dr. Dean said that one year, his home state had just five homicides, "so we don't need any gun control."

"Let New York and New Jersey and California have all the gun control they want," he often says in campaign stops. "But don't impose it on Montana or Vermont or Iowa, where we don't need it."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/31/politics/campaigns/31GUNS.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5062&en=bf47a83479534761&ex=1068181200&partner=GOOGLE

:)

While I believe law abiding citizens should be able to keep non-military grade firearms in their homes, and that states should be left to decide the circumstances under which their citizens are able to carry concealed weapons within state borders, the federal government clearly has a resposibility to regulate the sale of firearms. Saying that gun control is purely a state or local problem ignores the widespread interstate trafficking in firearms. The existence of a large black market for illegal firearms demonstrates that more, not less, needs to be done to crack down on rogue dealers who cirumvent the laws that are currently on the books.

Your approach ignores the realities of interNATIONAL trafficiking in illicit objects. How would this vicious interstate black market become less dangerous if it becane an international black market?

And where does the Second Amendment say anything about "non-military"? Didn't the Supreme Court hold in Miller that non-military guns weren't protected by the Second Amendment, but that military guns ARE?

prevents the government from outlawing private ownership of tanks, anti-aircraft weapons, bazookas, nuclear bombs, etc. If you disagree, I invite you to bring a test case.

Oh, and I certainly didn't want to give you the impression that I didn't think the federal government should be policing existing restrictions on the importation of illegal firearms. That's a no-brainer.

As for the analogy to the war on drugs -- what exactly is your point? Do you believe that the current levels of gun ownership is the product of addiction and can be treated medically?

:)

Let's say you manage to ban guns, and make all domestic guns disappear through magic. No guns at all in the US. How long do you think it would take for the first guns to be smuggled in from overseas through the existing drug smuggling routes? A week? Less?

Oh, and btw, private ownership of tanks, AA weapons, bazookas, nukes, et cetera, is all still legal at the Federal level. Heavily regulated, but legal if you can jump through the hoops. I own several machineguns legally, and know people with tanks and one guy with a bomber. All fully functional, all fully legal.

I thought you were supposed to be the moderate, dolstein, not me. :P

Note, I'm fine with current laws. I don't want to remove any major laws on the books, nor add any major gun control laws to the books.

And I have no problem with Dean saying things like "gun control is a state issue" as a cheap ploy to curry favor with the NRA crowd. It's not as if any new gun control laws are going to pass Congress anytime soon.

But if he actually BELIEVES that crap, then he's an idiot. The fact is that it is impossible for states to implement their own gun control policies unless there are federal laws in place which regulate interstate trafficking of firearms. Now I suspect Dean understands this -- after all, he says he supports every single federal gun control law that's on the books. But still, I can't help but cringe slightly when he makes sweeping statements like that.

It's not a cheap ploy or cheap rhetoric. States' rights is a very often used argument by many folks. Remember that the Confederacy was based around states' rights. It's localism. Rural folks usually like extremely lax gun laws and urban folks usually like extremely strict gun laws. States' rights and local control is the best way to handle this, IMHO.

that Dean's support for closing the gun show loophole and assault weapons ban already makes him a "gun grabber" in the eyes of the REAL gun crazies...who hate uppity women, blacks, Jews and gays as much as they love their guns.

Wayne LaPierre as much as said the NRA was going to whizz all over him if he got the nomination anyway. So all this pandering only turns off Democrats anyway.

I agree.

Federal laws in general should, by their very definition, be rather general in nature, leaving the implementation details to the states. Thus, if there is a baseline level of regulation at the federal level, it keeps certain states from getting really stupid. It is reasonable to expect that when one crosses a state line, say from New York into Pennsylvania, it is not the same as crossing a national border, say from the US into Mexico.

That having been said, the benefit of Dr. Dean's position on firearms is that it takes a rather thorny issue (one that bit Al Gore in the ass) OFF THE FRIGGIN' TABLE. We can discuss issues that affect blue-collar people and farmers and city folk WITHOUT having 900 yahoos from the NRA screaming at you at every campaign stop. It's a good thing.

Here's the real problem...the term "assault weapon" is little more than media hype. Pistol grips? Pistol grips make the weapon less accurate. Detacheable clips? I own several fixed clip semiauto long rifles and use zip loaders, which can be even quicker than clips in many instances. Banana clips? Purely asthetical.

Heck, one of my hunting rifles (bolt action) even uses the same NATO 5.56 cartridge as the M16.

Truth be told, ALL firearms are "military grade". They all fire hot balls of lead a long distance with high accuracy, and any decently built civilian model can match their rates of fire and reliability. The only "military grade" feature that civilians don't have is fully automatic sustained fire, which no civilian assault weapon ever shipped with anyway.

Which brings us to the root of the trafficking problem. Gun trafficking primarily exists today because many states have passed laws trying to ban entire classes of weaponry based on the flawed assumption that they're "more dangerous", despite the fact that NO study EVER has shown that the AWB or any of the more restrictive state regulations have ever decreased firearms crime rates. As we should have learned in during Prohibition and the current WOD, when you make something illegal and there's still a demand for it, you are simply creating new markets for the criminal underground. When the sale of "assault weapons" was legal, there was little market for smugglers and we stood a chance of conducting background checks, owner registration, and safety training on their owners. Banning these weapons hasn't stopped them from coming in, it's simply pushed them underground and prevented us from knowing who has them and whether or not they know how to use them safely.

You're having canaries about Bush and a banner, but Dean flips around on guns, Medicare, tax cuts, yucca mtn, the war, and nobody cares. It's A-Ok with all of you. There needs to be some sort of mass psychological study in this country because it is ALL fucked up.

Dean's inconsistency is a problem. This isn't the way to lead, of course; it's symptomatic of looking under every cloverleaf for the way to win.

The sacrifice of principle for safe positions is why the party's in such rotten shape. And while Dean's anti-establishment rhetoric takes cognizance of that fact, his policy schizophrenia doesn't help it.

Guns: from the less liberal position to the more liberal one.

Affirmative Action: from the less liberal position to the more liberal one.

Social Security: from the less liberal position to the more liberal one.

Medicare: from the less liberal position to the more liberal one.

NAFTA/Trade: from the less liberal position to the more liberal one.

I will vote for this man if he wins our nomination. But I really don't understand how he can knock ANYONE for inconsistency in this campaign, EVER.

DTH

I don't know if I like the idea of having a constitutional right regulated differently from state to state. How can you allow a constititional right to vary so widely? Would anyone support state's rights to regulate other amendments such as the 1st? Allow people in MN to exercise it all they want, but people in SD are heavily censored? That scares me. I see some very disturbing similiarities here with the treatment of African-Americans in the South that lead to the civil rights movement of the 1950's. The 2nd Amendment (IMO) is an individual right, as is the 14th Amendment. However, when the federal government gave much more control back to the southern states after the Civil War, many of those states basically restricted the #$@#@ out of the rights given to former slaves and their descendants by the 14th Amendment. The restrictions were so severe that in many states it the rights given by the 14th Amendment were next to worthless. This practice was curtailed by the intervention of the federal government in the 1950's by things such as desegregation programs. I don't see it as being a huge leap to envision a similiar situation where gun ownership rights are trampled by some states.

Do you believe that mayors and governors should not be able to sign into law any gun control laws?

That is essentially what you are saying. IMHO, that's an extremist position on guns.

Should we allow Mississippi to decide their 'voter control'?

The gun issue is one of the few things that is a federal-only issue.

It is specifically written into the Constitution TWICE that way (once in Sec 1, Art 8, and the other time in Second Amendment).

The Constitution clearly gives the power for the 'arming' of the Militia to Congress, not to the states, and it enumerates that the RIGHT of the People shall not be infringed.

To me it seems he is dancing with his positioning on the gun issue.

Where only a select group of people got to vote because of it being a 'state issue'?

What Dean is doing on gun control is trying to be all things to all people, a common and time-honored, if blatantly disingenuous, campaign strategy. Tell me Bush and Clinton didn't do the same thing.

Honestly, if the biggest beef you have with Howard Dean is that he appears to support, or not support, federal gun control laws, you need to get your priorities straight. Bush supports existing federal gun control laws too, or so he says. So if Dean is merely taking the same stance, the issue is neutralized. That's progress.

Dems don't need to win on this issue, but it is possible to lose on it. It's clear that a huge chunk of the national electorate is, for whatever reason, in the NRA's camp on gun control, and passionately enough to go on the warpath over it. So I hope Dean doesn't waste any more time pandering to the small sliver of his base that still stubbornly clings the idea of further restrictions of gun ownership rights, including the federal government's rights to regulate state's gun control laws, with every fiber of their being. This really isn't a core value any more.

Dems don't need to win on this issue, but it is possible to lose on it. It's clear that a huge chunk of the national electorate is, for whatever reason, in the NRA's camp on gun control, and passionately enough to go on the warpath over it.

This is the reality of it.

Does anyone here think it's the thugs on the streets that this conversation is geared to? One would hope no one here is quite that simple minded. It's mostly folks who hunt and let me tell you there are more kitchens than we can count that are tranformed into meat processing plants here in northern Mich. every fall. It takes nothing to convince these fine, salt-of-the-earth folk that someone wants to deprive them of their beloved guns. Good people but so easily led astray by clever commercials and whispering campaigns.

Guns won't win us any elections but we have make sure they don't lose us any either. This is an issue that will contribute to the goal of rendering Jr. completely impotent--politically speaking of course. ;-)

Julie

and he's handled each of these attacks in a way that proves he's ready to handle whatever the pubs can throw.

Notice that the other candidates no longer chose to break the dirt themselves? The article doesn't ID who gave them the story beyond it being a rival. Pretty wimpy, huh? Maybe they've realized that throwing around old crap like this costs them some numbers.

...yesterday to any critcal analysis. They can't remember what he said more than a week ago. With dean the attack dogs scurry around to find something he said over a decade ago to create some phony hypocrisy contention over a wedge issue which costs democratic candidates huge numbers of votes from people who would ordinarily vote democratic.

Let's start an abortion thread, maybe we can piss a lot of people off and lose votes for nothing. Maybe it will keep dim wit in office.

Am I the only one who saw "Bowling for Columbine"?

Despite the fact it's a flawed movie, it does make a serious point which is the comparison with Canada. Lots of guns in Canada but almost no gun violence. Why?

That fact alone got me neutral on the issue.

When he answered the questionaire, he was governor of Vermont, and as such his mindset was on his state. He answered the questions thinking of state laws, not federal laws, laws that would affect the citizens he, at the time, was advocating for.

The questionnaire also asked: "Semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pistols, currently labeled `assault weapons,' are commonly used in hunting and target competition, including the National Matches and the Olympics. Current federal and state law allows a lawful citizen to possess semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pistols. Would you support legislation to restrict the private possession of these firearms?"

Dr. Dean checked the answer that read, "No, I would oppose restrictions on semiautomatic firearms."

Ms. Enright, his spokeswoman, saw no contradiction. "It's not a federal answer," she said of his response to the questionnaire. "This is a Vermont questionnaire in 1992. In 1994, he said he'll support a federal law. Where's the inconsistency?"

This is just another case of reading a 10 year old statement from Dean and taking it out of the context of the entire situation. It's silly to ignore the fact that 10 years ago he was thinking of the people of his state, and not thinking of how to position himself for a presidential run.

support a federal ban on assault weapons?

assuming he does publicly support one now, hurt in the rural areas that are in play? I'm not a gun enthusiast or a hunter. What's the gun lobby's position on this?

The question in question also mentioned handguns and shotguns. I'm assuming he's NOT coming out in favor of banning those now, right?

As a Democrat in a rural area, I can assure you that I would never vote for any candidate of any party that supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons. Neither would about 90% of the rural Dems I know. I wouldn't support a Democrat who supported the removal of gun rights any more than I'd support a Democrat who advocated the banning of free speech or stripping blacks of the right to vote. The right to own firearms is just as important to rural Democrats as the right to free speech or voting.

Case in point, California. I know a LOT of Democrats who voted for Arnold based on his gun control positions. Davis was staunchly anti-gun and passed dozens of new laws making it much harder to purchase and own a weapon in this state. Bustamante was a frequent advocate of gun control and supported the prohibition of many new classes of weaponry. McKlintock, on the other hand, wanted to practically eliminate every gun law on the books, which scared the heck out of people who still remember Patrick Purdy's rampage on that central California schoolyard. Arnolds position was clear...he supports the restrictions on high capacity weapons, but doesn't believe in passing more gun laws. That position alone won him MANY voters from our party.

There is a huge division between urban and rural Democrats on this issue, and unless we want to be handing elections to the Republicans for the next 20 years, I'd suggest that it simply be left alone.