'Reid Amendment' barring gun data from health care bill may backfire on gun owners

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) at press con-
ference after offering amendment to prevent gun data from
be used in health care bill. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)

In guns, politics and health care reform, bad bills are better …

Before Christmas, the U.S. Senate passed health care legislation which includes Senate Amendment 2786, the so-called “Reid Amendment,” theoretically barring collection of data from and denial of insurance coverage to “lawful” gun owners.

Shortly beforehand, National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea rebutted John Cahill of the Nevada Outdoor Democratic Caucus, (NODC) who argued that the Reid Amendment renders the bill moot from a gun rights perspective.

Ignoring for a moment the self-serving nature of NODC (which lists Senator Harry Reid as its first member), David correctly responded with concerns about what might be construed as “lawful” gun ownership, and how Reid’s amendment, by specifically mentioning guns, contrasts with claims that Gun Owners of America was reading too much into the bill when it raised the specter of health care legislation being used to restrict gun ownership.

Indeed, GOA heralded the amendment as a victory for gun owners, and so it may be. Unfortunately, however, it is a victory we do not want. As much as I respect and have learned from GOA executive director Larry Pratt, I offer that GOA’s victory will serve to undermine our cause.

Beyond David’s concerns plus the reality that any “protection” accomplished by legislation can be easily revoked by legislation, even gun rights activists often fail to understand a basic precept of legislative action:

Bad bills are better.

Bad bills are better because they more clearly depict the motivations of sponsors. Few things are more dangerous than having the fog of legislative machination give cover to anti-gun politicians who gut our interests while protesting their “good intentions.” Indeed, having Reid offer the amendment himself was a masterstroke of obfuscation: Despite an “F” rating from GOA, he gets to claim support for gun owners in his upcoming re-election bid, even as truly pro-gun candidates have a very real chance of unseating him.

Bad bills are better because they enable us to win centrist votes – in this case from “Blue Dog” Democrats in conservative districts – who don’t want to be portrayed as anti-gun at election time. The more “reasonable” the bill appears to be, the more Blue Dog votes we lose.

But most of all, bad bills are better because they help us mobilize our people. The more watered down anti-gun bills get, the more gun rights supporters are stripped from the ranks of angry voters who demand support from politicians. After all, maybe it isn’t so bad after all, right? Why bother?

Here is the reality and the danger of watering down anti-gun legislation: Within every “less bad” bill is a “loophole” the opposition will attempt to “close” in the future. Give them a piece of what they want, however small, and rest assured they will be back – and soon – for the rest.

Once, as my organization fought a gun show bill, a dear friend and devoted gun rights activist erred by trying to educate anti-gun lobbyists about flaws in the legislation they drafted. He pointed out that badly crafted definitions in the bill would have required every shooting competition in the state to obtain “gun show permits.”

At the next committee meeting, the lobbyists themselves pre-empted us by offering language to narrow the definition of “gun show.” Not only did the pre-emptive concession deny us a weapon, it won over “reasonable” committee members and denied us a huge base of support from thousands of gun club members whose competitions would have been impacted. (FYI, we killed the bill anyway.)

To GOA’s credit, even its alert notes the cynicism of anti-gun politicians scurrying to claim credit for “protecting” gun owners by passing the Reid Amendment. But if that is true, why support an amendment which gives F-rated politicians cover? Unfortunately, that is exactly what the roll call vote for S. Amendment 2786 depicts.

Gun owners should immediately contact their own U.S. House and Senate representatives (especially Blue Dog Democrats), plus Democrat leadership and members of the conference committee which will soon try to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, and deliver the following message:

The Reid Amendment is too little and too late, serving only to give political cover to politicians who will be quite happy to use “health care” legislation to restrict gun ownership. A vote for any version of this intrusion into privacy is a vote against gun rights. 

 Copyright © F. Paul Valone All rights reserved
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing or any information storage and referral system, without written permission from the publisher. For reprint permission, contact: fpv@fpaulvalone.com