Brady Campaign rhetoric then and now: what a difference six months makes

     Oleg Volk photo

Remember this?

We Win, They Lose.  Now, Let's Get To Work.

What all of these results mean for the cause of gun violence prevention is that pragmatic elected officials who favor common sense gun laws won across the country on Election Day, while the gun lobby took a crushing defeat. There is much more work to do, however, and we at the Brady Campaign urge you to join us.

Every year in America, 100,000 people are killed or wounded by gunfire. Now is the time to reach out to America's newly elected officials and tell them that requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales just makes sense. Tell them that cracking down on corrupt gun dealers to cut illegal gun trafficking just makes sense. Tell them that protecting our police by taking military-style assault weapons off our streets just makes sense.

That was Brady Campaign president Paul Helmke 6 months ago, in the wake of the November elections.  That's just a small sample of his gloating.  If you're a real glutton for punishment, wade through the Brady Bunch's 30 pages of triumphant crowing about gun rights advocacy being effectively dead (pdf file).  A few paragraphs:

The 2008 election marked a major victory for common sense gun laws. Never in our nation’s history have we had an incoming President and Vice President more supportive of strong gun laws.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence strongly endorsed the Obama-Biden ticket, and for good reason. Barack Obama has consistently supported strong sensible gun violence prevention laws throughout his career, and Joe Biden has been a leader in Congress for strong gun laws.

After eight years of an Administration that catered to the gun lobby, deprived gun violence victims of their rights, and turned a deaf ear to law enforcement and communities seeking to strengthen, not weaken, our gun laws, the incoming Obama-Biden administration represents an historic opportunity for this country to responsibly address our gun violence problem.

Sound pretty smug, don't they?  Before a single new law had been passed, or even introduced, the Brady Campaign proclaimed a "major victory for common sense gun laws."

Unfortunately for the Brady Campaign, and fortunately for liberty in America, the above turns out to have been a counting of the citizen disarmament chickens before they hatched, because a funny thing happened on the way to the gun ban.

From 3 weeks ago:

 Gun Violence Prevention And Obama's First 100 Days: Incomplete

On the other hand, the gun violence prevention movement is disappointed that -- in the face of a problem that takes the lives of over 30,000 Americans a year, an average of 84 Americans a day, including 32 by homicide, and injures another 70,000 each year -- that the administration is not doing more now to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.

[ . . .] 

While the Obama administration has been unwilling so far to be tested on popular gun violence prevention policies -- over 80% of Americans favor criminal background checks for all gun sales, including at gun shows, with solid majorities in favor of banning military-style assault weapons -- we are optimistic that in the coming months the White House will take common sense steps to reduce the staggering toll that gun violence takes every day on American communities.

That, too, was Paul Helmke, and am I detecting a bit of trouble in paradise?  I wrote a bit about that at the time.

Since then, Paul's disappointment has only grown.

Obama Administration Fails to Remove Gun Lobby Language from Budget

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is profoundly disappointed that President Obama has failed to follow through with his promises for 'openness' by reaffirming much of the so-called Tiahrt Amendments.

This means a continuation of the reckless Bush-era policies that endanger public safety and make it easier for criminals to obtain illegal firearms.

President Obama's proposal undermines the landmark Brady Law by continuing the dangerous Bush administration policy requiring the destruction of most Brady background check records in just 24 hours.

There, there, Paul.  I know--betrayal hurts.

It's not only President Obama who has let the Brady Campaign down, though.  Congress hasn't been playing along, either.

Late Tuesday, the U.S. Senate voted 67-29 for the Coburn amendment, attached to an unrelated credit card reform bill, which allows loaded guns in national parks.  The Coburn amendment allows open carrying of loaded firearms, including semiautomatic assault rifles, in most national parks and refuges.

In that press release, the Brady Campaign also implored President Obama to demand the removal of the Coburn Amendment.

Alas (for them), it was not to be.

The U.S. House vote today to allow loaded firearms to be carried both concealed and openly in most of our national parks, in urban areas as well as rural areas, moves us one step closer to reversing the safety-oriented gun responsibility rule adopted early in the Reagan Administration.

[ . . . ]

By attaching this language to an unrelated bill designed to protect credit card users, those pushing more guns in more places have insulated themselves from any possible chance of a veto by President Obama.

When he signs this bill, however, we call on President Obama to re-affirm his long-standing concern about more guns being carried in more places, and promise the American people that he will be taking steps in the near future to help reduce the gun violence in this country that unnecessarily touches so many each year.

It seems that they're lowering their expectations--rather than calling on Obama to veto the bill, they're apparently reduced to just hoping he'll complain about the gun rights amendment when he signs the bill into law.  So if, as expected, Obama signs it, he'll be undoing damage to gun rights done by Reagan.  How's that for one last, delicious serving of irony (although Paul, bless his heart, will probably find it rather bitter)?

I will probably be accused (with, perhaps, some justification), of the same kind of gloating the forcible citizen disarmament advocates so recently enjoyed so thoroughly.  The difference is that I am ever mindful of how quickly politicians' loyalties (is that an oxymoron?) can shift.  Given a sufficiently horrid tragedy to exploit (what did White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel say about wasting a "serious crisis"?), the War on Guns will get the kind of "surge" General Petraeus could only envy.

I also agree with National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea's concerns about tying gun rights to a bill that is itself blatantly unconstitutional.  Gun rights advocates hold the Constitutional high ground, and in "danc[ing] with the devil," as David aptly describes it, we're voluntarily surrendering a piece of that high ground.  What that will cost us in the long run may not be known right away, but rest assured it will cost us something.

Still, I hope I can be forgiven for taking a moment to or two to savor the anguished bleating of the anti-gun jihadists.  Schadenfreude may not be very admirable, but it has its undeniable charms.