Gun ruling's impact on election unclear

Little 'political hay,' Norton says

By Adrienne T. Washington (Contact) | Monday, June 30, 2008

• Print
• [-][+] Font Size
• E-Mail Alerts
• Tell a Friend
• Got a Question?
• You Report
• Click-2-Listen

The landmark Supreme Court decision last week that voided the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns may have rekindled the gun-control debate on the national landscape, but local officials and political analysts don't expect it to last for long.

Those wishing to make political hay of the issue for the presidential candidates - such as National Rifle Association leaders who already have filed lawsuits against gun bans in Chicago and San Francisco and vowed to pump the issue during the fall election - may be disappointed.

"The NRA scare tactics are not going to work because most gun laws will remain intact; therefore, I don't see the political hay being made for either side," said Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C. Democrat. "Any skillful political campaign could word its comments to the independents that they are both trying to appeal to."

Mrs. Norton, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, based her comments in part on the narrowness of the ruling that gave D.C. residents the right to have handguns in their homes for protection, but "did not uphold an individual's right to have a gun at will."

Further, she said, "it leaves plenty of room for strict gun laws because the court did not want to disarm public officials from protecting their citizens in a country that believes in local control."

The gun-rights lobby has pledged to spend millions on political ads that will focus on Sen. Barack Obama's words about "bitter" blue-collar voters who "cling" to guns and religion. And in support of the 5-4 ruling, Sen. John McCain made an obvious reference to his November opponent: "Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right - sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly."

In a thinly veiled attempt to play to those he offended, Mr. Obama's statement said that "as president, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners, hunters and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne."

Ronald Walters, University of Maryland political science professor and commentator, also notes that the gun issue "is not really new" and "those who support guns have already decided" on their candidates.

While Mr. Walters said the gun-control issue "obviously strengthens McCain's hand and is strong priority on the Republican side," but it provides only marginal support. Except for Mr. Obama's "bitter" comment, "I cannot find another hook where it would be a subject for disagreement or debate," he said.

However, Mr. Walters added that on the gun-control debate, Mr. Obama needs to walk a fine line with black leaders "because African-Americans are disproportionately the target of gun violence, many mayors and elected officials feel strongly in terms of gun control and limiting the flow of their use."

Seeming to placate that constituency, Mr. Obama's statement also included the gun-control sentiment that "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures."

Though he doesn't see it as a major concern at this point, Michael K. Fauntroy, George Mason University public-policy professor and commentator, sees a different hiccup for Mr. Obama: The statements issued by Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama were too similar to provide much cannon fodder for either camp. In addition, both men have voted for stricter controls of purchases at gun shows, which has caused a rift between Mr. McCain and gun-rights advocates in the past.

"Whatever political problems could have come up for either candidate have been muted, because they both effectively came out and agreed with the decision," Mr. Fauntroy said.

In doing so, Mr. Fauntroy said Mr. Obama "shut off a line of attack by Republicans by taking the position he's taken, and he understands that this position isn't going to cost him any states in November."

The issue, however, contributes to mounting disquiet over Mr. Obama among liberals.

"This is a larger problem for Obama," Mr. Fauntroy suggested, because "there is some very slowly turning skepticism on the left on just how progressive he really is."

Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

Do you have another point of view, photos, audio, video or more information about a story?