Where, Where the Hell Is Bill?
David Weigel | March 8, 2007, 9:23am
Liz Mair
takes to the New York Sun to analyze the state of the Libertarian Democrats. Can I give away the ending?
First, we have Senator Clinton, master of the big-government welfare state, with its price tag to be paid for with tax increases... Then, we have the former senator from North Carolina, John Edwards. During his Senate days, he was one of the most fiscally conservative Democrats. But, since then, he's jumped on the loony-Left bandwagon, bashing Wal-Mart, personally leading a new War on Poverty, and championing tax hikes and large-scale redistribution of wealth... And, finally, we have Senator Obama, the man who has served a grand total of two years in the Senate and in that time has voted against every notable bill that would cut taxes.
But Mair argues that New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson could string together a libertarian-Democrat coalition that would truly challenge the GOP in the Mountain West, and among voters who care about guns and taxes.
Mr. Richardson scored third best of any Democratic governor for overall current-term performance on Cato's 2006 Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors. He earned a better grade than 37 other Governors, including 20 Republicans, in part because, during his tenure, New Mexico's top marginal income tax rate has dropped a remarkable 35%.
Mr. Richardson also brings good credentials where immigration, guns, and social issues are concerned. He declared a border emergency in his state in 2005 (so he's no immigration softie), and he voted against the Brady bill and other gun control initiatives while in Congress. Yet, Mr. Richardson also has solid, moderate, pro-choice credentials, and is not a proponent of constitutional bans on gay marriage or civil unions.
Mr. Richardson's record and his views could resonate with libertarian Democrats, and that's something that should give Democratic Party bigwigs pause for thought.
Sounds great! And Richardson could be a good candidate if he came up with a powerful platform - something every candidate except the born-again lefty John Edwards lacks - and tightened his message machine. Maybe it'll come after he announces a formal bid and answers the inevitable scandal queries.
Kap | March 8, 2007, 2:04pm | #
To add a few points:
1) Presently Maryland is conducting hearings pursuant to enacting a statewide "Assault Weapons" ban. According to the firsthand reports I read on SIG Forum the other day, the anti-gun politicians have been quoting Zumbo re: his assault rifle disparaging. This is exactly what other gun owners like myself and Mediageek find so offensive about his comments.
2) Once "Assault Weapons" are in the bag, I believe the next lowest hanging fruit would be "Sniper Rifles," i.e. Zumbo's hunting rifles. He is/was profoundly naive, IMHO.
3) Owning a full-auto firearm requires more than a Federal Firearms License. These sorts of things are referred to as "Class III" items, which also includes suchlike as suppressors ("silencers"), rifles with barrels less than 16 1/2" in length, and novelties like pen- or cane guns. Obtaining a license for a Class III item requires living in a state that doesn't ban them (~1/2 of America?), undergoing a full photo/fingerprint/send Mulder & Scully to talk to your boss FBI background check, a process which takes typically 6 months. Included in this is a $200 tax (it was $200 in 1934, hasn't been adjusted for inflation) and a requirement that your Chief Law Enforcement Officer (e.g. chief of police in your jurisdiction) write a letter on official letterhead stating he has no problem with you owning a machine gun. This is an effective deal breaker in many jurisdictions, as it is not "shall issue," but often contingent on campaign donations or - shall we say - "golf buddy relationships". In addition, Bush the Elder signed into law a stipulation that no new automatic firearms will be licensed after 1986. Therefore the supply is fixed and at least 22 years old. Typically a "transferrable" HK MP5 submachine gun in decent condition will sell for $15,000-20,000. Finally, part of the paperwork on Class III licensing also requires you essentially waive your 4th Amendment rights against warrantless searches.
To put it bluntly, this is a regulatory regime designed not so much to outlaw automatic weapons as to limit them to the wealthy and politically well-connected. Never was a gun control law so transparently honest in its intent. Remember kids, it's not about "gun", it's about "control". This is why many of us put the issue at or near the top of our list. It
is a litmus test.
Nothing is more political than a gun; owning one is a political statement. It is a repudiation of statism. The animus the anti-gun have towards them has nothing to do with their associated death toll; it is an animus against their
political symbolism. This is why there is such a drive to ban assault rifles: they are used in a vanishingly small fraction of crimes, but no weapon wears its politics on its sleeve quite like an M4gery. It is analogous to banning Ferraris and Lamborghinis in an effort to redefine the social meaning of the automobile, removing the political connotations of freedom and independence, and redefining automobiles back down into the box of pure point-A-to-point-B utility. Such an effort would be about much more than simple traffic safety; it would be an attempt to remove some of the libertarian culture from our society.
There are about 70,000 Class III items in the USA. In the 70+ years of NFA34 history there has only been one instance of a crime being committed with a legally held Class III item: a corrupt cop killed an informant scheduled to testify against him with one of his department's submachine guns.
But, you know, I'm the threat to society because now since 9/2004 (sunset of AWB94) the gun I carry when I walk my dog has a 12 round magazine instead of 10.
Put me in Mediageek's corner, it's the issue that brought me into the ring in the first place.
Kap | March 8, 2007, 5:40pm | #
Matt -
I understand what you are saying, and I agree completely. The gun issue to me is very important, but it is not the only thing that is important. My point in ranting was to try to explain why some folks who have no interest in guns per se could consider it an important issue nonetheless. When I carry a gun, the neighborhood cop is not a
father, but a
brother. I make the assumption that how a politician feels about that is a good indicator of how he feels about the larger issues of the balance of government vs citizen power, and that will play into how he feels about SWAT abuse, the WoD, and torture. I see it as a litmus test only insofar as it reveals an underlying truth about the politician as an organic whole.
Should I choose another issue as a single-issue litmus test? How about the war on drugs? Show me the politician, I don't see one. How about torture? I see only McCain, who is simply awful everywhere else.
Personally I live in Texas, and therefore the outcomes of my elections are typically foregone conclusions. Therefore each time 'round I hold my nose and vote big L party ticket, if only to add to the dialog next time around. But I do so knowing that I would say exactly the same thing you said to me, to pretty much any L candidate (witness the Ron Paul coverage a few days ago):
We have a gutted 4th Amendment, we torture foreigners and Americans, our foreign policy is completely unstable, and we are engaging in a drug war that exacerbates all of these. Your litmus test is assault weapons the gold standard?
Guns are a very powerful issue in American politics because - for better or worse - it is one of the few issues on which voting D vs R actually can make a clear, specific, objective difference in the life of the voter, witness rounds #11 and #12 in my magazine, which I can point to and say "because R was in power 9/13/2004". Given a choice between that and nebulous promises, undifferentiable candidates, and unverifiable outcomes, it isn't entirely unreasonable to go with the former. But yes, I would have no problem giving them up to make the WoD and torture go away. I just suspect that if I gave them up...I would only be giving them up, for nothing in return.
