Bucking the Party Line on Gun Control

For some Republicans, voting in favor of recent gun bills exacts a political toll.

By
32

After an 18-year-old gunman murdered 10 of GOP Rep. Chris Jacobs’ constituents in a Buffalo supermarket late last month, the congressman felt he was at a crossroads.

He could almost assuredly sail to victory during his Republican primary—as he did in 2020—in New York’s newly drawn but still ruby-red 23rd District with robust support from pro-Second Amendment groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Gun Owners of America New York. Or, he could make a gamble that in light of the Buffalo tragedy, his constituents might be looking for a change of heart on gun control.

Late last month, Jacobs sealed his electoral fate. “I want to be completely transparent of where I am in Congress,” Jacobs said during a May 27 press conference. “If an assault weapons ban bill came to the floor that would ban something like an AR-15, I would vote for it.” 

The political blowback was swift and unforgiving. Jacobs’ credibility among Second Amendment organizations and local Republican officials evaporated almost instantly, as did his reelection prospects. One week after voicing his support for a ban on semiautomatic rifles, he announced he would not seek reelection. 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
32
By
Comments (32)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Rajeev

    If the NRA & other prominent 2nd Amendment groups oppose this bill, then it has shown how extreme they have become. Just a decade ago they would point to many aspects of a bill like this as alternative to limits on ammunition & background checks they vehemently opposed. The reflexive nature of these organizations shows they aren't serious policy thinkers anymore and I for one believe there was a time when they once were. Specifically the NRA is a cesspool of corruption that in a vacuum no one would support if they hadn't already obtained so much power.

    Collapse
  2. Mathew A

    "It seems like our parties have certain things you have to be an absolutist on or you’re not part of the party in a way,” Jacobs said in an interview last week. “We have that on guns."

    Not wanting to ban semi automatic rifles (IE most hunting rifles) which is what an AR 15 is doesn't make you a gun absolutist.

    Nor not wanting to ban standard capacity magazines.

    The maximalist position would be that the 2nd amendment covers the types of small arms used by the military (see US V Miller 1938) thus actual machine guns are legal and cannot be ban.

    Collapse
  3. Mike A

    Is it a problem if a senator or rep considers democrats, independents and GOP constituents when supporting a policy? I live in a deep blue state where the politicians are 100% party line and 0% for the general population. A sad state. The GOP supporters of the legislation are perhaps representing a majority of their constituents therefore they are deprioritizing a minority special interest group. I wish that the dems in power would learn to represent all the citizens and learn to ignore the progressive minority

    Collapse
    1. Fudrock

      I feel similarly in my Red State. No interest in striking a balance with blue constituents.

      Collapse
  4. Acre00

    I'm going to be very interested in how this plays out politically in the future. People who feel strongly about the 2nd amendment tend to have long memories on the issue, and I doubt they'll have forgotten by the time the senators that voted for this are up for election. Maybe if a bill comes up that loosens restrictions in other ways they can get back in the republican primary voters' good graces, but I highly doubt that will happen. Gun control is a one way ratchet.

    I don't like the bill and I would have strongly advised my senator against it if my state wasn't bluer than the jeans I'm wearing, but I don't think those that voted for it are traitors. I disagree with this vote, and it is likely I would vote against them in a primary - depending on who else is running - but I don't bear them any ill will.

    Collapse
    1. Mathew A

      "Gun control is a one way ratchet."

      This isn't true. See all the states that now offer concealed carry, or even constitutional carry.

      Collapse
      1. Acre00

        That is correct. I meant at the federal level and should have specified.

        Collapse
  5. Tim Moore

    Red flag laws don't control guns or ban them. Background checks on minors do not control guns any more than background checks against felons - they are both directed towards persons, not guns. It is way past time that the NRA step up to the plate and tell us - gun owners - what can be done to prevent whackos from killing children.

    And IMHO, banning semi automatic rifles does not and will not prevent more chaos - it is simply "feel good" unless and until someone can explain to me how society intends to rid itself of the literally millions (estimates are 8 million AR-15 looking rifles and DOES NOT INCLUDE OTHER SEMI AUTOMATIC RIFLES which do not look like AR-15s) short of a door-to-door house search.

    Collapse
    1. Mathew A

      "what can be done to prevent whackos from killing children."

      I don't think there is anyway to eliminate this in a nation of 330 million people. But I do think there can be some things that help.

      1. Stop blasting the national airways when these things happen. After Columbine we've seen a surge of copy cats. Don't make these people notorious.

      2. Bring back God into our country and schools. Bring back more community. The people that do this almost always are loners. We need to not let these people fall through the cracks.

      3. I do think red flag laws could help, and I support them if they have due process protections and punishments if the system is abused (false reporting of people to get back at them).

      Collapse
      1. Fudrock

        I had 10 years of Catholic School growing up, and I couldn’t have been more eager to leave it, and I was not alone in this sentiment.

        “Bringing back God” is not a sweepingly effective prescription, I’m afraid, as it presumes everyone wants to hear it.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          rlritt

          Exactly. It's like the children in these schools wouldn't have been murdered if they had only prayed harder. No one in this country are going to give up their "toys" that can make all the Barney Fyfe's can feel like Rambo. Who cares if some frustrated teenager decides to kill a bunch of kids. The NRA and the gun manufacturers have been marketing their products and know just how reach the would be gunslinger.

          Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    John D. Wright

    I'm very pro 2A. I don't see what is so terrible about this bill. It's just the sort of thing we've been wanting. A bill clean of draconian measures that Democrats always add. Yes we need proper due process on the state red flag laws but that has always been the case. That is done at the state level.

    If I were advising the Democrats, I would suggest they drop the term assault weapon. It is instantly discrediting to anyone who uses it. We have no widespread use of assault weapons in this country. Even during the ban in the 90's there were thousands of guns legal that were every bit as effective at killing at the ones banned. It was all for show.

    If you want to do something specific then stick to specifics. I may disagree with a measure but I can respect people who suggest bills around these things as not being completely ignorant:
    1. Magazine size
    2. Barrel length (as we have for shot guns)
    3. Bump stocks (should have always been illegal)
    4. Even bullet size, velocity, etc... are all valid measurable things.

    Just drop the term "assault weapon" because every educated gun owner knows immediately that you don't know what you are talking about using that term.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Blake

      I think my problems with the bill boil down to that it was rushed. None of the provisions in it would have prevented Uvalde from happening. While I’m not generally opposed to the ideas in the bill, I don’t understand the rush to “do something” instead of taking the time to do it right. Without a proper debate (and obviously this is just a problem with congress in general), we don’t get answers to questions like if we think it’s appropriate to change, at the federal level, how every state handles their juvenile records. Or if NICS can even connect to all the additional systems this bill would require for its 18-20 rifle purchase requirements.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat @ Tavi Hall

        I think you might be incorrect in Uvalde, a well crafted and educated red flag law might have stopped him getting guns legally.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Blake

          I seriously doubt it. He had a violent enough history to be arrested and charged with crimes that would’ve prevented him from getting guns and law enforcement didn’t do so. If we don’t take actual violent crime seriously, what makes you think we’ll take the possibility of violent crime more seriously?

          Collapse
      2. Mathew A

        Fair enough. Though I would imagine a lot of these proposed bills have potential draft versions waiting the next time we must "do something.

        So it might not be quite as rushed as it looks.

        I agree you need proper debate

        Collapse
    2. Mathew A

      "I'm very pro 2A. I don't see what is so terrible about this bill. It's just the sort of thing we've been wanting."

      Agreed. Leaves most gun owners alone, but could help prevent mentally unstable people from getting one. As long as due process protections are in place I could get behind it

      Collapse
  7. Jayne R.

    Congratulations. The Stasi have come to America.

    Collapse
  8. SazzyTX

    This bill is fairly narrowly focused and will not change things for the vast majority of gun owning Americas. I’m sure that my local Academy is out of ammo, and I’m almost afraid to check the stock price for Smith & Wesson.

    Collapse
  9. Duane Truitt

    This is a pretty mild bill and "gun control" is really a misnomer. It is much more of a school safety bill that has some very minor gun-related elements in it. That is enough to generate a strong negative response from the majority of GOP members of Congress, especially the House who tend to represent very red districts, while Senators must run statewide so tend to be less absolutist than House members.

    If any actual gun control bill that the Democrats are demanding, such as bans on mis-named "assault rifles" (there is no such thing - the term is based strictly upon superficial appearances; the AR-15s function absolutely no differently than any other semi-automatic long gun routinely used for hunting as well as self defense), then the Republicans will close ranks, no questions asked, to defeat such bills.

    In the end, a Member is first and foremost supposed to represent the majority of their constituents. Announcing a retirement is one thing, but betraying their constituents is unethical. If the Congressman could not vote as his constituents would want him or her to, then they must resign immediately, or else abstain on the matter.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      Are you familiar with the trustee model vs delegate model of representation?

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    MatthewRobin

    Mitch McConnell's quote provides further evidence that the only voters who matter are suburbanites, or any group of people who could vote for either party.

    Collapse
    1. Mathew A

      If that was true then the Democrats would have passed their wish list gun control decades ago.

      Collapse
Load More