Will gun control become a top election issue?
It didn’t seem likely for a while. The high visibility of pressing concerns like 40-year high inflation rates, a burgeoning humanitarian crisis in the ongoing war in Ukraine, and domestic culture warring over education policy have been at the top of most Americans’ minds.
But actions taken by President Joe Biden this week may very well have foisted the issue of guns back onto the radar of voters going into November’s midterm elections. Largely at the behest of a sustained pressure campaign from gun-control groups, President Biden announced his new nominee to head the ATF on Monday. He also announced the accelerated release of the final ATF rule banning “ghost gun” kits.
Either action taken on its own would be enough to raise the political stakes. Gun control by executive fiat is a policy route that draws the ire of gun owners and energizes gun-control advocates. But combining that announcement with the another attempt to successfully confirm a permanent ATF director takes the political stakes up a notch.
Getting a permanent ATF director confirmed is a tough battle in any political environment, as evidenced by the fact that only one director has been confirmed since 2006. The Trump administration was not even successful in confirming a nominee despite Republican control of the Senate at the time.
But the failure of David Chipman’s nomination to the ATF director role was perhaps the most high-profile political loss for Biden thus far in an administration that has seen its fair share of contentious confirmation battles. The fact that the Biden administration would return to that well after burning so much political capital in vain last time around suggests a commitment to making gun control a key selling point for his party.
Dettelbach may not have the same political baggage as his ill-fated predecessor. Chipman was a professional gun-control advocate employed by Giffords prior to his nomination. He also had a history of making controversial and derisive statements about the industry and gun owners he would be in charge of regulating at the ATF. Plus, serious concerns about his character while working as a federal agent were uncovered after his nomination.
Dettelbach supports many of the same gun restrictions Chipman did. He was endorsed by the gun-control groups during his failed 2018 AG campaign, but has never directly worked for them like Chipman did. He has used heated rhetoric to question the integrity of Ohio’s elections. But much of his background is still unexplored to this point.
The renewed push for a permanent ATF director is likely part of the White House’s attempt to dissuade voter concerns over rising crime. Dettelbach’s background as a prosecutor and the bipartisan support he has received thus far from other prosecutors and law enforcement officials provides some support for that idea.
However, Dettelbach is on record as supporting contentious gun-control policies like “assault weapons” bans and universal background check mandates. His backing of those policies will undoubtedly raise the salience of gun politics alongside crime concerns in his upcoming confirmation battle.
The president is taking a political risk by announcing another gun-control advocate to lead the agency charged with regulating the firearms industry while releasing controversial new gun regulations. It isn’t immediately clear this nominee will fare better than the last in terms of securing the support of moderates in the Senate, and another tense confirmation fight this close to election season could be a political liability for Democrats. At the same time, his final “ghost gun” kit ban has already mobilized Republican political opposition, and the forthcoming pistol brace ban–which will directly impact millions of Americans–will only add more fuel to that fire.
The President’s handling of gun policy has been underwater for nearly a year. Now, Democrats as a party are polling behind Republicans on guns too.
As election season draws nearer, it’s unclear how enthusiastic moderate Democrats from vulnerable states will be to vote for an ATF candidate with an established history of support for gun restrictions.
But it is clear that the President has set in motion the potential for gun politics to be a motivating issue for voters just months away from a midterm election poised to deliver serious Republican gains. How will voters react?
5 Responses
The evidence seems to lead to a conclusion that Bloomberg money (and other funding sources) are paying mainstream media to push anti-gun propaganda and to slant their news articles. And, it’s Bloomberg and other money is dark money going to candidates in a quid pro quo to push gun control talking points.
Evidence: Lately Newsweek has been using the term “gunned down” in their headlines when there was a shooting but no one actually killed. They continue to quote the gun violence archive as a credible source when we all know it is cherry-picked and biased source.
I am convinced there is dark money flowing into media pockets and that is why we see the biased news articles. And, I am convinced dark money is flowing into politicians and Democratic Party coffers to push their agenda.
Can you investigate and find out if this is true and is there a way to expose mainstream media for being paid to create partisan propaganda, and politicians being paid to push anti-gun talking points?
I haven’t seen any evidence the gun-control groups are directly paying outlets to publish stories or use their preferred terms. I don’t think that’s very likely either. I’m happy to look at any evidence of payments people might be able to find, but this is not the way they tend to operate.
When Bloomberg or the gun-control groups try to influence news, they usually do it in public. For instance, they directly fund The Trace which partners with traditional news outlets like USA Today and New York Magazine on some stories. They also create resources and reports that they distribute to reporters. They consult on scripts for TV shows and movies. But they disclose all of that in public.
Their influence is definitely real. It’s just not hidden.
Stephen,
Thanks for the reply.
What about the NRA emails and documents being hacked?
It wouldn’t surprise me if one of these groups used bitcoin to buy hackers for hire outside the US to hack them.
Also, it wouldn’t surprise me if these anti-gun organizations are using companies like C2i to conduct spying and espionage inside the gun rights communities. And, again with bitcoin, the entire thing could be done in secret.
There definitely appears to be a coordinated attack and the wording, the attacks on the NRA, and the suppression of positive stories is a clear pattern. That takes money and operatives.
Also, these anti-gun orgs are frustrated and many have started using really offensive language. Just look at the way they are treationg Kyle Rittenhouse. And, we now know that they think the ends justifies the means. Just look at the doxxing of the Libs of Tik Tok.
There is defintely some secret coordination and spending going on….where?
Cody
There’s all sorts of things that can be speculated on, but I can only work off of evidence that I have. The NRA hack was carried out by a Russian hacker group which commonly does ransomware attacks. It’s certainly possible there could be more going on there, but I don’t have any evidence for that. I’m always digging and looking for stories. And I’m always open to tips from anyone with more evidence than me.
Certainly, the gun-control groups have a lot of influence that stretches into media and politics. Most of that is done with publicly-disclosed spending in ways similar to how the gun-rights groups operate. I’m always interested in uncovering anything that goes beyond that, though. But I need proof before I can write anything. I’m sure you expect no less than that from me.
Stephen, Thanks again. I appreciate your perspective. I will do some digging and if I can find something, I will let you know. Looking at how the Steele dossier was created and how people could so easily hire people to do dirty work, I can see how it’s tempting for gun control groups, or associated individuals, to use unscrupulous means. I am going to dig around and see what I turn up.
Cody