The election is just over two months away, and the gun politics of the race seem to have settled in.
Voters see the issue as important but not the most important. That tends to change in the aftermath of major shootings. But we haven’t had many of those this year. Hopefully, we won’t see any more, but it’s unfortunately a realistic possibility. So, I try to reason through how the race might change if we see one between now and election day.
Meanwhile, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman does a deep dive into where the gun groups are spending their money. The gun-control groups have been outraising the gun-rights groups. But where is each side investing what it has raised?
Plus, gun-rights lawyer Matt Larosiere on the first federal ruling against the machinegun ban and how it might impact the National Firearms Act.
Analysis: How Would a Mass Shooting Affect the Election? [Member Exclusive]
By Stephen Gutowski
The presidential election is 65 days away, and the gun policy debate has stagnated. But a high-profile shooting could change that.
To this point in 2024, there has not been a single mass shooting that meets The Violence Project’s definition where four or more people are killed in a random public attack. That is highly unusual because we’ve usually seen between five to ten mass shootings over the past decade. And since those are the kinds of shootings that tend to drive media coverage, we haven’t had a lot of national gun news.
Even beyond mass shootings, there have only really been two high-profile shootings this year. The first was the Super Bowl parade shooting. And that was back in March, months before President Joe Biden would even drop out of the race. It was too early, and the details were too disconnected from the political gun debate to make much of a lasting impact on the race.
If a major shooting happens between now and election day, things would probably be very different. It would likely cause a flood of attention that could easily rocket the issue to the top of mind for voters and change the dynamic of the race.
The campaign has seen its share of unprecedented developments and swings, but, now that we’re through the conventions, each side has pretty well established its approach to guns. Donald Trump and Republicans have stuck by pro-gun positions, but they’ve also actively avoided talking about it. Kamala Harris and Democrats have drawn a stark contrast to that by emphasizing gun control at their convention–at least as much as they have the last couple of election cycles.
Polling shows Americans still consider gun policy a key part of their vote. In the most recent CBS News/YouGov poll, 58 percent said it is a major factor in deciding who to support. Just 12 percent said it wasn’t a factor at all.
The polling indicates Americans are fairly split on who they favor on guns, too. That CBS poll found Democrats and liberals ranked gun policy as more important than Republicans and conservatives. Meanwhile, a Fox News poll from a few weeks earlier showed voters slightly favoring Trump over Harris on the issue.
But the most recent Fox News poll reveals another truth about voters and guns: they don’t consider it their top issue today. In a survey released this week, Fox found just three percent of voters identified guns as their top priority in the 2024 election.
It’s not surprising to see guns aren’t the top priority for most voters. That’s pretty typical. The issue tends to lag well behind economic issues and fall somewhere in the middle of the pack. Guns only tend to be a top-line issue in the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting or some other form of high-profile gun violence.
Those have also tended to be the times when Donald Trump has wavered in his pro-gun positions. In the aftermath of the El Paso shooting, he reportedly toyed with supporting an AR-15 ban behind closed doors. In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting, he publicly considered backing so-called Red Flag laws. In the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting, he actually did implement the unconstitutional ban on bump stocks.
Another high-profile attack in the weeks before an election where he’s lagging behind in polling could push him to once again consider backing new gun restrictions.
Of course, this year’s second high-profile shooting offers a counterpoint to that idea. After all, Donald Trump himself was shot in the ear with an AR-15 by an attempted assassin just before the Republican National Convention. And that event hasn’t appreciably changed his position on guns.
So, maybe, despite going mostly quiet on the issue and complaining gun owners don’t show up to the polls in recent weeks, he won’t actually move away from gun voters under any circumstances.
But the Trump assassination attempt, for obvious reasons, did a lot more to generate sympathy for him than pressure to change his stance on guns. A high-profile shooting that doesn’t directly involve him would probably play out a lot more like the others mentioned above.
Then there’s Kamala Harris. Her campaign has followed the Biden playbook on guns thus far, even walking back her previous support for a mandatory buyback of AR-15s. A major shooting in the campaign’s final stretch could convince her to move right back to pushing for confiscation.
A steady shift in polling on its own could build the necessary pressure to shake up the state of the gun debate. Harris has moved away from many of her previous positions in an attempt to shore up her left flank since being thrust to the top of the ticket. Trump has tried to do the same, especially around abortion, in an attempt to arrest her rise. Either could continue to triangulate on guns under that pressure alone.
But a mass shooting would surely compound that pressure and likely reshape the race as we now know it.
Podcast: Gun-Rights Lawyer Matt Larosiere on a Federal Judge Ruling Against the Machinegun Ban [Member Early Access]
By Stephen Gutowski
This week, we’re covering the very first time since the Supreme Court handed down the Bruen ruling that a federal judge has struck down the machinegun ban.
That may have implications for not just the ban itself but the law it is housed under: The National Firearms Act (NFA). That’s why we’ve got a gun-rights lawyer who has handled NFA cases. Matt Larosiere gives his view of what the holding in US v. Morgan means for the ban on post-1986 fully-automatic weapons and the NFA writ large.
He notes the case doesn’t include an injunction against the ban. Instead, it’s limited to the named defendant. He argued it’s very likely to be appealed and unlikely to win at the next level, though he couldn’t say for sure.
Larosiere said the barrier to plaintiffs winning cases against the ban was less a legal one than a public or judicial perception one. Still, he argued the victory in Morgan was not meaningless. He said it would help him and other gun-rights activists in future cases against the ban as well as other portions of the NFA.
You can listen to the show on your favorite podcasting app or by clicking here. Video of the episode is available on our YouTube channel. An auto-generated transcript is available here. Reload Members get access on Sunday, as always. Everyone else can listen on Monday.
Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I cover the latest federal campaign finance numbers showing gun control groups outraising the NRA and other gun rights organizations in the lead up to the election. We also talk about a pair of federal appeals court rulings, one striking down the federal gun ban for marijuana users and the other striking down Missouri’s expansive Second Amendment Sanctuary law. Finally, we wrap up with a quick discussion of gun groups officially appealing to the Supreme Court over Maryland’s AR-15 ban and a pair of dueling court decisions on the legality of switchblade bans from across the country.
Analysis: Where Gun Groups are Spending Their Election Money [Member Exclusive]
By Jake Fogleman
Gun-control groups have consistently outraised gun-rights organizations in the lead-up to the 2024 election.
This week saw the trend continue. With less than two and a half months until election day, the latest Federal Election Commission filings showed the political arms of Everytown, Giffords, and Brady outraised the NRA and its counterparts for the fourth time in the last five months. As the groups on either side of the gun debate continue to jockey for political influence, how that money is ultimately spent will help determine who holds the White House and control of Congress after this November.
Here’s a look at what their fundraising has gone to so far in terms of 2024 election spending.
National Rifle Association
The NRA’s PAC, the Political Victory Fund, has reported $188,791 in outside spending for the 2024 cycle thus far. Nearly all of that, $184,216.47, has been in support of former President Donald Trump.
It has also spent $4,600 in support of Oklahoma Congressman Tom Cole (R.), who successfully fended off a well-funded primary challenger. It also reported $426 in spending opposing Jefferson Shreve, an Indiana Republican who endorsed a series of gun-control measures in his unsuccessful 2023 bid for mayor of Indianapolis and is now the GOP candidate for Indiana’s 6th Congressional District.
The NRA’s PAC has also reported $256,950 in campaign contributions in the 2024 cycle to date, unanimously in support of Republicans. Among the more than 160 congressional candidates the PAC contributed to, North Carolina Congressman Richard Hudson (R.) received the highest contribution of $9,900. On the Senate side, the group contributed to eleven different Senate candidates, with Republican Senators Blackburn (Tenn.), Cramer (N.D.), Cruz (Texas), and Ricketts (Neb.) being the leading recipients at $4,950 each.
It also contributed $140,100 to various GOP PACs and party organizations, including $45,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee and $30,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee.
The NRA has yet to truly activate its super PAC, the NRA Victory Fund. It has posted anemic fundraising numbers throughout the year, and its largest expenditure for the 2024 cycle has been a $20,535 disbursement to the NRA’s lobbying arm, according to OpenSecrets. That’s despite it having $191,967.32 in cash on hand.
Other Pro-Gun Groups
The PAC for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearms industry’s trade group, has reported $546,492 in candidate contributions thus far and zero in outside spending, according to OpenSecrets. The group donated $531,492 to Republican candidates and $15,000 to Democratic candidates. Representatives Mike Johnson (R., La.), Mary Peltola (D., Alaska), Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.), and Bruce Westerman (R., Ark.) each received the largest individual candidate contributions, at $10,000 each. Maine Congressman Jared Golden received $5,000 and is the only other Democrat the PAC has contributed to this cycle.
The NSSF PAC contributed an additional $284,638 to leadership funds and party organizations. All of that money went toward Republican groups as well, according to OpenSecrets.
The group’s Protect Liberty super PAC has yet to report any outside campaign spending. The same is true of the United States Concealed Carry Association for Saving Lives, a recently formed super PAC from the United States Concealed Carry Association.
GOA Victory Fund, the super PAC for Gun Owners of America, has reported spending $181,562 throughout the 2024 election cycle, according to OpenSecrets. The bulk of the group’s spending took place in Republican primaries across the country, mostly across three particular races. The group spent $57,383 in support of Alex Mooney (R.), who unsuccessfully challenged West Virginia Governor Jim Justice (R.) to become the GOP nominee to replace the outgoing Joe Manchin (D.) in the US Senate. The GOA Victory Fund also spent $47,682 in support of guntuber Brandon Herrera’s unsuccessful attempt to unseat incumbent Texas Congressman Tony Gonzales (R.). It spent $32,571 in support of House Freedom Caucus chairman Bob Good’s (R.) eventual primary loss to Virginia state senator John McGuire (R.).
The group’s PAC also reported $30,000 in campaign contributions to various Republican candidates, again mainly to unsuccessful primary challengers. It also donated $500 to the Republican Party of Michigan.
Everytown for Gun Safety
The country’s largest and most prominent gun-control group, Everytown, has pledged to spend $45 million in the 2024 election without providing the specifics of how that money would be sourced and spent.
To date, however, the group has not yet come close to that total. Its super PAC, the Everytown for Gun Safety Victory Fund, has reported $1,090,701 in outside campaign spending during the 2024 cycle, almost entirely to boost Democrats. $990,535 of that total was spent in support of President Joe Biden prior to his decision to drop out of the race. The group spent an additional $100,000 in support of Lucy McBath (D.), an incumbent Congresswoman representing Georgia.
The group has also reported an additional roughly $976,000 in spending on contributions to both federal and local party organizations, political committees, and candidates between its PAC and super PAC. The group also registered a new super PAC, the Everytown-Demand a Seat PAC, that has yet to begin spending. It has reported just under $8 million in available funds, nearly all of which came from Michael Bloomberg in a single donation last quarter, according to the most recently available FEC filing.
Giffords
Like Everytown, Giffords made a splashy pledge to spend big in the 2024 election, committing $15 million to help boost Kamala Harris (D.) and other pro-gun-control candidates. Similarly, it has yet to identify the source and specific plans for those funds.
Giffords PAC has yet to report any independent expenditures this cycle and has only reported approximately $153,000 in contributions to various candidates and political organizations thus far. It has reported spending $706,852 on “media,” primarily in the form of web ads.
Brady
The smallest of the big three gun-control groups, Brady is typically less active in federal elections than its counterparts. Thus far in the 2024 cycle, Brady PAC has yet to report any independent expenditures and has disclosed just $25,029 in contributions. The group donated $2,000 to Georgia Representative Lucy McBath (D.), as well as $1,000 to Pennsylvania Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (R.), the group’s only Republican recipient.
Overall, while groups on either side of the gun issue have clearly been involved in helping to shape the political races currently taking place, neither has yet ramped up to their full potential. Both the NRA and the gun-control groups are currently sitting on eight-figure war chests while continuously fundraising to grow them. With the stakes of the election clear for gun voters, expect to see all of the groups bolster their political spending in the weeks to come.
That’s it for now.
I’ll talk to you all again soon.
Thanks,
Stephen Gutowski
Founder
The Reload
