by James Oliphant
ALBURTIS, Pa.--Their passion is on display, table by table, row by row.
Six-shooter revolvers, World War II-era rifles, plastic automatics, AK-47s, knives as long as your forearm, Nazi memorabilia, sniper scopes, hunting shotguns, bullets, shells, stickers ("If You Come In This Door, You Will Be Killed").
It's a drizzly, chilly morning in this tiny eastern Pennsylvania town, but the muddy parking lot outside the low-slung, cinder block community center for the gun show is full. Fathers linger over displays with their sons. Vendors crack jokes and swap stories.
To them, the scene is as American as a baseball game. But here, political issues--or more specifically one issue--are never far away. Mention Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to them and they shake their heads, their eyes narrowing with mistrust.
Guns are unusually important in Pennsylvania, which leads the nation in National Rifle Association membership and is home to almost 1 million licensed hunters. As its Democratic presidential primary approaches Tuesday, Clinton and Obama increasingly have cast themselves as sworn defenders of the Second Amendment.
"They can say what they want," says David Hinkle, a patron of the gun show from Alburtis. "We don't believe it."
Clinton has talked about her father teaching her how to shoot as a child. That led Obama to derisively compare her to " Annie Oakley."
But Obama perhaps has larger problems on the issue now. His comments earlier this month about residents of small-town American who "cling" to their guns because of fading economic prospects reaffirmed for many gun-owners what they had long suspected, that he is, in fact, an anti-gun candidate masking his true nature.
Both candidates have been targeted by groups like the NRA. "If they think they are going to be able to hold themselves out as sportsmen, just wait until the general election," said James Jay Baker, a long-time association lobbyist.
From the time Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, many Democrats have brandished hunting rifles to show their kinship with sportsmen. Baker thinks it will be a steep climb for either Clinton or Obama in their pursuit of a relatively small segment of the vote.
What's more, it generates criticism from the left. "You have both Obama and Clinton going out of their way to appeal to a cross-section of gun owners who are never going to vote for them," bemoans Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center.
The target market may be larger than it appears. A 2006 Gallup Poll found that about one-third of Americans living in a household with a gun are Democrats, and that includes a lot of union members. Many believe that an anti-gun stance cost Al Gore his home state of Tennessee in 2000, and cost John Kerry West Virginia in 2004.
And the record of Clinton and Obama on gun issues makes their rhetoric harder to swallow. Neither senator signed onto a recent brief in a pending Supreme Court case that called for Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns to be overturned--unlike presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain and a majority of the Senate.
During the presidential debate in Philadelphia Wednesday, Obama said he wasn't familiar enough with the case to comment even though the city of Chicago had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the ban. Clinton, too, would not commit to supporting the D.C. ban.
The court currently is deciding the long-debated issue of whether the Second Amendment creates an individual right of handgun ownership, a concept both Democrats have said they endorse, but with limits.
It's precisely those limits that rankle hard-core gun rights supporters. As a senator, Clinton voted for a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban originally advocated by her husband. It expired in September 2004. She favors mandatory trigger locks and allowing the Consumer Product Safety Commission to regulate guns.
In a speech prior to the Million Mom March in 2000, Clinton said, "Many will argue that we don't need sensible gun control, and that these measures undermine the rights of gun owners. And of course, we all know the slogan that guns don't kill, only people do. We have to do more to stand up to those who refuse to believe the reality that guns do kill, and that common-sense gun measures can make a difference."
Obama supports a proposal to ban concealed weapons nationwide. He also would extend the assault weapons ban. In 1999, before being elected to the U.S. Senate, he favored a federal proposal prohibiting a gun store within five miles of a school or park. And he has tried to distance himself from a questionnaire he filled out when running for the Illinois Senate in which he said he would support a ban on the manufacture and ownership of handguns in the state.
"I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns," Obama said at the debate. "What I think we can provide is common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets."
At the Alburtis gun show, several merchants said they were stocking up on assault weapons, which includes semi-automatic pistols and AK-47s, in the belief that if either Clinton or Obama becomes president, they would soon work to reinstate the ban. "I'm buying more assault rifles, more Uzis," said Dan Miller of A&A Sporting Goods.
But some Democrats who support gun rights say Clinton and Obama can do even more to appeal to voters like them.
"Democrats have taken a beating over the past 14 years at the ballot box because their party is often perceived as being anti-Second Amendment," said Daniel Barnett, a Dallas resident who helped organize a group called Amendment II Democrats. "If Democrats on Capitol Hill want to effect real change in the economy, education, health care, Social Security and the environment, they cannot afford to let themselves be identified as 'gun-grabbers.'"
Zakariah Johnson is chair of the Gun Owner Caucus of the Oregon Democratic Party. The group's motto: "Democrats don't want your guns. We've already got our own."
Johnson says Democrats should view guns as a civil rights issue. And he has friendly advice for Clinton and Obama: Sharpen your language.
"One thing Democratic politicians need to stop doing is talking about supporting hunters' rights or sportsmen," Johnson said. That, he said, "is seen--with some justification--as coded speech for only supporting a narrow class of firearms used under very limited circumstances."
And for that all-important John Kerry-style photo-op, he said, skip the "dove hunting" rifle. "They should be sure to use a large-capacity, semi-automatic firearm."
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Both the Queen B and the Whiny Inexperienced Senator have a history of being anti-gun. Folks know better.
Posted by: John D | April 18, 2008 9:55 AM
Keep chasing, dems. Those votes will go to someone who actually cares about upholding the second amendment in November.
Posted by: Jeff | April 18, 2008 10:30 AM
Jeff,
Yes throw your vote the way of the Party determined to allow mega corporations to destroy natures wildlife habitats by blowing up mountains for mining and clear cutting forests for logging. Neither Clinton nor Obama want to take hunting rifles and shotguns from hunters and they want to preserve pristine wilderness areas to accomodate hunting for decades to come. If the Republicans had their way Mother Nature would be raped repeatedly for natural resource exploration and hunters will have nothing to shoot at.
Posted by: jackson | April 18, 2008 12:51 PM
For once I agree with John and Jeff. But Tuesday is about who will be the next President and the Supreme court. No use having a gun when you cant even afford bullets to put in it. That is where McSame and his buddies have gotten us.
Posted by: Keith Lifetime Southsider | April 18, 2008 12:56 PM
Jackson, you're historically illiterate.
Teddy Roosevelt, a republican, created our national parks system and did more to preserve "pristine wildlife" in this country than any other American president. Every time you visit a national forest or a treasure like Yellowstone you need to thank Mr. Roosevelt.
That's why to this day his legacy of looking out for outdoorsmen and women and conservationists still brings those votes back to the Republican party. And no democrat created the cabinet-level Environmental Protection Agency that fights to preserve that wilderness today. That was a republican named Richard M. Nixon. You can lie and obfuscate all you want but the truth will continually smack you in the face.
Keith, when you speak of "McSame"'s buddies, do you mean the democrats he often votes with on issues such as global warming? Or the republicans like Tom Coburn he votes with to fight earmarks? Surely you realize that McCain has a long and distinguished record of putting partisan politics aside (unlike Clinton and Obama) to do what's right for this country.
Posted by: Jeff | April 18, 2008 1:35 PM
It is unfortunate that neither Democratic candidate bothered to consult with the rather large number of fellow Democrats who own guns and are strong supporters of 2A. What has resulted is the worst kind of "code" language, with which activist firearms owners are quite familiar. Ignorance breeds prejudice.
Posted by: Steve McGuire | April 18, 2008 5:35 PM
WHERE IS THE WORD, 'HUNTING', OR ANYTHING CLOSE TO IT IN THE 2nd AMMENDMENT? IT WAS OUT THERE TO ENSURE OUR FREEDOM, NOT ALLOW US TO HUNT....WHICH HAPPENS TO BE A BY-PRODUCT OF FREEDOM!
Posted by: Chris | April 18, 2008 6:26 PM
Hillary remembers her father teaching her how to shoot? Was that from the same part of her power hungry mind that remembered landing under sniper fire? Oh, and Obama, who wants to disarm us all, look how well that worked in Chicago, and D.C. for that matter. Both cities have incredibly high murder rates. If you thought the cold war was over, you are wrong, we currently have to communists running for President.
Posted by: Jeremy | April 18, 2008 9:30 PM
Thank you for an excellent article.
For a decade and a half, Dems have tried to "frame" new gun bans on popular rifles in hunter-friendly language, not realizing just how sweeping the bans in question were---and forgetting the fact that the majority of U.S. gun owners are nonhunters
NFA Title 1 civilian "assault weapons" are neither military, nor fringe, nor automatic; what they ARE is the most popular civilian target rifles in the United States. Taking H.R.1022 (2007) as the operative definition, arguably more people lawfully and responsibly own "assault weapons" than hunt.
The FBI reports that the state of Illinois had 487 murders in 2006. All rifles combined, including so-called "assault weapons," accounted for only 4 of them. Pennsylvania had 719 murders in 2006, only 14 of which involved any type of rifle. Nationally, rifles are responsible for fewer homicides than even shoes and bare hands; they aren't a crime problem in this country and never have been.
It is encouraging to see grassroots Dems helping the party to shed the "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" albatross by ditching the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch. One hopes that the candidates themselves will follow suit.
Posted by: benEzra | April 18, 2008 10:07 PM
Folks who care about their 2nd amendment rights already know that they can not open carry in most any city in the US, because the 1000ft exclusion zones around schools tend to prohibit the entire city. Obama's support of a proposal to ban concealed weapons nationwide, would ban the only other legal way to carry a firearm in a city. It's pretty clear he is not interested in protecting the rights of lawful, responsible citizens to defend themselves and others.
Posted by: none | April 19, 2008 1:34 AM
Mr. Oliphant,
Who makes "Plastic Automatics" and where can I buy one?
Posted by: Beverly | April 19, 2008 11:55 AM
It's obvious that Jackson is not only historically illiterate but also Constitutionally illiterate. As Chris points out, the Constitution has nothing to do with Hunting. I can see why he could make that mistake though. Hunting was a port of the British Elitists. Two of the three liberals we have to choose from this time are Democratic Elitists. The third is a "which way is the wind blowing today" elitist. Conservative Rebublicans have always cared more about the environment than Liberals have. Conservative Republicans always give more to charity than the Liberals do as well. The Liberals are really good about taking money from others and giving to those they see as worthy but they just can't seem to use their own money to do so. I'm a true Conservative and since the Demopublicans and the Republicrats have really scraped the bottom of the septic tank this time, I'll be setting this Presidential election out. Actually, I'll be there but it will be a write in candidate I vote for
Posted by: TJefferson | April 20, 2008 12:49 AM
Obama and Clinton are making exactly the same mistakes that Sen. Kerry made in 2004 when he chased the gun vote: He presumed, just like both Dem candidates presume now, that the vast majority of America's gun owners are hunters who own double barrel shotguns and bolt action hunting rifles and have no reason whatsoever to own handguns and/or "assault weapons". Thus, this "core constituency" of gun owners won't object to banning concealed carry, assault weapons, even all handguns.
Well the reality is that many gun owners don't hunt because hunting is turning into a sport for the wealthy. So that means that much larger numbers of gun owners own guns for recreational shooting, for self-defense, or because they simply like them, not because they want to go hunting. Since both Dem candidates are utterly out of touch with real gun owners they simply aren't credible to them. Neither Obama nor Clinton is making any serious effort to get to know the gun owner community; instead they prefer to let anti-gun lobbyists tell them everything about what the Democratic gun policy planks should be. So yet again the Democratic Party is going to lose a larger chunk of the vote than they suspect over this issue.
In 2004 Senator Kerry took a pit stop from the campaign trail to vote for a renewal of the assault weapons ban that also banned "armor piercing ammunition" as well. This was defined as any ammunition which was capable of piercing soft body armor rated for handgun rounds; Sen Kerry voted to ban every popular centerfire hunting rifle round in common use and extend a ban on guns that were used in less than 5% of homicides. This was on top of a 19 year Senate career in which he voted for almost every gun control bill that came up for a vote. Sen. Kerry's positions on the issue cost him the election; many gun publications highlighted his stridently anti-gun politics. Considering that many union members own guns, enjoy shooting and hunting, and read gun magazines, it's safe to say the Sen. Kerry wanted to ban the favorite pursuits of many members of the working class. Frankly, that position does not belong in the Democratic party.
Posted by: Jeremy | April 20, 2008 6:53 AM
I am a supporter of gay marriage, am anti-war, pro single payer healthcare, and pro-environment. I am also a Buddhist and registered Democrat.
I also own a combat shotgun, civilian AK-47, and high capacity pistol. I have a concealed carry permit and compete in combat pistol matches.
Neither Hillary or Obama will be getting my vote come November. I might sit this one out.
Posted by: jlbraun | April 20, 2008 2:14 PM
All three of the leading candidates are anti-gun. Each has gone out of their way to help promote gun-grabbers agendas. With over 3 million people in the U.S., are these three really the best we can come up with?
Posted by: Steven | April 22, 2008 1:47 AM