Guns ARE an important issue to lots of voters.

Take a look at this map as it changes from red and yellow to blue and some green. Those changes swept the nation because people voted for candidates who would enact those laws. In many cases anti-gun office holders were thrown out of office because of their opposition. In view of that map how can anyone say that guns aren't important to many voters?

The Old South was just the states of the Old Confederacy. The shall-issue states are almost the entire nation.

Meanwhile, in Illinois...

I live in one of the bluest and we've got tons of Democrats in office.

Great news for Obama and the Dems next year.:woohoo:

But since we have a former illegal mayor against guns as a Governor I don't see it happening anytime soon

to tie the election of a particular politician to the CCW issue? Isn't that a bit like trotting out the highly questionable High CCW = Low Crime fact-challenged supposition?

I suspect that the increase in "shall issue" CCW states has more to do with legal challenges to over-reaching gun-control laws, and precedents established by other jurisdictions, than it does with political stands by individual politicians on gun control.

The fact remains that around two-thirds of U. S. citizens do not own a gun, and don't really see gun control as a big issue when choosing a political candidate. The NRA would like people to believe that denying anyone the right to carry a gun in public is a Constitutional threat, but most people don't see it that way. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America

Almost everyone agrees that the right to own a gun and keep it in one's own home, to use for self-protection or sport, is a right guaranteed by 2A. The right to carry a lethal weapon in the public venue has neither been decided by the SCOTUS, nor has the concept of CCW been widely accepted by the majority of Americans -- including many of those who have a gun in their homes.

...and like every other very personal issue it does not require sanctioning by any majority of the American populace. It's obvious criminals don't schedule home appointments and until they do I, and millions of others, will carry concealed regardless of what some think is "accepted" by the majority.

I've lived in Texas 45 of my 53 years. I have seen this state switch from Democratic to Republican. Ann Richards, the Democratic Governor was defeated by inexperienced George Bush in the 1994 election. Richards refused to sign the CCW bill before her. Bush ran, and said he would sign, if elected. Both happened and the rest is history. I saw plenty of "Don't let Annie get your gun" bumper stickers during the campaign. Imagine "if only" Richards had signed. Bush might have never become President.

And your suspicions are "shall issue" are wrong. These laws passed because ordinary people wanted the right to carry.

Read the article on Richards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Richards



And Texas is Gun Country. We simply do not tolerate Gun Control in this state. There are at least 2-3 Guns Shows EVERY weekend somewhere in this state. Fort Worth, where I live, had one last weekend and will have one this weekend. Check out the list here for evidence. I count over 70 by years end. http://www.gunshows-usa.com/texas_gun_&_knife_shows.htm

Hunting is a huge pastime, and is big business. We're talking a billion dollars a year spent by hunters. Lots of landowners, big and small make a great of money renting deer leases during the season.

I have a number of co-workers who flatly state they will NEVER vote Democratic as long as the party at the National Level who has politicians like Feinstein, Boxer, Durbin, Lautenberg, and ESPECIALLY Schumer. trying "to take their guns away." They say "Get rid of Gun Control and I'll vote Democratic in a heartbeat."

Se what Gun Control can cost the Democratic Party and this country?

Mommy said I shouldn't carry a gun around so I traded her in for the village idiot who doesn't care what I do.

Thanks, gun control advocates!

This measure, supported by liberal activists and environmentalists esp. in the Central Texas area, was opposed by Richards, and widely seen (at the time) as a means of cowing Anne down in front of these vital groups. Her activist base was decimated. Kinda sounds familiar to some folks in office now who want "progressive" support. BTW, Anne went on to work for a lobbying firm who sought to have land condemned in favor of development and malls. She never was too strong on environmental issues, and didn't "care for what I thought."

Rove was right on all 3 counts.

I was about to say "more conservative." But that doesn't work any more, the right wing having become so radical.

While Texas does have "shall issue," it requires both classroom instruction and range exam in order to acquire a CCW.

Texas also bans open carry in public. And has since I was a child.

:hippie:

I keep reading here that Anne Richards lost the Texas Governor's race to Chimpy primarily because she veto'd a concealed carry bill.

I suspect that the increase in "shall issue" CCW states has more to do with legal challenges to over-reaching gun-control laws, and precedents established by other jurisdictions, than it does with political stands by individual politicians on gun control.

Your suspicion is wrong. None of those states changed because of a judge's command. They all changed because the voters were demanding the right to carry guns for self-defense. In all of them the legislators eventually passed and governors eventually signed CCW bills. Some of the states took several tries and didn't get CCW until a governor was replaced. It does reflect how the population of those states voted. They elected pro-gun legislators.

Non-gun owners do tend to be less concerned about the guns issue. Gun owners have money tied up in their guns and are more concerned. The concept of CCW has definately been accepted by all those states that have turned blue. In none of those states has there been bills introduced to repeal CCW.

and the other, respectful responses to my post and I, in turn, respect your views and opinions. I maintain, however, that a politician's stance on the single, narrow issue of CCW (not to be confused with gun ownership in general) is not an overriding factor for most voters when choosing a candidate.

The case of Richards losing to Dubya very likely had much more to do with the Republican money machine, Tom DeLay and his "good ole boy" henchmen, and backroom politics, than it did with Richards' stand on CCW. If the Dubya money and political machine could steal a national election, then Texas must have been a relatively easy slam dunk. The same holds true in many other Red states with the likes of the radical neoconservative DeLay/Gingrich/Atwater/Kristol/Rove/Koch cabal calling the shots. I seriously doubt (in the absence of hard statistics) that all things being equal, a single politician anywhere has ever been elected based solely on his or her stance on CCW.

The myriad of reasons for the gradual change of a majority of States' to make CCW "shall issue" may be debatable, but legal precedent established by other jurisdictions, and the possibility of losing NRA-instigated lawsuits (and NRA endorsements) most certainly played a role in the snowball effect. Just to point out, these changes were brought about by legislative and executive actions, and NOT by direct voter action. It is even questionable that a majority of voters considered the CCW stance of the politicians they elected in comparison to issues such as jobs, the economy, health care, etc.

Like any other special interest lobby, the tendency to believe that your particular cause is so important that ALL voters will agree with you is highly over-rated. Two-thirds of Americans are just not that emotionally invested in, or feel threatened enough, to care much about the issue of personally carrying a gun in public. I agree with the OP, however, that guns are important to "lots" of voters -- just not to the vast majority of voters.

Just a large enough bloc to sway elections.

"Not that emotionally invested in..." is a example of misreading the issue, IMO. In '94 the whole Assault Weapons Ban was perceived as a "safe, common sense vote" by a lot of people. None of them anticipated the size or scope of the backlash - or the spike in the purchase of the soon to be banned firearms. It was quickly seen my involved and motivated voters as a pointless feel good law and thankfully allowed to sunset, but not until the GOP had taken over the House and Senate riding on that backlash.

Any real, or even perceived threat to 2nd amendment rights lights up the switchboards in every state. With the growth of the internet and alternative news sources messages travel much faster and with more details (and some misinformation) directly to people interested in the issue. Involved people are the ones that get out and vote their issue and rattle the cages of the political class. That's why the NRA has so much clout. It's not their funding, modest compared to other contributors, it's the large voting bloc they represent and influence beyond their direct membership of 4.5 million dues paying members.

If a majority of voters really are not interested in gun law, you can be sure that there is a sizable minority that is malevolently tracking any firearm related legislation and lawmakers recognize that highly motivated voting bloc as the potential career ender it is.

I don't see that changing anytime in the forseeable future. especially with violent crime continuing to fall.

reasoned response, and I agree with your statement that it does not take a "majority" to sway an election -- just a very vocal minority with some lobbying clout.

I disagree that "switchboards light up in every state" when 2A issues infrequently become newsworthy. I am 70 years old, served two combat tours in Vietnam, I live in Hawaii, but have worked all over the US and in many parts of the world. In short, I know, and have met a boat-load of people, and I have never once heard anyone voice concern over the AWB, or any other "gun issue" other than on activist web sites such as DU.

That said, I realize that there is a very vocal minority which is concerned about the perceived threat to 2A rights, but their concerns are not shared by a majority of the American public, much less most eligible voters. The terms "gun grabbers," "antis," and "prohis," apply to an even smaller percentage of the American public than the single-issue concerns of pro-gunners. The point being, is that almost any law-abiding citizen in the USA can purchase and keep a gun in their home, and no one really cares.

The issue of public carry is the only real bone of contention, and now that's its legal in many areas, even that issue is becoming moot. I did a little research, and found that while Texas has a population of somewhere around 25 million people, they have issued only around 350,000 CCW permits. That's a little less than 2% of the population, so the level of demand for CCW is relatively low. I suspect that ratio holds true in most areas -- even in the reddest of red states. Packing heat in public is not really an American trait, and never has been for most urban Americans.

I understand that this is a very important cause for the members of this forum, the NRA, and a few other groups, but it is just not that much of an issue with the "average" citizen or voter. No government official has taken away any law-abiding citizen's guns in recent memory, we are not in political danger of having to overthrow a tyrannical government, and 2A is not under threat (by any political party or movement) of being repealed.

I apologize for interloping in the Gungeon, but I feel that the entire "cold dead hands," thing is much ado about nothing. The sky is not falling...

First, the number of active CHL holders in Texas as of Dec 31, 2010 was 461,724. Texas publishes the number annually: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/PDF/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2010.pdf

Second, by using our entire state population you include those under 21 who are too young to get a CHL. Doing so lowers the percentage creating the impression of a lowered demand. It is dishonest to claim that a person who can't get a CHL doesn't have one because they don't want one.

Oure under 21 population is about 8 million. That leaves about 17 million who are old enough. Many of those 17 million have felony records the disqualify them from getting a CHL. However, I don't know how many that is so let's use the 17M number as the eligable population.

Further, getting a CHL isn't cheap. The fee to the state isn't so bad, $140 for the initial application, ($70 for a senior citizen), but you have to take the classes (Fee varies), buy a gun if you don't already have a gun suitable for carry and a .22 pistol for practice. By the time you have done all that you will have close to a thousand tied up in getting your CHL. A lot of people don't have that much disposable income.

The peak demographic in Texas for getting a CHL is age 52. Getting old enough to feel vunerable to crime and extra disposable income.

Many people don't have CHLs because they can't get on due to age, criminal record, or too poor.

and I stand corrected on the actual numbers. Let's use the number of carry permits at 500K and an eligible population of 15 million: that's still under 4% participation. My point concerning a general low (or no) interest by a majority of average Americans in carrying a firearm in public stands.

The entire gun issue is a narrow, but contentious one, and I admire your passion in protecting what you and your fellow pro-gunners see as a threat to your civil liberties. I believe that all true Americans support the Constitution, including 2A. I also celebrate that, as Americans, we have the freedom to disagree about the degree of regulation of certain Constitutional rights in deference to the public good.

The most important thing, however, for all Americans to remember is that the right to exercise a particular freedom, also includes the right to not exercise that freedom. I believe that a majority of Americans choose not to arm themselves in public. The arms race between activist pro-gunners and criminals will be interesting to watch.

Peace...

by making uncessary and smarmy references to Bush (the "silver foot" comment, so endearing to NE liberals, was enough to make one cringe down here), and by opposing the federal protection on C. Texas rivers. Rove had her steppin' and fetchin' on that one -- putting her big developer backing on one side, and Anne's federal gubmint tendencies on the other. She looked back on Sodom, and pulled the protection, thereby gutting her activist base in much of Texas. The concealed-carry veto was icing on the cake. Anne never was too strong on the environment. See #8 above. Rove got it right.

Sounds like she was Bush/GOP light.

Richards was highly favored to win. Bush was a relatively unknown at the time. The election turned on the guns issue. In 1994 street crime was still rising everywhere in the nation and enough people wanted to be able to defend themselves and voted so.

Until this year there have not been any NRA lawsuits over CC. Heller and McDonald were over simple ownership of handguns.

turned on the "guns issue" was put forth by Karl Rove as one of three causes that turned the tide: the CCW bill, the proposal to turn over Texas waterways to the feds, and her remarks to a Girl Scout gathering to "beware of motorcycle-helmeted "Prince Charmings." These were all trumped up non-issues that were constantly repeated over and over, and grossly misrepresented by the Rove-inspired hate machine (they portrayed Richards as a "gun-grabber" when she was only against public CCW). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Richards

The fact that Richards officially outspent the Dubya/Rove machine does not count the "back-door money" and other dirty tricks used by the neoconservative cabal which would later propel this same imbecile to the presidency. Dubya beat Ann Richards using the same tactics that Lee Atwater taught to Karl Rove, Ronald Reagan, and Pappy Bush.

Did the gun issue play a part in her defeat? Yes, but a very, very small part. Without the neoconservative dirty tricks cabal behind Dubya, Richards would have won.

I know how many of my fellow Texans feel about our guns.



So Richards vetoed even allowing the people to vote directly on the issue. That is an extremely effective way to get folks mad at you is to deny them their chance to vote.
There was strong popular support in Texas for CHLs. Guns, not conspiracy theories, were what sunk Richards.

that you refer to were not conspiracies, but outright lies and distortions which were written down in an actual neoconservative playbook by Lee Atwater and passed on to his student, Karl Rove. This same playbook was widely distributed, and used by Rove in his overall campaign strategy for Dubya from Texas to the White House (both part of the same plan).

I respect what you obviously believe to be the "main" cause of the many Democratic losses around the country beginning with Texas, but there was much more at play than whether Joe Sixpack could carry a gun, or not. The entire country was blinded by the neoconservative-induced and focused hatred aimed at dividing our citizens by using simple-minded, strawman concepts like "with us or against us," "American values" (the religious-right mantra), and even the tried-and-true "love it or leave it." It was the "guns, gays, and God" thing, and they played it to the hilt and very successfully.

I'll butt out of Texas politics for now, and thanks again for the reasoned and thoughtful discourse.

Aloha,
Bill

in Texas. I remember it well as I wrote numerous letters to state reps on the issue. The state was "a buzz" about it. That election was won on the gun issue of CHL in Texas. Ann Richards was apposed to it and very vocal in her apposition. W was very vocal on signing it. If not for the gun issue Ann Richards would have easily beat w.

To be so disconnected with the center was no small accomplishment .
To paraphrase "Luby's changed everything " . It made me and a million others do a complete reassessment of our "plan" ,
and here we are .

you stated:



yet and earlier post stated:



and you then go onto to claim "back room money" (an unverifiable statement) swung the balance.

"Trying to find something the governor would sign, the 73rd Legislature ended up passing a law that only called for a statewide referendum on CHL, not authorizing anyone to actually set up any program. Governor Richards vetoed it anyway, saying that the people of Texas didn't need to vote on something like CHL."

I was in SA at the time, and heard about it there!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Check out the rapid decline in crime rates in both DC and Chicago. Around 30% in one year+
Then check out England, and what happens when you BAN guns to the majority of citizens. Knife crime through the roof, gun crime through the roof, home break-ins where you can't 'harm' the criminal, etc... England is an excellent example of guncontrol out of control. Knife crime 'through the roof'.

but it's effective at dumbing US down.

yup