GunsThe two sides in the gun control debate are gearing up for Round 2

Published 13 May 2013

A few weeks ago, when the Senate was considering legislation to expand background checks for gun buyers and other gun-control measures, gun-rights advocate successfully organized and campaigned at the grass-root level, exerting pressure on enough wavering Senators, including four Democrats from Red stated who face re-election in 2014. Now, as the Senate majority leader is getting set to introduce the gun-control measures again, supporters of gun control legislation are trying to emulate the grass-root mobilization performance of gun-rights advocates.

The political pendulum is swinging. A few weeks ago, when the Senate was considering legislation to expand background checks for gun buyers and other gun-control measures, gun-rights advocate successfully organized and campaigned at the grass-root level, exerting pressure on enough wavering Senators, including four Democrats from Red stated who face re-election in 2014.

The Los Angeles Times reports that now, as the Senate majority leader is getting set to introduce the gun-control measures again, supporters of gun control legislation are trying to emulate the grass-root mobilization performance of gun-rights advocates.

Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire) does not have to worry about re-election until 2016, but she says she has been feeling the pressure from some of her constituents as they are beginning to  campaign  against her because of her opposition to the gun-control bill.

Ayotte has asked fellow Republicans for help.

“I’m under attack for standing up for the U.S. Constitution by voting against flawed legislation that would have compromised our 2nd Amendment rights while doing nothing to prevent horrific tragedies such as Newtown,” Ayotte wrote. “I won’t back down.”

The National Rifle Association has come to Ayotte’s help with radio and television ads, and is also beginning a nationwide direct mail campaign to NRA members.

Gun-right advocates want to make sure they are ready to respond to the campaigning from the other side, especially since the two authors of the gun bill which failed in the Senate last month, Senator Joe Manchin III (D-West Virginia) and Senator Patrick Toomey (R-Pennsylvania), say they were working on “clarifications” to the original bill, clarifications which they hope would persuade a few wavering Senators to support the bill.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reis (D-Nevada) has already promised a second vote on background checks “as soon as I can.”

Now, pro-gun control groups such as Mayors against Illegal Guns, which has held rallies in eight states last weekend, and Americans for Responsible Solutions, are attacking senators who voted against the legislation, but who are perceived to be amenable to voting for a it if Manchin and Toomey tweak it sufficiently.

“The outside game is about convincing those who voted no that they’ve made the wrong choice. And that is happening. There are definitely second thoughts out there,” Jim Kessler, a gun policy expert at the liberal Third Way told the Times. Senators who opposed the agreement, he said, “expected the politics to work for them after the vote and so far it hasn’t.”

Senator Jeff Flake (R-Arizona), who voted no on background checks, say he is aware of the fact that the “no” vote may have cost him some support, putting him “somewhere just below pond scum.”

Flake said, though, that he was not going to back down, and that he remains opposed to the original background check measure.

“They could change it,” Flake told reporters. “They could do a lot of things. But it wouldn’t be the Toomey-Manchin proposal. I voted against that for a reason, and I’m not reconsidering my vote.”

Supporters of the gun-control measure say that eventually lawmakers will change their minds and the bill will be passed.

“Clearly, this bill is going to have to look differently in order for members to face their constituents and explain why they changed their mind,” Senator Christopher Murphy (D-Connecticut) told theTimes. “There are a lot of ways that we can modify this bill without significantly weakening it.”