OK, I've seen several diaries already about Eric Holder's announcement about reviving the Assault Weapons Ban. And there is something I'd like to clear up in the debate.
Setting aside the constitutional questions and the like, I'd like to delve into the political for a moment. Many, many commenters are saying that reviving the ban would amount to "political suicide" because we lost Congress in 1994 as a result of the AWB.
Now, originally, I thought there may be a point there, because I thought the AWB was part of the Brady Bill. But as it turns out, I was wrong...and there is a stark lack of evidence that the AWB led to huge losses in 1994. Follow me to see why.
The Assault Weapons Ban was passed on September 13, 1994 and signed into the same day. Anybody know what the vote in Congress was for the ban?
Well, we don't have a recorded vote in the House...because it passed by voice vote. Yes, the Republicans in the House made such a stink about it that they didn't bother to ask for a recorded vote.
How about in the Senate? The vote 95-4.
Wacky liberal Senators the likes of Richard Shelby, John McCain, Judd Gregg, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Larry Craig, Bob Dole, Mitch McConnell, Thad Cochran and Orrin Hatch...all voted for the bill.
In other words, the ban had wide bipartisan support. And ergo, it is impossibility that the AWB was the cause of Democratic losses in 1994.
More likely causes? The lack of a party infrastructure to GOTV, no cohesive message to counter the Contract With America, the House Banking Scandal and misuse of the House mailing system by several Democratic politicians, and last but certainly not least, the failure of Congress to pass health care reform which was front and center in the summer of 1994.
The AWB causing massive losses in the 1994 elections is a canard. Not true.
And lest we forget, the electorate of 1994, dominated by Southern white males, ain't the electorate of 2008, or even 2010.
Let's think folks. Don't spread a right wing meme that has no basis in reality. The AWB was bipartisan, and it didn't cause the Democrats downfall.
UPDATE: Some corrections have been pointed out to me, which I will add here. The vote cited above in the Senate was in the Senate's version of the bill, prior to the conference report, which was approved by a lesser margin. The actual amendment to the orginial bill that included Feinstein's language for the actual ban also passed by a smaller, although bipartisan margin, of 56-43.
Some have pointed this out, and I thank them for the corrections. However, I think the initial point, that one cannot simply point to one bill as the result of the massive losses the Democrats suffered, still stands. It is an overly simplistic analysis. Moreover, Republicans really did not give themselves a wedge issue if they voted for any version that included the AWB.
Also, keep in mind I do not at this point have any thoughts on the wisdom of a new ban, or the timing. This diary was to simply point out that rewriting the history of 1994 based solely on the AWB is simply, well, in error. Thanks.