Last month, an 18-year-old gunman wielding a high-powered weapon killed 19 small schoolchildren in Uvalde, Texas, presenting yet another opportunity to contain the gun violence that, among developed nations, makes us regrettably unique.

We flunked the test last time. When a 20-year-old gunman killed 20 even younger children in Newtown, Conn., 10 years earlier, Congress did nothing. A bipartisan Senate response evaporated after several Republicans — notably Ted Cruz of Texas — mounted hardline opposition.

This time, a tentative compromise has a chance of overcoming the inevitable Senate filibuster. It’s modest — going where Republicans are comfortable, mostly concerning their dubious theory that shooters must be mentally ill; no need to actually restrict firearms.

If it passes, though, Congress will have acted — more than was done in 2013, and that must mean something.

Changes in political climate often occur in initially small increments. The mostly forgotten Civil Rights Act of 1957 impressed few at the time.

It did, however, establish a Civil Right Division within the U.S. Department of Justice which, after the far bolder Voting Rights Act of 1965, effectively protected racial minorities, at least until Chief Justice John Roberts and four Supreme Court colleagues gutted enforcement provisions in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013.

If the filibuster remains, there won’t be much progress when one party completely denies the obvious: that unfettered access to guns here will lead not only to more mass shootings, but to suicide rates far higher than elsewhere — including Maine.

It might not take a huge change to finally deep-six the filibuster; when it requires no more than a bare majority to install Supreme Court justices for life, it hardly makes sense to keep it for legislation easily amended or repealed.

But if that happens, it will owe nothing to Maine’s Second District congressman, Jared Golden, who once again voted on the “doing nothing,” or perhaps “doing little” side.

Having already voted against the Democrats’ American Rescue Plan and Build Back Better, Golden was one of only two Democrats last week to oppose gun legislation that nonetheless attracted some Republican support.

While the package was described as “sweeping,” it’s more accurately described as “modest” or “common sense” in any circle not asserting that the Second Amendment is the only unlimited part of the Bill of Rights.

One provision — a minimum age of 21 for purchases of “assault weapons” such as those used in Newtown and Uvalde — was far more modest than the ban from 1994-2004. It expired because Republicans refused to renew it.

Yet Golden opposes it, favoring even fewer restrictions than Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who was “open” to raising the age from 18, while acknowledging it wasn’t headed for the Senate’s bipartisan package.

One might wonder why the age for assault rifle purchases — developed for military use — is lower than for handguns.

When the 21-year-old limit was set in federal firearms legislation in 1968, rifles were exempted, presumed to be for sporting use — long before assault rifles reached the private market.

Before the ban was enacted in 1994, an estimated 300,000 assault rifles were in private American hands. Today, there are many millions.

The current situation — which allowed both the Uvalde and Newtown shooters to buy their weapons legally — is a loophole: a provision creating an unanticipated disparity in the minimal restrictions still on the books.

Golden contends that, because 18-year-olds can serve in the military, their off-duty gun purchases should remain unrestricted.

It’s a curious argument. One might think the nationwide ban on alcohol purchases before 21, and on cigarettes in many states, including Maine, would be more on-point — and far more relevant to our daily lives, where schoolchildren and teachers live in fear.

Golden says the Democrats’ bill was “partisan” and “couldn’t pass” because not many Republicans would support it.

As with the budget measures, sometimes you have to vote for a less than perfect bill because otherwise nothing will happen. By defining something as acceptable only if the other party backs it is a head-scratching move by someone who, in fact, represents a party, even if he’s uncomfortable doing so.

Golden is practicing a form of “triangulation,” invented by Bill Clinton to win re-election in 1996. Clinton signed Republican “welfare reform” legislation and apologized for raising millionaires’ taxes “too much.”

Clinton won, but the Democratic Party has never been the same. Before Golden was elected in 2018, Republicans had controlled the House of Representatives for 20 of the previous 24 years.

Golden was renominated by Democrats this week for a third term in Congress. Between now and November, he might think a little more about what that means.

Douglas Rooks, a Maine editor, commentator and reporter since 1984, is the author of three books. His first, “Statesman: George Mitchell and the Art of the Possible,” is now out in paperback.  He welcomes comment at: drooks@tds.net

 

 

« Previous

Maine Voices: Tribal sovereignty is at the core of many issues

Next »

Maine Compass: Our state is not doing enough to keep guns out of violent hands