Author warns state, federal gun-control candidates of being hit by Brady Effect

One piece of political e-mail I received last week piqued my interest.

It was titled, “Democrats should fear the Brady Effect,” written Oct. 29 by Brad O’Leary for the Web site of American Thinker. O’Leary played on an election concept known as the Bradley Effect, where whites tell pollsters they will support a black candidate but cast ballots for a white candidate once inside the voting booth. It is named after Tom Bradley, a black candidate who lost his bid for California governor in 1982.

O’Leary writes that it is not the Bradley Effect that supporters of Barack Obama should fear but rather the Brady Effect. This named for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which has endorsed candidates who agree with its goal of “passing sensible gun laws.”

It isn’t the ‘Bradley effect’ Democrats should fear, but something else. Call it the ‘Brady effect,’ named after the one of the radical gun-ban lobbies in America, the Brady Campaign,” O’Leary writes. “In 1982, gun-banners were successful in placing an initiative on the California ballot dubbed Proposition 15, which would have essentially banned handgun sales and mandated gun registration statewide. Bradley supported the handgun ban and his opponent, George Deukmejian, opposed it. Polls showed that Prop 15 enjoyed early support in the campaign season. But that wouldn’t last.

“The National Rifle Association, in partnership with California state and local gun rights groups and grass-roots activists, sprang into action, educating voters about the dangers of Prop 15 and how their Second Amendment rights hung in the balance,” O’Leary writes. “By Election Day, Prop 15 had gone from having majority support to being radioactive. Not only did Republicans oppose it but so did Reagan Democrats and an overwhelming majority of the state’s law enforcement community. … Proposition 15 lost by a whopping 63 percent to 37 percent, and polls after the election showed that a clear majority of Californians who voted ‘no’ on Prop 15 also voted against Tom Bradley in favor of George Deukmejian.”

The Brady Campaign announced that it has endorsed (among other federal and state candidates) Barack Obama for president, Joe Biden for vice president (over the John McCain/Sarah Palin ticket), 6th Congressional District candidate Jill Morgenthaler (over U.S. Rep. Peter Roskam), 10th Congressional District candidate U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (over Dan Seals) and 46th Illinois House District candidate Gary Nowak (over state Rep. Dennis Reboletti).

The campaign’s latest endorsement is for 13th Congressional District candidate Scott Harper (over Steve Alesch and U.S. Rep. Judy Biggert).

“Scott Harper has proven himself to be a strong advocate for his community as a successful small business owner, workers’ rights advocate, and volunteer tutor and mentor,” Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, said in an e-mail. “He understands the need to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, and he will fight to keep our families safe by supporting common sense gun laws in Congress.”

Between the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how to approach tax policy, I’m not certain where the issue of gun control is going to fit in the minds of voters. Protecting gun rights is very important, so I think this should weigh heavily on the electorate.

But there’s quite a bit for everyone to take in while pondering their election choices. We’ll know tomorrow night how much the gun issue played into Election ’08.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Gun control endorsement probably won’t change many minds

A candidate for the Illinois House of Representatives has received the support of a group well known for advocating more restrictive gun laws, but I wouldn’t count on this being the factor that pushes him over the top in the campaign.

Last week, Gary Nowak of Elmhurst was endorsed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. As the Democratic challenger, Nowak will face state Rep. Dennis Reboletti, R-46th District, of Elmhurst for this House seat Nov. 4.

“Gary Nowak recognizes that Illinois is facing a gun violence epidemic,” Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, said in a Sept. 10 e-mail. “He is a banker and former U.S. Marine who served his country honorably. He brings a problem-solving approach to issues, and he’ll work hard to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.”

The e-mail reported that Reboletti voted earlier this year against House Bill 758, which would have “extended Brady background checks to all handgun purchasers. The bill lost by two votes.”

I’m not a fan of perpetually restrictive gun laws. But when gun control advocates propose measures that are shown to work, they should be given a fair hearing.

There is a point in the e-mail, however, where the Brady Campaign undercuts its own argument. It quotes Barbara McKee, president of the Illinois Million Mom March Chapters (a group affiliated with the Brady Campaign), as saying: “The flood of illegal weapons has cost too many lives in Chicago and surrounding suburbs. Voting irresponsibly also has consequences. We need to send legislators home after they fail to support sensible gun laws. Rep. Reboletti must go, and we must elect Gary Nowak.”

The very first sentence of McKee’s quote is where the Brady Campaign’s mission runs into trouble. She admits that the major problem with gun violence in the Chicago area comes from the “flood of illegal weapons …”

Translation: The guns that the Brady Campaign is trying to target are already being obtained illegally. Is adding yet another layer of illegality going to make gang-bangers think twice about buying cheap handguns on the black market? Very doubtful.

If the Brady Campaign can demonstrate how extending federal jurisdiction over virtually all gun purchases would thwart the flow of illegal guns into the hands of career criminals, I’d be happy to consider it. But until then, I remain skeptical.

Let me know what you think.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Mandating program with no funding irresponsible for governor

You have to wonder how some people get elected to public office.

Suburban Life Publications ran a story recently about a measure signed into law last week by Gov. Rod Blagojevich. He decreed that low-income disabled people could join senior citizens in using mass transportation for free.

It’s hard to argue against allowing this distinct group such a perk. “We feel offering this program is the right thing to do,” said Brian Williamsen, a spokesman for Blagojevich.

State Rep. Dennis Reboletti, R-46th District, of Elmhurst agreed with Williamsen on the merits of offering free rides to low-income disabled people. This was a change of heart for Reboletti, who voted against Blagojevich’s plan to offer free rides to seniors.

There is, of course, a catch in this program. In July, Blagojevich cut more than $37 million from the budget of the Regional Transportation Authority. This included funding for the program that the governor signed into law Aug. 26.

No revenue source has been identified for this new giveaway that Blagojevich has mandated. Perhaps the governor and legislators should have worked out that tiny detail before pushing the program through.

While providing free transportation to low-income disabled people is very laudable, it’s irresponsible to create a program when no one knows how it’s going to be financed. And some people in Springfield wonder why the state is broke.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::