The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights > Legal and Political

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 28, 2001, 05:53 PM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2000
Posts: 4,625
From Sunday's Post
For Gun Control, An Infusion of Cash, Controversy

E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Version
Subscribe to The Post
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 29, 2001; Page A01

Last summer Andrew McKelvey decided he knew how to break the impasse that has dogged the gun control debate: Acknowledge Americans' right to own guns, but say that these rights come with responsibilities.

If he had been an ordinary gadfly, McKelvey might have gone unnoticed. But as the owner of, the job search Web site, the billionaire New York businessman used his wealth to position himself at the center of the gun control movement – and to emerge as its dominant force.

The ascension of his advocacy group, Americans for Gun Safety, has transformed the national debate over guns. At a moment when the steam has seemingly gone out of congressional efforts to enact tougher gun control laws, McKelvey's supporters hail him as a potential savior who can attract a broader constituency to their cause.

Many longtime advocates of tougher gun control laws, however, charge that his endorsement of gun ownership is dooming the gun control movement by watering down its message.

No one questions McKelvey's influence. His group's $3 million advertising campaign in Colorado and Oregon helped propel to victory in November ballot initiatives seeking background checks at gun shows. His staff is now helping craft a new gun show proposal on the federal level that Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) plan to unveil within a matter of weeks.

A political novice, McKelvey, 66, used his personal fortune to assemble a formidable political network that gave him access to policymakers and made his organization a critical contributor to state gun control groups. He hired top officials from the Clinton administration and Republican congressional aides, picking Jonathan Cowan, who was Andrew M. Cuomo's chief of staff at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as his group's president. He commissioned polls from Democrat Mark Mellman and Mark Penn as well as from Republican John Zogby, and also hired GOP image-maker Greg Stevens to film issue advertisements on the group's behalf.

McKelvey, who marvels at his sudden access to national leaders – "I'm about as apolitical as it comes. I don't know anybody" – says his group is simply being pragmatic. "I try to work on things in which we can have some results," he says.

A plainspoken man, he dismisses the notion some hold that a searing personal experience drew him into the debate over gun violence. "They want to know, 'Did you have a brother shot?' The answer is 'no,' " he says. "All these kids just kept getting shot in schools."

His group's drive to pass measures requiring gun show background checks in Colorado and Oregon bore all the hallmarks of a traditional campaign. In Oregon, the group paid for a half-million phone calls and a quarter-million pieces of direct mail to voters, in addition to running television advertisements featuring McCain's support for the initiative.

McKelvey compared the McCain ads his group ran in Colorado and Oregon to the catchy television commercials his Web site pioneered. "Advertising, particularly television advertising, is certainly an effective vehicle," he says.

Now, the group has expanded nationwide, running ads in favor of closing the gun show "loophole" – which allows people in 32 states to buy weapons at gun shows without undergoing background checks – and providing tens of thousands of dollars in funding for state groups.

Despite the shot in the arm Americans for Gun Safety has given to the gun show issue, many advocates of stricter gun laws are critical of McKelvey's efforts.

Violence Policy Center public policy director Joe Sudbay notes that the group's focus on gun shows addresses just a small part of a much larger problem. He says McKelvey is using his money to try to get cash-strapped state gun control advocacy groups to support his middle-of-the-road approach – at the risk of undermining the broader gun control effort.

McKelvey offered $60,000 to any state group willing to become a "chapter" of his organization. Although many of these affiliates balked once they discovered that the organization's mission statement endorses gun ownership, McKelvey allowed them to keep the one-year grants.

"I think he was trying to do a hostile takeover of the gun control movement," Sudbay says.

Sudbay is equally critical of McCain and Lieberman's gun show proposal, which would allow private gun show dealers to move to a 24-hour background check in three years if the attorney general certifies they are able to access files on 95 percent of buyers.

Lieberman, who said he and McCain became convinced that the gun issue had become too polarized after they both campaigned for national office last year, defends McKelvey's efforts, saying he may have identified the kind of balanced approach that has eluded lawmakers so far. "There's a logic to this," Lieberman says.

At the moment, however, gun rights advocates aren't clamoring to embrace McKelvey's approach. His overtures to some of Capitol Hill's most staunch conservatives have been rebuffed. The May issue of the National Rifle Association's magazine features a caricature of McKelvey with the caption, "The New Gun Haters Have Arrived . . . With the Same Old Scheme."

While Americans for Gun Safety has yet to engage in direct electioneering, its critics and allies predict that it may become even more powerful if the changes to campaign finance laws passed by the Senate are enacted. The proposal, sponsored by McCain and Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), would end the raising of unlimited "soft money" donations to political parties from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals. It could give new power to independently funded groups such as McKelvey's, which would not be subject to the new restrictions.

Cowan says the group is still evaluating its political strategy for the next election. Without question, he adds, "McCain-Feingold actually helps groups like us. . . . The right of a democracy is people can organize themselves to effectively advocate for a point of view."

For McCain, McKelvey's willingness to devote millions of dollars to influence lawmakers on issues such as gun control is something to be lauded rather than criticized. "I'm glad a guy with a billion dollars, or two billion dollars, wants to spend his money on an issue he feels strongly about," McCain says.
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
Monkeyleg is offline  
Old April 28, 2001, 10:53 PM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2001
Posts: 3,604
As if we did not have responsibility with guns. It has been said many times, but accidental deaths by guns are way down.

And we do have consequences. Homicide by negligence, etc. I won't argue that there are bozos out there who aren't responsible enough to own guns, but this is a poorly veiled first step.

So what is McCain's history on gun control?
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Lenin (and many others)

"As scarce as the truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand." - Josh Billings

"God and the Mauser" - Kruger war cry
croyance is offline  
Old April 29, 2001, 07:15 AM   #3
Don Gwinn
Staff Emeritus
Join Date: March 9, 2000
Location: Virden, IL
Posts: 5,917
Oh, he's going to compromise by "endorsing gun ownership."

Mr. McKelvey, we already HAVE the right to own guns and we already HAVE Constitutional protection for it. Seems to me we don't need your compromise, since you're not offering us anything at all that we don't already have.

Seems to me that what Mr. McKelvey is offering is his group's "tolerance" and "approval" of gun ownership. Why would any free man or woman give a rat's behind about that?
Don Gwinn is offline  
Old April 29, 2001, 07:26 AM   #4
Fred S
Senior Member
Join Date: July 2, 1999
Location: New Baltimore, MI
Posts: 569

I'm so glad McCain, who's really a liberal, didn't make it in the Republican primaries.
Fred S is offline  
Old April 29, 2001, 03:28 PM   #5
Senior Member
Join Date: January 17, 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 717
Oh yeah. McCain. Mr. "anti-soft money" who appeared in the anti-gun commercials in Oregon funded by...soft money.
"You have to understand...most of these people are not ready to be unplugged...they are so inured, so completely dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it"

Morpheus-The Matrix

Semper Fi!

Oregonians, please support the Oregon Firearms Federation, our local "no compromise" chapter of the GOA
Longshot is offline  
Old April 29, 2001, 03:50 PM   #6
Jeff Thomas
Senior Member
Join Date: December 9, 1998
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,753
Now, the group has expanded nationwide, running ads in favor of closing the gun show "loophole" – which allows people in 32 states to buy weapons at gun shows without undergoing background checks – and providing tens of thousands of dollars in funding for state groups.
This is typical. The average person reading this concludes you can buy any gun at a gun show without a background check. Whereas, 95% of the guns sold at gun shows are sold by FFL's / gun dealers, and therefore are subject to a background check. But, if you phrase something just right, you can give the wrong impression, without exactly lying ...

Mr. McCain is anti-self defense ... he is the worst kind of RINO now.

"I'm glad a guy with a billion dollars, or two billion dollars, wants to spend his money on an issue he feels strongly about," McCain says.
Now, that is a humorous statement ...

Note, there is no mention that this political wallflower, Mr. McKelvey, was on the Board of Directors for Handgun Control, Inc. That's right ... same wine ... different bottle.

Monkeyleg, you're sure right on that title .... fluff and puff.

Regards from AZ
Jeff Thomas is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Page generated in 0.03984 seconds with 7 queries