Advocates for gun control and gun rights are at a national standoff - Baltimore Post-ExaminerBaltimore Post-Examiner

Advocates for gun control and gun rights are at a national standoff

Photo above from the April NRA convention in Indinapolis, Jacob Byk, News 21

This report is part of a project called “Gun Wars: The Struggle Over Rights and Regulation in America,” produced by the Carnegie-Knight News21 initiative. This is a national investigative reporting project involving top college journalism students across the country and headquartered at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University.

Under the guidance of professional editors, the reporters produced 25 stories. Most have little application to Maryland, an outlier state like Connecticut where gun control advocates have long dominated the legislative process over the more vocal protests of Second Amendment rights supporters. A federal judge last week affirmed the stricter gun control measures passed by the Maryland General Assembly in 2012.

Because of that, will run only four or five of the stories.

Today’s story gives a national overview of the battle over gun legislation and attempts to influence lawmakers at the federal and state level. Wednesday’s story covers problems with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and Thursday’s story leads with the Wicomico County sheriff as an example of the different approaches to gun law enforcement taken by sheriffs around the country.

By Justine McDaniel, Allison Griner and Natalie Krebs


Twenty months after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, some would say little has changed when it comes to guns in America.

Others would say everything has.

Gun Wars a series logoFlurries of gun-related legislation and renewed national attention on the topic have not been enough to change federal gun laws. The National Rifle Association, still the most powerful entity in the war over guns in America, no longer has a monopoly on the debate.

A resurgence of the gun control movement is challenging the status quo, while groups to the right of the NRA are also growing. Nonprofit organizations on each side are battling like they haven’t in years, all trying to shape the country’s politics and win over the American people.

But in spite of the evolving landscape, no progress in either direction is certain.

Gun control groups behind in funding

The gun control movement was nearly $285 million behind the gun rights movement in 2012 revenue raised, before Sandy Hook. Today, it is playing catch-up to the money, membership and political savvy of its opponents as the NRA works to maintain its dominance.

Over the course of this year, News21 reporters, videographers and photojournalists traveled across the country to assess the state of the gun debate, its evolution and emerging issues.

With new groups, a revamped strategy, more money and unprecedented collaboration, the gun control movement has made headway. Organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety, the group backed by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, say they are moving the needle.

“Now, for the first time in our country’s history, there is a well-financed and formidable force positioned to take on the Washington gun lobby,” said Shannon Watts, founder of gun control group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, speaking at an Everytown event on Capitol Hill in May.

Whether that is possible remains to be seen.

The NRA is strong financially. Its budget has consistently hovered well above $200 million in revenue in recent years and it has cultivated a highly organized grassroots basefor more than a century.

As the gun control movement organized in the wake of Sandy Hook, the gun rights movement’s membership boomed. Groups more conservative than the NRA, like the National Association for Gun Rights, are growing. State legislatures across the country passed laws expanding gun rights, though not in Maryland. The NRA has focused on broadening its appeal.

Targeting Michael Bloomberg

The NRA frequently targets Bloomberg, who donated $50 million to Everytown in April, though the amount is a quarter of what the NRA raises each year.

“Mr. Bloomberg, you’re an arrogant hypocrite,” said NRA Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director Chris Cox at the organization’s annual convention in April. “Stay out of our homes, stay out of our refrigerators and stay the hell out of our gun cabinets.”

With its near-mythical presence as a political lobby, the NRA is still the best-positioned player in the debate by far, bringing in and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on its broad range of programs. Though its grip on Congress has loosened somewhat, it still isn’t letting major federal legislation through or relinquishing its influence on state politics.

An amendment expanding background checks came to a vote in the Senate in April 2013, something gun control advocates saw as a victory. It didn’t get enough votes to pass.

The history of gun groups

The NRA began as a firearms education organization and sportsmen’s club in 1871 and didn’t become involved in politics until the 1970s. When it did, however, it had a built-in base of support. It has worked to build strong ties with members of Congress to back its lobbying and political efforts. Today, the NRA says it has 5 million members.

Around the same time the NRA entered politics, the group that would eventually become the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was founded. It attained a high profile following the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, in which Reagan press secretary James Brady was shot and partially paralyzed.

Its advocacy work in the ‘80s and ‘90s culminated in the passage of the Brady Act — which mandated federal background checks on people buying firearms — and the now-expired assault-weapons ban, both signed by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

In 1999, the Columbine High School shooting led to a resurgence of gun control advocacy. Like today’s movement, it had a billionaire benefactor in’s Andrew J. McKelvey and a mother-led group, the Million Mom March. After a handful of state legislative victories, the movement fizzled.

This was the landscape when a spate of recent prominent mass shootings began: Virginia Tech in 2007; Tucson, Arizona, in 2011, in which then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., was shot; the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting in 2012; and then, Newtown.

The Sandy Hook shooting touched off for the gun control side what Everytown Director of Strategy and Partnerships Brina Milikowsky called a “once-in-a-generation moment of great transformation.”

The day after the shooting, Watts founded Moms Demand Action; a few weeks later, on the second anniversary of the Tucson shooting, Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, started Americans for Responsible Solutions.

In December 2013, Moms Demand Action formed a partnership with Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group founded in 2006 by Bloomberg and former Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. In April, Everytown became an umbrella organization for the two other groups. Today, Everytown says it has 2 million members.

“Twenty years ago, Brady was the only game in town. And now there’s unprecedented resources and attention being focused on this issue, so we’re not a voice alone in the wilderness anymore,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign.

Everytown for gun safety

Everytown for Gun Safety, which styles itself as “the movement to end gun violence”, holds a counter rally to the annual NRA convention in Indianapolis on April 26, 2014. Jacob Byk/News21.

Profusion of gun control groups

In fact, there is a profusion of gun control groups, including many on the state level.

November’s congressional elections — the first major election since Sandy Hook — could provide a barometer for the political gun wars.

Some groups, like Moms Demand Action and the Brady Campaign, say they can now compete with the gun lobby. Others, like Giffords’ ARS, say they want to match the NRA but are still too new to have a comparable budget.

With new strategies, groups like the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, founded in 1974, think they will “be a force for decades to come,” said Ladd Everitt, the group’s director of communications.

But tax filings show the top six national gun rights groups brought in close to $301 million in revenue in 2012, while six major national gun control nonprofits raised just more than $16 million.

However, when it comes to campaign spending, the political action committees on the two sides are neck-and-neck for 2014, at about $18 million.

With some groups’ finances remaining a mystery, the numbers are inconclusive. In spite of their claims, gun control groups’ ability to compete financially remains questionable.

NRA power comes from passionate base

Much of the NRA’s power is found in its passionate and faithful membership base.

“Their members are very highly trained in grassroots campaigning, so because of the emotional connection to guns, they are easily activated, and that is certainly a plus on their side,” said Karen Callaghan, a political science professor at Texas Southern University who is writing a book on the NRA.

Their members are loyal and, often, lifelong. For many, the organization offers a mark of identity.

“When the person’s a member of the NRA, most people know what that is. It speaks volumes of how they stand on issues, and it’s respected or hated by almost everybody,” said Brad Leeser, 58, a member of the NRA and Gun Owners of America in Moorhead, Minnesota.

Gun rights voters tend to be single-issue voters, meaning they prioritize gun rights over all other issues. Gun control supporters, on the other hand, tend to be less driven by the one issue.

“People on the other side of the debate, it’s a more diffused group, and so I think they’re disempowered for that reason,” said Kathy Kiely, managing editor of the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan open-government nonprofit.

Supreme Court ruling a turning point

Modern gun rights advocacy experienced a turning point after the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 that the right to bear arms is an individual right, not limited to those serving in a militia.

The decision overturned handgun bans on state and local levels, and groups like the Second Amendment Foundation followed it with their own lawsuits to reverse gun control measures in major cities like Chicago.

It brought a new sense of security to gun rights advocates.

“It’s having a huge impact, and the other side will … deny it or try to spin it a certain way, but they know they’re losing,” said Philip Watson, director of special projects for the Second Amendment Foundation.

After Heller, the NRA began opening up to new demographics, said Callaghan, the Texas Southern University political science professor.

In the last few years, it has launched social media campaigns aimed at millennials, women and minorities. It recently debuted a show on its website hosted by a young black gun enthusiast and has six social media accounts aimed just at women.

Both sides of the debate want to reframe the conversation to use less loaded language and portray their stances as common sense.

Americans for Responsible Solutions is one of the groups trying to depoliticize the debate. Giffords and her husband, both gun owners, hoped to establish a presence that would counterbalance the NRA while welcoming gun owners, said Mark Prentice, the group’s press secretary.

“It’s about staking a place in the kind of moderate, reasonable middle where most people are on this issue,” Prentice said.

Two-year-old Aleks Gifford looks on as her mother, Kaitlynn Gifford, leaves the National Rifle Association's 143rd annual convention in Indianapolis on April 25, 2014. Photo by Jacob Byk/News21.

Two-year-old Aleks Gifford looks on as her mother, Kaitlynn Gifford, leaves the National Rifle Association’s 143rd annual convention in Indianapolis on April 25, 2014. Photo by Jacob Byk/News21.

Common sense or nonsense

But what is described as common sense for one side is not common sense for the other.

For example, many gun rights advocates portray “stand your ground” laws, which allow people to use deadly force in self-defense instead of retreating, as common sense; gun control groups oppose it. Gun control groups say expanding background checks is common sense; gun rights groups disagree.

Mental health may be the one area that has the potential to be a meeting ground.

The NRA has supported mental health legislation in the past, like the 2007 law meant to improve state reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which includes the reporting of mental health records. The Brady Campaign also worked to pass that bill.

In May, a combination mental health and domestic violence bill was introduced in the House by Democratic Reps. Mike Thompson of California and Elizabeth Esty of Connecticut, whose district includes Newtown. It is still in committee.

In the same month, an amendment to increase funding for NICS by $19.5 million in 2015 passed the House, but the Senate has not taken it up. The amendment’s passage was seen as a victory by the gun control movement – its single federal legislative success since Newtown – but NICS funding will not actually increase unless the bill passes the Senate.

The gun control movement also wants legislation addressing domestic abuse and background checks. Advocates still hope for expanded background checks that would include sales online and at gun shows. A bill like that failed in Congress last year.

Looking to the 2014 elections

As the political tug-of-war continues, an indicator of the future of guns in America is elusive. Many are looking to the 2014 elections for a hint.

The NRA’s Cox said on an NRA commentary show that the upcoming election is crucial.

“There’s no question that what we do between now and November is critical to the survival of the Second Amendment and the freedoms we all fight so hard to protect,” Cox said.

The NRA rates candidates and endorses them through its PAC. According to the fund, the rankings are based on voting records, public statements and responses to a questionnaire, the contents of which the NRA does not release publicly.

The association worked on 271 campaigns for Congress in 2008 and says it won 230 of the races, according to its website. Voters can print out “personal voting cards” from the website that list the candidates and mark which are supported by the NRA.

In July, Everytown sent out a questionnaire to every candidate for Congress. It is similar to the NRA’s, but unlike the NRA, Everytown released the questions to make its process transparent. Milikowsky and other representatives would not say whether the group will make election endorsements, nor would they say what it will do with the survey results beyond publishing them.

Prentice, of Americans for Gun Responsibility, believes the issue of guns is going to be increasingly important in elections, and said his organization sees it as an obligation to highlight the issue and the candidates’ stances in campaigns around the country. The group doesn’t donate directly to candidates, but plans to channel money into ads supporting certain candidates.

“What’s most important is the people who have been champions on this issue already and (who) put their necks out there get to return to the U.S. Congress,” Prentice said.

“The election is going to be a bare-knuckles street fight,” said NRA Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre at the organization’s convention. “They’re going after every House seat, every Senate seat, every governor’s chair, every statehouse that they can get their hands on.”

Justine McDaniel, the lead writer of this story, is a journalist from Santa Rosa, Calif. who received her master of journalism with an emphasis in investigative reporting from the University of Maryland in May. She has worked for the Capital News Service. She graduated from the University of Puget Sound in 2012. Find her at

Jacob Byk contributed to this story. He is the News21 Dix/Oliver fellow.



About the author

Maryland Reporter is a daily news website produced by journalists committed to making state government as open, transparent, accountable and responsive as possible – in deed, not just in promise. We believe the people who pay for this government are entitled to have their money spent in an efficient and effective way, and that they are entitled to keep as much of their hard-earned dollars as they possibly can. Contact the author.


  1. Patriot_70 says:

    The founders did not want a Bill of Rights. But the states refused to ratify the Constitution without one. That is why the Preamble to the Bill of Rights reads, “THE Conventions of a
    number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or
    abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses
    should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the
    Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

    The amendments, all of the first ten, limit government powers. They do not grant rights, they only limit the government. They do not regulate rights, they limit government powers. They do not establish rights, they limit government powers.

    The second amendment does not grant any rights. It limits government powers. The founders did not believe that a limit on powers was needed, because by not enumerating the right, the people retained it fully. They get to decide on how it is defined, what it is, when it is used, and how it is used. The government CAN write laws that deal with the abuse of the right – similar to how yelling fire in a crowded theater is not prosecuted for yelling “Fire!”, but prosecuted for causing a riot or other law dealing with damage caused by irresponsible actions.

    So strip the 2nd off of the books and….. nothing happens. The right is intact, the limits are still there, and the 2nd’s limit on government abuses falls to the limit placed by the Constitution by being a document of enumerated powers.

    Our right to bear arms cannot be regulated by the Constitution. It was never granted power to do that.

  2. spencer60 says:

    I guess it is a standoff.

    On the pro-rights side you have 100 million firearms owners.

    On the gun-control side you have roughly $100 million being spent this year by multi-billionares… Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Steve Ballmer just to name a few.

    The courts have consistently sided with the Constitutional rights of the people over the control being sought by the billionaires. At least those courts that haven;t been bought yet.

    So yes, it’s a stand off. Pick a side.

    • Patriot_70 says:

      LOL. So Bloom decides that he is going to change the face of the United States. So 5 million NRA members spend about 4 times what Bloomburg does, and this is looked at as a good thing?

  3. TEEBONICUS says:

    I notice that you include the sub-heading “Targeting Michael Bloomberg” but don’t balance it with “Targeting The NRA”.

    Subtle bias, but it’s there.

    In key efforts in several states, Bloomberg outspent rights activists exponentially. His funding dwarfed theirs, yet he lost some significant battles, most notably the two key anti-gun-rights legislators in Colorado and the recent victory of a Wisconsin sheriff.

    Civil rights aren’t about money. Money can’t buy them, and money can’t remove them. The currency of rights is our founding philosophy and real patriotism, not money and progressive elitism.

    It is for this reason Michael Bloomberg is attempting to smother a fundamental civil right with exorbitant amounts of cash – philosophically, he’s bankrupt. Money is all he has.

    But he’s already lost the ethical war, and we’re going to castrate him with the Supreme Court. Despite progressive efforts to the contrary, we will not allow the Constitution and our liberty to be sullied further.

    • Patriot_70 says:

      First thing I noticed. A biased reporter. Did you also notice the second picture? The one with the parents carrying and the cute little girl? THAT girl is the safest child in the city at the moment, and gun owners know it. The kids in school are the least safe because of the same people that want to disarm us.

  4. Richard Najjar says:

    [QUOTE] “Now, for the first time in our country’s history, there is a well-financed and formidable force positioned to take on the Washington gun lobby,” said Shannon Watts, founder of gun control group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, speaking at an Everytown event on Capitol Hill in May. [/QUOTE]

    Well financed? Formidable? Please spare us. Just another gun control entity that changed it’s name. When you talk about “well financed” and “formidable,” you’re talking about the 5.5 million dues paying members of the National Rifle Association, millions more NRA-Institute for Legislative Action contributors, a hundred million non-member 2nd Amendment supporters, 20 million-plus concealed weapons licensees, most law enforcement officers, hunters, veterans and armed forces personnel who make up the largest and most powerful citizens’ grass roots political action force in American history.

    Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, EveryTown, Moms Demand, and all of the other attackers of liberty combined are just a snot spot on a piece of tissue compared to the NRA and the American resolve to protect liberty through overwhelming citizen political action.

    • Patriot_70 says:

      When it boils down to it, they want our guns so that we will be as defenseless and powerless as they are. It’s all about fear and envy. They fear us, and they also envy us.

      What they should consider is that we are not going to give our weapons up, ever, and we are armed, and they are not.


Leave a Comment

Comment Policy