Columbus bans assault weapons/gun party
D | Tuesday, July 19, 2005

---

I have more to say about this, but for now I wanted to toss up a link and see if I could get some initial comments. This article details how the NRA has pulled its 2007 convention from Columbus, Ohio due to the city's recent passing of a ban on assault weapons. In case you (like me) can't follow the logic, I am pretty sure it looks like this:

NRA: We are thinking about having a huge gun convention in your city. Can we buy cop-killing semi-automatic weapons in Columbus?

City Council: Not anymore.

NRA: Well, we need semi-automatic weapons. You are infringing on our god-given Second Amendment rights. In protest, we will hold our annual gun party someplace where we can buy cop-killer weapons.

City Council: An extra 15 million dollars from a one-time gun convention or a step towards trying lower the number of dangerous weapons on the street while protecting our police and citizens? It was tough, but I think we did the right thing.

NRA: Well. We'll show you by "firing back" with this angry semi-automatic press release! (which reads like it was written by an enraged high-school girl who was just dumped by her boyfriend)

D | 7/19/2005 08:43:00 AM |   Post your comment

---

Comments:

http://semble.mmbmm.com/2005/07/nra-ban.html
Brad | July 19, 2005 1:52 PM | permalink
 

---

Putting aside the Constitutional issues presented by the city's ban, it makes sense to me that the NRA pulled its convention.

Their standpoint is the 2nd Amendment allows citizens to have weapons. Holding a national conference for the NRA in a city that contradicts its main platform dilutes the message it sends to legislators and members.

I think the logic is there it's just the liberal part of your brain has prevented you from seeing it and instead likens the NRA vice-president to a teenage girl.
Ashley | July 19, 2005 3:50 PM | permalink
 

---

Brad,
I am reposting my comment to your post here:
I'm surprised it took you the first two paragraphs to see it was a politcal ploy. My first reaction when I read the headline was, "Why in God's name would the NRA (far far right) choose to plan a convention in Columbus, OH (good deal left) as opposed to someplace in TX, KY, or even the Nati if you wanted to stay in Ohio?" I knew something fishy was up right from the start. Sneaky bastards...

I do give them "credit" for bringing their issues to national attention. It was a succesful media coupe. If I was behind their cause then I would have recommended this course of action too. But, as you pointed out, we've got bigger things to worry about. On top of which, now this is the story, "NRA dissess Columbus" when in reality the story should be "Columbus takes strides towards protecting citizens and police by ban dangerous weapons".

I appreciated the pun too. Thank God the city council didn't cave to the monetary bribe (of 15 mil in revenue) and indeed, stuck to their guns. Perhaps they "shot down the NRA" or enacted legislation which "hits the bullseye in banning weapons." Maybe Mayor Coleman should get on the news tonight at a press confrence wearing one of those orange hunting vests.

Ash,
I think you are confusing which came first. Its the classic chicken or the egg problem.
1. Columbus puts weapons ban on agenda
2. NRA sees this and TENTATIVLY sets convention here (I think knowing that Cbus will approve)
3. Columbus passes ban
4. NRA makes HUGE STINK out of something it knew would happen

Can you honestly say this was NOT a politcal scheme from the get-go? I am not shy about my opinion on this topic and thus have no qualms about admitting the failings of the "liberal part of my brain." I openly admitt that there might be key salient details which I am overlooking - but that is where you can help me.

Am I failing to understand something in this manuever? Did the gun-toting members of the NRA honestly want to come to Liberal (largest homosexual per capita population East of the Mississippi) Columbus? This was never about 15mil in revenue or 60,000 visitors. This was a stunt.

Does the NRA feel we have a constitutional right to bear arms in order to facilitate our "well regulated militia"?
YES

Does the NRA feel the Columbus City Council has abridged the rights of all Ohio citizens?
YES

Is this media manuever invovling the convention their way of drawing national attention to their cause?
YES

Is the story now going to be about the NRA and their positions and NOT about the passage of crime-fighting legislation?
YES

Help me. I'm serious. What more has my liberal brain missed?
D | July 19, 2005 4:35 PM | permalink
 

---

I guess I don't really understand your big issue here.

Organizations that hold national conventions move the location yearly to allow people from all over the country to attend. Columbus is where they decided to hold the '07 convention (this makes sense bc let's not forget that Ohio is a red state). These arrangements are made well in advance. Portland Oregon and Reno Nevada are now being considered and both are typically blue states. The NRA doesn't stick to gun-toting hotbeds. Conventions move to attract people and look to places where they will draw major crowds. Columbus is central to the midwest and has a nice, new convention center.

I don't think this is the huge politcal ploy you're making it out to be. Were there political motivations? Possibly. Maybe they did it so the constitutional lawsuit will come sooner than later? Maybe.

But the basic logic is as follows. NRA picks Columbus. Columbus passes ban. NRA won't hold convention in city that contravenes its message. They do not respond to pulling out of the city by making a "huge stink", but rather making a press release which shows the NRAs passion for the right to bear arms. The media picked up on it. Now we have liberals blasting the NRA for a political stunt (that obviously worked).

In any event, I'm not debating constitutional issues and the 2nd amendment with you on your blog. This is all I have to say on this topic.
Ashley | July 19, 2005 4:54 PM | permalink
 

---

Wait, wait, wait.

Liberals need a reason to blast the NRA? Hogwash!
D | July 19, 2005 5:43 PM | permalink
 

---

I won't get into constitutionality/second amendment rights or the efficacy of the city's gun ban. Instead, I'll focus on the NRA's choice of Columbus as a site for its 2007 convention and it's recent press release.

Columbus had to be the ideal city for the NRA. It does make sense to host a convention in Columbus, for all the reasons that Ashley listed. While Columbus itself may be liberal, it is surrounded by conservative, NRA supporting... gun enthusiasts. It makes sense geographically, at least. Additionally, moving the location from year to year gives the NRA a more national presence; while it certainly could host its conference in Texas every year, moving around makes more sense for a national association. But most importantly, Columbus had pending legislation. If the ban had not gone through, the NRA could have its convention, all the while touting their latest victory in the very city of their triumph. If the ban succeeds, as was the case, the NRA can issue a scathing press release as they cancel their plans. Free publicity. It's win-win for the NRA.

Personally, I think the NRA benefits more from the ban, and I wouldn't be surprised if the NRA expected things to unfold exactly as they did. Whether the press release makes a "big stink" or an "imassioned expression of its views" is a matter of perception. In my view, the rhetoric is a bit over the top, which adds to my suspicion that the NRA not only planned for this eventuality but relished the opportunity to get some very public airtime on its issues. And over the top draws media attention so much better than reasoned discourse.

But there's another reason that I give weight to the idea that this was all part of a planned media stunt. The NRA seems to be very abruptly cancelling a convention that is still a year and a half away. I realize that it takes time to plan such an event, but there doesn't seem to be much reflection on the decision. The NRA could just have easily issued a statement that expressed its disappointment in the recent legislation and its reluctance to go forward with Columbus as the site for the 2007 convention. The NRA could have expressed a greater desire to effect change in the city's laws (there is a brief mention of this in their press release, but it strikes me as brief and perfunctory). But then again, the free publicity and veiled threat to other prospective sites is considerably easier, isn't it?

Possible political motivations? Make no mistake about it -- there are definitely political motivations. As Ashley remarked, "[h]olding a national conference for the NRA in a city that contradicts its main platform dilutes the message it sends to legislators and members." The best political move for the NRA is to choose cities with pending legislation. Then it can either pressure the adoption of laws favorable to its platform or make national waves by withdrawing from cities that enact laws it doesn't like. Either way, this is entirely political.

Ultimately, whether this is an example of good contingency planning or clever politcal maneuvring, one must admire the execution. To Derek's point about emphasizing the benefits of the new ban, I think the city missed an opportunity to make a stronger statement with its own press release. Columbus should have been ready and waiting with its own press release to support its ban. It could tout the benefits of the new legislation, citing the statistics and studies that support the city's position. Columbus should also spin the loss of the NRA convention, explaining that the safer environment will bring more business and conventions from other sources. Politics is increasingly a game of spin, planning, first strikes, and talking loudly. The NRA bested Columbus in every category.

"Throw down your weapons. [or rather, pick them up?] They win this round."
Alex | July 19, 2005 6:42 PM | permalink
 

---

You gotta love a guy who can make his point and throw in a Star Wars quote for good measure.

I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again - Al, if I ever run for a political office, I am going to hire you. I can't count the number of times that I've tried to make a point, only to have you say, "What Derek meant to say was..." and be totally right.
D | July 19, 2005 10:38 PM | permalink
 

---

Bravo Al, you win the prize.

When are you going to come and teach us peons how to succinctly and effectively deliver our message/point?
Brad | July 20, 2005 8:44 AM | permalink
 

---

"NRA: ...Can we buy cop-killing semi-automatic weapons in Columbus?"

So all semi-automatic weapons are cop-killers? What about revolvers? They can't kill cops? What about bolt-action rifles? I'm pretty sure they can kill cops too.

So maybe you meant the NRA to say "Can we buy 'assault weapons' in Columbus?" But then again, 'assault weapon' is a ridiculous term. It means nothing. Any gun used in a crime is an assualt weapon.

So maybe you meant for the NRA to say "Can we buy Colt AR-15's in Columbus?"

After all, this is a semi-automtic military rifle. What makes it any more deadly than a semi-automatic hunting rifle? Nothing. It looks different. Really. It can't shoot any faster. Uses the same ammo. They are built to be sturdy, but they just look different.

"NRA: Well, we need semi-automatic weapons. You are infringing on our god-given Second Amendment rights."

God given or Constitutionally given? This is the 3rd time Columbus' city council has tried this - the previous 2 were overturned as being Unconstitutional. This one has already seen its first challenge, and if that fails, more will follow.

I'm not sure what part of "Shall not be infringed" City Council fails to understand.

Of course the NRA is using this for publicity, just as Michael Mentel figured he'd use it to get his name in the news. No? You don't think so - you think he had the lives of Police and children in mind? I guess he didn't figure a person intent on getting a gun prohibitted by the ban might come up with the brilliant plan of - brace yourself - driving outside the city limits to buy one?
Anonymous | July 28, 2005 1:34 PM | permalink
 

---

From the Fake News Wire: In related news, seeking to fill the $20 million gap left by the NRA's decision to move their convention from Columbus, the Columbus Expo Center recieved another blow today. The center had high hopes for a proposed NAACP Convention in 2008.

Unfortunately, that group has also decided to pull their covention after Columbus City Council decided to pass a "Gangsta" ban.

The ban would set an 11:00 PM cerfew on Gangstas. Previous attempts to cerfew Gangstas were overturned as Unconstitutional. Council members hoped the latest ban would pass legal scrutiny by better defining the term 'Gangsta'. The new legislation defines a Gangsta as an African American male under 30, with 1 of 5 additional Gangsta features, such as gold teeth or baggy jeans.

In a statement today, Interim President of the NAACP Dennis Courtland Hayes said "This cerfew is ridiculous, when freedom returns to Columbus, we will return to Columbus!"

Mayor Michael Coleman said that the NAACP and other groups won't dictate city policy and that the ban will make the city safer, which will attract convention business overall.

"Young black males commit a large percentage of the crimes in Columbus" added Council member Mike Mental. "This is a crime issue, not a race issue."

Existing Gangstas are exempt from the cerfew, but must register and be fingerprinted within 90 days.
Anonymous | July 28, 2005 9:55 PM | permalink
 

---

Post your comment