White House: Not Developing Post-Tucson Gun-Control Measures

Flickr/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardsunderland/4012134613/">Richard Sunderland</a> (<a href="http://www.creativecommons.org">Creative Commons</a>).

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

The Tucson massacre has prompted gun-control advocates to promote several measures to regulate certain firearms or ammo. But it has not moved the Obama White House to propose any such initiatives. And the White House appears to have no plans to do so.

At the daily press briefing on Thursday afternoon, press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked if the president and his aides have been thinking about crafting or suggesting any gun-related measures. He replied that he had “not heard anything particular in here.” That came across as a “no.” Gibbs did say that the White House was “looking through different proposals” that have been suggested by pro-gun-control lawmakers on Capitol Hill, but he didn’t mention any specific measures. Asked if if Obama, given his previous support of gun control, would be amenable to legislation being introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Frank Lautneberg (D-NJ) to ban the manufacture and sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines, such as the one used by suspected gunman Jared Lee Loughner, Gibbs was decidedly non-committal. He displayed no enthusiasm for this measure—or for pushing any gun-control initiative.

Since the Tucson tragedy, Obama has said nothing explicitly about guns. He did not address the issue in his much-praised address at the memorial service. This is no surprise. As president, Obama has placed a silencer on his past backing of gun control. For instance, as a presidential candidate Obama called for reinstating the ban on assault weapons. Though Attorney General Eric Holder early in the Obama administration cited the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban as an administration priority, the White House has not pursued that goal, and Obama has side-stepped the matter when questioned about it. At a press conference last year with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama declined to even discuss reviving this ban. The message has been clear: Obama may think gun regulation is good policy but he also has concluded taking any action that could enrage gun owners and the gun lobby is lousy politics.

The Tucson shootings places this calculation in the spotlight. Any political or media focus on gun-control measures does pose a challenge for Obama and the White House. After all, a person who endorsed banning assault weapons at least ought to favor banning high-capacity magazines. In the immediate aftermath of Tucson, the White House can plausibly say it is reviewing the various gun-control (or ammo-control) measures being proposed. But can the president escape having to declare whether or not he supports the McCarthy-Lautenberg measure forever (that is, until after the 2012 election)?

He and his aides might believe that is indeed possible. They have managed to steer clear of gun-related political trouble during the first two years of Obama’s presidency. (Recall the storm that ensued when candidate Obama said that “bitter” unemployed small-town Americans “cling to guns.”) Judging from Gibbs’ remarks, the Tucson episode—even if it entailed the near-assassination of a House member and the murder of six bystanders—has not changed the president’s strategy. He is still holding his fire.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend