Peter Berkowitz, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, has written a wonderful 16-page description of Edmund Burke’s thinking, entitled Burke Between Liberty and Tradition. You can access it here.

When I sat down to read the piece, I wasn’t sure how I would react. I know Peter slightly. We lunched together once with a mutual friend, and I liked Peter immediately. He’s a very smart and engaging person, and someone you can disagree with and still enjoy. We discussed the Mideast more than Burke at that lunch; but I suspected that although Peter and I both admire Edmund Burke, we might read him differently.

Peter’s article is adapted from his new book, Constitutional Conservatism: Liberty, Self-Government and Political Moderation. Although I haven’t yet read Peter’s book, the flyleaf describes it as attempt to bring libertarians and social conservatives together. My view (described here) is that Burke’s philosophy is at war with both libertarianism and social conservatism. So if Peter thinks that Edmund Burke’s thinking supports libertarianism or social conservatism – or neoconservatism for that matter – we have fundamentally different views about Burke. So I was pleasantly surprised to find that I agreed with nearly everything Peter wrote in Burke Between Liberty and Tradition, and can recommend it wholeheartedly.

My only quibble is with the last sentence of Peter’s article, which states that The Federalist Papers constitutionalize “the conservative brand of liberal self-government.” By liberal self-government, Peter means liberalism “in the large sense,” which he defines as believing the goal of politics is to secure liberty, and which he associates with Adam Smith, Tocqueville, and Mill, as well as with Burke. Peter defines the conservative side of the liberal tradition as believing that “free societies expose individuals to influences that corrode moral and political order and enervate the virtues on which liberty depends.” Thus, Peter thinks that conservatism places a high premium on nurturing virtue. I agree with Peter’s definition about the liberal tradition in the large sense, and also agree with him about there being conservative and liberal sides to that tradition, though – because he doesn’t define the liberal side, at least in this article – I don’t know whether we’d differentiate the two sides the same way. But speaking more broadly, I do not believe the Federalist Papers constitutionalize a conservative or liberal position. Let’s remember that when they met at Philadelphia, the Founders wildly exceeded their mandate to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. They completely scrapped that structure – which they believed was fundamentally flawed because the states were too strong and the national government too weak – and wrote an entirely new Constitution. Moreover, they decreed that the new Constitution was to be ratified, not by the existing Congress and the state legislatures, which as things then stood had the authority to pass upon this new proposal – but by newly-formed conventions in at least nine states. (Madison defends what the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention did in The Federalist No. 40.)

I am not arguing that the Constitution is a liberal as opposed to a conservative document. I believe that the Constitution and the Federalist Papers belong to modern-day liberals and conservatives alike, and equally. As a liberal who revers the Constitution and The Federalist Papers, it rankles me when conservatives seem to think that these documents somehow reflect the philosophies of Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, or Milton Friedman. I’m not suggesting that’s what Peter Berkowitz is saying, of course, and though I disagree with that last sentence, it certainly doesn’t rankle me. With my caveat about that one sentence stated (and perhaps overstated), I recommend Peter’s article to readers of this blog.

At least 83% of Americans favor universal background checks for gun purchases. At most, 15% oppose them. According to one survey, even 75% of NRA members support universal background checks. Why then will it be difficult to amend federal law to require that all gun sales be subject to background checks?

The answer has to do with the intensity factor. Some fraction of those who oppose universal background checks feel so strongly about the issue – and indeed any form of gun control – that they will make this question the deciding factor in the voting booth. They tell their elected representatives: Unless you vote against gun control measures, I will not vote for you. They mean it; and politicians know they mean it. By contrast, few, if any, gun-control supporters are “single issue voters.”

I was on the governing board of the organization now known as the Brady Organization during its battle to pass the Brady Bill – legislation that, as originally proposed, would have created a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases, and required police to perform background checks on putative purchasers during that period. Internally, leaders of the Brady Organization predicted that the bill would be quickly enacted by Congress. It was so reasonable, so modest – even milquetoast – a measure that no one could oppose it without looking like a madman, a fool, or a toady of the firearms industry.

During that battle, I saw every poll on the issue. If memory serves, there was not a single poll – including in states such as Montana, Virginia, and Texas – showing support for the Brady Bill at less than 88%. National figures were even higher. A 1990 Gallup Poll showed that 95% of the American public supported the Brady Bill. And yet it took a bruising seven-year fight to get that legislation through Congress.

Seven years.

The intensity dynamic was well known, even then. I remember discussing the issue with a liberal Democratic congressman from a mid-Atlantic state who represented a district that included suburban and semi-rural areas. He was not inclined to support the bill, even though he knew his constituents favored it by overwhelming margins. Even if this will cost you votes, I told him, at the very most it will be 1% of general election voters. Well, he asked, did I know what his margin of victory had been in the last election? The answer was about 1%. This, he told me, was not an issue over which he was prepared to give up his seat.

What needs to be done to get universal background checks and a ban on high-capacity magazines – the two simple measures the nation needs right now – through Congress?

The intensity factor has to be raised for at least some small fraction of the people who support these measures. And because majorities of voters support these measures, it is really just a small portion of supporters who have to make these controlling issues.

How can that be accomplished?

First, the intensity factor needs to be explained to the public. People have to be asked to consider writing their senators and congressmen and women and tell them: If you oppose these measures, do not expect my vote. Once they make that pledge, they are likely to stick to it. People also need to thank their representatives who vote in favor of these measures. The message they help send is this: It’s not just gun zealots who follow this issue and know how their representatives vote on it.

Second, congressional votes on these issues need to be portrayed as transcending gun control. They should be considered a litmus test on whether a member of Congress is willing to put the good of the nation ahead of his or her political self-interest. Members of Congress who are willing to sell out public safety for an “A” NRA rating are likely to be willing to sell out the public interest on other, less-visible issues too. While most responsible Americans may never be single issue voters on gun control – or any other discrete policy issue – they will be reluctant to vote for someone whom they cannot trust to put the public interest first. In one way or another, “Trust” must become a slogan of the campaign for universal background checks and a ban on high-capacity magazines.

Third, a brighter spotlight needs to be cast on the people who control the NRA. Even most NRA members will be shocked if they take a look at who sits on the governing board of their organization. (You can learn more about NRA board here and here.) Their friends and neighbors need to ask genuinely patriotic NRA members: Do you vote in NRA elections? (Only something like 7% of NRA members vote for members of the board.) Do you support candidates who are willing to reconcile the interests of sports hunters and shooters with those of public safety and security? If you can’t find such candidates on the NRA ballot, are you willing to work with other NRA members to find responsible people to run for the board? If you’re not willing to do this, how can you justify your continued membership in this organization? A wider understanding of who controls the NRA will disgust many voters and increase intensity of gun control issues. 

Surely, there are many other things that can be done too. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other leaders of the gun control movement must make “intensity” or “salience” the highest priority of their campaign for these measures.

Don't mourn the political demise of Senator Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons bill.

Here’s why.

The philosophy behind an assault weapons ban is that there are two kinds of rifles. One kind – the sportsman’s rifle – is designed for hunting and target shooting. It is about accuracy. The rifleman places the stock against his shoulder and looks through a pair of sights mounted along the top of the barrel. He fires a shot, and then – because the recoil has changed the position of the rifle – re-aims before firing another shot. The other kind of rifle – the assault weapon – is designed for warfare. The shooter points rather than aims, and sprays as many rounds as possible in the general direction of his target. This weapon may have a pistol grip to make it easier to hold at the waist. It may also have a barrel shroud – a covering with ventilation holes that surrounds but does not touch the barrel. The barrel shroud gives the shooter a place to grasp the front portion of the gun with one hand while at the same time allowing the barrel to cool. (When firing multiple rounds, a gun barrel becomes too hot to hold, and a fully-enclosed barrel could become hot enough to melt.) Senator Dianne Feinstein was also concerned about two other attributes of assault weapons: a collapsible stock, which allows a long gun to be folded up for concealed portability; and a threaded barrel, on which one could screw on a silencer or a flash suppressor, so that one could fire at night without having a muzzle flash give away his location.

But all of these features – barrel shroud, pistol grip, collapsible stock, and threaded barrel – are merely ancillary to the key feature of an assault weapon: the high-capacity magazine. Today magazines of thirty rounds are common. This allows someone shooting a semi-automatic rifle of any design to fire thirty rounds before reloading. Magazines holding ninety rounds are also readily available. A weapon is semi-automatic if one must pull the trigger to fire each round, while an automatic weapon continues to fire as long as one keeps the trigger depressed. While private citizens may not lawfully possess automatic weapons, the distinction is less important than one may think because a shooter can fire more than a round per second using a semi-automatic weapon. The vast majority of guns sold in the United States today are semi-automatics; that includes sports and hunting rifles as well as guns classified as assault weapons.

The single most important thing than can be done to complicate the work of mass-murderers is to prohibit high-capacity magazines. Everything else pales in importance.

Focusing on the ancillary features of assault weapons allows gun control opponents to argue that the distinction between sporting guns and assault weapons is largely cosmetic. Even the collapsible stock is becoming less significant as so-called assault pistols grow in popularity. In addition, focusing on the cosmetic – and arguably psychological – aspects of assault weapons made sportspeople who liked to shoot such weapons feel demonized.

Moreover, Senator Feinstein’s bill grandfathered existing high-capacity magazines. This would have allowed people to stockpile and continue to use high-capacity magazines for decades. A similar grandfather provision was the Achilles heel of the original (now expired) assault weapons ban, rendering it largely ineffective over its ten-year life span.

From both public policy and political points of view, it is wiser to focus exclusively on the key feature of weapons of war: the high-capacity magazine. Private citizens should not be able to possess gun magazines – whether for rifles or pistols – that hold more than a certain number of rounds. In my judgment, five-round magazines are adequate for self-defense, hunting, and target shooting. Legislation recently enacted by New York State set the limit at seven rounds. The original federal assault weapons ban had a ten-round limit. A smaller limit is better. One can remove a spent magazine and replace it with a fully-loaded magazine very rapidly. Someone using a gun for self-defense or for sports purposes can have several fully-loaded magazines, and change a magazine after firing, say, five rounds. But having to do this repeatedly complicates the work of mass-murderers. To fire ninety rounds, someone using thirty-round magazines must replace the magazine twice. Someone using seven-round magazines would have to replace them twelve times. Someone using a five-round magazine would have to replace them seventeen times. Jared Loughner, the mass murderer in Tucson, was tackled while he was attempting to change magazines.

Does having to change magazines more frequently inconvenience sports shooters? Sure, but it’s a minor inconvenience, and reasonable and responsible sportsmen and women fully understand that public security must trump recreational convenience.

So don’t mourn Senator Feinstein’s assault weapons ban. The political costs always outweighed the public policy benefits. Under the present political climate, its demise was inevitable. We should focus on prohibiting high-capacity magazines and ignore the ancillary attributes of assault weapons. And we must not exempt existing magazines; it’s important that high-capacity gun magazines be removed from general circulation. Magazines are relatively inexpensive – about twenty dollars each – and can be replaced far more easily than guns themselves. Once we are talking about magazines only, the need for a grandfather provision diminishes.

Some gun control advocates are misled by polls (such as this one by the Pew Research Center) that show current support for an assault-weapons ban to be as strong as support for a ban on high-capacity magazines. But what's important is not where the polls stand today; it's where they can stand after a sustained public education campaign. The case for restricting high-capacity magazines is simpler, clearer, and stronger from a public policy standpoint. Americans can be persuaded that this will really matter.    

And, of course, we need universal background checks for all gun sales, which is something the American public already overwhelmingly favors.

For purposes of public education, and developing the overwhelming political support necessary for enacting gun control legislation, it’s important to advocate a few simple, easily-understood proposals and explain over and over – in as long and sustained a campaign as necessary – why they are sensible.