Now that all congressional races have been decided, here the final tallies for how the election affected Second Amendment support in Congress, according to the NRA’s top federal lobbyist Chuck Cunningham:
19 of 25 U.S. Senate candidates endorsed by the NRA-Political Victory Fund won their races. The net gain is +7 votes (Ark., N.H., N.D., Oh., Penn., W.V., Wisc.) with no offsetting losses.
After the 2008 elections, there were 43 Senators with an A rating from NRA, 2 with a B, 9 with a C, 12 with a D, and 34 with an F. The changes in the new Senate will be +7 A, +1 C, -7 D, and -1 F.
The 12 pro-gun Senate freshmen are: John Boozman (Ark.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Roy Blunt (Mo.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), John Hoeven (N.D.), Rob Portman (Oh.), Pat Toomey (Penn.), Mike Lee (Utah), Joe Manchin (W.V.) and Ron Johnson (Wisc.).
In the U.S. House, 227 of the 283 endorsed by NRA-PVF won.
After the 2008 elections, there were 226 Representatives with an A rating, 18 B, 14 C, 22 D-rated, 151 F, and 4 ? (had refused to answer questionaire). The new House will be +36 A, -7 B, - 1 C, -9 D, -16 F, – 3 ?.
There were 29 districts where the grade improved: AZ-1, AZ-5, AR-2, FL-8, FL-22, FL-24, ID-1, IL-8,IL-10, IL-14, IL-17, KS-3, MI-7, NV-3, NH-1, NJ-3, NY-13, NY-19, NY-24, NY-25, NY-29, NC-2, OH-1, OH-15, PA-3, PA-7, PA-8, SC-5 and WA-3. In 3 districts the grade declined: AL-7, HI-1 and LA-2.
The NRA identifies 86 pro-gun House freshmen: Martha Roby (AL-2), Mo Brooks, (AL-5), Paul Gosar (AZ-1), Ben Quayle (AZ-3), David Schweikert (AZ-5), Rick Crawford (AR-1), Tim Griffin (AR-2), Steve Womack (AR-3), Jeff Denham (CA-19), Scott Tipton (CO-3), Cory Gardner (CO-4), Steve Southerland (FL-2), Rich Nugent (FL-5), Daniel Webster (FL-8), Dennis Ross (FL-12), Allen West (FL-22), Sandy Adams (FL-24), David Rivera (FL-25), Rob Woodall (GA-7), Austin Scott (GA-8), Raul Labrador (ID-1), Joe Walsh (IL-8), Adam Kinzinger (IL-11), Randy Hultgren (IL-14), Bobby Schilling (IL-17), Marlin Stutzman (IN-3), Todd Rokita (IN-4), Larry Bucshon (IN-8), Todd Young (IN-9), Tim Huelskamp (KS-1), Kevin Yoder (KS-3), Mike Pompeo (KS-4), Jeff Landry (LA-3), Andy Harris (MD-1), Dan Benishek (MI-1), Bill Huizenga (MI-2), Justin Amash (MI-3), Tim Walberg (MI-7), Chip Cravaack (MN-8), Alan Nunnelee (MS-1), Steven Palazzo (MS-4), Vicky Hartzler (MO-4), Billy Long (MO-7), Joe Heck (NV-3), Frank Guinta (NH-1), Charlie Bass (NH-2), Jon Runyan (NJ-3), Steve Pearce (NM-2), Michael Grimm (NY-13), Nan Hayworth (NY-19), Chris Gibson (NY-20), Richard Hanna (NY-24), Ann Marie Buerkle (NY-25), Tom Reed (NY-29), Renee Ellmers (NC-2), Rick Berg (ND-AL), Steve Chabot (OH-1), Bill Johnson (OH-6), Steve Stivers (OH-15), Jim Renacci (OH-16), Bob Gibbs (OH-18), James Lankford (OK-5), Mike Kelly (PA-3), Pat Meehan (PA-7), Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-8), Tom Marino (PA-10), Lou Barletta (PA-11), Tim Scott (SC-1), Jeff Duncan (SC-3), Trey Gowdy (SC-4), Mick Mulvaney (SC-5), Kristi Noem (SD-AL), Chuck Fleischmann (TN-3), Scott DesJarlais (TN-4), Diane Black (TN-6), Steve Fincher (TN-8), Bill Flores (TX-17), Quico Canseco (TX-23), Blake Farenthold (TX-27), Scott Rigell (VA-2), Rob Hurt (VA-5), Morgan Griffith (VA-9), Jaime Herrera (WA-3), David McKinley (WV-1), Sean Duffy (WI-7) and Reid Ribble (WI-8).
Fiftycal says:
Please to notice the number of “A” rated members of the House, 226. THAT is a MAJORITY! NOW is the time to rid ourselves of some of the more onerous federal restrictions on guns. FIRST, I want Congress to inform the Post Office that carry of firearms is LEGAL. No more taking off my handgun and parking on the street becuz of “Postal” regulations. Same for “military” installations, with restrictions for “sensitive” areas, but not the whole base. How about making the BATFE drop the regulation that a “law enforcement officer” sign off on an application for a C-III firearm?
Anyone else have a suggestion?
December 10, 2010, 8:08 pmSarcastro's Little Brother says:
I say, assign everyone their own personal thermal nuclear warhead. Or at least a 50 caliber machine gun.
And why restrict firearms in “sensitive” areas of “military bases”? I say, why should our troops have to worry about getting shot at only in Iraq and Afghanistan? What’s wrong with the good old USA?
December 10, 2010, 9:09 pmAllan Walstad says:
Isn’t Gun Owners of America rather tougher on grading? Are 226 reps and 43 senators really deserving of an A?
Sarcastro’s Little Brother: By all means write your Congresscritter and Senators about those nukes. I’m sure they’ll make it a priority.
December 10, 2010, 9:36 pmrpt says:
On the subject of firearms, didn’t Mme. Palin demonstrate on her television show that she had never really fired a rifle before? At a caribou with makeup on?
December 10, 2010, 11:08 pmMatthew Carberry says:
That caribou was wearing make-up?
December 11, 2010, 12:15 amMatthew Carberry says:
I think military bases are a stretch.
There are areas that are by definition “sensitive” as it can be rationally construed. Those places are not open to the general public in the normal course of business and have physical barriers to entry or some form of active security. So police stations, military bases (even open post access is a privilege, not a right), the trial and locked “employee only” areas of courthouses and other such Fed and other such government offices can rationally be defended as “sensitive”. Although some should probably be required, as in some existing state statutes, to provide storage for lawfully carried arms while on the premises so honest citizens aren’t disarmed to and from the sensitive location.
In the case of post offices: the public parking, box lobby and counter area aren’t rationally “sensitive” in any way, any citizen can enter for any lawful purpose, there is no security at all. Supporting the reasoning on this is that private “Post Office Etc” businesses provide the exact same mail services yet aren’t covered by the Post Office regulations.
Of all government agencies, the claimed need for restrictions in public areas of the post office is the most pathetic rationally
December 11, 2010, 12:27 amTruth and Freedom says:
Gun Owners of America endorsed only 64 U.S. House candidates and did not endorse the pro-gun Republican opposing the anti-gun Democrat in the competitive Senate races in Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Also, there is a huge difference between endorsing candidates and supporting candidates. The NRA Political Victory Fund was reported to have spent $20 million in this election cycle (www.dailycaller.com/2010/11/01/thedc-exclusive-nra-spends-20-million-this-cycle). According to reports to the Federal Election Commission, GOA spent very little to support their few endorsed candidates. Their largest PAC expenditure was for their accountant (over $15,000) and that amount is more than one-third of their total 2010 expenditures to date). As of October 13, GOA spent $3,559 for its endorsed Senate candidates and $2,877 for its endorsed House candidates.
December 11, 2010, 12:32 amKirk Parker says:
Matthew,
Not just some, but all federal facilities that are open to the general public should be required to maintain such storage as a prerequisite to being able to ban weapons. In other words, fail to provide storage, lose the ability to ban them.
In addition, some kind of standard for prompt service needs to be written into law or regulation, so that agencies don’t impose a “hassle ban” by taking–e.g.–30 minutes to store and 30 minutes to retrieve your handgun each time you go to the federal courthouse. How to effectively do this w/o being micromanaging is a bit beyond me, though.
And I’m curious–was your ending word above suppose to be irrational?
December 11, 2010, 3:04 amFinal score on 2d Amendment in the November – The Volokh Conspiracy | The Daily Conservative says:
[...] the rest here: Final score on 2d Amendment in the November – The Volokh Conspiracy Share and [...]
December 11, 2010, 3:31 amLarryA says:
Social Security offices. Buildings in National Parks. National cemeteries. VA hospital parking lots.
How about just establishing reciprocity with the Federal Government.
Which equals $5 per member.
December 11, 2010, 4:09 amShag from Brookline says:
Resolved: Congressmen may carry – open or concealed – arms within the halls of Congress to the extent not expressly forbidden by the Second Amendment – but not others.
December 11, 2010, 6:36 amKharn says:
The GOA is a scam. Send out a few emails begging for money, refuse to distribute money as that would be compromise, send out email stating you’ve refused to compromise but need more money, etc.
December 11, 2010, 7:52 amBrett Bellmore says:
I don’t know, I’ve found the GOA ratings to be useful sometimes: The NRA has an understandable, but still rather deplorable, tendency to rate ‘on the curve’, to avoid pissing off marginally anti-gun incumbents who are probably going to be reelected anyway. The GOA doesn’t do this. So the GOA ratings are occasionally handy to distinguish two “A” rated candidates according to the NRA. They’d be more useful, of course, if more of the candidates were willing to return the GOA’s questionnaires, but the very refusal to do so can be itself diagnostic of a certain “squishiness” on the issue.
When over half the members of Congress have an identical rating from the NRA, the value of the ratings for distinguishing how pro-gun different members really are starts to diminish. You KNOW over half the members of Congress are not hard line pro-gunners.
December 11, 2010, 8:58 amSyd Henderson says:
Or maybe they don’t like to return surveys. I pretty much never do, even if its a cause I support.
December 11, 2010, 11:27 amKirk Parker says:
LarryA,
Well, those all fit under the definition of all, don’t they? :-)
December 11, 2010, 12:19 pmHoward says:
Probably pointless to mention that “Second Amendment” here means “Second Amendment as interpreted by me and the NRA.” I doubt if even the Supreme Court majority would say that a lot of the things people want to change are unconstitutional, so why call them “Second Amendment” issues at all? And what is it about guns that gets people so emotional that they can’t bear being separated from them even for a moment?
December 11, 2010, 1:54 pmBrett Bellmore says:
I suppose the same thing that gets others so emotional that they can’t bear the thought of the first group NOT being somehow separated from them, no matter how transparently phony a pretext is required.
December 11, 2010, 3:55 pmarbitrary aardvark says:
With 50 A rated senators and 226 congresspersons, it should be possible to enact implementing legislation for the second amendment. It could be vague and fuzzy and have exceptions. Then Obama could either veto it, and take the heat for doing so, or let it pass.
December 11, 2010, 4:07 pmIf it passed, a lot of what are now 2nd amendment questions would become federal legislative questions,and some anti-gun rules in some anti-gun states could be struck down, without having to take any extremist positions on what the 2nd A does or doesn’t mean. Does anyone reading this blog have an in with a congressperson or lobbyist to get that process started?
Carl N. Brown says:
“”On the subject of firearms, didn’t Mme. Palin demonstrate on her television show that she had never really fired a rifle before? At a caribou with makeup on?”"
Palin’s caribou hunt is off topic of the opening post, but … she could not hit with her dad’s rifle because the scope was knocked off zero; she nailed the caribou with first shot from the backup rifle. Caribou with makeup on? Well, on TV even Chuck Norris gets makeup. Off topic, off target attacks on Palin may prove Nietsche correct: that which doesn’t kill one makes one stronger.
December 11, 2010, 4:59 pmDoc Merlin says:
Considering there are videos of her firing rifles that predate that, you are clearly wrong.
December 11, 2010, 5:31 pmHere is a video of her in Kuwait in 2007 firing an m16 (it could be an m4, didn’t bother to check).
Kirk Parker says:
Howard, I hope it’s is damp where you are as it is here–otherwise, a strawman of that size could be a serious fire hazard.
December 11, 2010, 8:11 pmTy Right says:
Sarcastro’s Little Brother says:
And why restrict firearms in “sensitive” areas of “military bases”? I say, why should our troops have to worry about getting shot at only in Iraq and Afghanistan? What’s wrong with the good old USA? Sarcastro’s Little Brother(Quote)
Hmmm….
December 11, 2010, 9:21 pmYou mean US Troops don’t get shot at or attacked in the Good old USA. Fort Hood amongst other incidents never happened?
Ty Right says:
Obviously the best defense against Gun Violence is to put up signs everywhere, “Gun Free Zone” followed, with Signs “Knife Free Zone” and “Blunt Instrument Free Zone”
Soon there will be no violence anywhere, except for large Thugs using their hands and feet.
Works everytime, like a charm, Guarenteed safety.
December 11, 2010, 9:24 pmTy Right says:
arbitrary aardvark says:
Does anyone reading this blog have an in with a congressperson or lobbyist to get that process started?
Well
December 11, 2010, 9:27 pmI’ve got Chuck Schumer….
Ty Right says:
Howard says:
And what is it about guns that gets people so emotional that they can’t bear being separated from them even for a moment? Howard(Quote)
Get one,(a 22lr first) Own it, shoot it, have fun with it…
Soon you will discover that Target shooting is a great sport, that you can hunt for your own supper, you can defend you are yours, and if you are very very good with a gun, you can drive nails badly…
You will find that metal wood and plastic can be ugly or gorgeous, and that good function is a staement of human integrity, creativity, and ingenuity.
Then come back in a year or 2, with an understanding
Yes firearms are an esthetic and they are empowering.
December 11, 2010, 9:34 pmBrett Bellmore says:
Indeed, it should be. But it isn’t. Like I said above, the NRA grades on a curve. “A” rated covers a very wide range, from “hard line 2nd amendment defender”, to “moderately anti-gun, but doesn’t want to piss off their pro-gun constituency”. The whole range can generally be depended on not to push anti-gun legislation if the issue is clear, but only a fraction of the “A” rated members are willing to sponsor pro-gun legislation.
All the current ratings of Congress tell us is that we don’t have to worry about anti-gun legislation passing if a clear-cut vote is involved. If the anti-gun implications are murky enough to provide “plausible denial”, maybe we still have some worries. If it’s an anti-gun judge up for confirmation to Thomas’s seat? THEN we’re still in big trouble. We’re a long ways from a Congress which will reject judicial candidates on the basis of anti-gun views, if they take even the slightest care to lie about them.
I don’t know how we’re getting there, either, when the NRA’s ratings are so vague, and lacking in transparency. It’s like having a map to your destination, with a huge imkblot covering half the map around your destination: Those ratings got us from virulently anti-gun to kinda ambivalent, but they’ll need to be a lot tougher and more transparent to get us where we really want to be.
December 12, 2010, 7:38 amSecond Amendment, Final Score in Congressional Elections | Snowflakes in Hell says:
[...] took this long for all the races to be decided, but Dave Kopel has some final analysis with the help of Chuck Cunningham, ILA’s top federal lo…. It’s a good landscape to be working in. It’s interesting to see how few people are [...]
December 12, 2010, 1:59 pmSebastian says:
People who are willing to sponsor legislation and be leaders on the issue generally get the A+ rating. As have a track record of voting with us, and maybe co-sponsoring pro-gun legislation, but they aren’t leaders on the issue.
Either way, expect to see a few things pushed in this congress. There’s been an ATF bill pending for a while now, which hopefully can move. There’s national reciprocity. I’m really hoping the push a 14th amendment preemption of state and local gun bans as well.
Still, there are going to be limits to what this Congress is willing to do. I wouldn’t expect machine guns for everyone, but we might be able to finally pass the Veterans Heritage Firearms Act, and at least save some historical machine guns, like the German MG captured by Sergeant York, from the chopping block.
December 12, 2010, 2:06 pmIan Argent says:
I expect reciprocity, and a mooting of the DC suits by Congress exercising their powers to set regulation in the District to relax the restrictions.
I wouldn’t rule out a federal preemption of assault weapons bans, but I wouldn’t count on it, either.
December 12, 2010, 4:33 pmmarkm says:
It sounds like our schools are not the only organizations with excessive grade inflation…
December 12, 2010, 5:09 pmMatthew Carberry says:
The line by which legislators are graded is a moving one in any event.
For example, a reinstatement of the AWB is pretty much impossible at this point; that ship, for the moment, appears to have sailed.
So to say you are “against the AWB” is going to count a lot less moving forward than supporting positive moves for gun rights that gain legislative traction; like re-opening the MG registry or a reciprocity bill for instance.
My prediction is that “supporting the status quo” won’t be enough anymore (or at least soon) to get an “A”.
December 12, 2010, 6:48 pmIan Argent says:
What @Matt said. There’s no way to objectively measure this sort of thing (not realistically, anyway). So you boil the frogs a little.
December 12, 2010, 6:51 pm