Could the logjam that has thwarted previous attempts at legislative action after mass shootings be about to break?
The question moved front and center Wednesday, after the White House hosted an extraordinary event with people affected by school shootings, including last week’s tragedy in Florida.
Survivors from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., where 17 people were killed on Feb. 14, addressed President Trump
Donald TrumpBill Maher says Cuomo can't stay after scandal: He's no 'Donald Trump' Former acting AG testifies before panel probing election interference GOP senator vows to slow-walk T infrastructure bill, sparking standoff MORE directly in raw and emotional terms.
They were joined by parents bereaved in 2012’s Sandy Hook atrocity and others affected by gun violence, including local high school students from the District of Columbia.
“I don’t understand how I can go into a store and buy a weapon of war,” one survivor from Parkland, Sam Zeif, told the president.
Whereas most White House events — during previous administrations as well as this one — are run in a tight, scripted manner, Wednesday’s was unusually free-wheeling.
Attendees voiced very disparate recommendations, from banning certain kinds of weapons to arming teachers. The president did not control the proceedings with a heavy hand, mostly facilitating people who wanted to speak.
Trump insisted action would be taken, however.
“It’s not going to be [just] talk, as it has been,” he said. “We’re going to get it done.”
But will he? And what does he even intend to enact?
The politics of the gun issue are famously complicated, and Trump’s words and actions since the Florida shooting have left observers on all sides unsure what to expect.
On Tuesday, the president instructed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to draw up regulations banning “bump stocks.” The devices make semi-automatic weapons fire even more rapidly, akin to machine guns.
But there are differences of opinion over whether such a ban can be accomplished through regulation rather than legislation. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has previously asserted that it does not have the power to regulate accessories to guns.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein
Dianne Emiel FeinsteinHillicon Valley: Federal cyber agency kicks off effort to defend US against cyberattacks | Senators introduce bill to sanction nations tied to ransomware attacks | Amazon pushes back corporate reopening Senators introduce bipartisan bill to sanction nations involved in ransomware attacks Nearly 140 Democrats urge EPA to 'promptly' allow California to set its own vehicle pollution standards MORE (D-Calif.) on Tuesday claimed that any attempt to regulate bump stocks would get bogged down in the courts, perhaps for years.
"Legislation is the only answer,” she urged.
But whether Trump is willing to embark upon a prolonged push for such legislation is shrouded in doubt.
Support for the Second Amendment was one of the touchstones of his presidential campaign. The National Rifle Association (NRA) spent around $30 million on his behalf in 2016. And the demographic core of Trump’s base — male, white and rural — tracks seamlessly with the most fervent supporters of gun rights.
On the other hand, Trump’s call for a ban on bump stocks seems to signal a willingness to break with the NRA, at least to some degree. The mere decision to hold the Wednesday event builds the case for some kind of reform. And, toward the end of that gathering, Trump promised to “go very strong” on the issue of stricter age restrictions for the purchase of firearms.
The alleged shooter in Florida, Nikolas Cruz, is 19 years old and was said to be armed with a semi-automatic AR-15 assault rifle that he obtained legally.
Federal law requires that someone be 21 before they can purchase a handgun from an arms dealer. But it is possible to buy a semi-automatic rifle from the age of 18.
During the White House event, Cary Gruber, whose son was present in the Florida school but survived the shooting, told Trump: “It's not political. It's a human issue. People are dying and we have to do this. If he's not old enough to go buy a beer, he should not be able to buy a gun. It's just common sense.”
Within minutes of Trump’s remarks concluding, the NRA underlined its opposition to age restrictions. The organization asserted that preventing people aged 18 to 20 from purchasing rifles would amount to “depriving them of their constitutional right to self-protection.”
Still, the possibility of Trump breaking with the NRA is beginning to grow stronger. And he could find public backing for doing so. A Quinnipiac University poll released earlier this week found 66 percent of registered voters backing stricter gun laws, the highest number recorded in 10 years of polling on the question.
Yet the president also seemed most animated on Tuesday when discussing the possibility of arming teachers or advancing other so-called concealed carry measures — a favorite idea of the NRA and other gun rights advocates.
“If you had a teacher who was adept at firearms, they could very well end the attack very quickly,” Trump said, adding that the administration would also look at proposals aimed at that objective “very strongly.”
Those remarks caused outrage among supporters of stricter gun laws, who argued it was a recipe for disaster.
The forces of stasis have proven powerful, even after previous atrocities.
A push by President Obama for stricter gun laws after the Sandy Hook killings in Connecticut failed.
In the days since the Parkland tragedy, the Florida legislature has declined to debate a proposal to ban assault rifles.
The question remains: Is Trump willing or able to force a different outcome?
The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage, primarily focused on Donald Trump’s presidency.
