Anyone who takes a no-compromise stand will sooner or later be called unreasonable and extreme.
In the last year, SDGO has been criticized in the news media for its no-compromise position. This criticism has come not only from anti-gun politicians and bureaucrats, but also from a few folks within the pro-gun community.
As you may recall, much of the disagreement was over the Right to Arms in Vehicles bill, officially numbered HB 1247 (2004 session). It was designed to repeal the confusing law restricting handguns in vehicles (see Attorney General: Gun on Dash Doesn’t Require Permit).
SDGO called for and supported the Right to Arms in Vehicles bill in order to remove the entangling permit requirements for carrying in a car. This would have taken us a step closer to one of SDGO’s primary goals: a carry law like that of Vermont and Alaska, where no permit is required to carry a handgun for self-defense.
The Right to Arms bill was also designed as an opportunity to obtain at least one clear vote on the gun rights issue. By working to pass strong pro-gun legislation, we force the anti-gunners to expose themselves every time they try to kill or dilute a pro-gun bill. But if we accept their gun control compromises without a fight, or worse yet, offer preemptive concessions in an effort to “maintain a working relationship” with our opponents, we enable them to hide behind a “pro-gun” label while continuing to destroy our gun rights. Until we require the politicians to cast a clear vote, almost all of them can claim to be pro-gun; it doesn’t take much to say the right things and return the right answers on a candidate questionnaire.
That’s one reason why South Dakota Gun Owners strives to stand on principle without compromise. Win or lose, the gun rights community gains the tactical advantage of a clear vote. We can then remind the anti-gun politicians that voting for gun control means losing votes at election time. In the next battle, we find fewer politicians who are willing to vote against gun rights. It’s a simple method that has been tried and proven again and again on both the state and federal levels.
However, shortly after the Right to Arms in Vehicles bill was introduced, a compromise was engineered by David Conway, lobbyist for NRA affiliated South Dakota Shooting Sports Association. He asked the Legislature to gut the Right to Arms bill and replace it with a watered down amendment.
If it had been introduced as separate legislation, the Conway language would have been a good though somewhat weak change to current law. But offered as a hoghouse 1 amendment, it enabled the anti-gunners to kill a strong pro-gun bill by an unrecorded voice vote. And because Conway is a respected leader in the gun rights community, his preemptive compromise has muddied the water around the right to carry issue.
In the world of politics, one will often be told that compromise is the only way to accomplish anything. “If you don’t compromise, you’ll never get anything done,” one venerated NRA old-timer once admonished me. And while it certainly is true that concessions must often be made on questions of preference and individual advantage, compromise on questions of principle always results in a loss of liberty.
The U.S. Constitution is a case in point. Not long after the Convention began in 1787, it became obvious that each state would have to yield some individual interests in order to form the more perfect union that America enjoys today.
For example, the larger states originally wanted representation apportioned by population, while the smaller states were demanding equal representation regardless of size. The disagreement was so strong that at one point it threatened to break up the Convention. Eventually, however, a compromise was struck. The new federal legislature would be composed of two houses. In the upper house, each state would get two Senators regardless of its size; in the lower house, each state would be represented according to its population. This compromise only required the concession of individual advantage, and was readily accepted.
However, when the finished Constitution was presented for ratification, a different kind of compromise was offered.
The problem was that the new document did not include a Bill of Rights. Some claimed it was not needed. But far-sighted men like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were adamant: the Constitution must include protection for fundamental liberty, including the right to keep and bear arms. Compromise this time meant giving up a principle, and that was not an option. Thanks to their no-compromise stand, we now have the Second Amendment.
Standing on principle is just as vital today as it was in 1787. In the battle for the right to arms, compromise equals lost ground. I would like to conclude with a quote from Sen. H.L Richardson, founder of Gun Owners of America:
“Compromise? It's regrettable the word compromise has been so convoluted, because there are two basic kinds, often incompatible with each other. One is a physical compromise (compromise of preference), the other, one of principle.
“Let me give an example. My wife and I want to go to a movie. She wants to see a love-'em-up and I want to see a shoot-'em-up. We compromise and pay to see a comedy.
“There is no real principle involved in this example, each of us might be put out a bit by not getting their own way but no harm occurs to either one's principles.
“Physical compromise is a necessary good, often the mark of an understanding and gentle person.
“On the other hand, compromising principle is another matter.
“We elect representatives to uphold the Constitution and to protect our rights, not to negotiate them away in the name of compromise and democracy. Our forefathers understood that certain rights were inalienable, God-given, untouchable by mere men. That's why they delineated these uncompromising principles in the Bill of Rights. They weren't kidding when they said it was necessary to "bind men down by the chains of a Constitution."
“It is our duty to oppose ANY AND ALL attempts at watering down the principles embodied in the Second Amendment. We are obligated by principle to vigorously oppose any move that diminishes the same freedom enjoyed by our fathers.
“There are those in the gun movement who call out for pragmatism, bipartisan cooperation and dialogue with our opposition. It has been tried for decades and what has been our reward? Lost ground. Retreat. A few crumbs from the table. Many gun owners have been victims of their own decency, believing some hope exists in dealing with our implacable enemies. They have been intimidated by the names we are called when we refuse to abdicate our rights.
“It's a mortal sin when a gun organization caves in and justifies any loss in the name of compromise. It's not compromise, it's abdication pure and simple; let's call it by its real name . . . abdication.
“We should all concentrate on regaining the ground we have lost and begin by not giving another fraction of an inch. For those of us at Gun Owners of America, retreat is over.” 2
By Ray Lautenschlager
Executive Director
1 – When a bill is “hoghoused,” everything but the bill number is deleted and replaced with completely new language. Hoghousing can be used to kill a bill and create a new one with a single unrecorded vote. Politicians used this maneuver to escape accountability for an anti-gun vote in the 2004 session.
2 – From Gun Owners of America, http://www.gunowners.org