When I went to my district’s Democratic Caucus in 2018 I went (in part) with the goal of talking with the party about the ‘Gun Reform’ section they had just added that year. It seemed to me that their proposals were ignorant of the laws that already existed in Washington and the country as a whole. It turns out the platform is pretty much already locked by the caucus. I was allowed to give a 2 minute speech in favor of removing each specific plank I opposed, but no modifications (short of striking the whole plank) were permitted at that time. 2 minutes is not a lot of time to do much more than sound like an NRA talking head and I wasn’t very successful in promoting discussion. The caucus accepted the ‘Gun Reform’ section of the 2018 platform as the platform committee recommended it, and this was the result.

In late 2019 the party sent out a call to join their platform committee in charge of drafting the 2020 platform and presenting it to the 2020 caucus. This was the opportunity I had been waiting for to discuss gun politics with nuance! I signed up and met a group of 6 others, where we hashed out a schedule to discuss the top issues we wanted to address in 2020:

  • October: Jobs and the Economy + Healthcare

  • November: Criminal Justice + Education

  • December: Gun Reform + Diversity and Inclusion

  • January: Elections and Voting + Tax Reform

  • February: Government + Elections and Voting + Tax Reform

Joining this group was hugely rewarding. While I’m pretty knowledgeable about guns and gun politics, I know very little about the rest of these topics. It was great to hear other politically involved people speak with passion about the topics that were most important to them. It was incredibly refreshing to hear individual opinions on issues that weren’t the standard party line.

The 6 people who I met with were warm, welcoming, and inclusive. At times I feel like an outside in the Democratic party, and these people never questioned whether I belonged in their discussions. This was one of the first groups of people with whom I mourned about COVID-19, and one of the first activities I had that needed to find new accommodations for our meetings. The discussions we had over these months will stick with me.

When we did come to the ‘Gun Reform’ section I felt that there were a few hackles up. Most of these people had been there at the 2018 caucus and probably thought of me as an NRA hard-liner even if I was an otherwise decent person. Before we started, one of the participants asked me whether I was carrying a gun (to our meeting at the public library!) - I wasn’t.

We started in cautiously. I really disliked the ‘Gun Reform’ title from the previous platform and proposed we call it something better - ‘Gun Violence Prevention.’ This is coincidentally what the major gun control organizations at the time were calling their efforts and I honestly think it’s a good way to frame the issue: it shows the goal isn’t trying to reform the guns (or the people with the guns) - the goal is preventing people from getting shot.

Then we started talking about other things we all believed: that people have a right to personal safety, that the government does have a role in regulating access to firearms, that background checks should be free to private party sellers, and that community-based de-escalation programs had an important role in preventing gun violence. We found lots of different point of commonality even though we all saw the issue differently. These made for easy planks to add to the platform since getting 7 opinionated Democrats to agree on anything is a bit of a milestone.

I had come with my own list of proposals and we had time to go through most of them. I spent a lot of time giving background on gun laws and pointing out some of the blind spots in the planks from the 2018 platform. I was able to give context in places where it was missing and add nuance where the others saw black and white. This was exactly what I had hoped for, and I know each of the people there that day came away with a better understanding of guns, gun laws, and gun owners.

We ran out of time before we could get to any of the really contentious stuff. We didn’t get to talk about Concealed Carry reciprocity, outright bans on magazines or semi-automatic rifles, or better ways to incentivize safe and responsible gun ownership. In the end we still hadn’t put together a platform I would vote for but we were much closer.

Here’s the platform we ended up with. I’ve copied it here marked in green the planks that I had a hand in adding (even if they were not my preferred wording), and marked in orange any planks we didn’t get to discuss (these happen to all be planks I oppose). Planks that are not colored are planks I agreed with but did not propose:

Gun Violence Prevention

We believe:

  • Gun violence is a multifaceted public health issue, requiring multiple solutions. Some of the issues include, but are not limited to:
    • Domestic violence
    • Mass shootings
    • Negligence
    • Non-domestic homicide
    • Suicide
  • Personal safety is a human right.
  • Responsible gun ownership is possible.
  • The second amendment is not limitless.
  • The government has a role in defining and ensuring responsible gun ownership.
  • Firearms are inherently dangerous, and the government has a responsibility to regulate access to them appropriately.
  • Access to firearms must be limited to those who have not been convicted of violent crimes.
  • The ability to own a firearm should be commensurate with its danger to society.

We support:

  • A system for universal background checks required for every transfer of ownership, freely available to private party sellers (e.g. Closing the “gun show loophole”).
  • Funding community-based de-escalation programs similar to Chicago’s CeaseFire program.
  • Codifying and enforcing the nationwide ban on bump stocks.
  • Regulation of semi-automatic assault rifles.
  • Banning high-capacity magazines.
  • Gun violence restraining order laws.
  • Ensuring that hearings following Extreme Risk Protection Orders are held in a timely manner.
  • Encouraging safe storage and handling of guns by requiring more robust training, shall-issue yearly licensing, and the use of gun safes.
  • Encouraging liability insurance for gun owners.
  • Demilitarizing the police; deadly force should be available to the police when the need arises, but only after all de-escalatory and non-lethal remedies have been exhausted.
  • Considering a verified Concealed Pistol License (CPL) as a license to purchase for the purposes of a background check.
  • Positive incentives for safe and responsible storage and carry of firearms.
  • Resuming CDC investigations into the causes of gun violence.

We oppose:

  • Concealed carry reciprocity between states.
  • Any legislation that would bring guns into our schools.
  • Any exemption that allows law enforcement to use firearms or firearm accessories that are not accessible to responsible citizens.

I think this exercise shows a few things:

  • People have a variety of opinions on guns, they aren’t purely pro- or anti- gun.
  • People with strongly held beliefs about guns are receptive (in the right forum) to being presented with alternate view points.
  • Progress on tough issues is easier when you start from what you have in common.
  • Giving context and being a calm representative of your viewpoint can still change minds.