Tim Walz is one of those "I'm a Second Amendment supporter, but..." politicians, though that wasn't always the case. Until 2018, when Walz announced he wouldn't run for re-election to Congress and instead run for governor, he was a dependable vote in favor of protecting the right to keep and bear arms. Since then, Walz has championed "universal" background checks, "red flag" laws, and of course, bans on "weapons of war"; which in Walz's view encompasses commonly-owned semi-automatic rifles.
The Harris campaign has been highlighting Walz's support for the Democrats' anti-gun agenda, which has been coupled with the vaguest and most vacuous "support" for the right to keep and bear arms.
Gov. @Tim_Walz: I spent 25 years in the Army and I hunt. I’ve been voting for common sense legislation that protects the Second Amendment, but we can do background checks. We can research the impacts of gun violence. We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war,… pic.twitter.com/3IVaXi2RP2
— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) August 6, 2024
As has been noted elsewhere, Walz never served in combat, though that's not stopping the Harris campaign from describing him as "battle-tested." Nor did it stop Walz from falsely claiming that he carried a semi-automatic rifle "in war"; a statement with multiple layers of duplicity, given that the last time I checked the Minnesota National Guard didn't issue AR-15s to citizen soldiers.
The Firearms Policy Coalition's Rob Romano would like to hear more from Walz about his votes to protect the Second Amendment.
Which specific legislation did you vote for that protected the Second Amendment? https://t.co/SJyHUssr6m
— Rob Romano (@2Aupdates) August 7, 2024
I'm sure if you comb through Walz's record in Congress there'll be some pro-2A votes. But I have another question for Walz: given his change of heart on things like a semi-auto ban, and his opposition to common-sense measures like right-to-carry reciprocity, I'd like to know if there's any major proposal from gun control groups like Everytown, Giffords, and Brady that the governor believes goes too far and actually does represent an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.
We already know that Walz believes that mandating background checks on transfers of a firearm, even to longtime friends or neighbors, doesn't violate our Second Amendment rights. We know that, according to Walz, we can ban the sale of commonly-owned firearms without infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Limiting magazine capacity is no limitation on the Second Amendment, at least according to the governor. Barring gun sales to young adults is also no burden on the Second Amendment, according to Walz. Neither is requiring a one size fits all storage law for gun owners that makes it nearly impossible to use a firearm in self-defense.
So what, if any, proposal from the gun control lobby is a bridge too far for Walz? That shouldn't be a difficult question for someone who claims to support the Second Amendment while also supporting "common sense" gun control efforts, but I doubt it will ever be asked... at least by the mainstream media. At this point the Harris/Walz campaign is so tightly scripted I'm not sure either of them will ever actually get around to taking questions from the press, but if and when they do, any gun-related questions are likely to be softballs lobbed Walz's way instead of a genuine inquiry into his views on the contours of our right to keep and bear arms.
From what I can tell, however, there's virtually no difference between Walz's current stance on the Second Amendment and the views of Everytown, Giffords, Brady, March for Our Lives, Moms Demand Action, and other major gun control organizations. Though he might have been a Second Amendment supporter in the past, it's what comes after the "but" that seems to be far more important to him now.
