Love it, but hate it

Of course, that doesn’t mean I’ll be voting for him.

“What?” you ask. How can this be?

That’s easy. I’m employing the Heller Gambit, which states it’s perfectly legitimate to support an idea in concept while simultaneously withholding actual support of that idea in reality, hopefully avoiding the consequences of that incongruity.

Try it. It’s fun.

Sure, I support vigorous exercise for at least one hour daily. But don’t wait for me to arrive at the gym before starting your own workout.

Absolutely, I support the growing, harvesting, processing and marketing of broccolini. But there’s no need to pass that particular plate to me at dinner.

The Heller Gambit has been getting a workout recently, as the senator tries to navigate the fallout over his vote against an amendment that would have strengthened background checks for gun purchases. It’s a popular idea, even among many gun owners (myself included).

Heller voted against the amendment on April 17, one of 46 votes that, in the bizarre math of the Senate, sent it down to defeat.

But before and after the vote, the senator was working hard to persuade his constituents that he favored the idea, if not the reality, of stronger background checks.

“As you may know, included in the president’s proposal on gun control is the requirement to conduct background checks on all gun sales and transfers,” Heller wrote to a constituent on April 9. “Under current federal law, all retail sales of firearms require a background check. I recognize that there has been some recent discussion regarding applying this requirement to private sales and transfers of firearms. I believe that we can take reasonable steps to ensure that we do not infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens while also keeping guns out of the hands of those who are potentially violent or mentally ill.”

Got that? Heller recognizes there’s been some discussion, and he wants to take reasonable steps. But nowhere in there does he say he’s actually going to vote for the amendment that would, you know, take a reasonable step to ensure we keep guns out of the hands of criminals or crazy folk.

“As this issue is debated across the Capitol, I will work with my colleagues to make background checks more efficient and effective,” Heller added.

Heller didn’t lie — he never said anywhere that he’d support the amendment. He merely said he supported the idea of the amendment. And, believe it or not, there’s a difference.

After the vote, Heller wrote in a May 8 letter to another constituent, “I have been adamant from the beginning of the gun-control debate that our current background check system needs strengthening and improving, particularly in areas that would keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill.”

But just because Heller was presented with an perfect opportunity to — what’s the phrase again? — strengthen and improve the background check system doesn’t mean he was actually going to vote for it.

Instead, Heller proffered a number of excuses for why the background check bill was bad, and he pointed to his support of an alternative bill, one that critics say would actually make gun laws weaker. Those critics have been hammering Heller, accusing him of trying to have his cake and eat it, too. And since this is probably the first time that’s ever happened in Washington, D.C., it really is shocking.

But the Heller Gambit is telling. Clearly, he knows his constituents favor background checks, and he’s spending a lot of time and energy to convince them he does, too. Not for nothing, but an easier course might have been to just vote for the amendment that embodied the concepts he said he favors.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.