CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR THE GRPC 2000

Part 1 of a Series [go to part 2] [go to part 3]

400 Activists Attend 14th

Annual Policy Conference

by Nancy Norell

 

    Four hundred firearms civil rights activists met at the Airport Renaissance Hotel in St. Louis, MO, on Sept. 17-19 for the 14th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC). The conferences are co-sponsored by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA). The conference was funded in part by: National Shooting Sports Foundation; MBNA America; Marathon Communications; Microsoft^® Gun Club; NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA); North American Arms; Smith & Wesson; Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute; Talk America Radio Network, and Washington Arms Collectors.

    The conference attendees that arrived in time for the Friday evening, Sept. 17, began networking with people from national, state and local organizations across the country at a buffet reception co-hosted by the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, Marathon Communications, Gun Week and Washington Arms Collectors. Missouri lawmakers and candidates in attendance addressed brief remarks to the approximately 250 people in attendance.

But the conference officially opened at 8:30 a.m. on Saturday, Sept. 18, after a continental breakfast hosted by Smith & Wesson. John Barnett, executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, called the conference to order. After the Pledge of Allegiance and an invocation, Barnett introduced Joseph P. Tartaro, president of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and executive editor of The New Gun Week, and Alan M. Gottlieb, chairman of CCRKBA and founder of SAF, who shared a “State of the Nation” address.

Tartaro focused on the recent past while Gottlieb dealt with the future.

Tartaro offered a historical prospective on the conference theme—“Expect to Win”— by recounting a New York state victory in 1968 resulting from the unified response of sportsmen, firearms owners and supporters of individual rights to an overreaching legislative proposal championed by powerhouse Republican Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, who was accustomed to achieving his legislative goals with little or no opposition. Rockefeller, a formidable opponent, served four terms as New York’s governor.

Tartaro said, “He probably raised the budget more and initiated more programs than anyone else. For you Republicans, I remind you that Rockefeller was a Republican—he was probably more liberal than any Democrat you can imagine.”

The gun issue was in the forefront in 1968, not only because of the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy, but because of civil unrest in many big cities.

“Rockefeller was used to hearing even Democrats say, ‘Whatever you want, we will immediately deliver,’ ” Tartaro recalled. “He came up with a bill that makes any anti-gun legislation being discussed on a federal level these days seem tame. It was an arsenal bill, but a different one than you might imagine. Everyone had to turn in all of their guns—long guns and handguns alike—to state arsenals, where they would all be registered and stored. Owners would be allowed to withdraw a gun on a specific day, signing a form stating the specific purpose for withdrawing the firearm. When the specified time requested for the use was up, the guns had to be returned to the arsenal.”

That was not all, Tartaro said. “It also involved the registration of clubs and commercial ranges, and private activities.”

When word of the proposed bill reached an organization called the Conservation Council of New York State, an organization that not only dealt with guns and hunting, but also with conservation related issues, members developed a course of action.

“It was the only time I can recall when every single firearm organization and individual gunowners viewpoint came together,” Tartaro said. “Trap shooters who didn’t normally worry about guns because ‘they’ were after the handguns came aboard. Muzzleloaders who normally thought they were not affected because they were shooting antiques came aboard.”

Energized by their opposition to Rockefeller’s draconian proposal, the factions coalesced into an organization called the Firearms Legislative Information Council.

“It was done at the state level by state people from every single organization. We were also blessed with a leader in the State Senate from the Western part of the state named (Sen.) Earl Bridges. There was an army of close to a million people working against Rockefeller’s bill.” Bridges filled the gallery of the state capitol with firearms rights supporters when the time came to vote on Rockefeller’s bill.

“Because of this unity, of this intensive campaign, the bill was soundly defeated, and never came back again,” Tartaro said. “We have been successful in forestalling a lot of bad legislation since 1968, but we have never ever shown the same kind of unified fight that we did in ’68.”

He concluded, “…when we responded in a unified fashion, we could deny the most powerful man in the state what he was used to getting—his way. We can always expect to win when you are as unified as we were in 1968.”

Gottlieb was upbeat as he viewed the road ahead for American gunowners. He said that his experience in the past months doing radio and TV shows, and dealing with pollsters, convinced him that supporters of the Second Amendment need not fear the outcome of the 2000 elections.

“The day is coming,” he quipped to an applauding audience, “when we will be able to say goodbye to an awful lot of ‘assault’ politicians who have been ‘assaulting’ our rights.

Gottlieb cited a Zogby International poll that showed that 57.5% of those people who plan to vote in the next election are likely to vote for a candidate who supports the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to carry. Only 36% would support a candidate who believes that a federal ID card should be required of all gunowners and that all firearms should be registered. This poll was encouraging, in the face of all the adverse publicity about firearms in recent months.

Gottlieb also referenced a Gallup poll released very recently that said that 50% of those polled felt George Bush could do a better job on the gun issue. Forty-five percent thought Gore could do better.

“And,” Gottlieb said, “recent polls show that people do not think that the NRA has too much influence. They don’t think it has enough influence!”

Gottlieb used World War II German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel as an example of astute strategic planning. As Gottlieb pointed out, Rommel made a point of scrutinizing his defenses and military capabilities from the standpoint of his enemies. This enabled him to assess both strengths and weaknesses.

Our strength, Gottlieb said, is that “… the public supports the right to keep and bear arms.”

But, he said, “Our number one weakness is ‘kids and guns.’ It’s not surprising that Handgun Control Inc. has a new slogan: ‘Remember when a student packed a lunch instead?’ They say as they hold up a handgun for the cameras. Our opponents are doing a great job of reaching out to those in the middle with sound bites.”

The anti-gunners’ success in this area must be counteracted, Gottlieb said. Pro-firearms rights groups must also reach out to those in the middle with sound bites, but “at the same time, we must make sure that our base of gunowners is energized while we reach out to those in the middle.”

He emphasized that this “middle” was vital to the success of the movement. The firearms rights issue has become increasingly central in public thought.

“I’ve been fighting for gun rights for 27 years. I have never seen an attack like this in my life. Our clipping service used to send us a packet of gun-rights related items every week. Now we get boxes a day of gun-related news clippings.”

He said that polls showing that even many gunowners support gun control are to be taken seriously. “The problem is a lack of unity. Many shooters cannot see how everyone’s rights are linked. For this reason, we must state our case properly,” Gottlieb said.

Gottlieb cited an exchange he had with the Junior Statesmen of America; a group made up of promising young people from every background. First he asked them how many of them were anti-gun, and many hands went up. Then he asked, “If I gave all of you a gun, right now, how many of you would run out and commit a crime?”

Not one hand was raised. Gottlieb told the group, “We’ve just answered an important question. The availability of firearms doesn’t cause firearms crime. All of a sudden, they were receptive to the message. It made sense to them.”

How an idea is presented is vital.

Gottlieb contended that the anti-gun forces would lose credibility with the middle ground because of their greed—they have overplayed their hand.

“They poisoned their own well,” he said.

He also contended that the multiple lawsuits by cities against firearms manufacturers and dealers had a positive side—the suits were viewed in a negative way by the great majority, both by those who saw it as a roundabout gun ban, and by those who were philosophically opposed to holding manufacturers responsible for the eventual misuse of a product. This, he said, would unify our base.

“Now people in the middle are willing to listen to us because the other side looks stupid.”

Gottlieb concluded by urging the conferees to learn a lesson from Rommel.

“You can’t beat the enemy unless you know what he is going to do.”

Federal Panel

Next, John M. Snyder, public affairs director for CCRKBA and treasurer of SAF, opened the federal affairs briefing. Other panel members were: Lt. Gen. James Chambers, USAF (ret.), executive director of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI); Neal Knox, an NRA board member and executive director of the Firearms Coalition, and Ted Deeds, chief operating officer for the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA).

Snyder asserted that in every area, firearms rights supporters have won the intellectual and philosophical argument on the issue. Attacks on Second Amendment rights could be attributed to bias on the part of those who would deny those rights, and who, Snyder said, “use the emotional responses generated by tragic events to undermine the rational arguments that have already been made.”

Snyder challenged the audience: “It is up to us, here at this conference, to counter those emotional arguments. We must let Congress know that we citizens simply will not tolerate further unreasonable infringements on our right to keep and bear arms.”

Opponents of the Second Amendment, he said, have exploited the events at Columbine High School to push a number of anti-gun initiatives, which are part of the Juvenile Justice Bill on Capitol Hill.

Snyder reported that the bill was debated in the House of Representatives, which passed a bill that did not contain some of the more objectionable elements found in the Senate version of the bill. At this time, a Conference Committee is working out the differences between the two bills.

He said, “The current fight, as far as the specifics, regards whether or not the more heinous measures approved in the Senate are included in the version which is approved for final consideration by both houses or whether these provisions will not be included.”

Snyder also lamented that a national right-to-carry law was not generating the interest that it deserved, although passage of such legislation could be viewed as a long-term goal. In this area, once again, the intellectual argument is on the side of right-to-carry states in which licensed carry has been linked with a marked reduction in the violent crime rate.

Snyder concluded his remarks, urging conferees to educate their representatives.

Next, Chambers recounted his four combat missions in three wars. Now, he said, “I joined my fifth combat tour in my fourth war. And that war is on the side of the firearms industry against those who would do away with Second Amendment rights, which I have spent my life defending.

“My industry is faced with the fight of our lives right now; at present there are some 22 lawsuits filed against the major gun manufacturers and their associations.”

This was only the beginning, Chambers said. “The goal of the anti-gun advocates is to increase this three- to four-fold in the next year. We will be facing from 80 to 100 lawsuits.

“Their goal is to bankrupt my industry and your suppliers.”

The suits have two general forms, Chambers said. One is the New Orleans model, which claims that firearms are unreasonably dangerous; they lack safety features; they contain inadequate warnings, and they can be fired by unauthorized users.

The second type is the Chicago model, which claims that manufacturers saturate the markets where gun laws are more permissive, knowing full well that this will lead to straw purchases and transportation to areas with tough laws. In both cases, the suits claim that the manufacturers are responsible—not the criminal behind the gun, or the irresponsible owner.

The audience applauded as Chambers vowed, “Unlike the tobacco companies, we are not going to fold. We will not settle piecemeal.”

He said that a large part of the battle consisted of demonstrating that the industry was conscientious and responsible.

Getting down to the nuts and bolts of the fight, Chambers said that the industry was in the process of hiring a professional lobbying group in Washington to carry the fight on the Hill. Additionally, SAAMI is organizing a communications, public affairs and media function in their Newton, CT, headquarters.

Chambers concluded by asking for the audience’s support.

Deeds then focused on recent Second Amendment victories. In particular, he cited the Supreme Court’s reversal of the Brady law, and the Emerson ruling on the Second Amendment in a federal district court in Texas.

These victories were important, Deeds said, because, “They affect the public’s thinking and attitudes towards guns. It affects what legislators will feel comfortable with when they take a position.”

To succeed politically, Deed observed, supporters of firearms rights need to “… give politicians the cover and encouragement to go where we want them to go.”

Turning to the hard-fought battle in Missouri for the enactment of a concealed-carry permit system, Deeds recounted how the US Attorney from St. Louis sent a signed letter on official Department of Justice letterhead to law enforcement across the state, urging opposition to the concealed carry initiative.

Deeds asserted that the impetus for gun control had actually lessened since the first time Bill Clinton appeared with masses of police standing behind him in 1994. Clinton’s agenda, in spite of talk from Janet Reno about licensing and national gun registration, has been reduced to a buy-up program, Deeds said.

He credited actions taken by LEAA in large part for deflating Clinton’s anti-gun sails.

“We started a media campaign. We did a mass mailing to our members asking for their help. Within seven days, almost 3,000 officers had returned a form giving us permission to use their names. We had more than four times as many chiefs represented in our ad than Bill Clinton had standing behind him.”

LEAA is continuing to work hard, Deeds said. A copy of the ad was sent to every member of Congress and the Senate. LEAA held a press conference.

Deeds said, “This issue is going to turn on propaganda. No mistake. Our freedoms rest on whether they can convince everybody that we’re serious.”

Knox greeted the conference with his signature, “Good morning, gun lobby!” Allowing that although he was a member of the NRA board, he was speaking strictly for himself, Knox quipped, “If Wayne (LaPierre) were here, I’m sure we would have some different things to say.”

Knox granted that Snyder was correct in saying that the pro-firearms rights people had won the intellectual argument.

However, he continued, “We are losing the political propaganda argument. It’s obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. That doesn’t mean that in the long run, we’re going to get our head handed to us.”

Knox predicted that the Conference Committee on the Juvenile Justice bill would produce legislation requiring that trigger locks be sold with every handgun, a ban on the importation of over-10-round magazines, a prohibition on possession of certain firearms by juveniles, and the requirement for some kind of background check on private sales at gun shows.

The final possible requirement, Knox said, was a first step to requiring background checks for all private transfers.

The only thing that would forestall this, Knox said, was the possibility that Clinton and the Democrats do not want to see this particular legislation passed. “What they really want is an issue for the 2000 elections.”

Knox explained that the more onerous early form of the Juvenile Justice bill was stopped by killer amendments that forced liberal, anti-gun Democrats to vote against their own gun control measures. He gave kudos to Michigan Democrat John Dingell for his instrumental part in shooting down the more anti-gun version of the House bill.

The crowd applauded when Knox raised the possibility of arming teachers to prevent attacks like the one in Columbine. But he cautioned that this possibility had to be presented properly to gain support, by illustrating what happened in Pearl, MS, when an assistant principal was able to apprehend the attacker by using his own personal firearm.

“We have to shake that message right. We’ve got to address Columbine and school safety, and it’s going to be a hard sell.”

Knox pointed out that the anti-gunners had more in store, so the fight must continue.

“Our job isn’t to lose slowly. Our job is to hold on until the greediness of the other side begins to show up to the public. If we expect to win, we may take it on the chin for a little while. Things are going to get worse before they get better, but as they get worse, it wakes up more people,” Knox concluded.

State & Local Briefing

Hawaii State Sen. Sam Slom, a trustee and secretary of the Second Amendment Foundation, moderated the state and local legislative session.

 Slom began his comments by reminding conferees that, in many cases, state and local politics were more important, and more accessible than federal politics to firearms rights supporters.

“For most of us, thank God, the federal government is far away. Our own state capitols, city councils and our own local government is where we can—and must—make an impact.”

He explained his own decision to run for public office. “I swore I would never run for office. You have to spend your time with nincompoops. But when the toilet backs up, and the plumber’s not there, somebody’s got to do the dirty work.”

Slom told the conference that Hawaiian politics were dominated by Democrats. Out of 25 state senators, two were Republicans. He categorized Hawaii’s federal representatives as extremely liberal and anti-gun.

However, the last gubernatorial election was extremely close, he said, with the Republican nominee losing by only 1% to a party that has held power for 40 years. Had this nominee gained the support of firearms rights supporters, the outcome might have been different.

Slom also referred to Snyder’s earlier assertion that Second Amendment supporters have won the intellectual battle.

“That is true,” he said. “Unfortunately, it is the emotional battles that we don’t do as well with. Emotion will beat rationality every time. We have to learn how to do a better job.” This would consist, he argued, of becoming involved in community activities, and instigating discussions about the Second Amendment.

Richard Pearson, president of the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), shared the situation in Illinois with the conference. Firearms rights face many challenges in Illinois, he said. In particular, there is a new Cook County ordinance requiring fingerprints to own a so-called assault weapon, and Chicago Mayor Daley’s suits against manufacturers and dealers.

“In Illinois, the truth is stretched beyond imagination,” he said.

Illinois is, culturally, three different states, Pearson said, suburban, urban, and rural. This makes the ISRA’s job difficult.

“As a state association, we have to deal with the attitudes and political ideas of all of these areas.”

One challenge was to make certain that rules concerning firearms ownership were legislative, not administrative.

“We want things in legislation. We don’t want some bureaucrats deciding. The next bureaucrat can decide something else.”

It is also important, he said, to negotiate agreements about legislation before any proposals are considered formally.

The ISRA has to contend with Illinois mayors. This is supported by a PAC, the ISRA Political Victory Fund, the IPVF. Recently, it did a mailing to the constituents of mayors who voted wrong on an anti-gun proposal considered by the Suburban Council of Mayors.

“They squalled like a bunch of long-tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs,” he said.

Pearson advocated educating legislators at the earliest possible level.

Alice Tripp, lobbyist for the Texas State Rifle Association (TSRA), shared her experiences in Austin during the past legislative session, which turned out to have a number of contentious issues.

She concurred with previous speakers that emotion and sound bites from the other side were winning the day.  She described the lobbyist for Texans Against Gun Violence.

“She says ‘loopholes.’ And she talks about ‘saving the lives of ‘Little children’ a lot.”

To counteract this, Tripp said, the lobbyist is obliged to educate legislators.

“As lobbyists, we are educators. You all here take for granted that everybody else knows what you know—they don’t! It’s scary that high up and powerful people have no idea what they’re talking about.”

Tripp gave credit to Texas Gov. George Bush for his support of firearms rights legislation, in particular, his signature, which was not technically necessary, on a law to limit lawsuits on firearms manufacturers and dealers.

She wound up her comments with a plea for action and unity.

“I want to encourage you to write, vote and contribute. Keep the faith, and don’t cannibalize each other.”

Brian Judy, the NRA-ILA liaison for the Northwest, also stressed the need for unity. He chose as an example the 1982 California anti-gun Proposition 15 fight. Although early polls showed that it was likely to win by 2 to 1, the figures were reversed at the polls, and it was defeated 2 to 1, thanks to the unified efforts of firearms rights supporters.

“You are the gun lobby,” Judy said. “When the grassroots get together and fight the same battle, we can win.”

Although Judy covers all of the northwest states, the gravest problems are in California, where up until recently, supporters of the Second Amendment were able to follow a fairly aggressive agenda, pushing for preemption, and range protection. But recent tragedies have left legislators, even in pro-firearms rights states, looking for political cover.

A victory, Judy said, was in Utah, where legislation was passed that would require signatures for ballot initiatives to be gleaned statewide, not just in urban areas. This measure is providential, he said, since firearms rights opponents have been unable to get their way in the legislature, and are looking for other avenues.

Peggy Tartaro, executive editor of Women & Guns magazine and board member of CCKRBA, moderated the next panel on the ABC’s of  Instant Check.

‘Here to Help’

“It used to be scary when they said, ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you,’ ” Tartaro said. “Now it’s even worse. ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you instantly.’ ”

She said that the National Instant Check System (NICS) was supposed to work like a credit card. But in reality, what was supposed to be an opportunity for a federally-licensed dealer to vet would-be gun buyer—and an obligation for federal authorities to arrest prohibited persons trying to obtain a gun—has turned into something else.

On one level, she said, it is a hindrance to legitimate firearms commerce. The system is slow. In July, it was up and down for a week while the system was connected to an enormous upgrade–NCIC 2000–the National Crime Information Center. Then, in August, the NICS system was down again while the NCIC was hooked up to a huge digitized fingerprint system called the Automated Integrated Fingerprint Identification System (AIFIS). No sales by FFL holders could be completed during that time. This amounted to a de facto gun sale ban.

Additionally, Tartaro said, there was a legitimate concern about what was being done with the records of approved sales. The government has shown a willingness to confiscate firearms, as shown in California.

She referred to Massachusetts Attorney Jim Gettens, who is involved in a lawsuit against agencies of that state. Gettens contends that those agencies are illegally sharing with the federal government the names and addresses of Massachusetts citizens who are licensed to own firearms.

Not only has the NICS system failed to make the streets safer for peaceable citizens, Tartaro said, it has placed, in a hostile government’s hands, the means to curtail our Second Amendment rights.

Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws in America and several other books on state law, focused on the use of words, urging the conferees to categorize themselves as “pro-rights.”

He said, “We are in the biggest civil rights battle since Martin Luther King, and this resonates with liberals who might otherwise be against you.

“When they say ‘assault weapons,’ don’t bother answering them. Ask them what they mean. They don’t know,” Korwin said.

“When they say ‘junk guns,’ tell them that is a racist, elitist move to deny guns to people of color, people who are poor, and people who are underprivileged.”

Korwin also criticized the present Administration for not using the NICS system to arrest violent felons who break the law and attempt to purchase a firearm, calling this failure a dereliction of duty.

Korwin also referred to outages of the NICS system. “In a 7-month period, there have been 84 NICS outages. For a total of more than 10 business days, gun stores were closed, illegally, irresponsibly, without any Constitutional authority.” There was no news coverage of this, Korwin said, although a five-hour outage at Amazon.com made headlines.

Korwin concluded his comments to applause.

“I say this to the federal government: Fix the roads. Haul out the trash. And keep your freaking hands off our civil rights!”

Joe Waldron, executive director of CCRKBA, a board member of the Washington Arms Collectors (WAC), and trustee of the Gun Owners Action League of Washington, moderated a panel on the future of gun shows.

The first speaker on the panel was Irv Benzion, a board member of the NRA and WAC. Benzion is also the author of NRA’s How to Run a Gun Show Manual.

Under Attack

He told the conference that gun shows have been under attack since the early 1990s, and this was a part of the Clinton Administration scheme to demolish the firearms distribution system. The first step in this attack was the decimation of the number of FFL holders.

Gun shows are vulnerable, Benzion said, because they have been to a great extent self-policing. Certain areas need particular attention: prevention of firearms being traded or sold to criminals, prevention of illegal acquisition of firearms by juveniles, and prevention of gun shows from becoming part of the system for illegal transfer of firearms. Law enforcement is concerned because some types of sales make it difficult to trace firearms. Without proper ID from either buyer or seller, without receipts or bills of sale, the tracking of firearms at gun shows is impossible.

“One could argue that the disposition of firearms is a private matter, but I submit that any person who buys or sells a firearm without keeping track of who he bought it from or who he sold it to is taking a grave civil and criminal risk,” Benzion said.

Benzion said that private organizations such as WAC or the Ohio Gun Collectors were particularly careful about avoiding illegal acts.

Benzion’s book, How to Run A Gun Show Manual, was intended to set guidelines for self-policing within the gun show community.

In addition to federal pressures on gun shows, Benzion said that state and local jurisdictions were trying to legislate gun shows out of business. He used California as a prime example, where, in effect, the Great Western Show has been shut down.

On the federal level, approval of the Lautenberg standards as part of the Juvenile Justice bill could also effectively shut down shows by making promoters and officers and directors of any fraternal organization personally responsible for actions that take place at the show.

He saw three possibilities emerging from the Conference on the Juvenile Justice  bill.

“First, the Democrats could sink the whole thing.” This would jibe with predictions that the Democrats want to use the gun control issue in the 2000 elections.

“Or, they can pass the Dingell Amendment, which will call for NICS checks at gun shows. Although this is a restriction on our rights, most shows could live with it.

“Finally, the Lautenberg restrictions, which for gun shows would be death.”

Dennis Walker, past chairman of the People’s Rights Organization (PRO) of Ohio, shared with the conferees the importance of gun shows in supporting his organization’s pro-gun activities, and some of the problems they face in Ohio.

He said, “We are currently suing the state of Ohio and the current attorney general over their illegal collection of  Brady background check fees. Gun shows are our major source of income. The loss of this income would be devastating.”

Walker outlined some of the precautions they take to make sure the shows are on the up and up. “We check ID and make sure that anyone under 18 is accompanied by an adult, and anyone under 21 knows that they cannot purchase handguns. We remind dealers about straw purchases, to check ID, and to obey all laws.

“In particular, we warn private sellers not to resell firearms they purchase at the show during the same show.”

Walker observed that dealers calling for a NICS check from a show were routinely made to wait an hour for a reply.

Walker also argued for a “tag system” in which prohibited persons would have some kind of indicator on their drivers’ licenses—a special background behind the photo, a magnetic strip, or some other device.

Waldron said that in Washington State, the proposal was made to have some kind of indicator on the drivers’ licenses of those having concealed carry permits. This was countered by a suggestion much like Walker’s.

“Everybody thought it was a great idea except the ACLU,” Waldron said

Waldron emphasized that not only were gun shows fun, but they presented an unparalleled opportunity for political activism. He encouraged everyone to take advantage of this chance to educate and energize firearms owners.

Gun shows are also a prime opportunity for fund raising.

“Money is the mothers’ milk of politics,” Waldron concluded.

Awards Luncheon

Following a question and answer session, GRPC attendees moved from the meeting ballroom to the annual awards luncheon in another ballroom of the hotel.

Featured speaker and a highlight of the lunch was David Guinn, the federal public defender, who is the attorney in US vs. Emerson, a case that is now before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and is expected by many to provide an opportunity for the US Supreme Court to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

In an engaging presentation that delighted the luncheon crowd, Guinn provided a picture of the prevailing court and jury attitudes in west Texas where Dr. Timothy Joe Emerson was brought to trial on five counts of violating federal firearms laws as a result of a messy divorce proceeding. He explained how he was called into the case, and explained why Emerson was courageous in wanting to plead innocent and fight the charges.

Guinn also explained why Emerson did not wish to pursue a plea bargain and why the defendant’s choice was so difficult. “The ugly reality is under the sentencing guidelines that district judges use to sentence people in federal court is you’re sentenced for acquitted conduct as if you had committed it. You can have 25 counts, get convicted of one and not guilty of 24 and think you’ve won. Right up until you get all that time. That’s an ugly reality and we laugh about it, but you’d better be able to laugh about it in my job or you’ll go crazy,” he said.

    “So I got to talking to Dr. Emerson about the facts of his case, I decided, this is a soap opera. (Federal District) Judge (Samuel) Cummings is going to hate hearing this. It’s got betrayal, adultery, hotheaded arguments. You’ve got a 42-year-old man and his 29-year-old wife he put through nursing school. She ran off with their hairdresser.” The GRPC audience laughed.

    “Oh wow! When’s the tornado come and take the trailer away?” More laughter.

    “And regardless of the facts in the law, I knew Judge Cummings didn’t leave a 17-year partnership at Colton-Morgan-Whitman & White in Amarillo to come sit through some West Texas divorce and some guy with a gun.”

    The key issue in the case was that as part of standard court orders in a divorce case, the presiding judge issues a temporary restraining order (TRO). Such orders are “boiler plate,” Guinn said, having little substance or meaning. But they led to charges of violating the Brady and Lautenberg prohibitions on gun possession in domestic cases.

    Guinn explained some of the ramification of the TRO.

    “When Tim walked out of the courtroom (in the divorce case), he didn’t know it, the judge didn’t know it, the other lawyer didn’t know it, but he was a federal felon. You see back at his house he had firearms and in his office he had a gun. I don’t know if Sasha Emerson had any guns, but had he had a lawyer, who just asked for the standard order, and the standard motion, she’d have been one, too. And so would every one of you who’s ever had a regular divorce, wherever it is you live, with standard restraining orders issued. Not protective orders issued over incidence of family violence, just standard old restraining.”

    The TRO issue became part of the defense when Emerson went to trial on the federal charges, and Guinn focused on that in the defense.

    “On Feb. 28,” Guinn reported, “we had a hearing at 1:30 in the afternoon in front of Judge Cummings. We brought in Judge John Sutton—by the way a life member of the NRA—who was the district judge who issued the temporary restraining order. And I asked him, ‘You do this often?’ ”

    “Yeah.”

    “What do you call these orders?”

    “I just call it a little F14.”

    “What’s the F14, you mean like a plane?”

    “No. That’s what you mash on the computer, ‘F’ and a ’14,’ and it prints out this 18-page code. (Laughter)

    “Judge Sutton explained—one judge talking to another judge—to Judge Cummings,” Guinn said. “When he signed the order, he didn’t know, he didn’t tell Tim Emerson, the divorce lawyer didn’t tell anybody that they just made him a federal criminal. The order didn’t say you can’t have a gun. He didn’t say, ‘I’m signing this order. Oh, by the way, you better get rid of that stuff.’ He said, ‘No, as a practical matter I’d be precluded from doing so because the Texas code of judicial conduct says I can’t give legal advice. So you’d need a lawyer.’ ”

    Then, Guinn said, “When the prosecutor stood up to argue after I did, I didn’t make a long argument. Believe me I just said, ‘judge you can read my motions.’

    “I read him a little quote from Justice Rehnquist’s report to Congress on the Judiciary from 1998, where he, in his intellectual and gentle way, kind of roasted Congress for federalizing every single criminal issue that seemed to come down the pipe. And asked them to really rethink how we wanted to deal with all our problems. On a state level or on a national level? What role is the federal government really supposed to play and why do we have a state legislature, state courts anyway, if you all want to keep criminalizing everything? Not that things aren’t bad. Not that they shouldn’t be criminalized. But by whom? And how?

    “I quit,” reported Guinn, before continuing. “The prosecutor stood up, he ran down his list of arguments. And then, and I know Bill, we’re friends, he’s a good prosecutor. It’s just something about the way he said it, it just stuck with me and I happened to look at Judge Cummings and now I think it stuck with him. He said ‘Judge, the Second Amendment. . .’ (He spent all his time worried about the Fifth Amendment argument.) The due process was the argument that had them up the wall. ‘The Second Amendment argument (he did his hands like this), judge it’s well settled that the right to possess firearms is collective, as long as we have a National Guard, as long as we have a militia, no individual has a right to bear a firearm.’

    “I saw the judge kind of look at him, and I didn’t put any hope in that, because he hadn’t done anything for us before like that. And he said all right, see you Monday morning for trial.”

    Guinn then told the audience that a few hours later, while he was working in the office on another case, he got word from Cummings’ secretary that the judge was granting his motions.

Judge Thomas

    “I called my dad. I called a friend, Professor Brian Sayer in Waco,” Guinn said. “He was my criminal law professor. He clerked at the Fifth Circuit. In a conversation with him, I was talking about motions related to Emerson. I was talking about the Tenth Amendment. I was talking to him about the Fifth Amendment.

    “But he said, ‘You know, Dave, you need to do a Second Amendment motion.’

    “I said, ‘Well, yeah, but you know he’s not going to grant that, and there’s not a lot of . . .’

    “ ‘No, no, no, Dave,’ said Prof. Sayer, ‘there’s a concurrence. There’s some case, there’s a concurrence. That’s basically an open invitation to get this question answered. . . . Well, I don’t know, find it. It’s a concurrence.’

    “Well I talked to a guy named David Hardy, and he told me about some cases. And, like I was wanting to do at Baylor where they teach you to prepare, I didn’t just read the majority, I read the concurrence. And there it was. Thank you, Justice Thomas! If that wasn’t an open invitation to raise the issue.” (Applause)

    Guinn then discussed how the legal process is governed by various provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and how various aspects come together in the Emerson case.

    “Now we’re off to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,” he concluded. “The first fight’s been done and its been won. The second’s going to be hard and folks we need to win it at the Fifth Circuit. Because then we can get a circuit split and that gets a better chance of getting the Second Amendment looked at by the Supreme Court.”

    The government has and will file motions in the appeals court. Emerson will file motions, and there are expected to be a number of amicus briefs filed on both sides. No decision is expected before this winter, possibly not until early 2000.

    (The entire transcript of Quinn’s GRPC address will appear in the Winter 1999-2000 issue of Gun News Digest which will be on newsstands later this year. The text of Guinn’s speech, Cummings’ decision and the government’s appeal brief are available of the Second Amendment Foundation website at www.saf.org/emersonviewoptions.html. Amicus and related briefs will be posted on the same site as they become available.)

    Following Guinn’s address, SAF and CCRKBA officials presented several awards that are described in the photo captions accompanying this article. Our report on the afternoon panels at the St. Louis GRPC will continue in the next issue [go to part 2]