Printed in the USA.
The Gottlieb-Tartaro Report
Issue 027
March, 1997
Arguing About Domestic Violence Gun Ban
The Gottlieb-Tartaro Report is brought to you electronically about one month after publication. To help support the Report, and to receive it when it is current, subscribe by calling 425-454-7012 (and make sure you mention that you heard about it on the Internet!). More information on how to subscribe is available at the end of this page.
Subscribe Electronically to the printed edition of the report, and receive the news when its most current! Our online subscription for the Glottlieb-Tartaro report is available 24-Hours a day.
Also in this issue: Brady Law didn’t stop Empire State Building shooter -- NRA infighting will stall pro-gun measures in Congress -- Against character assassination -- Shot Show sets attendance record -- Miami’s Top Cop Plays Wild West Cowboy in our Page Eight "Parting Shot."
Dear Subscriber,
It’s the story that won’t go away. It’s still making national headlines: “Gun law could disarm cops, chiefs say” (USA TODAY) and “Gun law takes officers off jobs” (Detroit Free Press). It’s the “Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban,” and it’s causing alarm in cop shops all over the country.
The new federal gun control law, says the National Association of Police Chiefs (NAPC), could mean that more than 60,000 police officers who have been convicted of domestic abuse could have their firearms taken away —— or lose their jobs.
A survey of 1,878 police chiefs revealed that 11.4% said that at least one officer in their departments would be affected. At that rate, more than 60,000 of the 600,000 police officers in the country would be affected.
The response from different police organizations tells us more about their politics than about the issue. Two of the nation’s largest law enforcement groups are at odds over how to remedy the problem.
The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) wants to stop the ban from being applied retroactively. The National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) wants police to be exempt.
GERALD ARENBERG, of the chiefs of police group (NAPC), says Congress should hold police accountable. “Making cops exempt is not going to work,” he said.
Most police groups are lobbying for changes in the domestic abuse amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, which made it illegal for anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse to possess a gun. That includes convictions before the law went into effect at the end of last September.
The House subcommittee on crime has begun hearings on changing the law.
Three federal lawsuits have already been filed and a fourth is being considered by a prestigious public interest law firm on behalf of two affected Denver officers.
Advocates for victims of domestic abuse don’t want the law changed, especially not to make special exceptions for police.
“If we have identified (a police officer) as a violent individual, they shouldn’t be in that job,” said RITA SMITH of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. “They certainly would be a very bad representative to intervene in a domestic violence call.”
USA TODAY conducted a recent survey of 25 law enforcement agencies, which included those in the nation’s 15 largest cities, and found that of the more than 100,000 officers there, 152 could lose their firearms or their jobs. Most of those affected work in the New York City Police Department, which is the nation’s largest police force.
Job Losses From the “Domestic Abuse Gun Ban” The pins are falling in the “Domestic Abuse Gun Ban” bowling tournament. Four Detroit police officers have been suspended without pay because of the new federal law.
The men, all recently suspended, are the first in what could be a long list of city, state and federal officers who must surrender their guns immediately. Six more Detroit officers are being investigated. In most cases, being disarmed will mean the officers also lose their jobs.
The law is retroactive, which means that any adult misdemeanor conviction is taken into account, no matter how long ago and no matter how clean the officer’s record since then.
Known as the “Lautenberg Amendment” for Sen. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D-NJ), who introduced it as an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, the new law has police departments nationwide scrambling to identify which officers have to be disarmed.
Already, three deputies with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department had their guns confiscated and were placed into civilian jobs in the department. They have filed lawsuits in federal court to get their guns and jobs back.
Denver’s Rocky Mountain News reported that three Denver police officers with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions were ordered to turn in their guns and take desk jobs. William Perry Pendley, president and chief legal officer of Denver’s Mountain States Legal Foundation, told us that his organization is considering a federal lawsuit on behalf of the officers, whose wives fully support their fight to get their guns and their jobs back.
Public Costs of the “Domestic Abuse Gun Ban” The administrative and investigative time and cost required to comply with the new federal law is not being tallied, but the Detroit case gives us an idea of what law enforcement agencies nationwide are going through.
First, department officials must search records and ask officers if they have convictions. There is no foolproof single source to search for misdemeanor records. The Detroit police and police union lawyers are trudging through boxes of records, some documents yellowed with age, to find officers who have been convicted of domestic violence.
Each and every officer’s record is examined to identify the victim in any possible offense.
Sometimes the questioning can be done with a letter passed through internal mails like a survey questionnaire, asking each officer to respond and, if affected, come forward. Sometimes the questioning must be done face to face, taking the officer away from other duties.
If an officer is found with a conviction, Michigan law allows the charges to be set aside under a first-time offender program. Officers with pending domestic abuse charges can keep their jobs if they successfully complete the probationary term and counseling. No conviction is recorded and the case is dismissed.
The Detroit Police Department and Wayne County Sheriff’s Department are planning to place affected officers on six-month jobs that do not require carrying a gun while the officer tries to clear his record. If he can’t do it in six months, he is fired.
Added to the high price of federal lawsuits, the Lautenberg Amendment —— which is being challenged as unconstitutional —— is costing American taxpayers a serious but untallied amount of money.
NRA Infighting Reported Stalling Friends in Congress The internal National Rifle Association struggle over financial issues and organizational control, involving board members and officers, may stall pro-gun initiatives in Congress.
Top GOP House leaders say that little action can be expected in Congress with the uncertainty about future leadership and direction of the nation’s largest gun group.
No one on Capitol Hill is too eager to commit to anything if they don’t know who will be in charge when a deal comes to vote, or whether support or opposition will be constant. Maybe the stalemate will change after the May meetings of NRA members and the board in Seattle.
Character Assassins Targeting Leading Pro-Gun Scholar It may be in connection with the current NRA internal squabbles, the ongoing election of candidates for the NRA board of directors, or some other agenda, but Internet bulletin boards and e-mail and U.S. “snail mail” lately have included various documents attacking the sincerity and character of a leading pro-gun scholar and long-time NRA board member.
Seldom have we seen the kind of character assassination currently being directed at David I. Caplan of New Jersey. Anonymous sources are accusing David Caplan of undermining over the years the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, and the NRA. They are accusing him of disrupting meetings and delaying action. They are also accusing him of blocking court actions against gun laws. All of these accusations are flatly false.
In the warped logic of this bizarre disinformation campaign, the cowardly sources hiding behind anonymity accuse David Caplan of being both a neo-Nazi and a member of the Anti-Defamation League, of being secretly anti-gun and a supporter of Neal Knox’s hard corps Firearms Coalition, simultaneously(!).
One can only assume that this effort has been orchestrated by Sarah Brady, since few people have done so much to thwart the agenda of the anti-gun elite and protect the right to keep and bear arms as David Caplan and his wife SUE.
For those who don’t know any better or may have forgotten, a little history is in order: David Caplan, after having engaged the Supreme Court and the NY Court of Appeals on other constitutional issues, became a member of the Palmach Rifle & Pistol Club, one of the most committed pro-gun organizations in the nation during the early 1970s.
Through his research on the basic meaning of the Second Amendment, he wrote a keystone article in the Fall 1996 Fordham Law Review titled, “Restoring the Balance: The Second Amendment Revisited,” which helped inspire most of the amazingly pro-gun scholarship and writings in legal and academic journals on the right to keep and bears arms which has followed since.
David and Sue Caplan were major players in the formulation of bylaws and the structuring of parliamentary procedures which reformed and energized the NRA at the 1977 members’ meeting in Cincinnati, thus frustrating the devious plans of the environmentalists, internationalists and hobby-only shooters.
As one of a relatively small band of pro-gun attorneys qualified to argue before the US Supreme Court, David Caplan’s advice is solicited by many of the leading scholars and attorneys dealing with the issue.
He continues to research and write articles which help define the terms of the debate over the right to keep and bear arms. David and SUE appear frequently on the gun issue in the media and their continued input on the NRA board is essential.
Both Alan Gottlieb and Joe Tartaro are voting for David Caplan’s re-election to the NRA Board in the current election and will vote again for Sue Caplan when and if she seeks re-election.
What Kind of Gun Ban Repeal Is This? In the growing press to fix the Lautenberg Domestic Violence Gun Ban, everyone is talking about “repeal.” However, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) has introduced H.R. 445, which would only exempt police from the domestic violence misdemeanor gun ban. Rep. BOB BARR (R-GA) has introduced H.R. 26, which only repeals the part about past offenses (for all citizens). Both bills stop short of a full repeal. Then why is anybody talking about “repeal?”
Clinton, Dole Back Ban fo Adults With Youth Offender Recordsr It is difficult to know whether legislative ideas originate with well known political figures or with their unseen advisors.
President Clinton proposed expanding the Brady Act during a recent weekly radio broadcast by banning handgun sales to adults who have been convicted of a felony as a juvenile. This ex post facto approach would punish forever people who may have been living exemplary lives for years but were once convicted or pleaded guilty as youthful offenders (YOs), believing their lawyers and prosecutors about the expungement of their criminal records. So much for the concept of rewarding rehabilitation.
A Feb. 27 Associated Press story credited presidential advisor Rahm Emanuel with developing the new gun proposal for Clinton. But Emanuel may have gotten the idea from the Dole/Kemp ’96 On-Line Campaign backgrounder on Sen. DOLE’s Instant Check initiative. Point No. 4 in the DOLE document reads:
“Expand the Prohibited Categories Under the National Instant Check System. President DOLE will propose legislation to revise and expand the 1968 Gun Control Act to include a new prohibited category for adults with records as violent juveniles.”
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced in House Rep. CLIFF STEARNS (R-FL) has introduced H.R. 339, which would require every state to recognize a concealed carry permit issued by another state. A law-abiding citizen from one state would not lose his or her Second Amendment rights when traveling to another state.
Hailed by gun rights advocates as a move in the right direction, the bill is also getting close scrutiny for a possible flaw that could undermine its support: It only applies to states that issue permits.
H.R. 339 fails to account for states that do not require citizens to get permission to exercise a constitutional right. However, there is only one such state.
Vermont is the only state that does not require anyone from any state to get a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon. The presumption is that one does not need permission from one’s government in order to enjoy the rights guaranteed in the fundamental law of the land.
Thus, H.R. 339 could inadvertently punish citizens of Vermont who travel to other states and carry a concealed weapon because Vermont does not issue permits for its citizens to exercise their rights. Vermonters could be punished because their state is too pro-gun.
We should not worry too much about this possible flaw in an excellent bill.
This bill does not present any problem with continuing the advance of Right To Carry legislation in additional states. A state legislature considering Right To Carry bills will no doubt welcome this national reciprocity for their laws.
Citizena Self-Defense Act Re-Introduced Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) has reintroduced this bill to protect citizens who use guns in self-defense from anti-gun prosecutors.
Another important bill that was reintroduced recently was the Second Amendment Affirmation Resolution, by Rep. PHIL CRANE (R-IL).
Stonewalling at CDC The House Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee questioned Dr. Mark Rosenberg, head of CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention & Control, the agency that has used tax dollars to fund anti-gun “studies.” He could not say when controversial studies done by Dr. Arthur Kellerman would be released for peer review by other scientists.
Missouri State Representative Hits Lautenberg Amendment We received a letter recently from Bill Alter, 90th District State Representative in the Missouri General Assembly. Rep. ALTER is also a reserve police officer and a member of the Second Amendment Foundation.
He is deeply concerned over the Lautenberg Amendment, the Domestic Violence Offenders Gun Ban, and sent us the text of a bill he introduced in the Missouri House “in an effort to get Congress to repeal the entire unconstitutional law.”
Rep. ALTER’s bill, House Concurrent Resolution No. 14, lists a number of constitutional problems with the Lautenberg Amendment, and concludes:
“Now, therefore, be it resolved that the people of the free and independent state of Missouri will not recognize the illegal Federal Domestic Violence Law, and will take any and all steps necessary to protect its citizens from federal intrusion in our ability to govern ourselves; and
“Be it further resolved that the citizens of the free and independent state of Missouri call upon Congress to repeal any and all such laws which violate the principles of constitutional self-government set forth in this resolution.”
This bold resolution is making its way through the Missouri legislature. We will keep you updated on its progress.
Rep. ALTER wrote to Alan Gottlieb, “As a member of SAF I wish to thank you for the work you do for all of the law abiding gun-owners across our nation.”
We should all thank Rep. ALTER for his determination and initiative.
State Legislative Action GEORGIA: SB-8, a shooting range protection bill, has passed the Senate, and now heads to the House
IOWA: HF 142, a bill to allow deer hunting with a handgun, has been reported out of the House Committee on Natural Resources.
MISSISSIPPI: A right to carry reform bill has passed in the House. It lowers processing time for issuing permits, and establishes reciprocal licensing provisions for nonresidents. The bill now goes to the Senate.
NEW MEXICO: The Senate Public Affairs Committee held a hearing on SB 676, right to carry legislation. Gun rights supporters were well represented.
OHIO: HB 60, a bill establishing Sunday hunting, is pending in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources. HB 209, shooting range protection legislation, has been introduced in the House Committee of Local Government and Townships. It would protect shooting ranges from noise ordinances or nuisance actions aimed at shutting them down.
RHODE ISLAND: H 6085, a comprehensive gun control measure supported by the Governor, has been introduced. It bans private transfers of firearms, creates a new gun bureaucracy within the State Police and outlaws the purchase of more than one gun a month.
TEXAS: The Senate Criminal Justice Committee heard SB 204, right to carry reform legislation. It rolls back restrictions on where license holders can lawfully carry, and ends local regulation of licensees. It also establishes reciprocal licensing provisions for non-residents. The House Civil Practices Committee heard HB 601, shooting range protection legislation.
VIRGINIA: The legislature will consider the reappointment of Circuit Court Judge James Berry, possibly the most anti-gun judge in the state. He unnecessarily delayed and denied the issuance of hundreds of carry permits to qualified, law-abiding citizens. We will keep you posted on the outcome, although his reappointment seems assured.
Record Attendance at 1997 SHOT Show There have been many remarkably successful shows in the 19-year history of the Shot Show, but it was difficult to find any exhibitor or attendee that didn’t proclaim the 1997 show in Las Vegas as the best ever. Attendance not only broke the 30,000 mark for the first time, but soared past 35,000 this time, helping an all-time high of 1,435 exhibitors write record business.
By the show’s close, buyer attendance had reached 18,756, well above the previous high of 17,519. In addition, 15,546 exhibitor personnel and over 800 media representatives attended the show, launching total attendance over the 35,000 mark.
Smith & Wesson Handguns Now Shipping with Trigger Locking Assist Devices Since the first of February, all handguns made by Smith & Wesson have been shipped with a new trigger lock assist device. The company, based in Springfield, Massachusetts, is recognized as the world’s leading manufacturer of handguns for sporting, law enforcement and military use.
The trigger lock assist device consists of a piece of molded red plastic that can be inserted into the trigger guard by slipping a firmly fitting slot over the trigger. Once in place, gun owners can secure the gun by placing a padlock through a hole in the trigger lock assist device and around the trigger guard.
“We think this is a unique approach, yet one that is also safe and simple,” said Ken Jorgensen, Smith & Wesson Public Relations Manager. “This is an extremely durable trigger lock assist device, one that America’s gun owners can live with.”
Smith & Wesson’s home page can be visited at http://www.smith-wesson.com.
An Actual Judicial Victory for Gun Owners A Superior Court Judge in California has struck down a state law preventing persons held and released for psychiatric examination from buying a firearm for five years.
The case involved an indigent woman who was arrested in retaliation for sassing her arrester, held for psychiatric examination and immediately released. The law then barred her from buying a firearm for five years, even though it allowed her to sue for restoration of her rights.
The obvious injustice of this situation cast the law into question.
Noted gun rights attorney Don B. Kates joined as co-counsel in a lawsuit brought by attorney Dana Drenkowski for the indigent woman, both on a pro-bono basis.
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Cecily Bond declared the state law [Cal. W. & IC § 8103(f)] unconstitutional. It violates both federal and state due process and the California right to acquire property (Art. I, § 1).
Though the law provided that their plaintiff could obtain restoration of her rights by suing for a determination that she was not a danger to herself or others, this was illusory since she could not have afforded such a suit which would involve expert psychiatric testimony, etc. (Not to mention the absurdity of paying $5,000 in legal fees in order to be able to buy a $500 handgun.)
Judge Bond held, citing well-established California authority, that an enactment which results in deprivation of property rights must provide a form of hearing in which the state bears the burden of proof and all costs.
It is not known yet whether the state will appeal.
Now for the Bad News In Congress, New York Rep. Owens introduced H.R. 787, “A bill to prohibit the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition, with certain exceptions.” Last session, Owens sponsored a bill to remove the Second Amendment from the Constitution.
Miami’s Police Chief Doesn't Enforce the Law, He is the Law-Just Ask Him Parting Shot...
DONALD WARSHAW, Miami Police Chief, got tired of having his officers respond to shooting reports. On a particularly bad day last month in which a 16-year-old ninth-grade girl shot a classmate in the head in front of their high school just days after a stray bullet killed a 5-year-old, WARSHAW lost it.
He told reporters that surprise roadblocks would go up in violence-plagued neighborhoods. Police would check motorists for illegal weapons.
“Roadblocks are to intimidate,” WARSHAW said. “We want to intimidate. We’re going to make life miserable and difficult if you’re riding the streets of Miami with a gun”——or even if you’re not, surprise roadblocks being as indiscriminate as they are.
Sure, the gun roadblocks were illegal, police admitted.
No matter, said WARSHAW. He insisted he had a mandate from the community to stop handgun shootings——regardless what the law said about illegal roadblocks.
He emphasized that the roadblocks were just the most visible and controversial aspects of the crackdown. One can only wonder what “invisible” illegal acts WARSHAW might be ordering.
The roadblocks were really drunken-driving checkpoints at which police simply would ask drivers if they had a gun in their car. And if they happened to be drunk or admitted they had a gun, then bingo: They were arrested.
We wonder how many drivers would say, “Gee, yes, officer, I’m drunker than a skunk and I have a box full of nine-millimeter semi-automatics under my car seat.”
As soon as the first checkpoint went up last month in a neighborhood populated mostly by blacks and Latinos, the local people, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, cried foul.
BENJAMIN WAXMAN, Miami ACLU Chairman, summed it up: “Police state.”
Some community activists wondered how Miami, already $68 million in debt and under state financial supervision, could afford any extra police efforts.
They were even more puzzled when the first roadblock produced only two illegal firearms.
WARSHAW responded, “It is hard to measure the success of this program on the number of guns seized. The girl (who wounded her classmate) was carrying a gun in the waistband of her dress, like she was in the Wild West.”
It seems to us that the schoolgirl isn’t the only one in Miami acting like an out-of-control cowboy.
The Gottlieb-Tartaro Report: An Insiders Guide for Gun Owners
$30 for a full year of 12 great issues
This publication is available to be ordered online! Find out how, and start your subscription today!
Printed in the USA.
The Gottlieb-Tartaro Report (ISSN 1079-6169) is published monthly by the:
Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. 10th Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
Phone (425) 454-7012. FAX (425) 451-3959Please call or write if you have a question regarding your subscription.
Subscriptions $30 per year anywhere in the USA, $35 elsewhere. Single issues $5.00.Send address changes to:
The Gottlieb-Tartaro Report
12500 N.E. 10th Place
Bellevue, WA 98005Publishers: Alan M. Gottlieb and Joseph P. Tartaro
Editor: Ron Arnold
Design: Northwoods Studio
Production: Janet Arnold
Subscriptions: Susan Elings
Published by: Second Amendment FoundationCopyright 1999-2002 by Alan M. Gottlieb and Joseph P. Tartaro.
Photocopying, reproduction or quotation strictly prohibited without written permission of the publishers.
Bulk rates on request. Postage paid at Bellevue, WA.