Printed in the USA.
The Gottlieb-Tartaro Report
Issue 035
November, 1997
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.
Dear Subscriber,
Washington State voters have sent a nationally significant anti-gun ballot measure down to a stunning big-time defeat by a 71% to 29% margin.
Known as Initiative 676, the proposed law was originally touted as a child safety measure because it required trigger locks on all new handguns sold, and required training for handgun owners. I-676 came from Washington Ceasefire and Handgun Control, Inc. masquerading as “Washington Citizens for Handgun Safety.”
Voter support for I-676 was strong — 67 percent — according to early private polls.
But gun owners quickly realized the 13 page, 26 section ballot measure was a minefield of civil rights threats that had to be defeated: Not only would every handgun owner and adult member of their household be required to pass a handgun safety course (at about $160 per person), but they would also have to be licensed with the state. If the licensed owner left the home, the spouse was considered in possession of the firearm and could be subject to prosecution if not licensed.
That was just the beginning of I-676: stalking victims and threatened women were not exempt and could not get a gun immediately for self protection. Parents could be prosecuted if they taught their children firearms safety just for letting a child handle a handgun. The bureaucracy required to license the 1 million handgun owners in Washington would have been staggering.
But most appalling, merely signing an application for a gun license waived the right to privacy of personal medical records and allowed the government to keep personal files in an on-line public database!
Gun owners quickly formed a campaign organization to fight I-676: WeCare — Washington Citizens Against Regulatory Excess. WeCare comprised five groups: the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, National Rifle Association, Washington Arms Collectors, Washington Rifle and Pistol Association and the Gun Owners Action League of Washington.
WeCare’s campaign against 676 set records for an Initiative contest in Washington State: WeCare organized over 27,000 grassroots volunteers for doorbelling and literature handout, gained 11,000 individual donors who made over 15,000 separate donations, and put up 83,000 yard signs — a record for any campaign.
WeCare also got the support of law enforcement at record levels: 35 of 39 county sheriffs recommended a “NO” vote on 676; two major prosecutors came out against 676 as a needless law — and no prosecutors supported it.
The biggest surprise came from the media: WeCare was able to get an editorial opposing I-676 from 80 percent of the state’s newspapers, including the opposing 676 from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Tacoma News Tribune, the Spokane Spokesman-Review, and the Everett Herald — all in the state’s largest counties.
WeCare set another campaign record: it raised and spent over $3 million within 90 days! The money went where it was needed most, to the voters in an impressive media campaign using billboards, public transit ads, radio, television and newspapers with the message 676 is bad law. The public agreed.
I-676 was intended by its creators as “a giant leap forward to require gun licensing in this country — just as California’s passage of an assault weapons ban in 1989 led to the national assault weapons ban we have today,” according to an HCI fund-raising letter from SARAH BRADY.
She wrote, “Although technically, this initiative will only affect residents of Washington State, the truth is that its impact will be felt all the way to Washington, D.C.! Because if Initiative 676 succeeds, there’s no question but that we will have created enormous momentum for a national gun licensing law ... a prospect that has the NRA and its allied gun groups absolutely terrified.”
Bragging about the early 67% approval of 676, BRADY continued, “Once the NRA and Alan Gottlieb’s ultra-extremist “Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms” — which, unfortunately, is headquartered in Washington State — finish bombarding voters with their dangerous lies about guns equalling self-protection, this percentage figure is bound to drop somewhat.”
Pleading for money, SARAH BRADY closed with, “A defeat for Initiative 676 could well spell political disaster for the cause of gun licensing in America.”
Among those who dashed BRADY’s hopes for an early national licensing scheme were: Washington State council of Police Officers (and their nearly 6,000 members); Seattle Police Officers Guild; Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association.
Also opposing I-676 were: Law Enforcement Alliance of America; National Border Patrol Council, N.W. Region; Sheriff DAVID REICHERT, King County; Chief TERRY MANGAN, Spokane Police Dept.; Pierce County Deputy Sheriffs Guild; and many others in law enforcement.
Initiative 676 was one of the hardest-fought campaigns in gun rights history, and one that the grassroots can be proud of — it was their victory.
It was a great victory. But in our celebration, let’s not forget that old American motto: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
BENDING THE LAW
A White House official who specializes in gun control policy, JOSE CERDA, was quoted recently in a Los Angeles Times story as saying, “We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.”
CERDA was talking about a proposed presidential memorandum that would prohibit the import of an array of semi-automatic firearms. The story covered an imminent presidential directive that would halt the issuance of new import licenses and require reviews of the “sporting purposes” criterion as the measure of acceptability.
This latest CLINTON-GORE initiative apparently seeks to ban guns that are perfectly legal under the administration’s own 1994 gun ban. It’s a clear example of “mission creep,” the bureaucratic buzzword for moving the goalpost. Mission creep also describes the whole gun control movement: a little ban here, another restriction there, and pretty soon it adds up to a total loss of our gun rights.
Mission creep takes many forms. The whole idea of “sporting purposes” is an end run around the Second Amendment, which is about security, not sports. If you can hypnotize the public and policy makers to concentrate on the “sporting purposes” of certain guns, they never notice that it’s irrelevant to security and your gun control agenda moves the goalpost another foot or two away from liberty. Mission creep.
The same thing was true of the California gun ban lobby not too long ago when it came up with the jargon phrase, “junk guns.” That’s another irrelevant criterion for measuring gun rights, but it’s so emotionally sticky that it flattens out over any rational argument like Velcro for the mind. Then you can argue that if these “junk guns” don’t meet the requirements for importation, why should they be legally manufactured in the United States? And the goalpost hightails it down the field like a star running back. Mission creep.
The anti-gun extremist Violence Policy Center responded to CERDA’s Los Angeles Times remarks with a news release that says it all: “A White House plan to stop allowing the import of slightly modified assault weapons is only a first step toward closing gaping loopholes in the federal ban on these weapons.” Mission creep.
As one irreverent wag told us, CERDA and the whole CLINTON administration are Mission Creeps.
FBI SAYS INSTANT CHECK TO BE ONLINE IN 1998
If you can believe a recent article in Government Computer News, the Justice Department will have the national instant check system for gun purchasers online next year, as the Brady Act requires.
The FBI plans to load some 35 million criminal history recordes on the system. DOUG DORNIN, the FBI official who’s supervising the project notes, “We have a well-managed program here. I’m quite satisfied that we will deliver this system on time.”
The instant check system is being constructed in six phases. The first three deal with software writing and testing. The last three will create interfaces with other FBI systems, including the National Crime Information Center.
The FBI’s goal is to handle up to 40,000 daily background checks. This appears to be adequate: the current work load of requests runs around 90,000 per week, or less than half the planned capacity of the system.
JOHN YANKOWSKI, an FBI systems developer, said, “As demand grows, so will the system. We can easily double and triple the processing capacity.”
Congress appropriated more than $200 million for the national instant check system. The FBI has not revealed what it’s doing with all that money, but the Government Computer News article seems to indicate it’s doing something.
NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Right to Carry laws are working in the states, according to newly released crime statistics. Kentucky and Louisiana had previously reported permit revocation counts showing the critics wrong in their claims that concealed carry permits would lead to increased crime, and now Virginia has weighed in with similar findings.
The Commonwealth of Virginia reported that in the first year under their concealed carry reforms, 65,429 permits were issued, and only .06% were revoked. A track record of 99.94% permit holders being law-abiding citizens is impressive.
Florida State University criminologist GARY KLECK told the Virginian-Pilot, “The people who get permits are unusually law-abiding. I only wish the entire population had that low a rate of committing gun crimes.”
Today 31 states have carry laws similar to Virginia’s. However, a hodge-podge of different laws and restrictions among the 50 states remains to plague the mobile law-abiding gun owner with unexpected violations when traveling or relocating.
Congress is now considering H.R. 339, a national right to carry reciprocity bill. The number of lawmakers co-sponsoring the bill has grown steadily in the past months, now standing at 63. The latest to sign on as co-sponsors are: Rep. JOHN THUNE (R-SD), Rep. PHIL ENGLISH (R-PA), Rep. BILL GOODLING (R-PA), and Rep. JOHN SHIMKUS (R-IL). While not a shoo-in, the national right to carry reciprocity bill has a good chance of passage in the House.
On another gun-related issue, as reported on Page 3, the CLINTON administration is planning to issue a directive to ban certain types of foreign-made firearms from coming into the United States. Congress has responded.
Rep. BOB BARR (R-GA) held a news conference on Capitol Hill recently with other pro-Second Amendment congressmen, including JIM BARCIA (D-MI), PETE SESSIONS (R-TX), VIRGIL GOODE (D-VA), and WES WATKINS (R-OK).
Rep. BARR criticized the administration’s efforts as the “Bigger Clinton Gun Ban of 1998.” The message was clear: We can expect “mission creep” in the administration’s gun control efforts just as we see empire building in most bureaucratic agencies.
The bottom line: Don’t expect Congress to believe that any proposed gun control bill is final — it’s just a stepping stone to bigger and more intrusive measures that are already being quietly planned in the back room.
A LOOK AT THE STATES
FLORIDA: DEBORAH TAMARGO (R) won a special election in House District 58, in large part because of the support of gun owners who went to the polls and made the difference. TAMARGO stunned her opponent and the political pundits alike with 58 percent of the vote in a district where money and power said she had little if any chance to fill the vacant seat in Florida’s House of Representatives. TAMARGO ran on a pro-gun rights platform.
Another gun rights defender, Congressman MARK FOLEY (R-16), recently hosted town meetings in his home district’s Haverhill Town Hall and Tequesta Village Hall. Gun owners attended in strong numbers and made their views known.
MASSACHUSETTS: The Senate passed S. 148, which seeks to ban “assault weapons.” It was sponsored by Sen. Cheryl Jacques (D-Norfolk, Middlesex, Bristol) and is now pending in the House. This is another serious threat to gun owners in Massachusetts, which has seen many contentious bills in recent years.
VIRGINIA: Gubernatorial candidate JIM GILMORE campaigned across the state with movie actor and NRA board member CHARLTON HESTON. GILMORE’s opponent won the endorsement of HCI and JIM and SARAH BRADY. This is one governor’s contest that certainly revolved around the gun rights issue.
WASHINGTON: During the final two weekends before the election, WeCare walked neighborhoods distributing literature in opposition to Initiative 676 (see this issue’s top story on Page 1). More than 27,000 volunteers worked for the election victory, making the I-676 campaign the most intensive statewide grassroots effort ever seen in the gun rights movement.
GUNS IN HOME SCHOOLS?BATF HEAD WRITES TO SENATOR ABOUT HOME SCHOOL GUN BAN
One of the most outrageous efforts to infringe upon gun rights has recently emerged over the subject of home schooling and the Gun Free School Zone Act. Does the law apply to home schoolers?
Senator DAN COATS (R-IN) wrote at a constituent’s request to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Director JOHN W. MAGAW to find out. This is the classic bureaucracy-speak response Sen. COATS got back:
Dear Senator Coats:
This is in response to your letter dated May 8, 1997, on behalf of your constituent, [name withheld]. Mr. [name withheld] inquires whether legislation has been enacted that would prohibit firearms in schools, including “home” school.
The Gun Free School Zone Act, 18 U.S.C.§922(g), generally prohibits the possession of a firearm in a school zone. Under the law, a “school” means a school which provides elementary or secondary education as determined under State law. 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(26). The term “school zone” means in or on the grounds of a public, parochial, or private school, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from such grounds. 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(25). Should a “home” school be recognized by State law as a “school” as defined by section 921(a)(26), the possession of a firearm on the grounds of such a school or within 1,000 feet of school grounds would violate the law. However, there are a number of exceptions to the prohibition, for example, firearms possessed on private property.
We hope that this information proves helpful in responding to your constituent. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely Yours,
JOHN W. MAGAW
DirectorWell, we guess that explains it. All we have to say is this:
Now you know the answer(s). 2 U.S.C. §SayWhat?
PENTAGON STRUGGLES WITH GUN-ABUSE LAW
The Pentagon is arranging to take firearms away from hundreds of military personnel who have been convicted of spousal abuse.
The action will bring the military into compliance with a 1996 federal law intended to protect victims of domestic abuse from lethal violence. Police and military were deliberately included in the law, which stripped away former exemptions.
The law has brought up some unexpected questions about the military: first and foremost, exactly what is a firearm? What about a fighter plane? Does it have to be taken away from a convicted fighter pilot? What about a nuclear submarine? Does it have to be taken away from a convicted captain? What about a tank? Does it have to be taken away from a convicted tank driver?
Pentagon lawyers don’t think the law applies in those cases. But fighter pilots are required to carry a sidearm, which means that pilots convicted of spousal abuse will have to be grounded.
No matter how long ago the offense and no matter how clean the record since, the firearm has to go. How much of the military will be flying desks and launching paperclips instead of combat attacks?
THE UNITED NATIONS WANTS YOUR GUNS
No, this is not another conspiracy theory or “black helicopter” story. The U.N.’s Panel of Government Experts on Small Arms, a 16-nation panel, recently recommended that the U.N. convene a global conference on what is being called “small arms trafficking.”
The panel fears the “excessive accumulation of guns” in the world, so the report recommended that the U.N.:
1) Support the destruction of small arms left over once conflicts are settled;
2) Study the feasibility of high-tech “marking” of firearms from the time of manufacture for the purpose of tracing;
and 3) Study the possibility of restricting the production and trade of small arms to manufacturers and dealers and establish a global database of licenses.
Of course, the United Nations has no power to dictate policy to the United States. The Senate still has to ratify all international treaties by a two-thirds vote.
But the panel’s report speaks for itself: the U.N. bureaucracy wants to pursue a gun control agenda on a global basis.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said, “This report recommends a set of practical measures to reduce the weapons already in circulation and to prevent future accumulations.”
It has such a familiar ring that HCI could have written it.
GOING HUNTING IN CANADA? KNOW THE LAW BEFORE YOU GO
If you’re thinking of heading for the wilds of Canada to hunt in 1998, take note of the changed firearms situation at the border.
A repressive new Canadian gun ban may turn you into a criminal before you know it. A visitor who brings a firearm for hunting or sporting purposes after the new gun law is finally implemented in 1998 must declare the firearm at the border, according to the Canada Department of Justice.
Hunters in the 1997 season will find the border crossing the same as in recent years.
But under the new law, hunters must be 18 years of age or older, and a customs officer will confirm the firearm declaration before entry is allowed. The confirmed declaration is a license and registration and is good for 60 days.
The certificate can be renewed by phone or mail after the initial issue.
A customs officer has the right to refuse entry with a firearm if the officer believes the information on the form is incorrect or if the person poses a potential threat to public safety.
Nonresidents wishing to borrow firearms from an outfitter must also receive a license from a firearms officer to possess a non-restricted firearm.
When departing Canada, nonresidents must declare their firearms to a customs officer and obtain confirmation that the firearms are leaving the country.
Expect numerous restrictions when transporting or storing firearms. All of the permits and application information will be entered into a computer system, so smile, you’re on candid camera.
The 1998 fee to bring your own firearm is $50 for 60 days or a $30 fee for 60 days to borrow a firearm as a nonresident.
After January 1, 2001 every individual who wishes to buy ammunition will be required to have a license to possess a firearm. A firearms license will also cost $60 and be valid for five years after January 1, 2000.
Bowhunters will find no restrictions on standard archery hunting equipment under the new regulations, but special permits will be required for a crossbow.
For more details, you can call the Canada Department of Justice at 800-731-4000.
GUN MAKERS AND TRIGGER LOCKS: AN INDUSTRY COUP
President CLINTON recently held a Rose Garden news conference for executives from eight major gun makers who promised to provide child-proof locks with all of their handguns.
The gun executives commitment means that about 80 percent of handguns sold in the United Sates by the end of next year will have trigger locks.
President CLINTON said, “This administration and the gun industry from time to time have stood on different sides of various issues — the Brady law, assault weapons ban — and there may be other disagreements in the future. But today we stand together and stand with the law enforcement community to do what we all know is right for our children.”
The executives invited to the Rose Garden came from Glock, Beretta, H&R, Heckler & Koch, Smith & Wesson, Mossberg & Sons and SigArms. CLINTON had them stand to be applauded by the assembly of top law enforcement officials, including Attorney General Janet Reno.
The gun makers were following the lead of Sturm, Ruger & Co. and Smith & Wesson Corp, the world’s largest maker of handguns, who made similar commitments earlier this year.
RICHARD FELDMAN, executive director of the American Shooting Sports Council introduced CLINTON at the affair, and emphasized that child-proof locks are not enough alone — they must be accompanied by safe storage and safe firearms training.
According to Justice Department estimates, more than one-third of all privately owned handguns — that’s about 22 million — are kept loaded and unlocked. The Department estimates that 1,500 children go to hospital emergency rooms each year because of gunshots.
The agreement of the gun makers appears to have preempted what would likely have become a battle with Congress. CLINTON backed down from supporting legislation requiring such locks with all gun purchases — House and Senate committees rejected the provision when they wrote their anti-crime legislation earlier this year.
In March, CLINTON directed all federal agencies to require safety locks on handguns issued to law enforcement officers.
PROFITS FROM THE ROSE GARDEN
When President CLINTON’s Rose Garden ceremony was over and the eight gun maker executives left for home, the stock market took notice.
Shares of Saf T Lok Inc. soared. The company, based in Tequesta, Florida, makes the “quick click” child-proof locking devices for handguns, which makes it difficult for firearms to discharge accidentally.
Saf T Lok Chief Executive JOHN GARDNER said the news boosted both share price and volume. He told Dow Jones, “I would suspect that it is a reaction to possible long-term effects on our business.”
The news lofted Saf T Lok (LOCKC) shares nearly sevenfold to $3. Nadaq SmallCap Market volume of about 14 million shares dwarfed the average daily turnover of 50,300.
Competitor Fortune Brands Inc. (FO), which makes most of the child-safety locks on the market under the MasterLock brand, wouldn’t comment on what effect, if any, the presidential shindig had on its shares. A spokesman said such comments is against company policy.
GARDNER speculated that safety-lock production is such a small part of Fortune’s business that it is unlikely its shares moved much because of the White House announcement.
GARDNER hoped that the announcement helps his company increase market share against MasterLock, which sells trigger locks for about $20. Saf T Lok locks sell for $89.95.
“We make a high-end version of the lock,” said GARDNER. He said his was the only trigger lock that can be activated on a loaded gun.
HYPOCRICY FROM THE ANTI-GUN LOBBY
DON PERATA, member of the California State Assembly representing Alameda County (the main cities are Alameda, Oakland, and Piedmont), has made a career of pushing the gun control agenda and bashing gun owners.
Now it turns out that PERATA packs a semiautomatic handgun.
The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported that PERATA (D-Alameda), has a 9mm Beretta semiautomatic pistol and a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
PERATA responded, “I never said I was anti-gun.” He carries the gun for protection, he said.
“Frankly, when people make you a poster boy for the militia it’s troublesome. I try not to do foolish things, and not heeding those warnings would be foolish.”
Is he seriously afraid that some militia member is going to come gunning for him?
This is the same legislator who authored anti-gun bills in the most recent session that included a measure which would expand California’s assault weapons ban. It would perform some “mission creep” on a 1989 law that bans the sale, manufacture, distribution, and in most cases, possession of more than 50 semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.
PERATA’s bill, which would change existing law specifying particular models by replacing it with a broad generic definition of assault weapons, passed the Senate on a vote of 22-13. But it died when California’s legislative session ended September 12 because the Assembly had not taken it up.
In addition, PERATA entered the floor debate in August on a bill to ban “junk guns,” rejecting arguments that the bill would deny lower-income people the right to buy cheap guns to protect themselves.
During that debate, PERATA uttered these immortal words: “Why don’t we, for poor people, allow cars to be manufactured without taillights, brakes and seat belts?”
No, we can’t figure out how that compares to manufacturing low-cost handguns, either. It sounds like “junk logic” to us.
But that’s the kind of logic we have learned to expect from anti-gun hypocrites who want to have their guns but don’t want you to have yours.
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.