Hindsight from The New Gun Week October 10 1999

Guns, Politics and Political Grandstanding
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

If you've been keeping an eye on the gun issue as it has been played out in Congress and the media in recent months and weeks, you probably have a bad case of seasickness from all the ups, downs and churning around. You are also almost completely disoriented.

The gun issue has been tumbling through 1999 like some of the flotsam in the North Carolina floods. Sometimes you see it; sometimes you don't. And if you try and get a solid hold on it, it slips from your hand.

Part of the problem is that the media has tried to convince Congress that it must enact new restrictions on gun ownership and firearms commerce.

Another part has to do with how the two major political parties view the "gun control" issue with respect to their overall strategy for the 2000 presidential and congressional elections. Gun control has become as big a political football on Capitol Hill as the budget, providing politicians ample platforms for grandstanding.

In both the 1996 and 1998 congressional elections, the Democrats gained back a little of the ground they lost in 1994 when the voters knocked them out of control of the House for the first time in 40 years. They desperately want to become the majority in the House again and see themselves within striking distance. They also want to keep control of the White House. Democratic strategists would rather have high-profile issues to flog the Republicans with during the upcoming campaign than pass legislation they want. They see "gun safety," as they like to call "gun control," as just such an issue, and greedily exploit every opportunity to play to the media and public.

Walking Tightrope

On the other hand, the GOP, which benefited so greatly in 1994 because of a perceived pro-gun platform, is spooked by the media on the gun issue. They don't want to appear anti-gun for fear of losing much of their base of support, but they aren't really comfortable with opposing a lot of what the Democrats have proposed. In large measure they are looking at only some of the polling data. They seem to neglect polls which show that "gun control" is not a high priority item with the general public. That leaves GOP leaders walking a tightrope in the Washington circus.

And the big tent in that circus is the Senate-House conference committee that has been charged with negotiating a compromise between vastly different juvenile justice bills-the most likely vehicle for any new gun laws in the 106th Congress.

On Page 1 of this issue there is a Sept. 21 report about House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) floating a proposed compromise on guns between S-254, passed by the Senate, and HR-1501, passed by the House.

On Sept. 23, Associated Press filed a story, reporting that Hyde that day had said negotiators were "close to agreement on legislation to tighten gun control and safety laws."

AP reported that Hyde stated on the House floor that while one or two issues remain to be resolved, negotiators have agreed on provisions to bar minors from possessing "assault weapons," ban certain large capacity ammunition clips and require "reasonable" mandatory background checks for firearms purchases at gun shows.

The compromise was also expected to include "provisions for safety devices and trigger locks and a lifetime ban on the purchase of a handgun by anyone convicted of a gun-related felony as a juvenile." Hyde said.

McCarthy Motion

Hyde spoke during the debate on a motion by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) to urge the House-Senate negotiators to meet in open sessions beginning on Sept. 24 and continuing until a compromise was reached.

McCarthy said negotiators needed an incentive to move forward. "I fear the delays we have faced have been caused by the congressional leadership's reluctance to enact meaningful gun safety legislation," she said in a clear attack on the GOP, intended for public posturing.

Hyde countered that informal meetings have been taking place on a daily basis. "Nobody wants this to fail. Give credence to our good faith," he said, in a plea for the middle ground which is the GOP tightrope.

Earlier on the day of that exchange, the House approved, by 305-117, a resolution offered by Democrats to guide the House-Senate negotiators. That motion, like those that followed the next day, is not binding on anyone but plays to the cheap seats in the grandstand. It recommended that the final version of the juvenile crime bill include language to close "loopholes" allowing criminals to obtain guns at gun shows and from non-licensed dealers. It also said the bill should not include language that weakens current "gun safety" laws and that it should aid in enforcing current laws against criminals who use guns.

Voting "Yes" on the motion were 174 Democrats, 130 Republicans and one independent. Voting "No" were 32 Democrats and 85 Republicans. Twelve members did not vote, and one seat is vacant.

What is interesting about such non-binding resolution votes is that they are general enough that they can be played back home in the district almost anyway a politician on the tightrope might want; and there is really no effect on final legislation.

Still, some representatives stick to their traditional positions on the right to keep and bear arms. In Alabama, for instance, all seven congressmen voted against the resolution, regardless of party. In New York, all 31 voted for it, regardless of party.

Principled Bi-Partisanship

Of course, there are the principled pro-gunners in both parties whose votes are clear-cut. Thus, Republican Bob Barr of Georgia and Democrat John Dingell of Michigan were among those from both parties who voted against the resolution.

Next, on Sept. 24, the House considered three other non-binding instructions to the House members on the conference committee. While these were also largely of the chest-thumping variety, one had a more subtle message-a message that clearly reflects the true, if somewhat ambivalent, public attitude on the right to keep and bear arms. That was a motion by Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA).

Doolittle's motion called for the conference committee to recognize that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, and reminds them not to impose unconstitutional restrictions on that right. It passed on an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 337-73. That vote sends a philosophical message, but will probably have no effect on the conference committee's final report.

At this point, I'm inclined to get up on the high wire myself with a prediction.

I figure the committee report on the Juvenile Justice bill will further infringe on the Second Amendment by agreeing: 1.) to the ban on imported large-capacity magazines; 2.) to restrict the right of law-abiding youth to possess certain legal firearms; 3.) to mandate trigger locks, and 4.) to prevent adults who were ever convicted of a violent felony when they were juveniles from every owning guns again-regardless of what kind of life they later lived, or how they were rehabilitated. With one vote, Congress may be successful in infringing many other protected civil rights besides the individual right to bear arms.

On private sales at gun shows, I expect a NICS check to be mandated for all sales-but I won't predict whether it will include a 24-hour or a 72-hour waiting period, or a combination of both which has also been floated as a compromise.

That's as far as I'll go on the prediction because there is a clear likelihood that even if both houses of Congress do finally agree on such a package, Clinton might veto it anyway.

The real question is whether Clinton-Gore and their fellow Democrats really want 85 to 90% of their gun agenda, or if they just want to club the Republican presidential and congressional candidates during next year's campaign.

If that's the case, as many suspect, gunowners may find that after all the headlines and grandstanding, no major new gun legislation will issue from Washington in 1999.

---

The New Gun Week is published three times a month by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) on the 1st, 10th, and 20th. Hindsight is a commentary written by SAF President and Gun Week Executive Editor Joseph P. Tartaro. This commentary may be reprinted so long as credit is given to the author and the publication. For more information or to subscribe, write Gun Week, PO Box 488, Buffalo, NY 14209, or call 716-885-6408 Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST, or inquire on Compuserve to John Krull, Production manager-JohnSAF@Compuserve.com or gunweeksaf@broadviewnet.net

Also, check out the New Gun Week at http://www.GunWeek.com