Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc
From: [r--s] at [cbnewsc.cb.att.com] (Morris the Cat)
Subject: FBI & Gun Policies
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 21:23:24 GMT

NEAL KNOX REPORT
                   FBI Sticks By Gun Policy
                         By NEAL KNOX

       WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 21) -- The handgun licensing and
firearms/ammo-banning proposals recommended two weeks ago by
since-fired FBI Director William Sessions are FBI policy, not
merely the views of the former director, an FBI official
spokesman told me today.

       That undoubtedly means they are the desired policy of
higher-ups in the Clinton Administration.  No such break with the
tradition of keeping FBI out of politics would have occurred
without orders -- or at least a wink and a nod -- from on high.

       That is undoubtedly why the Washington Post still hasn't
said a word about the FBI's radical gun law proposals.  The Post
doesn't want to talk about a package of proposals that -- because
of their premature release -- endanger the "almost-in-the-bag"
Brady bill.  

       For the same reason the Post editorially castigated
President Lyndon Johnson for introducing a registration and
licensing bill a few days before the Gun Control Act of 1968 was
about to pass -- delaying it more than three months because
"moderate" Congressmen realized GCA '68 was only a stepping
stone, just as the "gun lobby" had been saying.

       The sweeping FBI recommendations were published in the New
York Times, USA Today and a few other publications.  But they
focussed almost entirely upon the Bureau's support (which was
somewhat reluctant) for the far-milder "Brady Bill."  

       Neither of the Washington newspapers, and only a few
publications with Washington bureaus, have written anything. 
That's scandalous evidence that the press is managing the news,
not just reporting it.

       When an FBI document specifically states that it has been
FBI policy to avoid involvement in political issues, and that the
firearms proposals are "an extraordinary, singular departure from
this policy," that is news!

       Further, when an FBI "Working Group"  -- chaired by John E.
Collingwood, head of the Office of Public and Congressional
Affairs -- recommends to the Director, and he recommends to the
Attorney General, that she recommend to the President, that the
FBI "develop a media strategy to publicize and develop support
for the FBI position," that is news.

       (That's also a violation of the Federal law against lobbying
with appropriated funds (Sec. 1913, Title 18, U.S.C.)!)

       It was this same Collingwood who attended a May 21 meeting
that the White House described as a "political strategy session"
on how to handle the public furor over the firing of the entire
White House travel staff, and their replacement by President
Clinton's relatives and cronies.  Collingwood obligingly revised
the FBI press response to state "additional criminal
investigation is warranted" against the travel staff, which was
quickly released by the White House.

       That widely condemned politicization of the FBI was nothing
compared to the FBI's firearms proposals.

       With all the recent hullabaloo about Sessions' firing, and
his replacement by Federal Judge Louis Freeh, there was ample
opportunity for General Reno and the President to have distanced
themselves from the FBI proposal -- or at least added to their
criticism of Sessions for his acknowledged effort to politicize
the FBI.  

       But they said not a word.

       When Judge Freeh goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee
for confirmation, he needs to be asked not just what he thinks
about the recommended gun policies, but about the recommendation
to politicize the FBI.

       The "Working Group" reported that they "discussed at length
whether the FBI should recommend a general ban on the possession
of handguns.  After careful consideration, the group concluded
that a proposed ban would not receive sufficient support." 

       So what they decided to support is mandatory handgun
licensing and training "which could build upon the Brady bill."

       Not only has the FBI identified the Brady Bill as a building
block, they have given us a peek at what the Clinton
Administration wants to build:

       1.  Handgun licensing, with a gun buying program for those
who couldn't pass the mandatory training, or else voluntarily
surrendered their guns to law enforcement.

       2. "A complete ban upon the possession or transfer of
assault firearms ... including submachine guns."

       3. Prohibiting possession of ammunition (not specifically
limited to handgun ammo) with the "ability to penetrate body
armor."

       4. Tighter regulation of firearms dealers and allocating the
resources to do it.  (Like those 2,000 FBI agents who have been
watching the Russians, and now have nothing to do?)

  Yet the Attorney General and the outgoing and incoming FBI
Directors assure us that they are opposed to politicizing the
FBI!

				----

NEAL KNOX REPORT
                   FBI Calls For Gun Licensing
                          By NEAL KNOX

     WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 11) -- FBI Director William Sessions
has recommended to Attorney General Janet Reno that the Clinton
Administration call for a wide range of new firearms laws,
including licensing the possession of handguns after mandatory
training, with "appropriate reimbursement" for firearms of those
who can't pass the training or who voluntarily turn in their
guns.

     This incredible document, which notes that the FBI does not
publicly comment on political matters to avoid "destroy(ing)
confidence" in the agency, says "(t)he proliferation of firearms"
and their use in violent crimes justifies "an extraordinary,
singular departure from this policy."

     The last item of Sessions' 10-point recommendation -- which
the FBI refuses to release -- calls for the FBI Office of Press
and Congressional Affairs to "develop a media strategy to
publicize and develop support for the FBI's position."

     In short, the FBI Director is recommending to Attorney
General Janet Reno that she authorize violation of Section 1913
of Title 18, U.S. Criminal Code -- which prohibits lobbying with
appropriated funds.
 
     Naturally, the FBI recommends enactment of the "Brady Bill,"
though raising questions about the accuracy of state criminal
records checks and other "technical problems."   

     The FBI also recommends "a complete prohibition upon the
transfer, importation, transport or possession of assault
firearms" -- which are not defined, except as high capacity and
"fast firing."

     Sessions calls for "a complete prohibition upon the
possession of armor piercing ammunition," which would be defined
"upon performance standards, not composition" -- presumably on
the basis of penetration of aluminum plates such as the FBI used
in its mid-1980's tests of AP ammo.

     Much conventional high-velocity handgun ammo can penetrate
the Kevlar bullet-resistant vests worn by police.  However,
because the FBI's recommendation is not limited to handgun
ammunition, it could be used to ban almost all center fire rifle
ammunition.

     Finally, the FBI recommends "reallocation of existing
resources to increase the regulation and oversight of" Federal
licensees -- and, among other things, increase license fees,
require an existing place of business, and a background check
with fingerprinting of potential dealers.  That just happens to
jibe with the FBI's long ambition to have BATF's firearms
enforcement powers.

     The "FBI Working Group" which prepared the recommendations
"discussed at length whether the FBI should recommend a general
ban on the possession of handguns.  After careful consideration,
the group concluded that a proposed ban would not receive
sufficient support."

     Clearly, they really wanted an outright handgun ban, but
didn't think it would pass and, as they wrote, "would likely
place us outside the scope of the current debate over firearms,
and thus perhaps marginalize our overall impact."

     I first thought that the FBI proposal was a trial balloon to
make the Administration's firearms recommendations in the omnibus
crime bill (due out later this month) appear modest by
comparison.  But, amazingly, neither of the Washington newspapers
has said a word about the FBI's landmark proposals.

     That indicates that the anti-gun "Washington Post" doesn't
want to talk about the Clinton Administration's "next step" until
the "first step Brady Bill" has been signed and sealed.

     The "New York Times" and other newspapers which have
reported the FBI recommendations have focussed on their support
for the "Brady Bill," with little or nothing about the radical
handgun licensing and "assault weapons" (whatever that is) ban.

     Those reports have speculated that Sessions -- whose job has
been hanging by a thread since being charged with ethics
violations at the end of the Bush Administration -- was merely
currying favor with Reno and the White House.

     Nonsense.  No bureaucrat, or "Working Group" of bureaucrats,
would make such a radical recommendation, or openly move to
politicize the FBI, without orders -- or at the very least, a
wink and a nod -- from someone much higher up.

     I think we're getting a look at the Clinton firearms
platform -- and we'll see all of it before the next four years
are over.
                               ---