Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: [l v c] at [cbvox1.att.com]
Subject: How Brady Passed by Larry Pratt
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 02:28:21 GMT
Why is Congress on the Verge of Passing Gun Control?
by
Larry Pratt
Executive Director Gun Owners of America
Our Second Amendment rights hang by the slenderest of threads.
Our opponents need just 60 votes in the Senate to put the Brady
waiting period bill on President Clinton's desk. Certain rifles
and shotguns, as well as magazines over 10 rounds capacity, are
in danger also. Like you, I have asked myself how we got here.
Problem Did Not Arise Overnight.
Senators and Congressmen may not know the difference between a
semiautomatic deer rifle and Rambo's machine gun. But these
politicians know when an organization is serious about an issue.
A group like the American Association of Retired Persons can
work its will because politicians know the AARP talks to a lot
of people and is a dangerous enemy.
The image of the National Rifle Association is less clear on
Capitol Hill these days. This problem began during the
unlamented regime of former Executive Vice-President Warren
Cassidy. NRA lobbyists under Cassidy stopped opposing gun
control bills and started offering NRA-approved versions of the
same legislation.
This tactic was first tried during the debate on so-called
"cop-killer" bullets. The NRA brokered a "compromise" that
passed the Senate with but one dissenting vote (former Senator
Steve Symms (R-ID)), and the House by 400-21.
One would think that a "compromise" that wins the support of
militant anti-gunners like Ted Kennedy and Howard Metzenbaum
would not be much of a compromise. But there was a greater
danger to this method: the NRA was sending our pro-gun allies
mixed signals. They were being told that voting for gun control
bills was A-OK, so long as the NRA was allowed to write part of
those bills.
Remember staunch pro-gunners like Rep. Jack Fields of Texas
appearing on the television program "48 Hours" because they were
lobbying their colleagues for the so-called "instant check?"
These pro-gunners were pushing a gun control bill that the NRA
was strongly supporting. The instant check was touted as an
alternative to a waiting period in Virginia in 1989.
But the instant check creates a computerized list of gun
owners, as even the Congress's Office of Technology Assessment
admitted in its 1991 report, Automated Record Checks of Firearm
Purchasers: Issues and Options:
"The fact remains that computerized criminal records systems
maintain, as standard operating procedure, transaction logs to
document who is using the system, when, for what purposes.
Transaction logs are needed to help assure system accountability
and security. The Virginia transaction log does not include the
names of firearms purchasers, but the potential exists
regardless of legal prohibitions."
(It was this ability to keep a computer file on all gun
purchasers that, once it was in place, became the basis for
Virginia's "one gun per month" law passed in 1993. Had the
computer system not already been set up and paid for, the cost
of administering any gun rationing law like this one would have
been prohibitive.)
The NRA's alternative to Brady turns out to be a permanent
means of building a national, centralized computerized gun
registration scheme. When the BATF tried this in 1978, the NRA,
with Neil Knox's leadership, slapped them down. But starting in
1989, the NRA, under Warren Cassidy, has chosen to fight gun
control with . . . national computerized gun control.
Anti-gunners in Congress are delighted. In fact, in October,
Rep. Charles Schumer told the NRA's Richard Gardiner during a
hearing this year, "I [Schumer] like the instant check."
Yet Jim Baker of the NRA was quoted by USA Today on October 26,
1993 (page 7A) as saying:
"We already support 65% of the Brady bill, because it moves to
an instant check, which is what we want."
What is Bob Dole Doing?
Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole of Kansas is known as a
player of political hardball. A former (and possibly future)
Presidential candidate, Dole did not rise so high by being deaf
to strong lobbyists.
But events in the Senate demonstrate that either (1) someone is
not telling Bob Dole what to do or (2) Bob Dole isn't listening.
Remember the political climate. On November 2, 1993, anti-gun
politicians were bounced in both New Jersey and Virginia. (The
defeat of just one Senator, Joe Tydings of Maryland, has been
credited with killing gun control for over a decade.) These
elections would seem to have put the chill on gun control for
another decade.
Yet the U.S. Senate has passed a ban on certain rifles and
shotguns, a ban on magazines over 10 rounds capacity, and is
poised to pass a waiting period. All this in the same month as
those elections. How did this happen?
To the astonishment of most experts, Senator Dole and his
fellow Republicans agreed to hurry up procedures for considering
all the gun control bills. Opportunities to filibuster the
legislation were mostly avoided. (Recall that Senator Dole was
credited with holding the filibuster that defeated the Clinton
economic stimulus package earlier this year.)
Had Senator Dole been willing to organize a determined effort
to block these bills, the Senate could well still be debating
so-called "assault weapons" and Brady would not be discussed
till next year. Had Senators been allowed to offer amendments
on issues that the anti-gun lobby hates, like Washington, D.C.'s
lack of a death penalty, both gun control bills could have been blocked,
or at least slowed down. According to the Associated Press,
Senator Dole was willing to prevent "some Republican senators
[from] keep[ing] open the option of filibustering Brady." Every
delay works to our advantage--yet our side was not delaying matters.
The closer the vote is to the November, 1994, elections, the
more frightened politicians are of pro-gun voters. The closer
the vote is to November, 1994, the less time the other side has
for counter measures.
Yet even when our allies were finally allowed to filibuster and
won on Brady twice (Friday, November 19), Bob Dole was reported
to be willing to negotiate by Legi-Slate's Hill News Service on
November 20. The dead Brady bill was suddenly revived.
The "compromise" negotiated by Bob Dole was described by the
Associated Press on November 20 this way:
"Gun control opponents, as part of the deal, had given up their
insistence that the federal waiting period supersede longer
delays approved by some states. Republicans who gave up their
filibuster got little in the compromise, mainly the four-year
expiration language."
The "four-year expiration language" actually can become five
years, simply by request of the Attorney General. So the only
thing we got was . . . nothing. This is a compromise?
California still gets a two-week wait. New York still has
a six-month wait. Pro-gunners who fought waiting periods (and won) in
places like Texas and Arkansas now find their victories snatched
away in Washington. Had we made a similar "compromise" to end
World War II, we would have given Japan California, Nevada and
Arizona in exchange for . . . nothing.
But Bob Dole and company chose to give up many chances to fight
these bills this year. In fact, Senator Dole was quoted in the
Washington Post on November 21 (while the filibuster was going
on) as saying: "we finally decided . . . let's get the Brady
bill behind us." There was no need to help those who would take
away our rights to do so more quickly. A football team that
offers no resistance as its opponents march to the one yard
line, should not expect to keep them out of the end zone.
Dangers of Endorsing Compromise Bills
On Capitol Hill, there is an unwritten rule: if you ask for
something to be part of a pending bill and you get it, you are
expected to endorse the final result.
The NRA's work for the instant check was met with acceptance.
It was made part of the Brady bill this year even without
lobbying by the NRA. Amendments were made that would seem to
have the support of the NRA. Then this terrible bill was
passed. The NRA found itself in an impossible dilemma. To
support Brady (even with amendments) is to support national gun
control. To oppose Brady meant backing out on any understanding
either the NRA had reached with the Senate or which Senators
believed the NRA had reached with the Senate.
To pass Brady before Thanksgiving, the House must accept the
Senate version of Brady or the Senate must accept the House
version of Brady. Gun Owners of America obtained a copy of a
memo circulated by the NRA on Monday, Nov. 22, urging "the House
Rules committee to write a rule that will call up the Senate
passed bill for a vote." (I'll be glad to send you a copy.)
Had the House Rules Committee done as the NRA asked and put the
Brady bill on the floor, Brady might well be on the President's
desk along with his Thanksgiving dinner.
Now the NRA may argue that it was adopting a tactical approach.
They `knew' that the House would reject the rule and are setting
themselves up to oppose Brady. I can only hope so.
But these clever strategies are getting so clever that all the
anti-gun lobby need do is take the NRA at its word to get a gun
control bill passed. Our rights may be marginally more
protected if Jim Baker, rather than Sarah Brady, writes the
latest gun control bill. But these clever tactics make it
difficult to hold anyone accountable. And in the long run,
accountability is needed so that pro-gun Americans can make
intelligent decisions on Election Day.
When politicians vote for the NRA compromise gun control bill,
how can the NRA (or anyone else) justly criticize these people
for supporting gun control?
This needless confusion has gotten so bad that the NRA is
forced to say positive things when a gun control bill is passed.
On November 11, 1993, the Senate passed a bill that would
certainly impose a minimum of 5-day waiting period everywhere in
the United States. Yet the Associated Press reported that NRA
"spokesman Bill McIntyre" was saying that the instant background
check also in the bill "will be a victory for gun owners." The
NRA has put itself in a position where it must praise terrible
defeats because the anti-gunners gave them the NRA's form of gun
control too.
What will finally happen is uncertain. But this mess didn't
happen overnight. And there is lots of blame to go around.
This analysis posted by Gun Owners of America, 8001 Forbes
Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151, (703) 321-8585 on
November 23 at 11:15 p.m. A more detailed version of this
article is available by writing to GOA or by faxing to (703)
321-8408. Please do not e-mail your request, as it may be lost.
--
Larry Cipriani, [l v cipriani] at [att.com] or attmail!lcipriani