Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 22:07:07 -0400
From: [a--er--s] at [gatekeeper.nra.org] (NRA Alerts Account)
Subject: Transcript of written testimony by Tanya K. Metaksa before the House Judiciary Committee April 25, 1994

Transcript of written testimony by Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director
of ILA, before the House Judiciary Committee April 25, 1994,
submitted for Congressional record:

Mr. Chairman.  My name is Tanya K. Metaksa.  I am Executive 
Director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for 
Legislative Action.  We directly represent the views of over 3.3-
million voters, and indirectly represent the views of perhaps 20 
times that many Americans who peaceably own and use firearms.
The citizens who share our passion reside in every state in the 
Union.  We are doctors, lawyers, teachers, farmers, construction 
workers, nurses, mechanics, housewives... we are men and women 
>from across every professional, social, and political spectrum.   
Above all, we are peaceable people.

There is one thing we are not.  We are not criminals.
Our wish to pursue our individual right to own and bear small arms 
has nothing to do with criminal violence.  Our wish to fight any 
further encroachment on our rights has nothing to do with crime 
and criminals.

With what this Congress is proposing -- a prohibition on firearms 
ownership -- we are angry.

We are angry, because the Federal government has steadfastly 
shirked its duty to use existing law to deal with criminal 
violence involving firearms.  Tough laws are already on the books 
to deal with the kind of gun crime the public fears -- crime which 
we all fear.

We are angry because the media choose either to be totally 
ignorant of the law, or refuse their duty to inform the public as 
to existing law.

We have every right to be angry, because we, peaceable people, are 
being forced to pay the price for the violence of criminals.
That is the crux of everything that is wrong about any further so-
called gun control measures the Congress might attempt to enact.
The issue is not good guns and bad guns.  It is simply good people 
and bad people.  Peaceable people versus criminals.
None of the proposals before the Congress to ban private ownership 
of firearms; to create de-facto registration systems; or to 
license firearms ownership has anything to do with curbing crime 
or criminal behavior.  These measures merely apply to the law 
abiding -- to peaceable people.

Though proponents of such legislation would have the public 
believe that their proposals apply to such evil people as mass 
murderers, drug traffickers and the like, the truth is that 
ordinary citizens -- peaceful individuals -- are the target.
Take the Feinstein amendment.  Strip away the lists of what 
legislators are mandating as "good guns" and "bad guns"; strip 
away exceptions for individuals who Congress says can keep their 
semi-autos for now.  What we have is a ban on the ownership of 
private property by law-abiding, peaceable private citizens.
The black letter of the language says, "It shall be unlawful for a 
person to manufacture, transfer or possess a semi-automatic 
assault weapon."

"It shall be unlawful for a person to own a weapon," that's what 
it really says.  That's what's important.  Nothing else.
"A PERSON" ... That means every law-abiding citizen of the United 
States.  Every innocent, peaceable soul who might want to own a 
certain kind of gun for any peaceable reason is banned from 
private ownership of that personal property.

That is not what the public is being led to believe Congress is 
doing here.  The Senate debate over the issue of so-called assault 
rifles was built around the notion that its proponents were only 
after criminals -- drug traffickers and violent felons.  They 
promised they were leaving innocent people alone.  The proposed 
law says something quite different: the word "person" means 
everybody -- every individual in America.

Sen. Feinstein's amendment does not say, "It shall be unlawful for 
. drug traffickers, hate groups, drug king-pins, drug dealers, 
soldiers of drug dealers, violent criminals, crime bosses, armed 
cults, drive-by shooters, the triggerman, gangs, youth gangs, 
armed gangs, carjackers, crazies, warlords, and mass murderers ...  
to manufacture, transfer or possess a semi-automatic assault 
weapon."

All of those words were used by Senators during the debate to 
describe those who they claimed were the only people who would 
logically own a certain kind of firearm.  "... drug traffickers, 
hate groups, drug king pins, drug dealers, soldiers of drug 
dealers, violent criminals, crime bosses, armed cults, drive-by 
shooters, the triggerman, gangs, youth gangs, armed gangs, 
carjackers, crazies, warlords, and mass murderers ..."  All that 
makes it sound like the Congress is doing something to the bad 
guys.  That's not the case.

The public is being deceived.  And members of Congress are being 
deceived.

To say that such people could lawfully possess or use firearms in 
commission of crimes is a terrible misstatement.

There are already harsh Federal laws to deal with convicted 
criminals and those in the drug trade who possess, use, alter or 
trade in assault weapons.  All such activities by these people are 
serious Federal felonies.

And that gets us to what can only be called "the big lie."
Sarah Brady of Handgun Control Inc. told the Women's National 
Democratic Club Luncheon on September 21, 1993:  "I think people 
around the country are shocked when they realize we don't have 
Federal laws when it comes to guns."

She went on:  "It is very, very apparent that we don't have 
Federal laws.  We have the 1968 Gun Control Act and that's about 
it.  All that does is say you have to be 18 to buy a long gun and 
21 to buy a handgun and that you can't be a fugitive or felon or 
adjudicated mentally ill.  That's it on the Federal level."
That is an obscene misstatement of the law.

Let me specifically address the question of so-called assault 
weapons and how existing Federal law applies to criminals, drug 
users, and drug dealers.

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968 as amended in 1986, it is 
presently a Federal felony, punishable by a five year prison term 
and a $250,000 fine, for a convicted felon to be in possession of 
an assault weapon.  That law covers all felons -- convicted by a 
state, country, municipal or Federal court.  It covers any firearm 
that any Member of Congress could possibly define as an assault 
weapon.  

If a criminal in possession of an assault weapon is involved in 
the drug trade, or has three prior felony convictions on his 
record, the law calls for him to serve a mandatory 15 years in 
Federal prison, and pay up to a $250,000 fine.  That's for simple 
possession of an assault weapon.  It is a crime for a felon or 
drug dealer to be in the same room with an assault weapon.  

The use of an assault weapon by a convicted felon in commission of 
a crime is also a five year Federal felony, and could also bring a 
$250,000 fine.  It covers guns with large magazine capacities.
The alteration of a semiautomatic assault weapon into a full-auto 
machine-gun is a ten year Federal felony with a $250,000 fine.  
Possession of an untaxed, unregistered fully automatic firearm is 
a 10 year Federal felony, with a $250,000 fine.  

Congress can't make it any more illegal for a convicted felon, 
known drug user or a drug dealer to use an assault weapon in the 
commission of a crime.  It's already the law.

Congress can't make it any more illegal for a convicted felon to 
buy assault weapons -- that's a five year Federal felony with a 
$250,000 fine.  Congress can't make it any more illegal for a 
convicted felon to sell assault weapons -- that's a five year 
Federal felony with a $250,000 fine.  It's a crime with a five 
year Federal felony and $250,000 fine for a person to knowingly 
sell an assault weapon to a convicted felon, known drug user or 
drug dealer.

Congress can't make it any more illegal for a convicted felon or 
drug dealer to falsify information to a licensed dealer for the 
purchase of an assault weapon.  That is a five year Federal felony 
with a possible $250,000 fine.  

In fact, all of these things should mean long hard jail time for 
the criminals, drug users  and drug dealers with assault weapons, 
and this holds true for criminals, drug users and drug dealers in 
possession or use of any kind of firearm -- shotgun, rifle, 
pistol, revolver -- single shot to machine-gun.

We don't have a handgun problem in America.  We don't have an 
assault weapon problem in America.  We have a criminal problem.
And we already have laws to surgically remove criminals from the 
midst of their victims.

Why aren't these laws being enforced?  Every victim of every 
violent crime in which a gun is used ought to demand the answer to 
that question.  As their elected representatives, you ought to 
answer that question.

Assault weapons and criminals.  Assault Weapons and drug users.  
Assault Weapons and drug king pins.  The combinations of object 
and bad guy in any permutation you might want to devise are 
already covered by harsh, strict Federal law.

And yet, these laws are not enforced.  They are not used.  And 
there are some in this Congress who obviously do not know of their 
existence.  There are others who do know and do not care.  They 
want to remove firearms from the hands of peaceable people -- no 
matter what kind of police state it will take to do that.

And on that, we will fight you every step of the way.
Congressman Steve Schiff recently asked the Justice Department how 
many criminals were prosecuted under the various provisions I have 
just cited.  He was told that in the last three years the law was 
used in only 530 cases.  There are hundreds of thousands of armed 
criminals out there who fall under the prohibited categories in 
current Federal law.  There are thousands of Federal agents who 
could be enforcing that law.  They are not.  The United States 
Attorney for Idaho during the Bush Administration said that only 
20 percent of Federal prosecutors ever used the laws with respect 
to convicted felons in possession of guns.  That is a crime.

By ignoring the strict Federal penalties now covering criminal use 
and possession of guns -- any guns, every gun -- prosecutors and 
Federal law enforcement authorities have blood on their hands.
Victims of gun violent crime committed by previously convicted 
felons are victims of Federal nonfeasance, malfeasance and 
misfeasance.  Police agencies of the Federal government are given 
charge and trust to enforce the law.  Yet they refuse to do their 
jobs.  And nice people are maimed and die because of that refusal, 
every day.

If Federal law enforcement agencies did their jobs with respect to 
guns and convicted violent felons -- using the only GCA `68, as 
reformed -- gun control would be a dead issue and we would be a 
long way toward solving the violent crime problem everybody fears 
-- getting criminals off the street and into jail.

The FBI or the BATF now can go to any city in America and make 
wholesale Federal prosecutions of convicted felons who local 
police have already arrested for any crime in which they possessed 
any gun.

Think about that.  Every convicted criminal in America who picks 
up a gun could now be in a Federal prison.  Should now be in 
prison.  That's the law now!

It's true for known drug users.  Every known drug user who picks 
up a gun could be in a Federal penitentiary.  That's the law now!
It's true for drug dealers.  Every drug dealer in every corner of 
America who even picks up a gun could be in a Federal 
penitentiary.  That's the law now!

This law is not discriminatory as to kinds of guns in criminals' 
hands.  For the convicted violent felon, for the known drug user, 
for those engaged in the illegal drug trade it means, "Touch any 
kind of gun -- expensive, cheap -- go to jail."

Congress can hardly make criminal possession and use of an 
assault rifle, or handgun, or any gun more illegal for those who 
commit criminal violence.

But it can make it illegal for peaceable people to own an assault 
rifle, a handgun or any gun.  And it can make criminals of those 
innocent people.  The first step is here.

All of these crimes I have mentioned are on the books now.  They 
cover every fear the public has about criminals with guns.  Other 
than these few existing statutes aimed at surgically removing 
armed criminals from the midst of their innocent victims, all 
other so-called gun control is a hoax, a fraud, a lie.
In all of these gun-control proposals now pending before this 
Congress, the target for law enforcement is not criminals, but 
ordinary people.

We are talking about this Congress enacting laws that will create 
a whole class of unwitting criminals out of peaceable people who 
have nothing to do with violent crime.

We are talking about the architects of the massacre at Waco being 
given the tools to make innocent peaceable people victims of 
government prosecution -- the same government that refuses to deal 
with violent criminals.  And we are talking about all of this 
being proposed based on fictional assumptions.

Try this one.  A tiny spring, a piece of coiled tempered steel in 
the hands of a private citizen being a major threat to the public 
safety.

This Congress is considering laws to redefine the term "firearm" 
to mean individual parts of firearms.  Thus a spring, a roll-pin, 
or a piece of sheet metal becomes something it is not.  A firearm, 
broken down to its component parts, thus becomes many firearms.
The BATF would love it.  A gun collection owned by a peaceable 
citizen could thus become a huge "arsenal of illegal firearms".  A 
dealer's inventory, broken down, could become thousands of illegal 
"crime-guns."  Springs, pins, grips, barrels.  What a statistical 
boon.

The spring on a ball-point pen is virtually identical to the 
return spring for a handgun firing pin.

Under this kind of newspeak legislation, that simple coil spring, 
thus declared a firearm, could not be brought into the halls of 
Congress.  It is a Federal felony to attempt to bring a gun into 
the Capitol.

That simple coil spring, thus declared a firearm, could not be 
sent through the U.S. Postal Service.  It is a federal felony to 
send a firearm through the mail.

That simple coil spring, thus declared a firearm, could not be 
carried into an airport or onto a commercial flight.  That would 
be a Federal felony.

However, under virtually every state law now on the books, a 
criminal holding up a 7-Eleven convenience store with a ballpoint 
pen return-spring, would not be convicted of armed robbery.  Not 
by any stretch of the imagination.  It's funny, but it's not 
funny.

The Feinstein amendment declares ammunition feeding devices to be 
"firearms."  Clips, magazines are to become guns.  Sheet metal.  
Springs.  Pins.  These parts will be firearms.  This is truly 
Orwellian.  Unlawful possession by peaceable law-abiding citizens 
of these objects -- objects that are not really guns, but legally 
defined as guns -- will be Federal felonies.  Everything that 
applies to the ballpoint pen spring, applies to the parts of 
magazines and feeding devices as well.  And the U.S. Senate has 
passed this insanity.

Someday, with this kind of thinking, images of firearms could 
declared as firearms.  Books, periodicals, photographs, videos, 
films could be declared by Congress as being firearms.  Let me 
give you a quote on this:  "Assault weapons ... We have seen them.  
They are brought in the hearing rooms.  We have looked at them.  
They look quite ominous.  We have pictures of them.  The pictures 
are not quite as ominous as the weapons themselves..."  That's 
Howard Metzenbaum during the Feinstein debate.  He's afraid of 
pictures.  He's afraid of the published or broadcast image of a 
firearm.

Let me give you another example of insanity before this Congress:  
The notion of limiting the numbers of firearms peaceable people 
can purchase.  It is a phony.

Since it is already illegal for criminals to purchase and possess 
even one gun -- why limit the number of guns honest people can 
own?  I'll give you the answer:  Arresting violent criminals is 
dangerous.  Arresting nice, peaceable citizens is safe.

The Congress is considering legislation to force peaceable people 
to be federally licensed because they might own a certain number 
of guns.  That has nothing to do with crime and criminals.  Many 
millions of law abiding, peaceable Americans already own 
sufficient numbers of firearms to meet the "arsenal" license 
threshold.  And if they fail or refuse to get such a license, 
their guns are going to be taken away from them.  And if peaceable 
people do comply with such a requirement, there will be millions 
of new "arsenal" licensees for the BATF to regulate.  This is the 
same BATF that keeps coming to Congress whining that it has too 
many Federally licensed dealers to regulate.  They will surely say 
they have too many "arsenal holders" to regulate, and then what 
happens?  Do these collectors lose their guns?

In gun control, Americans have been sold a big lie.  The issue of 
assault weapons is the biggest lie of all.

Dianne Feinstein, during the Senate Floor debate over her 
amendment, flatly stated that such firearms as she would ban "are 
not responsible for a large number of homicides..."
She later said they might become a problem, so they should be 
banned now.

This is like the Congress passing a law to eradicate cancer by 
forcing every healthy person to undergo chemotherapy, radiation 
and organ removal.  It might cure cancer, but it surely would kill 
most of us in the process.

Again, gun control means making the innocent pay the price for the 
guilty.

The issue of assault weapons is an invention of a social engineer 
named Josh Sugarman.  In March, 1989 Sugarman produced a paper 
called, Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation. 
It's a manifesto.

Sugarman -- a vehement partisan against all lawful private 
ownership of small arms -- concluded that the so-called handgun 
control movement was in trouble; that the public and media and 
politicians were tired of the issue.  He concluded that people 
were not afraid of handguns, because so many people own them for 
their own peaceable reasons.  Let me quote:  "... handgun 
restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast 
majority of legislators, the press, and public."

So, some new symbol was needed to frighten people.  Something 
sinister, terrifying and above all, unfamiliar. Enter the assault 
weapon.

Again, to quote Sugarman:  "Assault weapons... are a new topic.  
The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion 
over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault 
weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be 
a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support 
for restrictions on these weapons.  In addition, few people can 
envision a practical use for these weapons."

It is all smoke and mirrors.  Public relations.  A hoax.
I will quote again:  "If police continue to call for assault 
weapons restrictions, and the NRA continues to fight such 
measures, the result can only be a further tarnishing of NRA's 
image in the eyes of the public, the police, and NRA members.  The 
organization will no longer be viewed as the defender of the 
sportsman, but as the defender of the drug dealer."

He goes on to predict that "Efforts to restrict assault weapons 
are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns." 
And why is this?  "... many Americans do believe that handguns are 
effective weapons for home-defense and the majority of Americans 
mistakenly believe the Second Amendment of the Constitution 
guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms.  Yet, many 
who support the individual's right to own a handgun have second 
thoughts when the issue comes down to assault weapons.  Assault 
weapons are often viewed the same way as machine guns and 
`plastic' firearms -- a weapon that poses such a grave risk that 
it's worth compromising a perceived constitutional right."
In Sugarman's 1989 paper, he proposes legislation -- precisely 
what was to become the Feinstein amendment.  Practically word for 
word.

It is all snake oil.  If we applied a truth in packaging law to 
this concept, it would exposed as a fraud.

But everything he predicted about manipulating the public, 
politicians and the media has come true.

In the Senate debate over the Feinstein amendment, Senator Howard 
Metzenbaum talked about the menacing look of so-called assault 
weapons.

"... We have seen them.  They are brought in the hearing rooms.  
We have looked at them.  They look quite ominous..."

Straight out of Sugarman's instructions.

And the Washington Post commenting on the recent ban of so-called 
assault pistols in the state of Maryland after a media-feeding 
frenzy:
"Gun-control supporters acknowledged they are far from restricting 
the ordinary types of handguns that most criminals favor, because 
they are the same weapons often purchases by law-abiding residents 
who want to safeguard their homes and businesses." (April 1, 1994)

Straight out of Sugarman.

The Washington Post also quoted one of the major supporters of the 
ban on private ownership of assault weapons as saying, "... gun 
control advocates could take pride in limiting access to weapons, 
even if the hard-fought measure applies only to 18 types of 
assault pistols, which are used in a fraction of violent crime."  
(April 11, 1994)
"... Used in a fraction of violent crime..."
Washington D. C. is billed as the murder capital of the nation.  
Listen to its politicians and the media here and you get the 
impression assault weapons figure highly in the carnage.

But the FBI Uniform Crime statistics tell another story.  In 1992, 
the last year for which there are FBI numbers, D. C. had 442 
homicides.  Of those, 368 were firearms homicides.  And of these, 
368 were with handguns.  D. C. had zero homicides with long guns 
of any kind, no less assault rifles.

It's the same all over the country.

In California, the state's department of justice found that so-
called assault weapons were involved in 4 percent of the state's 
assaults and homicides.

In New Jersey, rifles of any type (including those deemed semi-
automatic assault weapons) were used in 1 percent of homicides in 
the period 1987 through 1992.

Yet, in those places such firearms have been banned from private 
ownership.

These laws have accomplished one thing -- massive civil 
disobedience by peaceful, formerly law-abiding citizens.
There are millions of good, honest citizens in every state who own 
guns that some of you in this Congress would ban.  And those 
millions of citizens are not going to give up their private 
property.  Even if they did, their loss of their firearms would 
have nothing to do with violent crime.

I will leave you with a bit of wisdom from Sen. Dianne Feinstein 
concerning her ban on assault weapons:
"This bill, unfortunately, will not stop most of the killings that 
we are now witnessing in horror and disbelief... "

So what is this about?  It is about disarming good people, 
peaceable people, innocent people.  It is about making them pay a 
terrible price for those criminal predators who now go untouched 
by Federal laws already on the books.

Finally I would say, Yes, Sen. Feinstein, there is a gun law.  And 
it will work, because it only deals with criminals.  It is 
surgical.  The NRA pressed for it's enactment in 1986, and some of 
you who are proposing gun-ownership prohibitions voted against its 
harsh new penalties for criminals.

I will tell Sen. Feinstein...  I will tell you... and I will tell 
the American people that we have laws on the books now that will 
remove killers from our midst.  If they are isolated in prison, 
their killing days will be over.  For as long as such evil people 
are in jail, they cannot prey upon the innocent.  To that end, the 
laws we have will do much to slow criminal violence.  Demand the 
current law be used.  If that happens, not one of you ever has to 
vote on the issue of gun control again.  It becomes irrelevant.  
Because it is a hoax.

In closing, I want to state, NRA has a violence reduction agenda.  
It includes our "Eddie Eagle" program to teach our children that 
guns are not toys.  It includes our "Refuse to Be A Victim" 
program to educate women in personal defense strategies.  It 
includes our "CrimeStrike" Program that in 1993 went to Washington 
state and ensured the passage of "Three Strikes, You're Out," 
which President Clinton has now claimed as his idea.  It also 
includes our prison building initiative which started in 1993 in 
Texas where we helped pass a billion dollar prison building 
referendum and in 1994 where we worked with Congressmen to add 
billions for prison construction to the House Crime Bill.
And Yes, there is a gun law.  And it will work, because it only 
deals with criminals.  It is surgical.  The NRA pressed for it's 
enactment in 1986, and some of you who are proposing more gun-
ownership prohibitions voted against it's harsh new penalties for 
criminals.

And I am here to tell you and the American people that NRA and its 
members will keep on working to pass laws that truly ensure that 
all our citizens live without the fear of violent criminals and 
yes, we will defend the right of any law-abiding peaceable 
American to own a firearm.
--
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Many files are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.nra.org

Be sure to subscribe to rkba-alert by sending:
subscribe rkba-alert Your Full Name
as the body of a message to [r k ba alert request] at [NRA.org]

Information can also be obtained by connecting to the NRA-ILA GUN-TALK
BBS at (703) 719-6406.
-- 
Craig Peterson, n8ino
[c--a--g] at [mainstream.com]