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