 


The Second Amendment Takes Another Hit
-- Domestic confiscation bill, road-block gun ban passes Congress

                      Special GOA Alert
         (703)321-8585, http://www.gunowners.org

     (Wednesday, October 2) -- The Congress sent President
Clinton several gun control provisions as part of the omnibus
spending bill.  The President signed the bill late Monday night
after both houses had overwhelming passed the bill (House:
370-37; Senate: 84-15).
Text of Gun Control Provisions 

     The anti-gunners in Congress succeeded in passing several
amendments in the name of defending women and children.  Despite
the rhetoric, the provisions will not accomplish what was claimed
and blow even more holes in our Second Amendment freedoms. 
Here's the "cliff notes" you will need to hold your legislators
accountable.  What follows is a brief summary of what passed, the
practical problems with those provisions, and a listing of who
voted right:

Road-block Gun Ban (Sec. 657 of the Treasury-Postal portion 
of H.R. 3610):
     a. Sets up thousands of gun ban zones across roads statewide
  where local police or the BATF can arrest unsuspecting drivers
  who have a firearm in the car.  Victims will face 5 years in
  prison.
     b. Also known as the Kohl amendment, this provision reenacts
  the School Zone Gun Ban law ruled unconstitutional by the U.
  S. Supreme Court last year (U.S. v. Lopez, 1995).  The
  provision creates gun ban zones nearly one-half mile in
  diameter around every school in the country.
     c. Anyone without a pistol carry license driving through a 
  zone with an unloaded firearm, that is not in a locked container 
  or rack, faces 5 years in prison.  (This would apply even to
  off-duty police officers, despite ineptly crafted exceptions
  in the Kohl language.)  Many  who were previously able to
  drive freely with guns, either in plain view or in the glove
  compartment, can now be victimized by anti-gun local police
  and/or BATF agents.  
     d. And finally, just a couple of other quirks that result from
  the law:  a) Because of the way "school" is defined in the
  Title 18 of the U.S. Code, the school zone gun ban could
  outlaw the possession of firearms by parents who home school
  their kids; and b) For a person who lives within 1,000 feet of
  a school, any hunting trip would constitute a legal labyrinth.
  He or she could not carry the gun to a car parked on the
  street unless he determined that such action was approved by
  school officials.
 
Domestic Confiscation (Sec. 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion 
of H.R. 3610):
     a. Frank Lautenberg, who has an "F-" rating from GOA,
  originally cosponsored the so-called domestic confiscation
  provision with anti-gun Senators Dianne Feinstein and Edward
  Kennedy as S. 1632.  The largest wholesale firearms
  confiscation effort in decades, this provision bans thousands
  upon thousands of Americans from owning firearms for life, and
  orders their guns seized.  For now this gun ban only applies
  to domestic dispute misdemeanors, but it sets a very bad
  precedent, since previously only felons have been stripped of
  their rights.  (Note: This provision could strip many
  law-enforcement officers, previously convicted of domestic
  violence misdemeanors, of their ability to carry firearms.)
     b. Rep. Bob Barr introduced an NRA-supported amendment as a
  compromise.  But even Barr's language was altered after
  protests from Clinton and Senate Democrats.  The Barr
  provision -- perhaps best termed as the "Lautenberg Lite"
  provision -- would have reduced some of the problems with the
  original version, but it still extended the gun ban into the
  area of misdemeanors (a bad precedent). 
     c. The Lautenberg-Barr provision which passed the Congress
  threatens to disarm the very women that it is supposed to
  help.  The provision would impose a lifetime gun ban on anyone
  who has been convicted of "us[ing] or attempt[ing to] use ...
  physical force" in a domestic situation.  Of course, this
  "use of force" language can cover anyone (both men and women)
  who gets involved in a little spat between spouses, roommates,
  lovers, etc.
     d. The "use or attempted use of force" language will not only
  affect women who might throw a lamp at their spouse (like the
  First Lady), it will also endanger parents who spank their
  children.  (Parents convicted of a domestic misdemeanor for
  spanking will now have to forfeit their guns or else become
  felons -- for being a prohibited person in possession of a
  firearm.)  This provision federalizes a state issue and is
  clearly unconstitutional (under the 2nd and 10th Amendments
  for starters).
     e. What is the answer?  If an act of domestic violence is
  serious enough to lose your civil right to own guns, then it
  should be a felony, which persons already were prohibited from
  owning firearms.  If it is not serious, it should be treated
  as a misdemeanor -- a penalty which historically has not
  forced one to forfeit his or her rights.

     GOA opposed the Lautenberg-Barr "compromise."  Gun Owners of
America lobbied against every version of the Lautenberg provision
that surfaced.  Each time, GOA reminded Congressmen that a vote
for expanding a gun ban is a vote for gun control.  But rather
than take a "no compromise" position, most Congressmen opted to
just "limit the damage."  It would be like a victim telling a
mugger who wants $100 that "if you only take $50 we'll just call
it even."  Whether it's $50 or $100, the victim has still been
robbed.  

     Likewise, gun owners got robbed this past weekend.  We were
forced to give up ground without getting anything in return.  Gun
owners should not excuse those Congressmen who voted for this
so-called compromise.  In reality, there was no compromise since
our firearms rights were not advanced in any way.  We neither got
a revocation of the semi-auto ban, nor did we get a repeal -- or
even some exceptions to -- the Brady registration law.  (Rather,
more people will now be rejected after Brady checks.)  We got
nothing.  So don't let your Congressmen tell you he voted for a
compromise.  When two people compromise, each side gets
something.  Ask him what we got in return.  If he can't tell you,
suggest to him that what he did was abdicate his duty to defend
the Bill of Rights. 

     More than 300 Representatives join Schumer in trimming the
Second Amendment.  Once again, many of the freshmen Republicans
led the way in opposing the assault on our liberties.  The vote
in the House was 370-37; the following Reps. VOTED PRO-GUN by
voting AGAINST H.R. 3610:  Barcia (MI), Barton (TX), Becerra
(CA), Beilenson (CA), Burr (NC), Chabot (OH), Chenoweth (ID),
Coble (NC), Coburn (OK), Coleman (TX), Cooley (OR), Cox (CA),
DeFazio (OR), Duncan (TN), Hall (TX), Hefley (CO), Hoekstra (MI),
Hyde (IL), Istook (OK), Jacobs (IN), Kanjorski (PA), Kaptur (OH),
Klink (PA), Klug (WI), Largent (OK), Nadler (NY), Neumann (WI),
Rohrabacher (CA), Roybal-Allard (CA), Salmon (AZ), Sanford (SC),
Scarborough (FL), Schroeder (CO), Sensenbrenner (WI), Stearns
(FL), Stockman (TX), and Tiahrt (KS).    

     Thank the above Reps. and hold the others accountable. 
(NOTE:  the following is a list of the 26 Reps. that missed the
vote:  Baker (LA), Berman (CA), Blumenauer (OR), Boucher (VA),
Cardin (MD), Collins (MI), Conyers (MI), Dellums (CA), Dornan
(CA), Durbin (IL), Filner (CA), Flake (NY), Fowler (FL), Frank
(MA), Green (TX), Hancock (MO), Hayes (LA), Heineman (NC),
LaFalce (NY), Lincoln (AR), Lipinski (IL), Menendez (NJ), Myers
(IN), Quillen (TN), Taylor (NC), Waters (CA), and Waxman (CA). 
If your Rep. is not listed in either of the groups above, then he
voted for the bill!)

Everything, including the kitchen sink, put into H.R. 3610:  
     a. Besides the two gun bans mentioned above, legislators also
  threw in the study on placing taggants in black and smokeless
  powders -- a provision which had previously stalled in the
  Congress.  (Source:  Sec. 113(2) of the general provisions of
  the Justice Department Title in H.R. 3610.)
     b. The bill gives the BATF a PAY INCREASE of almost $100
  million dollars for next year --$16 million in the regular
  budget  plus an additional $66 million for anti-terrorism
  efforts.  (Source: Titles I and VII of the Treasury-Postal
  provisions.)
     c. H.R. 3610 continues the language included in the previous
  year's budget prohibiting the BATF from "investigat[ing] or
  act[ing] upon applications for relief from Federal firearms
  disabilities."  This means that non-violent offenders who lose
  their gun rights won't be getting them restored any time soon.
  (Source:  Title I of the Treasury-Postal provisions.)
     d. The so-called digital telephony provision will threaten the
  privacy of gun owners (Source:  Sec. 110 of Commerce-State-
  Justice provisions).  The funding in this provision will be
  used to force telephone companies to retrofit existing
  telephone equipment in order to facilitate the ability of
  government officials to wiretap citizens.  This would be
  similar to requiring home builders to put microphones in walls
  of every home so that the FBI could more easily eavesdrop on
  conversations.  (Before spending the $60 million for these
  technological "improvements," the FBI must first submit an
  "implementation plan.")
     e. The "best" part of the bill was a provision in the Labor-HHS
  section containing a prohibition on the CDC's ability to spend
  any funds "to advocate or promote gun control."  Despite this
  apparent victory, there are still two problems with this and
  other language in the CDC budget.  First, the department which
  conducts the anti-gun studies did not receive a pay cut. 
  Second, the so-called prohibition in this provision only
  prevents the CDC from actually lobbying in favor of gun
  control.  As long as the CDC does not call for any gun bans,
  waiting periods, etc., the "prohibition" will not prevent them
  from placing the same anti-gun studies in medical journals --
  the very same studies which are always used by the media and
  HCI to impugn our firearms rights. (Source:  Title II of the
  Labor-HHS provisions.)
 
     Conclusion:  Use this special alert to confront the
legislators who voted wrong.  Hold them accountable!  If they
never hear a peep from you, they'll think they can get away with
these kinds of votes in the future.  Remember: "eternal vigilance
is the price of liberty."  Please distribute this alert!

----------------
1     The Washington Post  (11/19/92) reported how a school
teacher was arrested in class after a pedestrian reported seeing
her handgun sitting in open view on the seat of her car in the
parking lot.  This lady had no record and was -- except for a
school zone gun ban -- complying with Virginia law which allows
citizens to carry a firearm in their car without a permit, as
long as the gun is left in plain view.  


Shortcut to Text of Gun Control Provisions

On to Next Alert

Up to Home

Copyright, Contact and Credits

 

