Legislative review

Shooting Industry, Dec, 1997 by Jim Schneider

1997 was a year of surprises for America's gun owners and dealers - not little whimpy surprises but real, bona fide blockbusters!

None of the surprises were bigger than what occurred in the White House Rose Garden on Oct. 9.

There representatives of the American gun industry attended a ceremony with President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno where it was announced that 15 gun companies responsible for approximately 80 percent of the handguns produced in the U.S. - would begin voluntarily providing firearm safety devices with all guns they ship.

The gun industry's participation was orchestrated by Richard Feldman, executive director, American Shooting Sports Council. Faced with certain Congressional mandated trigger-lock requirements, the ASSC's actions defused the explosive debates. In an incredible turn of events, there was Feldman introducing the President of the United States and Clinton praising the gun industry.

Sarah Brady had to cringe when she saw President Clinton leading the applause for gun manufacturers!

It was just a month earlier, this past Labor Day, when Smith & Wesson added its name to the growing list of companies providing locking devices with the guns they sell.

Gun Dealer in Headlines

We even saw a gun dealer become a national media hero in '97 - for the first time in most of our memories.

We were stunned to see all the great publicity about B&B Gun Sales handing out firearms to Los Angeles police officers who were taking fire from heavily armed bank robbers dressed in body armor.

Bob Kahn, president of B&B, noted, "We supplied them with five .223 semiautomatic rifles, four of which were Bushmasters, and two Remington 1187 police shotguns."

Praise of Kahn was almost universal - almost, but not quite.

"The only people who bad mouthed. us were The Los Angeles Times and Handgun Control," Kahn said. "Handgun Control professed that we may have broken federal laws.

"When nine panicked officers come in and tell you five officers are down, you don't think about breaking federal laws. The LA Times wouldn't mention our shop by name. They said, 'The police officers who did this may receive disciplinary action,' which is bull. Can you imagine if somebody tried to discipline those guys! Can you imagine the press!"

Good News on Brady

Although it didn't come as a total surprise, one of the gun stories that grabbed the most headlines in '97 came when the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot compel local police to determine whether buyers are fit to purchase a handgun.

Although the 5-4 decision was a victory for pro-gun groups, it was less than total since the court did not rule the waiting period itself unconstitutional.

Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "The federal government may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems, nor command the states' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.

"Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."

Associated Press said at the time that, "The ruling is further evidence of the conservative court's determination to shift the balance of power from the federal government toward the states."

Ironically, late in 1998 the Brady Law becomes a federal instant check, something pro-gun groups like the National Rifle Association have supported for years. If the computer finds the would-be purchaser is clean, he buys the gun on the spot. On the other hand, if it finds he is a felon, he may be arrested within minutes.

In those states that have an instant check in place, dozens of felons have been arrested attempting to buy a handgun - compared to the handful actually arrested under the Brady Law. In the congressional battle over passage of the Brady Bill, the NRA was actually pushing for a tougher and more effective law than Handgun Control Inc. You, of course, didn't see that reported in many newspapers.

Nor were you likely to see Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion in the Printz v. U.S. (Brady) case suggesting that sometime in the future the Supreme Court may be ruling on the true meaning of the Second Amendment.

Thomas wrote, "The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority. The Second Amendment provides '(a) well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'

"This court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment.

"If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to 'keep and bear arms,' a colorable argument exists that the federal government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intra-state sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that amendment's protections.

"As the parties did not raise this argument, we need not consider it here. Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms 'has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of the republic.'"