Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 11:33:06 -0500 From: "Christopher W. Knox" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: FCO 1-21-96 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ======================================================================== Online Report to the F I R E A R M S C O A L I T I O N Box 6537, Silver Spring, MD 20916 ======================================================================== January 21, 1996 Vol. 3, No. 2 ======================================================================== In this issue: Compromising Lie -- Neal misquoted in Internet NRA TV Summary Gun Politics -- Silly season upon us. Telephone Log -- From the Firearms Coalition Legislative Hotline 1-900-225-3006 $0.89 per minute January 3 through January 18 ======================================================================== A note from Chris For the past year or more Bill Glover has taken the trouble to post summaries of NRA TV to the Internet. It's a volunteer effort, the sort of thing to be encouraged. Unfortunately, in this age of instant communications, there are times that we open ourselves up for instant misunderstanding. An August 30 synopsis of NRA TV that Bill posted to the Net quotes Neal as uttering the "C" word: Compromise. Trouble is, Neal says he didn't say it. And he had a transcript of the show prepared to prove it. Videos of the segment are also available. Now I haven't seen the show, but I have read Ginny Simone's transcript (which accompanies this issue) and I have read Bill's summary (which also accompanies this issue). And even though I'm doing my best to be an honest broker in this matter, you know that I believe Neal. The January 18 Shotgun News column is devoted to this flap. It has the hair and hide still attached. I was still trying to track down details when Dad dropped it into the hopper. Amidst all the allegations of NRA's -- and Neal's -- softening, he attributed malice to the synopsis. I'm giving Bill the benefit of the doubt and am chalking it up to an inaccurate paraphrase. Pop has been getting hammered from some quarters, apparently well downstream, since it's become an issue almost five months after the fact. And he's a bit ticked off. I've tried to get hold of Bill to give him a chance to speak, but he hasn't been logged in to his NetCom account in the past week. Bill, if you see this before you see your mail I sent, I'd sure appreciate hearing from you. I just want to defuse this thing and get on with what we're here for. * * * * * Things have been strangely quiet in the Phoenix Steyr AUG story where more than forty Phoenix police violated department policy and, maybe, federal law by purchasing Steyr AUGs for their own use, and in some cases, for resale. There was a brief media flurry that included the predictable breathless TV news stories, but it has died down. I'll report the other shoe when I hear it drop. * * * * * Finally, I got a note from Wayne Chapeskie in Victoria, B.C. who sent the following information for Canadian firearms legislative mailing lists and web sites which I'll pass along here. It's edifying to see what lawful gun ownership means way up north. Sort of makes you want to call your Congressman. >+-------------------------------------------------------------+ >| Send the following commands in the body of an e-mail | >| message to majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca: | >| subscribe cdn-firearms-digest | >| subscribe cdn-firearms-alert | >| end | >| | >| These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made | >| possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. | >| | >| Mailing List Commands: majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca | >| Submissions: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca | >| Comments/Suggestions: ab133@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca | >| WWW Page: ftp://ftp.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/index.html | >| FTP Site: ftp.usask.ca (cd pub/cdn-firearms) | >| Digest Back-issues: FTP (pub/cdn-firearms/Digests) or send | >| the following command to majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca: | >| get cdn-firearms-digest v01.n334 | >| (where 334 is the digest issue number) | >| | >| The Cdn-Firearms Digest is brought to you, in part, by the | >| National Firearms Association | >| Headquarters Membership and publication | >| Box 1779 Box 4384, Station C | >| Edmonton AB T5J 2P1 Calgary AB T2T 5N2 | >| ph.: (403) 439-1394 ph.: (403) 640-1110 | >| fax: (403) 439-4091 fax: (403) 640-1144 | >| Annual NFA membership fees: | >| Regular: $30 Senior (age 65+): $20 Family: $40 | >| Business: $50 Clubs: $2 per member (minimum $40) | >| All include a subscription to hunting, shooting and fishing | >| magazines as well as the monthly NFA newsletter | >| "Point Blank". Proceeds go toward fighting for firearm | >| laws that make sense and challenging the ones that don't. | >| ADD $4.75 PER PERSON FOR $2,000,000 INSURANCE! | >+-------------------------------------------------------------+ > * * * * * Except where explicitly noted Chris Knox wrote and is solely responsible for everything above this line. ======================================================================== Compromising Lie WASHINGTON, D.C. (Jan. 18) -- There is a report on the Internet, now picked up in the newsletters of activist organizations, that I said on NRA's television program last August: "compromise is the only way." That is an absolute lie; I have reviewed that program and I made no such statement. Nor would I. According to a phony "transcript" of the Aug. 30, 1995 program, a caller asked "About H.R. 1488, why is the NRA supporting this? I find it quite flawed." I supposedly answered: "Because when you do legislation you can't just do it the way you want to. Congress first agreed to break the crime package into pieces. I am not comfortable with the end result. We aren't wedded to the bill, but compromise is the only way." That includes part of what I said, but I never said a word about "compromise." What I did say wasn't nearly as clear as I wish it had been, but I have no idea why someone should deliberately distort it. Although not mentioned in the "transcript," the Falls Church, Va., caller also asked: "If we want a straight gun ban why not just go for a straight repeal of the gun ban and magazine ban?" That was the question I tried to answer first. I said "When you're addressing legislation you don't get to do it the way you want to do it, you do it the way the system allows." That's a simple fact. If I were a Congressman, I could introduce any bill I wanted, but I'm not a member of Congress, and neither is Wayne LaPierre nor Tanya Metaksa. On the program I tried to explain something rather complex in too big a hurry -- and couldn't tell everything I knew. The Republicans had a major crime bill as part of their Contract With America. Because it covered so many provisions that virtually any amendment to the criminal code would have been "in order," the Republican leadership broke it into separate bills. That's not what I wanted, but we non-Congressmen had no choice in the matter. The Republican leadership moved five parts of the crime bill as the first item of their "Contract." The sixth part, which provided for an enhanced Federal penalty for Federal or State gun crimes (Section 3), potentially opened the door for Federal prosecutions of state laws. The gun and magazine ban repeal was attached to that provision and numbered H.R. 1488. The House vote on H.R. 1488 was delayed because of the outrage over the Oklahoma City bombing, which had nothing to do with guns though the President and press succeeded in making the public think it did. (The vote still hasn't occurred, but it will.) NRA had been hammered by Gun Owners of America, located in Falls Church, Va., for "agreeing" to the split. Amazingly, a few weeks later GOA criticized NRA -- and me -- for supporting H.R. 1488 because of Section 3. Those same provisions were included in the original bill which GOA had supported -- not because they liked it but because it was the "vehicle" to which the ban could be attached. Another discomfiting provision of the Republican crime package would have allowed Federal law enforcement to use illegally seized evidence in criminal trials if the officers "believed" the seizure were legal. That would seriously erode Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure. Rep. Harold Volkmer (D-Mo.), with the active support of NRA- ILA, deleted BATF from that looser standard with an amendment which passed 228-198 last February (though the issue still isn't settled). I always believed that Section 3 could similarly be corrected on the floor. One thing that caused my television statement to be so garbled is that I knew that Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) had agreed to Tanya's request to strike the offending portion of Section 3, by making the bill's enhanced penalties apply only to Federal -- not state -- offenses. I wanted to tell the TV audience what had been agreed to, but couldn't. Not until the end of September, the day before the Gun Rights Policy Conference in Dallas, did Rep. Barr tell GOA Director Larry Pratt what he had told Tanya weeks before. I was at the GRPC when Larry excitedly announced the agreement to clean up the bill, and I joined in the smiles and applause, but I knew what had really happened. A quarter century ago I realized, and have consistently written and said: "Compromise means giving up more than the other side is big enough to take; if and when they have more power, they'll use it to take more, regardless of what you've given up." That's the truth. And whoever conjured up my having said "compromise is the only way" is a liar. + + + + + The following transcript of the H.R. 1488 question on the Aug. 30, 1995 NRA-TV program was prepared at Neal Knox's request by co-host Ginny Simone. Videotapes of the program are available for comparison. TO: NEAL KNOX FROM: GINNY SIMONE Callers Question (from Falls Church, VA): This has to do with the upcoming HR-1488. Why is the NRA supporting it? I find it very faulty. If we want a straight gun ban why not just go for a straight repeal of the gun ban and magazine ban? Neal's Response: Because you get to -- When you're addressing legislation you don't get to do it the way you want to do it, you do it the way the system allows. And what happened was, if you recall the Republicans had a crime package as part as their Contract With America. That was broken into six parts. Now I remember NRA getting hammered because we agreed to see those split apart and we would push it later on in the year, instead of early on. Now that was the same bill. Now the vehicle was the basic Republican Crime Package, that has a provision that I'm not comfortable with, Section Three, which does allow the Feds to get too much into local laws. Now it's possible they could, the reality is they probably wouldn't. Nevertheless, I think we've got a good chance of seeing that Section Three modified, so that it is only an enhanced penalty on federal offenses, not on state offenses and I'll feel more comfortable. Just like I felt more comfortable when we got rid of the "good faith exception" for everybody except BATF. We helped cause that to happen, you'll recall. So we weren't wedded to the vehicle...the vehicle was the Republican Crime Bill and there have been some changes in that. + + + + + Comment from Neal: *Now* I'm embarrassed to read this incoherent transcript, and resolve to quit saying *Now* on television. Reading it, I can understand how someone would be unable to understand what I was talking about; but I'll be switched if I can understand how someone could find "compromise is the only way." + + + + + [ This is what caused the ruckus. Bill's text is set of by '>' and my deletions are marked by ellipsis. -- CWK ] > From: bglover@netcom.com (William Glover) > Subject: NRA-TV summary -- 8/30/95 > To: craig@MAINSTREAM.COM > Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 21:12:48 +0000 (GMT) > > NRA-TV broadcast summary ... 8/30/95 > [...] > This summary is prepared by William L. Glover, in the spirit of the > volunteer service to the internet community ... bglover@netcom.com > > > My editorial comments are in brackets[]. This is a summary report, not > a verbatim transcription. Archives of these summaries are available > from; > world wide web at http://www.portal.com/~chan/nra/tv/ > or > via ftp at ftp://ftp.shell.portal.com/pub/chan/nra/tv/ > [...] > > Caller:...About HR 1488, why is the NRA supporting this? I find it > quite flawed. > Answer:...Knox: Because when you do legislation, you can't just do > it the way you want to. Congress first agreed to break the crime > package into pieces. I am not that comfortable with the end result. > We aren't wedded to the bill, but compromise is the only way. ======================================================================== Gun Politics WASHINGTON, D.C. (Jan. 10) -- With the Presidential primaries beginning soon, it's time to start thinking seriously about getting ready for both the primaries and next fall's general election. The reason is clear: the difference between what happened legislatively in 1995 and what had happened in 1993-94. NRA-ILA, bolstered by contributions and volunteer efforts from thousands of activists, led the way in defeating anti- gunners in 1994. With spectacular results. Ask Bill Clinton, who a year ago this month told the "Cleveland Plain Dealer" that NRA had caused the GOP takeover of the Congress. (While I was delighted to see his irritation over the effect of the gun vote, I'm also well aware of Clinton's need to divert attention from the unpopularity of his programs by pointing a finger at the NRA.) But look at the tremendous difference in the kind of battles we had last year compared to the two previous years, when Congress passed the Brady Bill, then the semi-auto and magazine ban. In 1995 we spent most of our energy on Capitol Hill trying to repeal the gun and mag ban, making sure we didn't have a new bullet ban attached to a still-questionable anti-terrorism bill, attempting to exclude BATF from weakened search and seizure laws, and chipping away at the funds of anti-gun agencies and organizations. We didn't get the repeal vote in either House -- yet -- but unquestionably NRA is on the offense while Handgun Control Inc. is on defense -- the exact opposite of the two prior years. The clearest indication of that offensive is that ten states enacted legislation improving or enacting "shall issue" concealed carry licenses in 1995. The reason: Gun owners, led by NRA, elected pro-gun majorities in many state legislatures, with tremendous effect. Like everyone else, I've been impatient to see the same kind of progress made in Congress -- though I'm well aware of our paper-thin margin, at best, in the Senate, and the totally hostile Clinton White House. I felt a lot better about the postponement of the gun and magazine ban vote in the House after hearing about a discussion of that vote between Speaker Newt Gingrich and more than two dozen Congressmen just before the Christmas recess. A member who attended that meeting told me the Speaker made it clear that there will be a vote on the repeal, and that he considers the issue one that has nothing to do with crime but everything to do with limiting the power of the national government. Some of the Republicans didn't want to cast the vote on a bill that is most unlikely to become law, but which could give them political trouble at home. The Speaker waved away their concerns, pointing out that the gun ban had nothing to do with crime and everything to do with the expansion of government power. He said he didn't know of a single Congressman who had been defeated because a pro-gun vote, but he could name more than 50 who were defeated because they cast an anti-gun vote -- which is how many of those Republicans were elected. It's interesting to see how this "politics of gun control" appears to an outside observer like Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, president of The Polling Company in D.C. In a detailed analysis in "National Review" (hardly a pro-gun publication) she rated gun owners as one of the seven most-critical voting blocs. She wrote: "Even though the nation's gun owners support candidates from both parties, the anti-gun legislation of the 103rd Congress was predominantly identified with the Democrats. By a 6 to 1 margin (71 percent to 11 percent), voters who opposed the Crime Bill opted for the Republican candidate over the Democrat in 1994. "And they have been rewarded. The erosion of the Second Amendment in the first two years of the Clinton Presidency has been halted in the 104th Congress. The first session of that Congress featured Republican committee and subcommittee chairmen holding hearings on Waco and Ruby Ridge. These facts, plus the continued need to fight [for] "concealed carry" laws in the states guarantee continuing political participation by Second Amendment advocates." ======================================================================== Telephone Log January 3 update The House and Senate formally opened the second session of the 104th congress at noon today, with Senate leader Bob Dole pledging to revitalize the Tenth Amendment by returning power to the states, and House Democrat leader Richard Gephardt unsuccess- fully attempting to force an immediate vote on reopening the government. The Senate yesterday by voice vote approved a continuing resolution funding the government for two weeks -- and providing for a limited debate on any budget agreement. In anticipation of a delay in the House, the Senate doesn't expect any roll call votes for the rest of the week. What all that means is that we're probably not going to see the budget impasse settled this week. And until the budget is settled, it's most unlikely that any gun-related legislation will be considered. * * * * * No. 1 son Chris called from Phoenix about 46 police officers being investigated by BATF and the department for buying Steyr AUG rifles without proper police department credentials. Twenty of the guns had been sold to civilians. The Steyr is an excellent, expensive rifle. I'm aware of only one crime ever committed with one of the guns, a year or so ago. Yet it was among the guns which President Bush banned from importation in 1989. The guns the Phoenix police purchased were in transit at the time of the ban, and BATF ruled they could only be sold to law enforcement officers. * * * * * The press is making big noise about the new carry law going into effect in Texas, and the organized effort to get businesses to ban licensed carrying on their premises. Those no-guns- allowed signs will be coming down as soon as those businesses realize they're incurring additional liability for safeguarding their customers -- who they are attempting to prevent defending themselves. What's amazing is that Oklahoma's even-broader carry law also went into effect Jan. 1, and nothing is being said about it. ======================================================================== January 7 update I've been tied up in meetings at NRA for three days, but there's been no news to report. Congress and the President made a big step toward a budget agreement last night, but I don't see any real solution before late January, and maybe not until after the November election. And unless and until the budget issues are resolved or put on the back burner, Congress isn't going to be doing much else -- and it particularly isn't going to be messing with divisive controversial issue like guns or anti-terrorism bills. The House has scheduled only a pro-forma session for Wednesday, and with the huge snow storm we're now having, that's not going to change. The entire NRA-ILA staff, from all over the country, met at Headquarters yesterday to get ready for what promises to be a most interesting year. The novelty of NRA beginning its 125th year with its first woman president, Marion Hammer, continues to bring a lot of mainly good press. Dan Blather this week showed Marion shooting her pistols and playing with her grandchildren. Maybe CBS is a bit sexist. NRA Presidents have all had grandkids and the press never noticed. Way to go Marion. ======================================================================== January 17 update Maryland Gov. Parris Glendenning formally announced his radical gun control package to the legislature today. It starts with one handgun per month and goes through a total registration and licensing system, with required police-administered instruc- tion for handgun buyers and a prohibition against private transfers, even between family members. Though the press reports that he is going into this battle with a thin but significant margin of support, it was rather comforting to see how many lawmakers were sitting on their hands during the gun law presentation. And it was instructive but not surprising to note that those who gave the biggest applause for the gun provisions sat on their hands when the governor proposed tougher treatment of violent criminals. Presidential candidate Sen. Richard Lugar is running television ads touting his vote to ban semi-autos and declaring "there is no right to sweep a playground with an assault weapon." So who said there is, Senator? That's the same stupid statement that brought him boos at the South Carolina cattle show a week or so ago. Lugar didn't attend Sunday's Gun Owners of New Hampshire candidate show. Neither did Sen. Dole, Gov. Underwood or Steve Forbes. The press has been making big noise about NRA having contributed $440,000 to his campaigns -- but that's in all his campaigns since 1979. I don't think NRA has contributed anything to Sen. Gramm or any other Presidential campaign, and isn't playing any favorites. NRA is in an ABC mode -- Anybody But Clinton. Or Almost Anybody But Clinton. We've had some questions about Steve Forbes gun position. He has said he favors repealing the semi-auto ban, believing that gun laws should be left up to the states. An Associated Press story that ran Sunday said both Gramm and Dole support concealed carry of registered guns. I've never heard of either making such a statement. I think the reporter doesn't know the difference between a registered gun and a license to carry. There are new statistics about Florida's concealed carry law. The scare talk about law-abiding licensed citizens shooting up other motorists simply doesn't happen. From 1987 until Dec. 31, 1995 almost 315,000 licenses were issued and only 57 have been repealed due to gun-related offenses, most of them minor, such as carrying the gun where they aren't supposed to. That's only eighteen thousandths of one percent! ======================================================================== Jan. 18 update Suzanna Gratia Hupp, who saw her parents killed at Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen squared off against a man wounded in the Long Island Railroad massacre on CBS Good Morning this morning. Then there was a battle of wits between ILA Director Tanya Metaksa and Sarah Brady, who was falsely identified as the founder of Handgun Control Inc. As usual, Sarah was not armed. I'm biased, but our ladies did very well indeed. What irritated me was that CBS showed a Florida prosecutor saying that "most of the time" licensed carriers had their guns taken away from them, and were shot with their own guns. That's a lie. It almost never happens, but it's part of the anti-gun mantra. On Monday of this week I had lunch with my brother and other members of my family at the same table where two of my brother's co-workers were killed in that massacre. Rusty was supposed to have been with them that day, but a client was late. We sat about 15 or 20 feet from where Suzy and her parents had been sitting. I've been in that Luby's many times, but it was eerie. None of us were armed, and there wasn't a cop in the place. * * * * * Tuesday morning Tanya told me that NRA is running ads for Mike Smith in the Oregon Senate race, and that polls were showing that Smith is pulling ahead. Similar polls released by Smith yesterday show the same thing. That's great because he had an excellent pro-gun record in the state legislature. Despite the polls, there's no guessing how this will turn out because this is the first-ever Federal election totally by mail. The voting has already started and will continue through the rest of this month. ======================================================================== Copyright 1996 by Neal Knox Associates P.O. Box 6537 Rockville, MD 20916. Reproduction and distribution of this bulletin by any means is encouraged so long as this statement is retained. ======================================================================== Do not put your credit card number in e-mail. ======================================================================== Dear Neal, I use the information you provide to protect my gun rights. Enclosed is my contribution so that you can continue your work: $500 [ ] $250 [ ] $50 [ ] $25 [ ] Other:____ [ ] Quarterly [ ] Bill my MasterCard [ ] Visa [ ] Monthly [ ] Once [ ] Card No. ________________________________________ Expiration Date _____ Mr. [ ] Mrs.[ ]________________________________________________________________ Ms. [ ] Signature_______________________________________________________________ Address__________________________________________ Phone ________________ City _____________________________________________State ____ Zip________ Email Address ______________________ Print and mail to: Firearms Coalition Box 6537 Silver Spring, MD 20916 ======================================================================== PGP users: Remove the leading asterisks from the BEGIN and END lines before using this key. *-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAy8Q4mIAAAEEALKdSCTF6BvTg4luk1IOYtiQyxPotnTjjijSawo9htwZeFS/ KU0WAPkeDuhgKSN3H5242irpkfUu8g84fAPBH6a6joaFN7OchRa49WXnz2dReT0V iT9xeec9rPSASH04dz+lEONeDZ17yh/JGt+tjYq0CIenFZ9JMCGz4I2lBJDFAAUR tCdDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBXYXJyZW4gS25veCA8Y2tub3hAY3JsLmNvbT6JAJUDBRAv pxqvIbPgjaUEkMUBAS8BA/9PP4teu4vja6dTXkOMhVN8xgf1fl66VCc2V4A0/lli uRdf75GS1uQd+pzPIZoIReU440uuLfNSMqAAjCLHDja9ViAUllTk7YIKJMe53+nZ UnQndT2a6ikeQgh/kFxFM1z4NHgTBZ/KMg3td45WzEA3XpjWACrXWNAtYplaQ0hg Iw== =VDsh *-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMQSRlSGz4I2lBJDFAQEzAgQAgdoeB2qaM0PRapkqwOW+1BzvFW4ABR/e PXbmfDtz/FYE7aGHJQ9UyFJ5SeHaqoo/H3ah4YO7bfllYToK4gdc7UerWTq8SjK9 Un5YXBaocgqziPyECXf+GkQJfATGYJqXleI/GY1+/85juyGwGybkxK4mSD3q5H5l 0SM/wsVbRNQ= =yM/t -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To receive the Online Firearms Coalition Bulletin send mail to listproc@mainstream.com containing in the message body: subscribe fco New! http://www.crl.com/~cknox/fco.html