July 12, 1998 Fight Looms Over Extending Waiting Period for Handgun Buys ______________________________________________________________ By JAMES DAO WASHINGTON -- The law requiring a five-day waiting period to purchase a handgun is scheduled to expire in November, and gun-control advocates are girding for a bruising late-summer fight with the National Rifle Association and its supporters in Congress over whether to extend it. [COMMENT: the issue is not one of guns any more than tobacco control is about tobacco; the issue is, however, about the federal government's only issue and that is control and erosion of every vestige of personal liberty that you have.] The law, part of the Brady bill that Congress approved in 1993, requires gun buyers in many states to wait as long as five working days before taking new handguns home, giving state and local authorities time to conduct background checks to weed out convicted criminals, fugitives and others not eligible to buy guns. The bill was named for James Brady, Ronald Reagan's press secretary, who was seriously wounded in the 1981 attempt on Reagan's life and whose wife, Sarah, is a leading lobbyist for extending the waiting-period law. Under the Brady law, the waiting-period requirement is to expire on Nov. 30, when a criminal data base allowing almost instantaneous background checks is scheduled to go on line. Though the issue does not cut precisely along party lines, the emerging debate has taken on a sharply partisan edge, and officials in both major parties predict that it will spill into Congressional races in several states. On one side, Republican Party officials and members of Congress have begun attacking the waiting period as an intrusive, big-government policy that has done nothing to stem violent crime. The Republican leadership in both houses is expected to try to block Democratic legislation that would extend the law. "While we want to take guns from criminals, we understand there is a Second Amendment and we're not going to strip honest citizens of their rights," said Clifford May, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, referring to the Amendment that granted civilians the right to bear arms. [COMMENT: The Constitution of US does NOT grant rights to the people; the people agree to the constitution which invests the various branches of government explict powers and only those powers, which powers are derived from the people. The USSR's constitution was given to the people, granting them rights (which were mostly ignored) by the government which derived it its power and authority from brute force. This no subtle distinction. A writer in these matters should know better.] Democrats have countered by accusing the Republicans of being beholden to the rifle association, and they are hoping to exploit the issue in several hotly contested congressional districts where gun-control is considered popular policy, including in New York's Senate race. "This is a great issue in the 1998 elections" said Rep. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who is seeking his party's nomination for Senate and is a leading advocate for extending the law. "To let Brady expire will expose the soft underbelly of Republicans: that they are extreme on social issues." [COMMENT: In this particular case, the Republicans are quite firm in not making a further mockery of our constitution.] All the remaining provisions of the Brady law, including that gun buyers pass background checks, are to remain in effect. And starting in November, the law requires that background checks be extended to prospective purchasers of all guns, not just pistols. Slightly more than half of the states, including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, are exempt from the Brady law because they have their own systems for licensing guns and checking the backgrounds of purchasers. Some of those exempted states have waiting periods that will remain in place even if the federal law expires. New York, for instance, requires gun buyers to obtain permits, which can take months. Even so, law-enforcement officials in New York and other states with restrictive gun laws say that it is important for Congress to impose tougher gun laws nationwide to stem the flow of weapons across state lines. In New York, the vast majority of firearms used in crimes are purchased from outside the state, mainly in the South where it is easier to buy guns. The new national data base, operated by the FBI, is supposed to allow gun-store owners, with one call, to check a range of government criminal, immigration and mental health records. A separate federal law, passed before the Brady bill, prohibits several categories of people, including felons, fugitives, the mentally ill and illegal immigrants, from buying guns. Before the Brady law, most states did not require background checks on gun buyers, making it virtually impossible for store owners to know whether a person was eligible. Last year, 69,000 handgun purchases were blocked because of background checks, according to the Justice Department. [COMMENT: wondeful! 69,000 violations of the constitution. How many of these were plain and simple harrassment or the result of ill kept records?] Proponents of extending the waiting-period requirement say the federal data base will not include an array of local documents that could be vital for determining whether a person is eligible to buy a gun, including state mental health records, restraining orders and domestic violence misdemeanors. They contend a waiting period is needed to give local and state officials time to research those additional documents. The proponents also say that waiting periods provide time for emotionally distraught people to cool down before purchasing pistols that might be used in suicides or crimes of passion. "It can serve as a deterrent from being able to grab a gun and act on anger or depression," said Mrs. Brady, chairwoman of Handgun Control Inc., a nonprofit group that lobbies for gun control. [COMMENT: the sun CAN now rise tomorrow too.] As a compromise to win support, the proponents say they are preparing a bill that would cut the waiting period to three days. But opponents contend that the national data base will provide sufficient information for background checks. Even with additional time, local officials are unlikely to sift through records that are not available on the federal system, they say. And they argue that there is no evidence that waiting periods prevent crimes of passion. "I just don't think Congress right now is going to be in the mood for an expansion of unnecessary gun control," said Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., a leading opponent of the waiting period. Democrats clearly believe that whether they win or lose, the debate over the Brady law will provide them a golden election-year opportunity to attack Republicans. President Clinton, who considers the Brady law a signal achievement of his tenure, is expected to push for the bill and the Democratic National Committee is preparing to use the issue in several closely contested races around the country. [COMMENT: And here you have the REAL reason; everything be damned this is a false issue, with no basis in fact, that we can use to cudgel the Republicans with, by lying and trying to scare the poor sheep of the US who used to be people. What ever happened to give me liberty or give me death?] A prime target will be Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y., who is seeking his fourth term this year. In addition to Schumer, Geraldine Ferraro and Mark Green are vying for the Democratic nomination to challenge him and all have vowed to attack D'Amato's record of opposing gun control. Democratic Party officials say that the Brady law may also become an issue in several swing districts where Democrats are putting gun control at the top of their agendas in trying to oust first- or second-term Republicans, including Reps. Anne Northrup of Kentucky, Brian Bilbray of California and Merrill Cook of Utah. "People want to have some reasonable control on guns," said Colorado Gov. Roy Romer, general chairman of the Democratic National Committee. "They support the Brady bill. And they will will interpret this fight as a plus for Democrats." [COMMENT: Boy, I wish I knew all that!] But Republican Party officials said gun control has paled as a campaign issue in recent years as the crime rate has fallen nationwide. "They've gone down this road before and it's always been a dead end for them," said Todd Harris, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. "Regardless of the public's position on this issue, voters don't want to elect liberal Democrats." [COMMENT: This one is why M. Twain called Congress our national asylum for the mentally enfeebled. Since when could the effective revocation of the Second Amendment be considered 'liberal'?] Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company ______________________________________________________________ July 12, 1998 Lawsuits Target Handgun Makers ______________________________________________________________ [RHETORICAL COMMENT: Does patent idiocy really require comment?] Filed at 12:05 p.m. EDT By The Associated Press CHICAGO (AP) -- Taking a cue from successful tobacco lawsuits, officials of at least two cities -- Chicago and Philadelphia -- are thinking of taking similar action against handgun makers. They want companies to pay for everything from the cost of a murder investigation to the $200 or so it costs to hose blood off city streets. ``You have to have somebody to haul the body away. You have to go back and start the initial investigation, and so on and so on. ... You're looking at literally thousands of dollars,'' says Patrick Camden, a Chicago police spokesman. Chicago's lawyers are looking at ways handgun makers market their wares. They say some companies play up features that might appeal to gang members and other criminals -- including an oil-resistant surface that evades fingerprints and a small size that makes a gun easier to hide. ``They make weapons more dangerous than they have to be and then they brag about it,'' says Lawrence Rosenthal, Chicago's deputy corporation counsel who's leading the lawsuit research. Several private lawsuits around the country also take issue with handgun makers' marketing techniques. One filed last month in Chicago, Young vs. Bryco Arms, accuses manufacturers of making, advertising and selling guns that are public nuisances and appeal to criminals. ``They know damned well when they send those guns off the shipping docks that there are a couple of murders in those crates,'' says Stephen Young, whose 19-year-old son, Andrew, was gunned down in 1996 as he drove down an Evanston, Ill., street. But one law professor, Dan Polsby of Northwestern University, thinks the lawsuits are weak -- particularly one in New York that claims gunmakers and sellers have created an oversupply of guns in Southern states that travel northward on an ``iron pipeline.'' ``It is remarkably, remarkably silly,'' says Polsby, an authority on firearms law. But he adds that he thought much the same of the tobacco lawsuits. ``The example of cigarettes should serve to remind one that plaintiffs can fail a lot of times in a row before they start to succeed,'' Polsby says. In one earlier lawsuit in New York, a federal court jury in March decided that a gun company and its owners were not responsible for an attack in which a young man was killed on the Brooklyn Bridge. Jurors agreed with the defense, which argued that a manufacturer cannot control what is done with its weapons after they are sold. A spokesman at Bryco Arms, the California-based company that made the semiautomatic 9 mm handgun that gang members used to kill Andrew Young, says his father's assertion is ludicrous. Bruce Jennings said the company's ads are low-key and target law-abiding citizens who buy guns for sport or protection. A lawyer for another handgun maker said any legal action should target the shooter, not the gun. ``Nobody wins when legal products are used illegally and harm somebody. Nobody wins when cars are stolen to commit crimes. Nobody wins when people drive drunk,'' says Anne Kimball, an attorney for Massachusetts-based Smith & Wesson. ``But to try to ascribe the blame to the manufacturer doesn't ... attack the real area of concern.'' That's part of the point Smith & Wesson and other handgun makers, including Glock Inc., have been making in private talks with representatives from the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Philadelphia officials have been part of the talks and have, so far, held off on filing their lawsuit. Officials of several other cities, including Detroit, are watching closely and considering filing their own lawsuits. ``We need to see progress, or we're going to have to get a little more aggressive,'' says Anthony Neely, a spokesman for Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer. Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company The information contained in this AP Online news report may not be republished or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.