Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, asks "If the Bush Administration is so gung-ho for gun rights, why are they going against an overwhelming majority of the American people and the Airline Pilots Association by opposing the right of pilots to have firearms and to serve as the last line of defense in the battle against terrorism in the skies?

"And why is Attorney General Ashcroft backpedaling on the remarks he made that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of individuals, not just militias, to keep and bear arms?

"In a recent interview on Larry King, John Ashcroft said ‘Reasonable regulations regarding the ownership of weapons are appropriate’ and [the Brady restrictions] are reasonable regulations, and they’re to be defended [by the Bush Administration].

"The Administration also stated that our individual gun rights are ‘subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict possession of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse.

"So who are ‘unfit persons’? Airline Pilots? Teachers? Residents of Washington, D.C.? Right now, all three groups of people are, apparently, unfit to carry firearms for their self-defense. …

"Like its prototype, Virginia’s Project Exile, Project Safe Neighborhoods will channel gun-possession crimes that would ordinarily be prosecuted at the state level into the federal system. In addition to federalizing gun crimes, Project Safe Neighborhoods acts as a prosecution-stimulus package, funding the placement of over 700 new prosecutors (113 federal, 600 state) who will do nothing but pursue gun law violations full-time."

"In ‘There Goes the Neighborhood: The Bush-Ashcroft Plan to "Help" Localities Fight Gun Crime,’ attorney Gene Healy explains that the federal government has no authority to enact the type of criminal statutes used by the program. Although the president has promised to make respect for federalism a priority in his administration, Healy says Bush’s initiatives ‘suggest that, where it counts, political expediency will trump respect for federalism.’

"While the desire to tackle the problem of violent crime without adding to gun laws already on the books is laudable, Healy argues, gun rights groups are misguided to support Projects Exile and Safe Neighborhoods – going as far as contributing $125,000 to Exile in the NRA’s case.

Guy Gugliotta reports (Washington Post, 8/2/00, p. 1) that "A provocative new study published yesterday concludes that the 1994 Brady law restricting handgun purchases has had no effect on firearm homicide and suicide rates in states that previously had looser controls. ...

"The study reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association analyzed national homicide and suicide data between 1985 and 1997, dividing the states into two groups: 32 that adopted the Brady law's handgun purchase controls in 1994 and 19 (18 states plus the District) that already had Brady-style restrictions.

"While the study confirmed a well-documented reduction in firearms deaths throughout the country beginning in 1994, the data showed no difference in the overall rate of decline between the two sets of states.

"'Our analyses provide no evidence that implementation of the Brady Act was associated with a reduction in homicide rates,' the study said. 'We find no differences in homicide or firearm homicide rates to adult victims in the 32 ... states directly subject to the Brady Act provisions compared with the remaining control states.'"

Appearing on the June 3 edition of CNBC's Hardball was Minnesota's Reform Party Governor, Jesse Ventura.

GOV. JESSE VENTURA: "[T]here's a man in Minnesota who supports the Second Amendment, an attorney, and he's got a big sticker that you can put on your door. It's got a handgun with a circle and a line through it. ... It says, 'This is a gun-free home.' And--and he's offered to give that to people to put on their houses."

CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Why on Earth would anybody put that on their..."

GOV. VENTURA: "Exactly. ... You know what I have on my house?"

CHRIS MATTHEWS: "What?"

GOV. VENTURA: "I have a big--a big plaque that sa--has a handgun on it that says, 'We don't dial 911.'"

Joe Sobran writes in The Wanderer (6/10/99, p. 5) that "Every time a new gun control law is proposed, we seem to hear follow-up stories to the effect that the National Rifle Association is willing to support 'compromise legislation,' as if that settled that. All it really settles is that the NRA is willing to barter away the Second Amendment. Who appointed the NRA the Second Amendment's guardian, anyway? I guess it's taken for granted that all opponents of gun control have delegated the NRA to represent them, even if the NRA should opt for unconditional surrender."

PRINCIPLES ONCE SURRENDERED ARE DIFFICULT TO REGAIN

"But even if that were true -- even if nobody in this country owned guns or wanted to own them -- it wouldn't justify the strangulation of the Second Amendment. The Constitution is supposed to be nonnegotiable. That's the whole idea of a written constitution.

"Nevertheless, liberals have successfully made the NRA another right-wing bogeyman....And the question being debated is not whether we shall have federal gun control, but how much. ..."

CONGRESS HAS ZERO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT YOUR GUN RIGHTS

"As one of Rush Limbaugh's listeners put it the other day, 'What is it about "shall not be infringed" that you don't understand?' This is one issue where the Constitution couldn't be clearer. Not only is there no positive authorization for Congress to control firearms, it is positively forbidden to do so. Most of Congress' powers are enumerated in article 1, section 8 (and in a few subsequent amendments), after the words: 'The Congress shall have power....'"

MONOPOLY OF FORCE MUST BE PREVENTED

"Gun control didn't make the list, and the Second Amendment underlined the point that its absence from the list was no oversight. Part of the idea of federalism was that the federal government shouldn't possess a monopoly of power, political or military. The Ninth Amendment added that the people retain rights besides those expressly enumerated, and self defense was assumed to be a basic natural right -- 'paramount to every positive form of government,' as Alexander Hamilton put it. And the Tenth Amendment makes it extra clear that Congress has no powers besides those which are 'delegated' to it in the Constitution. ..."

NO ONE CAN SURRENDER OUR RIGHTS, IN OUR NAME, WITHOUT OUR CONSENT

"And the Constitution nowhere adds the stipulation: '...unless, of course, the National Rifle Association and the Republican Party are willing to go along with such a law.' ..."

ENOUGH "HALF-LOAVES" TO FILL A STATIST WAREHOUSE

"Ain't it always the way? Conservative and Republican 'leaders' likewise promise to hold the line against further government growth, and they wind up supporting 'compromise measures,' on the principle that half a loaf is better than a loaf. So we are left with much less than half of the Constitution. ...

"The gun control debate is an instructive illustration of how this process actually happens. The side that allegedly defends the Constitution assumes the prerogative of making concessions to the side that is committing aggression against it. Which means that the putative defenders aren't really on the 'side' of the Constitution itself."

On a crucial 51 to 47 roll call vote (Senate Roll Call no. 111, 5/12/99) in which the Senate rejected mandatory background checks on private sales at gun shows, six Republicans almost gave Bill Clinton a first-round victory in his assault on our Second Amendment rights.

The next day, there were more defections as the Republican leadership switched sides, accepting the liberal argument that social stability requires the people of the U.S. to be denied their God-given right of self-defense.

Helen Dewar and Roberto Suro report (Washington Post, 5/14/99, p. 1) that "Stunned by an uproar over the Senate's refusal Wednesday to require mandatory background checks for all sales at gun shows, Republican leaders yesterday reversed course and said they now support legislation requiring the checks."

DEMOCRATS SAY "JUMP", REPUBLICANS ASK "HOW HIGH?"

"Democrats immediately denounced the new proposal, saying it would not cover all gun show sales and was still crammed with loopholes....

"The Republican turnabout followed a barrage of criticism from President Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno and other Democrats, along with threats of a revolt from within their own ranks by a half-dozen or more Republicans who contended that the earlier vote was a mistake. ..."

NRA BOARD MEMBER LARRY CRAIG FLIP-FLOPS TO FAVOR FEDERAL CONTROL OF GUN SHOWS

"The new gun show proposal came from Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho), a National Rifle Association board member who led the fight against the mandatory background checks only the day before. On Wednesday, Craig succeeded in defeating, by a largely party-line vote, an amendment to a youth violence bill that would have required mandatory checks. ...

"Craig's latest proposal, which he said he hammered out after meetings with the NRA and restive Republicans, 'requires 24-hour background checks for all transfers of firearms at gun shows,' according to the official summary...."

NRA RETREATS ON MANDATORY GUN SHOW RESTRICTIONS

Reuters reports (Yahoo!.NEWS, 5/14/99) that "NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said in a telephone interview that the organization has said it would accept the gun show background checks -- if the FBI records, which he said were illegal, were dropped.

"He also repeated the NRA attack on the Clinton administration for failing to enforce current laws while drafting new ones. ..."

JOHN ASHCROFT LEADS EFFORT TO CRIMINALIZE POSSESSION OF GUNS AND AMMO

"In another sign of Republican distress over the gun issue, GOP leaders broadened an earlier proposal banning possession of semi-automatic assault weapons by juveniles to include high-capacity ammunition clips, as proposed initially by Democrats. The proposal, offered by Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.), was approved 96 to 2."

Reuters pointed out that "By a 96-2 vote, the Senate closed a loophole in a law that bans anyone under age 18 from buying a handgun. They extended that prohibition to youth purchases of semi-automatic assault weapons like Uzis or AK-47s.

"They also accepted a Democratic ban on importing all high-capacity ammunition clips. Those clips, which let people fire scores of bullets without stopping to reload, cannot now be manufactured in the United States but are still imported. ..."

JUVENILE CRIME BILL VIOLATES TENTH AMENDMENT BY FEDERALIZATION OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

Frank Bruni points out (New York Times, 5/14/99, p. 1) that "The gun-control measures were being offered as amendments to the crime bill, which would create $1 billion in Federal grants to toughen prosecution and punishment of juvenile crime and, to a lesser extent, enhance programs to help troubled and violent children. ...

"It not only made sales of those weapons to those under 18 illegal, but also made possession of such weapons by children without parental consent a crime. That merely brings the Federal law on assault weapons into line with the law on handguns, which was more severe. ..."

UNPRINCIPLED PANIC AS "BIG TENT" PACHYDERMS ARE ROUTED

"More surprising, senators also approved, 59 to 39, an amendment by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, to ban the import of ammunition clips that enabled assault weapons to fire more than 10 rounds at once. The manufacture of such clips in the United States is already illegal.

"Twenty Republicans joined 39 Democrats in favor of the amendment, while 4 Democrats joined 35 Republicans in opposition. Two Democrats were absent."

The anti-gun rights Republicans were:

OK TO VIOLATE SECOND AMENDMENT, BUT NOT FIRST

"' The Senate rejected, 60-39, a proposal by Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., to forbid the airing of violent programming during periods when children are likely to be watching. Critics expressed concern that it would violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, but Hollings said 'Hollywood lobbying' defeated it." (Source: USA TODAY, 5/14/99, p. 5A)