CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR THE GRPC 2000

CLICK HERE FOR AGENDA OF GRPC 1999!

Gun Rights Policy Conference 1998

by Nancy Norell
Legislative Editor

Firearms rights activists from gun organizations across the nation gathered in Seattle, WA, Sept. 18-20 for the 1998 Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC), co-sponsored by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA).

The 13th annual GRPC celebrated the seminal grassroots victory in Washington State's 1997 defeat of Initiative 676, which would have instituted the most draconian anti-gun, and anti-personal freedom law in the nation. The theme of the conference, "Grass Roots Victory!" credited the unity and hard work that defeated I-676, which, if successful, the anti-gunners planned to push in other states.

After a pledge of allegiance led by Remington "Doc" Carlson of the Washington Arms Collectors (WAC) and an invocation by Deacon Drew Petty, telemarketing supervisor for CCRKBA, SAF Executive Director John Barnett introduced CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb.

Gottlieb, in the first half of the State of the Nation address, shared with the participants his observations on the 1997 victory, "The Road Behind."

In his welcoming remarks, Gottlieb thanked the many individuals and organizations that helped make the conference possible. "I want to take a minute before I start with the State of the Nation to publicly thank John Barnett, who has really worked tirelessly putting this thing together. You have no idea how many hours it takes to put an event like this together. In addition, I’m really proud of the staff of both the Foundation and the Citizens Committee, because while this task was going on, they haven’t missed a beat in any of the other projects or things they were involved in or responses to anti-gunners around the country.

"I also want to publicly thank and acknowledge some of our friends in the industry and firearms fraternity that have helped make this possible. If it weren’t for the funds that they provided for this conference, it couldn’t be as successful as it is. We want to thank the American Firearms Council, the American Shooting Sports Council, Beretta USA, Browning, Glock, Guns & Ammo magazine, Heckler and Koch, Midway Arms, Navy Arms, McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, North American Arms, Mossberg and Sons, Savage Arms, Smith and Wesson, USA Magazines, Washington Arms Collectors, and the Washington Citizens Against Regulatory Excess (WeCARE), who hosted our reception last night. Again, without their generous contributions and help, this conference wouldn’t be what it is.

"Before we get down to business," Gottlieb said, "I want to reference you to one of the most important parts of the conference. It’s not on the printed agenda. To me, one of the most important parts of the policy conferences is networking. Without this networking, we have no communication, no movement, no gun rights victories."

Then Gottlieb turned to the central focus of the conference. "And now, let’s take a look back. Last November, Washington State voters made a clear choice whether or not to adopt one of the most restrictive handgun measures in the United States. The voters were educated in a large degree by the efforts of volunteers, many of whom are here today. They made a clear decision, sending I-676 down to a clear defeat."

The crowd applauded. Gottlieb continued, "The rejection by Washington citizens of Initiative 676 was a very historic victory for safety, responsibility and freedom. This was the most significant Second Amendment ballot measure in 15 years. It was as profound as California’s Proposition 15—a freeze on handguns—back in 1982. I-676 would have given Washington the most restrictive state handgun laws in the country. Indeed, the defeat of 676 is the political story of the year.

"The WeCARE Coalition, headed by the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Washington Arms Collectors, and the National Rifle Association, sent the initiative down to defeat with huge percent of the vote. . . .

"Save for USA Today, and a brief wire service story, the national press was silent on the political victory. Had 676 passed, every gun owner in America knows what every TV producer in New York knows. And that is that gun control would have been the lead story on the next day’s national news. Spiked stories, however, cannot diminish the impact of our victory. It was profound and enormous. It sent shock waves through all 50 states. To the gun ban movement, I-676 was not only a ‘must win’, it was also a ‘can’t lose’. Everyone knew the score."

Gottlieb reminded the audience that this was no easy win. "A survey of registered voters in mid-September asked, ‘if you were going to vote today, how would you vote on this measure? Yes, or no?’ And we were losing 2 to 1 and in some demographic categories, we were down 80% to 20%. In every poll, and news report forecasting, they were looking for a giant gun control landslide. An October fund-raising letter put out by an anti-gun organization stated that this was a crucial first step for national gun licensing laws.

"Law enforcement support was critical. More than 90% of the state’s police and sheriffs were on our side. Newspapers overwhelmingly supported our position. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, for example, commenting on the state’s average of 14 handgun accidents a year for those under age 15, noted, ‘Death or injury of even one child cannot be diminished, but if the aim is to prevent irresponsible behavior of 14 handgun owners annually, we must ask, is licensing the remaining 999,986 gun owners a means for this end?’ "

Turning to the theme of the conference, "Grass Roots Victory," Gottlieb went on, "But as with all our successful campaigns our success rests on the grassroots efforts of gun owners. On this historic occasion, gun rights advocates performed brilliantly. Gun rights advocates volunteered to take vacation time to work and further our cause. One even took off for two weeks to drive around the state in a truck to deliver signs, flyers and bumper stickers. I met with gun owners from every corner of the state, from Spokane, to Bellingham, to Yakima, to Olympia. Our volunteers delivered hundreds of thousands of yard signs, brochures, buttons, and stickers, all to bring the message to Washingtonians, that I-676 means ‘no safety, no self-defense, no privacy.’ "

Gottlieb praised political figures who supported the battle against I-676, such as members of Washington’s congressional delegation, including Reps. Doc Hastings, and Jack Metcalf and Linda Smith who appeared at the GRPC, along with others who were unequivocal in their opposition to I-676.

Gottlieb turned to other gun-rights victories elsewhere in the US. "The future of gun owners in Virginia was proved last election day as well. Gun owners there had a clear choice. They elected James Gilmore as their next governor because he supported their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. . . . He supports Virginia’s right to carry law."

Gottlieb continued, "If the gun community learns anything in the era of Clinton, it is that when we stand together, we win. When we allow our differences to separate us, we lose. You remember 1992—that’s the year we got a President who promised to preside over ‘the most ethical administration in history?’ " The crowd laughed.

"That is also the year that we told you that the Clinton Administration would be the most anti-gun in American history. In 1992, we asked for a Clinton-proof Congress. We didn’t get it. Instead, we got the Brady Act and the Clinton Crime Bill.

"As the Brady Act and the Clinton Crime bill became law, the President proved that he would live up to our worst predictions. Gun owners woke up. They began to work together. The result was the 1994 elections. You remember 1994—that was the payback year. United in our cause, we sent an unshakably pro-freedom message to the American voters and elected a pro-Second Amendment Congress."

Gottlieb pointed out that Clinton’s anti-gun agenda was not easily thwarted, that Clinton began to attack Second Amendment rights administratively in every way he could, including executive bans on imports and exports

"It is time for us to wake up and realize that Clinton and Gore have friends and allies worldwide, who are out to make guns a non-existing product. As Bill Clinton might say, ‘It’s the guns, Stupid.’ And as Diane Feinstein has said, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in, turn them all in!’

"It is time for everyone in the firearms community, from manufacturers to dealers to consumers—deer hunters, civil war reenactors, trap shooters—to bury the differences that divide us. This Gun Rights Policy Conference has been a leader in bringing us together. We have brought together coalitions of grassroots advocates in the last 13 years. When we stand together, we are victorious. We must come together again, and we must do it today—not tomorrow or next month or next year."

Gottlieb then turned the podium over to Joseph P. Tartaro, president of SAF and editor of Gun Week, who delivered the second part of the State of the Nation address: The Road Ahead.

"We’re talking about the anti-gunners and what we hear them say. It’s ‘First step. First step. First step.’

"Earlier this summer Massachusetts passed one of the worst gun bills to date anywhere in the country. All guns are registered. All guns are licensed. Handguns that are commonly carried for self-defense are eliminated. Police chiefs have complete authority to decide who gets guns and who doesn’t, and for what reason. It’s worse than what you imagine it is like in New York City. And yet, the first thing that the anti-gun leaders in Massachusetts said was, ‘This is a great first step.’ "

"In England," Tartaro said, continuing the example of the British governments creeping gun bans, "You can have certain single shots and double barreled shotguns, and a few low-powered handguns and airguns. The Tony Blair government is further restricting those firearms to make sure that even though you are going to use them for pest control, you better bring in some pests to testify, because it’s all a ‘first step.’

"Your campaign last year in Washington State to defeat 676 was successful in part because you all got together, and everybody in the state worked for it—all the national groups worked together. We shouldn’t miss the fact that we changed the terms of the debate and that is part of the key to winning public opinion.

"Alan mentioned early polling when people were still saying, ‘Gun locks. Great idea.’ And it looked like it was going to pass. When those terms were changed, and you began to discuss the issue of safety, personal privacy, and the government intruding into your lives and making all your decisions, all of a sudden, the terms of the debate were different. And that is something we are constantly going to have to be involved with as national and state organizations and even as individual activists.

Tartaro illustrated the use of polls. "There was a poll conducted and released by an anti-gun think tank that is part of the University of Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, MD, which had been very heavily keyed toward ‘personalized’ or ‘smart’ guns.

"Now we often try to answer questions the other side has about different kinds of guns by getting into technical detail. But if we get into too much technology, we’re getting beyond what the general public wants to accept. . . .

"It’s common to get into casual conversations about guns—shooting, hunting, what kind of guns they have. These people are not hostile to gun ownership, but they don’t understand the nuances of what is going on, and when Johns Hopkins has a survey asking if we should make it harder for children to shoot guns accidentally, they’re all going to say yes, because that’s a reasonable thought. But we know the reality of the issue, and the story about the poll results ended by saying that police groups oppose personalized guns or ‘smart’ guns.

"In the short run, we are faced with some very important elections in a few weeks. Every election is important. You don’t make up the House 435 seats at a time; you make it one district at a time. And where you work is one district at a time.

"There are times when we can be disappointed by the turnout of gun owners. They seem to be apathetic. In my dictionary, apathetic means, ‘I don’t care what happens.’ "

Turning to a race of vital importance to Second Amendment rights, Tartaro said, "Charles Schumer just won the New York democratic primary to run against Alfonse D’Amato for the US Senate. It’s probably going to be one of the dirtiest campaigns you ever saw, with more money than you ever saw. To win the primary alone, Schumer spent more than $8 million. He started running TV ads the day after election ’97.

"Now D’Amato is no slouch either. He’s got a war chest of over $20 million, and he’s been running commercials since last year. You can imagine what it’s going to be like the next few weeks. But what is interesting is that Charles Schumer had a major economic policy speech he was giving in Queens, NY, and lest you think gun owners are the only ones who are apathetic, as whole Americans do pretty well on the apathy score. Charles Schumer’s address, in a borough of over a million people, had an audience of twelve people." The audience laughed.

Tartaro paused and added, "Two of them were his parents." More laughter!

"The best message I can give you is this: get involved in the political process. The first thing is to be sure you’re registered to vote. That’s Citizenship 101."

Tartaro made the importance of voting clear, stressing that Clinton’s victories in 1992 and 1996 were not mandates. Clinton is a minority President, he said. "He has no mandate."

"You have to get involved in the process. Clinton was elected by less than 20% of the voting age people in America. And there are school districts in this country where if you have 5% of the voters turning out, you’ve elected a school board, a mayor, or a council member.

"So, the first thing is to register, and I recommend that you register affiliated with a party. In some states and cities the elections are decided on Primary day, not in November.

"Now let’s go to Citizenship 201. At this point you get involved IN the party politics, and in the politics of particular candidates. Now, the bare minimum you can do without leaving your TV or easy chair is to pick up the phone, call the candidate’s office and tell them you will let them put a sign in front of your house. Then you hang up the phone, and that’s all you have to do, because volunteers will come out and put up the sign. Now, you’re involved in politics. But your name goes down as somebody who did something for the candidate.

"That’s not as good as people in Citizenship 301, because they went out to get signatures on nominating petitions and put literature door-to-door. They licked stamps and did any of the thousand things that are necessarily part of the election process. Every time you do these things, your name goes on the list. And that list is an access list. . . ."

Political activities need not be limited to strictly political arenas, Tartaro pointed out. "It’s also important to do the work in your clubs—shooting clubs, collecting clubs, whatever. Have the secretary of the club find out if everyone is registered to vote—not just if they are NRA members, Washington Arms Collectors, or whatever. If they are registered to vote, find out what parties they are affiliated with. It has a bearing on who can work best with which campaign.

"You can work your way up. What’s the camel’s nose for, if it isn’t for getting under the tent? Here’s an example of how you can have an impact in politics. A family friend, right after World War II, went to school in Georgetown and became a lawyer. He decided to make his first bid for office as a ward supervisor in Buffalo. He was going to run on a Democratic line in a Republican district. It’s the vagaries of movement in America that counties that used to be Republican may now be Democrat, and vice versa. This guy spent less than $500 on his campaign. But the key is he spent all day on Election Day—and the polls opened at 6 in the morning and didn’t close until 9 p.m. at night—he spent all day driving people to the polls. He didn’t ask them how they were going to vote. He just drove them to the polls. His car had his name and bumper stickers all over it, and that didn’t hurt. He lost the race, but he produced, for other Democratic candidates in that district, more votes than they had in the 20 years prior. This man has never run for office again. He doesn’t have to. They rewarded him by putting him on a state board. He became the chairman of the board. And when he left the board, because of his knowledge of its activities as an attorney, nobody opens a grocery store, a liquor store, a restaurant without coming to this lawyer for help in getting a license. The point I am making is that he built a life from one day of driving people to the polls.

"Now stop and think what kind of impact you can have, regardless of what state or district, regardless of what party. You don’t have to drive people you don’t know. How about just calling everybody in the club, particularly the elderly, the ones who have been sick, the ones who may have transportation problems and say, ‘Do you need a ride to the polls today? What time do you want us to be there?’ How many hundreds, thousands, millions of votes could be turned out if we did this all over the country? The guy who drives the most people to the polls in 2000, may find, when 2001 dawns, that he is the head of the Treasury Department, the Justice Department, the BATF. That’s the way politics work. And we can make it work in the short term by getting involved, even just in our clubs or with our associates."

Federal Affairs Briefing

John Snyder, public affairs director of CCRKBA, next moderated a panel of federal firearms rights experts. He began the panel’s presentation with a dig at White House scandal.

"Yes," he said, "it is true that all of us on this panel are located in Washington, DC, in a working capacity. But to put you all at ease, I want you to know that I am not one of those guys who smokes cigars. As a matter of fact, I have been in favor of impeachment of the President since the day after his inauguration." The crowd laughed, and Snyder paused for effect"—his first inauguration!

"As a matter of fact, I was one of the first supporters of Congressman (Bob) Barr’s (R-GA) initiative to begin impeachment proceedings against Clinton, which he introduced last November, almost a year ago. It wasn’t given much of a chance at the time, but look what’s happened since. My reason for doing that is that Clinton is one of the most anti-gun Presidents in the history of the United States. We in the Second Amendment community have been subject to his lies before the general public became aware of his nature. We were following the ‘Trail of Corruption’ that led into the ‘Triangle of Deceit’—the three points of which are Clinton, Schumer and Brady. One of the most important issues of this panel is to examine the march toward restrictive gun control measures on the part of the gun-grabbers on Capitol Hill and in the White House. On the other hand, some steps are being made by our friends to rectify the gun-grabbers legislative injustices."

Snyder first introduced Ted Deeds, chief operating officer of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA).

Deeds focused his comments on HR-218, a measure that would provide reciprocity for active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms from state to state, and for "shall-issue" right to carry state licensees.

"HCI is caught between a rock and a hard place in more ways than one. They have professed to be friends with police, in recent years, but they never liked the ‘cops only’ version of HR-218. They find they can’t attack the measure outright, so they have fought the bill on the McCollum Amendment, which, by the way they are calling the ‘have gun will travel’ amendment. ... HCI is in the unenviable position of possibly seeing the passage of pro-Second Amendment legislation, and the defeat of their own proposals. They’re now in a defensive posture."

John Snyder reiterated support for reciprocity and concealed carry laws. "We can turn this debate around," he said, "because of the innate defensibility of concealed carry laws. All of the research supports the validity of this type of legislation. The research is so strong that it blows the opposition out of the water. It’s a way for us to take the offensive."

Snyder introduced Bob Ricker, director of government affairs for the American Shooting Sports Council (ASSC). Ricker presented the industry view on the controversial issue of trigger locks. "... the support for the child safety device was a result of a negotiated deal with the White House, Richard Feldman, executive director of the ASSC, along with some staff members of the Republican Senate. It was done with a view toward looking at reality."

Ricker noted the banners with firearms-related quotes displayed on the walls of the conference room. "I think, looking at the statements of the Presidents, one of the most interesting is the one from Bill Clinton. It says, ‘We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles that we are unable to think about reality.’ It means to me, two different things. It initially means that this guy really has no concern for our rights, but the last part of that sentence is very telling. That is the part that says, ‘we are unable to think about reality.’ The reality is that the other side has learned from us. They know that we are vulnerable in public opinion polls. It’s not about being right or wrong nowadays. It’s about perception. That’s exactly what Clinton thinks about his impeachment problems. He knows that the American people can be fooled.

"The industry started looking at gun locks many years ago. Mossberg has been including a lock with its products since 1989. The reason is very simple. When a gun is used to injure someone, whether it is accidental or intentional, the company ends up getting sued. Defending those losses costs money. Mossberg saw early on that by including a lock with their gun, when a lawsuit is filed, the plaintiff is stuck. If the customer wants to use the lock, it’s there."

Ricker continued, "What really started the ball rolling was last year, Smith and Wesson made a corporate decision to start including a locking device with their products. Again, for the same reason. It raises awareness of safety, and it’s there if the customer wants to use it. . . . Taurus announced at the SHOT Show that they were going to include on some of their products, a lock built right into the gun."

Ricker outlined how this initiative was picked up by anti-gun legislators, and how ASSC worked with Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Trent Lott (R-MS) and Larry Craig (R-ID), to develop language that ended up in the Craig amendment, which was added to one of the budget bills that passed the Senate earlier this summer.

"The industry has to look at the reality of the situation. These people run businesses. Their livelihoods and investments are there. We try to propose ideas that are solid, that benefit the gun owners. Joe mentioned the ‘smart’ gun. It’s on the drawing boards of many companies. We will see that, maybe not next year, but we will see that as an alternative. We need to think about that when we are proposing legislation. We need to come up with a voluntary plan that takes the momentum away from the other side," Ricker concluded.

Snyder introduced the next speaker, John Vellecho, communications director of Gun Owners of America (GOA). Vellecho began his comments by saying, "... I just came from the bad Washington, and I have some good news. A Congressman was mugged last night. He was jogging around the grounds of the Capitol, when someone approached him with a knife and said, ‘Give me all your money.’ The Congressman answered, ‘You can’t do that. I’m a US Congressman!" The robber answered, ‘In that case, give me all MY money!’ "

He continued in a similar lighthearted vein, saying that on the flight out to the conference he caught up on his reading, a series called The World’s Shortest Books, with several different titles, including his personal favorite, "Promises Made, Promises Kept," by Bill Clinton.

The audience applauded when Vellecho said, "But Clinton did tell the truth once. That was in 1994 when he blamed gun owners for causing his party to lose Congress for voting for the Brady Bill and the ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban. The Clinton agenda has ground to a halt because Clinton and his cohorts in the Congress had the audacity to trample on the Constitution and think we wouldn’t do anything about it. Well, we did do something about it by changing Congress."

The change, however, did not guarantee that Congress would respond, Velleco regretted. He took the Republicans to task for their failure to take a more aggressive pro-gun stance. "This Congress and the one before it has done little to roll back the gun control laws of the past, when Republicans had the excuse that they were in the minority. Handgun Control pushed for the Brady law for seven years, before they finally passed it—and we have had zero votes on repealing Brady. That’s a sad commentary on this so-called pro-gun majority."

Velleco gave kudos to Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH) who took a serious bite out of "Brady." Velleco said, "He tacked an anti-Brady Amendment onto an appropriations bill. A lot of people doubted he could pass the amendment, but in the end, it passed overwhelmingly with a vote of 69 to 31. It is possible that the entire bill will be vetoed, because it also funds the Independent Council’s office."

Velleco then outlined the Smith Amendment, which has previously been reported in Gun Week.

He went on to warn, "The Smith Amendment is a stop-gap measure, but at least it stops gun owner registration, which is a real danger under any background check system. It’s also important, as I am reminded, by a picture on my wall—a picture taken in Australia of a great big round magnet picking up people’s firearms [so they can be destroyed]. And that’s the uglier side of gun registration. The Smith Amendment is a step in the right direction, but we need more."

"When I got here yesterday, I had the privilege of touring the Seattle Museum of Flight with a group of World War II veterans. These men and many others shed their blood across Europe to stop the spread of despotism. We have to wonder about our freedom when gun owners have to go cap in hand to the government to beg permission to acquire our most basic tool of freedom. I don’t care if it’s five days, five years or five seconds."

He wound up by saying, "Do we really want to play Russian Roulette with our children’s future?"

John Snyder thanked the panel members, and went on to say, "... What happens in legislatures and Capitol Hill is directly connected to what we, and millions of people like us, are able to accomplish at the polls when we vote. There is a direct line between voting, electing candidates, and what we see in terms of laws on down the line. Public opinion is important, as well, even though it can change, just as we have seen in our own lifetime. The ‘Assault Weapons’ issue was difficult because our opponents were able to surreptitiously use an inaccurate term to brand certain semi-automatic firearms. It was a clever deception on their part. We have been able to counter that with the ‘Concealed Carry’ approach. People favor the idea of self-defense, defense of their loved ones and property. The other side has a hard time telling people they shouldn’t be able to defend their own lives. We are able to identify the right to keep and bear arms with something basic and positive, with the right to exist itself. And we win on that issue."

NRA Touts Project Exile

Barnett next introduced the National Rifle Association representative, Adam Kaufman, who is special assistant to NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

Kaufman congratulated everyone involved in the defeat of I-676, calling it a major defeat for anti-gun forces. Kaufman shared with the conference a law enforcement success story.

"You may have heard about Project Exile, a federal law enforcement program that is succeeding in Richmond, VA. It’s not news to you here today that we have 20,000 gun laws already on the books. The problem is non-enforcement. . . .

"When we read the papers or talk to police officials, we hear about today’s armed thug being yesterday’s early released felon. Lenient parole systems, liberal judges, allegedly overcrowded prisons. Now, this lack of enforcement is the prime problem in America. And NRA has been shouting about it for years. So, a year or so ago, an assistant federal prosecutor in Richmond, a Democrat appointed by the Clinton White House, called my boss, Wayne LaPierre, and said, ‘I just wanted to let you know that we are going to be doing down here in Richmond is just what you’ve been talking about in your speeches.’ Richmond instituted what is called ‘Project Exile,’ a federal effort to exile felons with guns from the streets.

"We all know it’s a federal violation for a convicted felon to possess firearms. And that always seems to be the first charge to get dropped when a criminal is picked up, but not in Richmond, not anymore. If you’re a felon with a gun, you’re going to prison. In Richmond, if you’re selling drugs and carrying a gun, you’re going to be prosecuted. If you illegally transfer a gun to a juvenile or another prohibited person, you will be prosecuted in Richmond. And if you are illegally trafficking in firearms, you will land in a prison cell.

"Under ‘Project Exile’, there are no longer any minor gun charges. No plea bargains, no early releases, no excuses."

Applause filled the hall as Kaufman said, "And to the real chagrin of anti-NRA and anti-pro-gun movement folks, Richmond has instituted NRA’s ‘Eddie Eagle’ program in schools to teach kids how to act responsibly around firearms.

"Over a year’s time, the murder rate in Richmond has reduced by 65%.

"When you and the NRA issued this challenge to the Clinton White House—‘Just give us one city with a crime problem. Implement Project Exile in that city, and the NRA will wager that we will see dramatic decreases in crime in that city.’ The President was silent. I suppose he was busy with other matters."

"Philadelphia Mayor Edward Rendell, a Democrat, offered his city as a testing ground. Since then anti-gun Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has urged adoption of Project Exile in Camden, NJ.

"After that, the White House remained silent. My boss, Wayne LaPierre, has met with both the leaders of the US House and Senate this summer on this subject. They agreed to provide whatever funding was necessary to fund the program. In fact, just a couple of months ago, Congress passed a State, Commerce Appropriations bill, and thanks to Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Larry Craig, $1.5 million was appropriated to test Project Exile in Philadelphia."

Kaufman read an ironic selection from a recent Wall Street Journal article. It said, "Philadelphia’s US Attorney’s office worries that trying Exile in a city with seven times more people than Richmond is ‘impractical, and might swamp the courts.’ "

"We might get too many criminals off the streets?" said Kaufman. "That’s a bad idea? This is something that should be tried in every court in America. Full, unflinching enforcement of the law."

Analyzing the common approach of anti-gun groups, Kaufman said, "Their view of the law is that it should be used to harass honest gun owners."

Kaufman urged the implementation of Project Exile nationwide. "Criminals know handcuffs, a trial and a prison cell will put them out of business," he said.

Part II

 

We continue our coverage of the first full day of the 13th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) held in Seattle, WA, Sept. 18-20 with a report on the State and Local Legislative Briefing panel, which was moderated by Joe Waldron, executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, before the awards luncheon on Sept. 19.

 

Waldron began the discussion by saying that the gun rights fight would be at the state and local level, now and in the future.

"You’ll see the President out there, and you’ll see Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, and Congresswoman McCarthy pushing the gun control agenda to get the media attention. But the real purpose is to focus public attention on the gun control effort at the state level," Waldron said. "We can counter them with our grassroots. The other side, unfortunately, has learned that tactic as well.

"A good local example is Washington State’s Ceasefire. Washington Ceasefire has all of a thousand dues-paying members, as opposed to the gun lobby in Washington State, which has more than 150,000 members. But the anti-gunners have one big advantage—media attention. If they hosted an event like this GRPC conference, you’d see massive media coverage.

"The anti-gunners have learned that the long-term approach is acceptable. We didn’t lose our rights overnight, and we aren’t going to get them back all at once. Last night the mayor of Seattle proposed a trigger lock ordinance like the one that failed last year. And besides, we have preemption in Washington. Seattle and other anti-gun cities can pass all the gun ordinances they want, but they are prohibited by state law. In 1995, Washington Ceasefire convinced the Olympia City Council to run a simple ballot advisory measure, asking that the state’s preemption law be overturned. It failed on a 65 to 35 vote. Sarah Brady came out and supported them on that. She had 30 people at her press conference. Twenty-eight of those people were ours who went to the conference to see what was going on."

Initiative 676

"But they got the issue before the people," Waldron reported. "A year later, in 1996, an anti-nuclear organization called Peace Action Washington came out with Initiative 190. It was similar to I-676, only more stringent. It didn’t go very far. But it got media attention. It kept the notion that owners of dangerous objects need training and need to be licensed by the state in front of the voters.

"In 1997, in the legislature, Washington Ceasefire pushed their pet bill, and HCI’s pet bill, a so-called safe storage law. We fought it successfully.

"They were back again with I-676. That initiative failed statewide, but it did pass in the city of Seattle and Mercer Island. Now, in 1998, the mayor of Seattle is talking about a trigger lock ordinance. The issue may turn out the liberal vote in a ho-hum election, but it also allows the anti-gunners to attack the preemption law in Olympia."

Waldron stated, that in his opinion, preemption is the most important law for protecting firearms rights, at least from a lobbyist’s perspective.

Waldron also pointed out the growing trend of politicized bureaucracy pushing an agenda with taxpayer’s money, citing a report by the state Board of Health.

"The battle lines are drawn," Waldron said. "Be prepared for the other side to exploit every tragedy that occurs. If you object to child safety laws, you’re going to be accused of being cruel and uncaring. I care. I want to pass on to my grandchildren the legacy of freedom that my parents passed on to me. We all want to assure that our children inherit as free an America as we did."

Waldron then introduced Brian Judy, Washington State legislative liaison for NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.

Judy said that during the fight to defeat I-676, he, Waldron, and Alan Gottlieb spent a lot of time addressing rooms full of people all over Washington state. "People came out of the woodwork to defeat 676. It truly was a grassroots victory. The future of the firearms rights movement depends on mobilization of the grassroots. In 1982, I was a grassroots volunteer in California on the Proposition 15 campaign. Sixteen years later, the fight goes on. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

He stressed the importance of cooperation. "We need to energize other pro-gun groups. If we can’t go forward, we will be in serious trouble, because the other side does have the media."

Pro-Gun Offensives

Judy asked, "What are we doing offensively? It seems that we are constantly on the defense. There is a freedom in the Bill of Rights, and the other side wants to take it away, so we are forced to act defensively much of the time."

He stated that the right to carry issue is our major offensive issue now. For example, the right to carry will be the focus of a referendum in Missouri. Right now, 31 states have the right to carry, and it’s working very well. "Many people say we shouldn’t have to get a permit to protect ourselves, but we need to work in increments. As we demonstrate that concealed carry permits work, we can move toward a Vermont-style situation."

Judy told the group that state constitutional amendments are another area in which firearms rights groups have taken the offensive. For example, Wisconsin will have the right to keep and bear arms referendum on its ballot this November.

He agreed with Waldron that preemption laws are important. "Thirty-seven or so states now have preemption," he said. "We have numerous court battles going on in California because the preemption law is not strong enough. We can push for stronger preemption laws—that’s a positive step.

"Range protection has been an issue here in Washington State," Judy said. "Suburbs are overtaking areas where we once could shoot. We are working for a law that would grandfather existing ranges."

Judy discussed initiative reform and how anti-gun and anti-hunting groups hire signature gatherers, who go to metropolitan areas to get signatures. Then the initiative is forced on the entire state, rural areas included.

California

Chuck Michel, chairman of the legislative committee of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, addressed the conference next.

Echoing the other two speakers, he said that we are paying the price in California for weak preemption laws. Many towns are attempting to pass anti-firearms laws. "The Democrat-controlled legislature in Sacramento is passing a number of bad laws that would expand the definition of the so-called assault weapon," Michel said.

He predicted, correctly, that Gov. Pete Wilson would veto these laws.

Michel also pointed out other positive steps being taken, noting that the NRA and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) are funding two programs in California to fight local ordinances.

He brought other cases to the attention of the conference, saying that the most significant "assault weapon" case in California is the Kassler case, which is in the California Supreme Court. It’s being funded by the National Rifle Association, CCRKBA, and the Second Amendment Foundation. Pro-gunners won in the Court of Appeals, and much of the California "assault weapon" law was overturned as unconstitutional.

"If it weren’t for the grass roots people who fight city ordinances tooth and nail, we would be in a lot worse trouble than we are now," Michel concluded.

Bruce Turner, vice chairman of the Washington Arms Collectors legislative committee, was the last member of the State and Local panel. He gave a history of firearms rights legislative battles in Washington state and how they related to similar battles in other states.

Turner recounted that 1994 was the last time the Seattle liberals controlled both houses of the legislature, as well as the governor’s mansion. A bill passed that, among other things, prohibited anyone under 18 from possessing a firearm except under certain very limited conditions. It prohibited the open carrying of firearms under certain conditions, increased the fee for pistol licenses, increased the fee for dealer licenses, and imposed a raft of anti-gun restrictions. Anti-gun coalitions caused the governor to line-item veto two pro-firearms rights sections when he signed the bill—range protection, and prohibition of releasing information about purchase of a handgun.

Turner went on to 1995, when pro-gun forces rolled back the fees for pistol ranges and passed legislation so that concealed pistol licenses, after a certain point in time, serve as an alternative to the Brady background check. The legislature passed a memorial endorsing and recommending Eddie Eagle in the schools. Range protection passed both houses, but was stopped by the governor.

"But," Turner promised, " we’ll be back."

He said that reciprocity for concealed carry is another important issue, as is elimination of the Department of Pistol Licensing and Registry. A bill was passed doing that but the governor vetoed it.

Turner discussed the threats ahead, saying that the other side is "working on child access, prohibitions on paramilitary training that could actually affect Boy Scout training, raising the limit for the age of possession of firearms for hunting from 14 to 16—or whatever they can get. They want to require liability insurance for gun owners and dealers. They don’t have any legislation yet, but representatives of Washington Ceasefire have been going to gun shows, asking questions of dealers about their liability."

Turner’s final warning to the conference was this: "When the Seattle liberals get their hands on both houses of the legislature and the governor’s mansion, we’re in trouble. It’s the job of the grassroots to see that doesn’t happen."

Instant Check Panel

The next panel at the Saturday morning GRPC session was, "Instant Check Not So Instant," moderated by Peggy Tartaro, executive editor of Women & Guns magazine and a CCRKBA board member.

Irwin Nowick, on the staff of state Sen. Steve Peace (D-San Diego), was first to address the conference. He discussed the unexpected instant check impact on California and other states.

He said that California could use initiative reform to require a cross section of signatures.

Nowick asked, "How does the NICS system affect California? California has always regulated firearms transactions, and we have a waiting period on rifles and shotguns, but many firearms transactions have been exempted from waiting periods and regulation—consignment returns, curios and relics for example. Now, under the NICS system, these will be subject to the background check. We will have to regulate pawn returns and consignment returns. People will have to go through all kinds of nonsense just to get their own property back. California had to change its laws to go along with the federal law. The federal government should not tell the states how to enforce their own gun laws."

Neal Knox, an NRA board member and executive director of the Firearms Coalition, was next to speak, starting out with his signature, "Good morning, Gun Lobby!" He told the conference that the NICS system is going to be a mess—for example, the direct link with K-Mart and Walmart isn’t going to be on line.

"Instant check is a prime example of the old saying, ‘if you’re up to your rear end in alligators, you forget that you got into the swamp in order to drain it.’ We got into this swamp, not to beat up on HCI, but to preserve gun rights."

Knox said that the pro-gun forces decided to beat Brady by going with an alternative tactic: instant check. But they forgot the law of unintended consequences. He reminded the audience of how NRA proposed instant check in Virginia. It was backed by HCI as well and it passed. In the next session, the law was changed to allow keeping records for 30 days. The anti-gunners then had the mechanism in place to implement "one-gun-a-month." NRA fought that, but with no success. Knox warned that pro-gun forces can look forward to the same nationally when NICS gets in place.

He shared some of the legislative history of the Brady bill.

Smith Amendment

Knox predicted that House would accept the (Sen. Bob) Smith (R-NH) Amendment on NICS fees, registration and civil recourse, but predicted that Clinton would veto the bill.

He said it is not possible to eliminate instant check. "All we can do is insure that it is not abused."

	

Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws of America and a number of other pro-Second Amendment books, spoke next.

He quipped, "Everybody in Montana has a gun—except for a few crackpots!" He said that the Brady Law expires at the end of November and predicted that NICS would not be up and running, and FFLs will have to be notified that there will be no instant check.

Korwin summarized what Brady really turned out to be: A $200 million funding mechanism to institute a national computer that can check any American for information that the FBI controls. He predicted a national ID card requirement for any gun purchase and that retail purchases will require a Social Security card and driver’s license issued under federal guidelines and local control. "NICS is a commerce-tracking system," he said. "Anything can be checked through this system, and Brady funded it."

"All of the bad, unconstitutional restrictive parts of the gun law were passed by a Republican Congress," Korwin continued. Pro-firearms rights forces thought the GOP would do what they wanted them to do, but the vote is not fixing the problem caused by excessive gun control. Statutes are not fixing it. The judiciary isn’t fixing it either. But Korwin proposed a solution, saying that we need to fight this in the court of popular opinion. "We have to win the hearts and minds of people

who don’t believe these things—Sierra Club, Sarah Lee and Sarah Brady."

Korwin said, "I want to see one prime time TV show that shows the good side of guns. ... a show like ‘Cops,’ and call it ‘Citizens.’ This show would have such great ratings! We have 20 million people listening to Rush, and another 20 million to Liddy, and North and all the rest of them. I want people to say, ‘My God! It’s a good thing she had a gun, or she would have been killed!’ "

Awards Luncheon

Heroes of the firearms rights movement were honored at the GRPC awards luncheon hosted by the CCRKBA and SAF.

Michelle Malkin, an editorial writer for The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, was awarded an SAF James Madison Award. Malkin is a gun owner and an outspoken critic of gun control schemes. In 1997, she wrote eloquently against I-676 and has recently written an excellent article entitled, "Feminization of the Gun Debate Drowns Out Sober Analysis."

A beautiful Navy Arms pistol was awarded to Grassroots Activist of the Year, Dennis Walker of the People’s Rights Organization of Columbus, OH, for his years of working to organize the grass roots. He went to county fairs to register voters, attended out-of-state sportsmen’s shows, called radio shows, wrote editorials, and taught hunter education classes, NRA personal protection and basic pistol classes.

The Gun Organization of the Year was the Microsoft Gun Club. The award was accepted by club President Jim Gordon on behalf of all the club members, who took a lead role in setting up the computer network for the fight against I-676. Many members of the club stayed on as volunteers to answer phones, perform data entry, make phone calls and donate funds.

The Washington Arms Collectors was the CCRKBA Affiliate of the Year. This organization donated $10,000 to WeCARE, gave extensive coverage in their magazine, and provided free table space at their gun shows. It is the second largest collector organization in the entire country. The award was accepted by Don Brinkley.

Mike Saporito was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award. Saporito is a former New York judge and is now the senior vice president and legal counsel for RSR Wholesale Guns. He was one of the founders of the American Shooting Sports Council (ASSC) and is a past chairman of that trade organization. He has been long active in the legislative and political debate and has testified before local, state and federal committees, written extensively on the right to keep and bear arms, and worked on building many pro-gun coalitions. Saporito was also presented with a .32 Guardian from North American Arms.

Joe Tartaro, SAF president and a long time activist for the Second Amendment and former winner of the Lifetime Achievement Award, was surprised by the special presentation of a shotgun from O. F. Mossberg & Sons, inscribed to honor his many contributions to the firearms rights cause.

WeCARE Awards

Nine Certificates of Appreciation from WeCARE were presented.

The first recipient was the Washington Council of Police & Sheriffs, the largest police organization in Washington state, representing around 6,000 police and sheriffs all across the state. Without their voice against I-676, WeCARE could not have used the "7,529 Cops Can’t Be Wrong" billboards. The Council also contributed a check for $1,000 to defeat the measure. The award was accepted by Jim Mattheis, president of the organization.

The Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association was the second recipient of a WeCARE certificate of appreciation. WSLEFIA was the very first statewide police organization to oppose I-676. Members also helped recruit other police groups and gave speeches against the measure. The award was accepted by Ron Schmitt.

The third recipient was the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA). This national organization of rank and file police shipped their executive director, Jim Fotis, from Virginia to Washington to fight against I-676. Fotis stayed at least a month, recruiting other law enforcement members and giving presentations against the anti-gun measure. Accepting the award was Laura Griffith, a legislative assistant for LEAA.

Grant County, WA, Sheriff Bill Wiester received a certificate. He was one of the first sheriffs to criticize I-676 publicly.

Sheriff Rick Bart of Snohomish County, WA, was also awarded a certificate. He wrote an excellent opinion column that was published in The Everett Herald. His opposition to Initiative 676 helped turn the Herald against the initiative and helped create a domino effect in the media.

A sixth award was given to Roy Skagen, Seattle’s retired assistant chief of police. He called his many law enforcement contacts and urged them to join the fight against the measure. He also personally donated money and door-belled his neighbors. Although Skagen was not able to attend the luncheon, he accepted the award later in the afternoon during the GRPC.

Prosecutor Norm Maleng of King County, WA, received a certificate for his opposition to I-676, which was a major reason the initiative failed in Washington’s most populous county. His opposition was cited by The Seattle Post-Intelligencer as one of their main reasons for deciding to join law enforcement against the measure.

Prosecutor John Ladenburg of Pierce County, WA, and Sheriff Gary Edwards of Thurston County, WA, both received awards, but were unable to attend the luncheon.

A special award was given to Larry Fly, a major volunteer during the "No on 676" campaign, who single-handedly gathered more than 1,000 signatures for the concealed carry reciprocity Initiative 211.

US Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), who had not arrived from the East in time for the luncheon, was presented with the Gun Rights Defender of the Year Award later in the afternoon before he keynoted the conference. Craig is the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee. He is a leader for the Balanced Budget Amendment, limited taxation, property rights, and greater accountability. A member of the board of directors of the NRA, he is one of the foremost defenders of the right to keep and bear arms both in words and in actions.

Initiatives and Referendums

After lunch, Alan Gottlieb, chairman of CCRKBA and treasurer of WeCARE, moderated a panel entitled Initiative and Referendum Ballot Battles.

Gottlieb reported that the citizen-driven initiative and referendum process is allowed in 24 states and the District of Columbia. This process has become more important to the firearms rights community in recent years, he said, and will continue to be important in the future. He focused on the initiative in Wisconsin this November, which would add the right to keep and bear arms to the state constitution.

"Another major battle," Gottlieb said, "is in Florida. What happens in Florida is often duplicated in other states." He introduced Saporito, of RSR Wholesale Guns in Winter Garden, FL, who has been working on this initiative.

Saporito explained that the referendum in Florida is aimed at preemption. The amendment that is proposed to the constitution would allow counties to make laws that extend Florida’s current three-day handgun waiting period to five days, and would also apply this to long guns. It also requires a redundant second background check on a local level. If this amendment is passed, it would overturn statutes that set up preemption.

He gave suggestions on how to fight similar proposals in other states. "First, examine election laws to make sure that you are in compliance. . . .

"Then formulate a plan and an objective. Keep focused on the goal. Identify your primary and secondary targets. The primary target is pro-gun voters. . . .

"Go to country records and obtain a list of ‘Super Voters,’ people who vote in every election. Then, if you can, cross-reference these people with those who have purchased a gun, or who might own a gun. Make sure that these people get your message."

"The next step," Saporito said, "is to get the message out. One way to do this on a shoestring is to develop a fax-tree, an email-tree and a phone-tree, even snail-mail. Media is expensive, but individuals can write letters to the editor, call talk show hosts, speak at meetings, issue press releases, or do op-ed pieces.

"Ally yourself with other groups that oppose other referendums," he advised, so perhaps your messages can be combined.

"Plan strategy." Saporito pointed out a that a common failing of many in the pro-Second Amendment movement is talking and failing to listen. "We need to spend less time talking about why to do the right thing, and more about how to do it. "

Gottlieb then introduced Gary Davis, president of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance, who shared with the conference information about Missouri’s April 6, 1999 referendum for a concealed firearm license system. He said it has taken seven years to reach this point because some feel that it is a permit system for an act that should be a right. Although the Missouri House has voted many times for a concealed carry system, the Senate has been less sympathetic. The governor has also blocked the measure. The Senate is not likely to change, but the governor cannot run for office again.

"Unfortunately," Davis said, "the major candidates for the governorship are also hostile towards concealed carry. As a referendum measure, concealed carry can become law by a popular vote, without the signature of the governor."

Davis reported that Handgun Control Inc. first suggested the referendum as a means to kill the concealed carry effort. Later, the NRA, encouraged by the I-676 victory in Washington, pushed for the referendum. The Missouri Legislative Issues Council (MOLIC), an association of grassroots gun rights supporters, has been the force behind CCW reform. MOLIC decided that since both HCI and the NRA wanted the referendum bill, to accept it rather than risk more detrimental amendments. Another group, the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance (WMSA), took another view, and voted to kill the bill, rather than accept a referendum, maintaining that it was wrong to submit a basic right to a vote.

"There is going to be a referendum," said Davis. "The only question is whether it will be won or lost. If we lose, it will set us back. But we are enthusiastic, and we will win," he concluded.

The next panelist was Dave LaCourse, public affairs director of SAF and author of two successful initiatives: "Three Strikes You’re Out" and "Hard Time for Armed Crime."

LaCourse shared his satisfaction with the defeat of I-676 in Washington State. Now, he said, The Second Amendment Foundation, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the NRA, and the Washington Arms Collectors are working together on Initiative 211, which would set up reciprocity for other states with conceal carry laws. About 24 of the 31 states with concealed carry laws have reciprocity of some sort. Last year, on a strong bipartisan vote, the Washington state legislature voted for reciprocity—but the governor vetoed the bill.

LaCourse expressed enthusiasm for I-211. "Among other things, many states with concealed carry laws will permit reciprocity only with states that return the favor," he explained. "I-211 would expand the number of states in which Washingtonians would then be able to exercise concealed carry rights."

LaCourse urged attendees to sign petitions for I-211, and to collect other signatures as well. He also said that it was necessary to counter the lies about the Initiative that are being spread by its opponents.

Other Anti-Gun Schemes

A panel entitled Gun Rationing, Smart Guns and Other Schemes was next.

The first speaker was Glen Voorhees, SAF board member and western field editor for Gun Week. He quoted the results of a poll in The Chicago Sun Times. It said that 71% of Americans wanted handguns designed so that only authorized persons could use them. Eighty-eight percent favored requiring all handguns to be designed so they couldn’t be fired by children. Seventy-eight percent of Americans said that the sale of handgun ammunition should be subjected to the same restrictions and background checks as the sale of guns. Ninety percent of Americans wanted a law requiring handgun manufacturers to make their serial numbers tamper-proof. And seventy-three percent wanted handguns to have indicators that show if they are loaded. Of the gun owners in the poll, 59% wanted "personalized" guns. Sixty percent wanted load indicators. And seventy-five percent wanted magazine safeties.

Voorhees pointed out the many intrinsic practical shortcomings of the so-called smart gun.

"One-gun-a-month limitations also cause problems. It has a devastating effect on gun shows," Voorhees said. "It makes it nearly impossible to sell or give away a collection. How about the case of a policeman, who must have a firearm for his work—two weeks after he buys his gun, it breaks. What then?"

Rights vs. Privileges

The other member of the panel was Sally Brodbeck, an NRA board member and past president of the Ohio Constitution Defense Council, and, as she told the audience, a lawyer and a mom. She began her comments by emphasizing that she was speaking for herself, and not for any other organization.

"While practical reasons against gun control schemes are important," she said, "they are also unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is a fundamental, individual, inalienable right. It is not a privilege. The right to self-defense makes it possible to exercise all of the other rights. The rights of the people are not supposed to be subject to prior restraint. Prior restraint exists whenever an initial condition must be met before people can exercise their rights. A perfect example is literacy tests for voters.

"Mandatory background checks and fingerprints for firearms purchases, mandatory trigger locks, ‘smart’ guns, or one-gun-a-month limitations—even instant check—are all prior restraint on a Constitutional right," Brodbeck asserted.

She singled out instant check. It requires that the individual prove him or herself innocent before exercising a right. It is an invasion of privacy. Third, it requires the individual to ask permission to exercise a right. And it puts the individual on a list. "We may agree to do these things if we are exercising a privilege, but they are not things we should be required to do before exercising a right," she said.

Without the instant check, we would be looking forward to the end of the Brady bill. Without instant check, there would be no FIST program, a program put together by the Justice Department in which local police departments download all of their Brady information and send it back to the Department of Justice. "It is illegal, but it is being done," Brodbeck said.

Brodbeck ended her presentation with a quote from Frederick Douglass, illustrating the importance of defending Constitutional rights.

"Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation are they who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. ... Find out what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them. And these will continue until they are resisted either with words or blows or with both. The limits of tyrants are proscribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

Part III

Alan M. Gottlieb, chairman of CCRKBA and the Talk America Network (TAN), moderated a Sept. 19 mid-afternoon panel entitled "Talk Radio: Gun Owners’ Forum" at the 13th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) in Seattle, WA.

Gottlieb gave a thumbnail sketch of how the gun-rights movement, aware of the importance of media access, became involved in media ownership.

One show he gave as an example is Tom Gresham’s "Gun Talk," which is syndicated by TAN to over 100 stations nationwide. If you don’t get this show on your local radio stations, you can get it on the Internet at www.talkamerica.com.

Gottlieb introduced Jeff Knox, who manages KSBN in Spokane, WA. Knox gave advice on how to work with local talk show stations. He said that bringing shooter-friendly radio to your town can be done. If you want to hear more shooter-friendly programming, talking with a radio station program director has only a modest impact.

More effective, Knox said, is to work with listeners and advertisers to show support for such programming, including new or local shows. He suggested selling advertising for desirable shows, and bringing the program, with the advertising already guaranteed, to radio stations.

Knox also discussed how to be more effective with calls to talk shows.

He also said that you can help educate talk show hosts with concise letters.

Election Roundtable

Next on the program was a National Election Roundtable moderated by Joe Waldron, executive director of CCRKBA.

Ron Tabor, the Republican candidate for Washington state’s 9th Congressional district, addressed the conference, stressing his support for the Second Amendment as an individual right. Tabor opposed I-676, and he asked for the support from attendees.

Ken Rineer provided details of the legal challenge to Tucson’s "Gun-Free Parks" law, now pending before the Arizona state Supreme Court.

Jim Gordon of the Microsoft Gun Club encouraged conference attendees to become actively involved in shooter training. The best way to get allies, he said, is to be a shooting buddy.

Next to address the group was Scott Hatford, chairman of the Kansas Sportsman’s Alliance. He contended that it was more effective to become active within existing party organizations and work to change the party’s platform. Being elected as a party official provides a chance to choose replacements for state representatives when vacancies occur.

Robin Ball, an NRA Election Volunteer Coordinator (EVC) for Spokane, WA, urged support for Republican Rep. Linda Smith who is challenging Sen. Patty Murray for a Senate seat. Smith, who has refused to accept PAC money, addressed the WeCARE reception the previous evening.

Billie Grey, of Harrison, OH, told the conference about an anti-hunting initiative in Ohio: Issue 1, which would outlaw dove-hunting in the state.

The next speaker explained the Nov. 3 constitutional amendment referendum in Wisconsin which would add a right to keep and bear arms provision.

Keynote Address

US Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) was introduced and awarded the Gun Rights Defender of the Year Award by Joe Tartaro, president of SAF. Tartaro highlighted Craig’s successful defense of the Second Amendment on the Senate floor when a series of anti-gun measures where offered in July. Craig, a member of the NRA board of directors, has been a consistent and effective ally in the battle to preserve Constitutional rights.

In his keynote address, Craig invited the audience to step back and take a look at the broader picture. "Did all of you know," he said, "that this is Constitution week? On Sept. 17, two hundred and eleven years ago, our Founding Fathers signed that charter." Referring to the possibility of impeachment of President Clinton, Craig said that the Congress has been giving a lot of consideration to the Constitution in the last few weeks. "... words written more than two centuries ago still guide us today. The values and principles embodied in that great document are timeless.

"The President’s troubles have instigated an important national dialogue on values. It has put the culture of the ’60s to the test, the counter-culture. Bill Clinton embodies it. ... I have seen that culture not only in the President’s actions, but in policy after policy. ... Trampling on private property rights—whether the property is land, or firearms—bought, paid for, and legally imported into the United States. Usurping the powers reserved to the states—requiring states and local law enforcement officials to serve as federal law enforcement officers. The Supreme Court stopped them from doing that with the Brady Bill, but they are still trying in a lot of other ways.

"That culture is particularly evident in the Administration’s policy toward firearms and our right to own them. Are they coming to get our guns—not directly, but if they succeed in their mission of disarming Americans’ will to defend themselves, then they will have gotten our guns. The message is that ‘guns are bad’ and, of course, you’ve heard the rest of it, that ‘ugly guns are particularly bad.’

"... They believe firearms owners are criminals. They imply that if you own a gun you are less than an American. . . . That is why so many licensed gun dealers have gone out of business. That is why they are beefing up the federal government’s role in law enforcement at the local level. The message is that guns are bad and gun use of any kind is criminal...."

He continued, "How far has this Administration strayed from the values upon which our nation was founded? . . . Our Founding Fathers drew a line and stood for the principle of human freedom. And they enshrined in the Bill of Rights a concept that all of us in this room know very well—the right to keep and bear arms.

". . . Our founding fathers knew that a firearm empowers any individual to control his own life, and collectively empowers the citizenry to control the destiny of the nation. They knew that protecting the liberty of an individual citizen is the key to protecting a nation from tyranny. With this in mind, the Administration’s anti-gun policies take on even a more serious tone. By undermining the citizens’ right to self-defense, they undermine the citizens’ independence, and the strength and the power of the federal government is then greater.

"President Clinton has made his philosophy very clear in a new edict on federalism. He didn’t just disregard the Constitutional principle of limited federal government. He just re-wrote it. His Executive Order on Federalism would have turned the Constitution on its head. . . . Constitutionalists, and state and local governments protested loudly. Bills were crafted in Congress to cancel the effect of the Executive Order. Now, the President has withdrawn his order. Does anyone here believe that this Administration is going to back away from its attempt to trample all over traditional values? . . . The time has come for Americans to draw a line and stand on it.

"I know you’ve had enough," Craig continued, "and I think Washington is almost there with you. . . .

"Dismay and disapproval won’t force this Administration to change. In the next couple of months you will all have an opportunity to draw that line. You can make a difference in policies that affect you and your right to keep and bear arms. You ask candidates where they stand on the Second Amendment. If they waffle, walk away. They don’t get your support. Take your power as a citizen and deliver the message. When the gun community activates in this country, it means the difference in nearly every congressional race of between 3 to 4% of the vote. You all know that is the difference in a lot of elections.

"In closing, let me suggest you draw the line, stand on it, stand for the principles and the Constitutional right that brought you here today—it is what will guarantee your children and grandchildren the freedoms that we have enjoyed. It is the first right above all rights, the right of self-preservation and self-defense. And that is what our Second Amendment speaks for."

With a bit of time remaining, Sen. Craig answered questions from the audience. The first question concerned turning rights over to the United Nations. Craig replied, "The President has no right to give away the sovereign rights of this country to the United Nations. That can only come with an act of Congress, and even at that, it would be violating the Constitution."

Craig informally answered further questions at the reception that evening sponsored by the American Shooting Sports Council (ASSC). Most of the questions were about the possibility of Presidential impeachment. Craig explained the process, and expressed grave disapproval of the President’s activities.

Global Gun Control

The first panel on Sunday, the final day of the GRPC was titled "The Menace of Global Gun Control." The moderator was Irv Benzion, an NRA board member and editor of the Washington Arms Collector’s Gun News.

Benzion began his remarks by saying the greatest external danger we face is gun control as promoted by the United Nations. If the US Senate ratifies a convention, or treaty, it will become US law. A convention initiated by Japan called for the UN’s Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice provision to file a survey on "regulation, as applied to civilians."

Benzion said that two UN bodies are drafting provisions that will affect gun owners around the world. A Declaration is being prepared currently. The next step is a convention, which is binding on all signatory states and their citizens.

Richard Feldman, executive director of ASSC spoke next. He said that there are many multinational groups involved in this issue—in an atmosphere "almost as Byzantine as NRA internal politics."

"Here in the US, we can vote anti-gun politicians out of office," Feldman said. "The UN does not function with the same kind of democracy and openness. Half the battle is getting into the meetings. When I testified last December at Sao Paulo, Brazil, ASSC did not have NGO status. Roy Innis from the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE), which has NGO status, allowed me to represent CORE. Understanding the relationship between gun control and racism, this was appropriate. . . .

"We, in the firearms rights community have no control over the selection of representatives to the UN. We do have some control over the people we elect to our own government. It is important to convince the staff person who handles the firearms issue for your senator or congressman that our stand is correct. If you do this, you have left a mini-lobbyist behind. We also need to convince the aide who handles international issues of our concern about the UN. The UN can come up with all the treaties they want, but without the US’ signature, the effect of those treaties is greatly diminished."

Canadian Movement

The next speaker was Edward Burlew, legal counsel for the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action (CILA). He said that the problem in Canada is that governments act out of fear and self-interest to limit rights. This limitation has become a significant international movement. Most of the countries that enjoy firearms rights do not have as strong a lobbying presence as the US. "We created the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action, last year, bringing together all Canadian firearms groups. We applied for NGO status at the UN. We are also executive members of the World Forum for the Future of Shooting Sports.

"We are also bringing Americans and Australians to speak and let Canadians know what they are in for. This has to be done at an international level. What is going on at the UN is in large part being led by Canada. The OAS treaty and the Oslo Accords have had immediate effects in the US and Canada. Any ammunition brought into Canada must be cleared with the ATF two months in advance. Ninety-nine percent of Canadian ammunition comes from the US. There are only two firearms manufacturers left in Canada. What occurs in Canada is not just the realm of the Canadian government. It is brought to Canada by international interests, who seek to limit what we have and how we use our guns."

Burlew has communicated with a group of Australian lawyers who have brought a class action on behalf of dealers whose businesses have been ruined.

In England, there are three actions—each brought by a separate group. One action is being brought under the English Bill of Rights of 1689 to overthrow the confiscation of firearms in England. Another is being brought under the European Declaration of Human Rights. Yet, another is being brought under the Free Trade Agreement among European countries.

"A spokesman for the Canadian liberals, who have been in power for 25 years, said ‘My object is to get rid of civilian firearms.’ They said it would take 50 years," Burlew noted. They are half way done. They understand that Bill C-68 (in Canada) will break the back of the gun culture. There have been many charges brought under Bill C-68, a safe storage, trigger lock law. In Ontario, with a population of over 10 million, 4,000 residents have been convicted of unsafe storage. All guns are confiscated, and the right to own a firearm is lost for up to 10 years.

"After the enactment of these laws, ordinary gun owners, not international gun traffickers, became the target of law enforcement," Burlew said. "Police check a burglarized house first for safe storage of firearms—and then the victim is arrested, his guns confiscated."

Waldron next introduced the members of a panel entitled, "Is National CCW Reciprocity Really Possible?" The panel was moderated by Julianne Versnel Gottlieb, publisher of Women & Guns magazine.

The first speaker was US Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA 9th District). Waldron praised Smith’s willingness to listen to every side of an issue.

Smith said protecting gun rights and dealing with violence were absolutely critical issues, even though facts are often obscured by rhetoric and emotion. He stated that he sought areas of agreement. One of these was reciprocity.

"Why would we deny firearms rights to people who have been checked out and proven honest and competent?" Smith asked.

Smith, whose district includes the hotel site where the GRPC was held, then discussed his co-sponsorship of both HR-339, the full reciprocity bill sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), and HR-218, the somewhat more limited reciprocity bill sponsored by Rep. Randy Cunningham (R-CA).

Then, Julianne Gottlieb introduced the other members of the panel on right to carry.

Joe Tartaro spoke first, saying that reciprocity is making its way into general publications with more approval than might be expected. He cited the Hearst newspaper group’s extensive series of articles about the gun issue in late 1997.

"Hearst publications did a good job of explaining the issue," he said. "They ran a truthful survey. Their editorials said that the majority of Americans believe that they have a right to have a gun, principally for self-defense. And when they say gun, they mean handgun. The Hearst newspaper editorials found reciprocity to be reasonable," Tartaro said, citing other media examples, which he perceived to suggest a new trend.

Julie Gottlieb said that national reciprocity bills were especially critical to women, saying we must convince our federal legislators that reciprocity and the right for self-defense is a matter of choice for women. It is a matter of choosing safety. Legislators are not used to seeing women involved in firearms rights issues, but we can convince them of the importance of self-defense to women—an issue of choice.

Dave Workman

Dave Workman, an NRA board member and editor of Fishing & Hunting News, spoke next.

Workman said that with HR-218, concealed carry reciprocity is a real possibility. "Not even Bill Clinton would dare veto it. It is pro-law enforcement."

Ultimately, Workman would like to see Vermont-style concealed carry nationwide. "We would put the criminals on notice," he said, "that we are not prey. We are not food."

Workman also opposed any move to limit firearms rights to those with concealed carry licenses.

"Get to know your congressional representative. Reciprocity is a good idea, and when the Washington governor vetoed that [reciprocity] bill, it was not because he was worried about safety. He did it for revenge on the I-676 victory.

"Please support I. 211. Help us maintain control of the state legislature in November. Your representative needs to know you, and that you vote, influence your family and friends."

Tartaro brought the situation in New Jersey to the attention of the conference. The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, with support from the Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen and the NRA, is promoting a "shall issue" concealed carry bill in the state legislature. They got the bill filed, then they had a series of lobbying days—with police chiefs, businesswomen and medical people."

Following a break, the conferees heard a panel entitled, "Guns, Gun Owners and the Courts." The panel was moderated by Michael Connelly, a board member of CCRKBA.

Connelly spoke of his experiences defending Second Amendment cases. "If you go after the judges and the ATF, you can win, he said."

Don B. Kates, noted constitutional scholar, author and pro-gun attorney, said he was not as optimistic as Connelly. "Litigation for gun cases is very difficult indeed," Kates said. "Virtually all of the people who want to take a case to the US Supreme Court are not lawyers. Lawyers are reluctant. Liberal or conservative, generally all judges dislike ordinary people owning guns.

"In Los Angeles, district attorneys were outraged when the judges issued an order that no one could carry a gun into Superior Court buildings. This meant that they could not carry a firearm into their offices. There is one exception to this—bailiffs and the judges themselves.

"The courts specifically refuse to do anything based on the right to keep and bear arms. The [Columbus ‘assault weapon’] ordinances were overturned on the basis that they violate federal standards of equal protection and due process of law," Kates continued. "I recently won a case in California Intermediate Appellate Court on an ‘assault weapon’ ban because that statute was clearly a violation of due process and equal protection under the law.

Connelly told the conference about a court ruling in Louisiana that made it illegal for state officials to use an individual’s Social Security number for any purpose except the tax rolls.

Jim Ramm, chairman of the Peoples Rights Organization in Ohio and an NRA board member, spoke next about the battle to overturn the Columbus, OH, "assault weapon" bans. The first case was in 1989, when the city of Columbus enacted an ordinance modeled on the California law, banning firearms specified by manufacturer and model.

"In late 1994, Columbus adopted a ban modeled on the one in Cleveland," Ramm said. "We filed suit again, based on the constitutional vagueness of the ordinance, and violation of the right to equal protection, after receiving about $63,000 in legal fees. We won our suit in the US District Court—the entire ordinance was shot down, with the exception of the high capacity magazine ban. The city took it to the Court of Appeals, and we won there. Not only did the Court of Appeals uphold the District Court, but ruled that the section dealing with large capacity shotguns was unconstitutionally vague. We will be seeking attorney’s fees in this case—about 60 or 70 thousand dollars. This brings me to another point, and that is that these cases are expensive, so when you have a chance to support an organization or individual who is standing up for your rights, please do so."

Doctors and Guns

Timothy Wheeler, MD, of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, a project of the Claremont Institute, addressed the conference on the subject of Doctors and the Gun Rights Diagnosis. I-676 sent anti-gun doctors a message, he said: "Get back to practicing real medicine, and leave our guns alone!"

He said, "Harborview (an anti-gun medical think tank) has a project called The Injury Prevention and Control Research Center—the IPCR. I think that IPCR stands for Insidiously Plundering our Constitutional Rights.

"If your doctor pushes anti-gun propaganda, you have a right to be angry. Your doctor has just committed a professional ethical violation. The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Physicians are all coming out with statements on that issue, under the rubric of concern about safety. The real motive is political. That is unethical physician conduct. It is what is called a ‘boundary violation.’

"A boundary violation hurts the patient; it hurts the relationship between doctor and patient, and impairs healing. Boundary violations were first discussed in psychiatric relationships, but it is now clear that they occur in general medical practices."

The patient’s needs come first. If the doctor puts his own need "to do something about guns" first, he is abusing his patient and their relationship, Wheeler said. He crosses the line from healer to political activist.

"Most doctors will shy away from scrutinizing their patient’s gun ownership," Wheeler said. "In a study done recently by the American College of Physicians, 91% of the doctors surveyed felt that firearm violence was a public health issue, but only 3% said that they frequently talked to patients about firearms in the home. Two-thirds said they never talked to patients about firearms. What this shows is, that though these doctors are concerned about firearms injuries," Wheeler said, "doctors don’t usually see politically motivated counseling as appropriate professional conduct.

"If your doctor actually asks you these questions, you do have some remedies. Changing doctors is the simplest solution. You can write a complaint to the your Health Plan’s Membership Service Department, your local medical board or your state licensing agency for physicians. Don’t make a phone call. Write a well reasoned, polite, short letter. Say that your doctor asking you about your guns is a boundary violation."

Unity Panel

The next panel, entitled "Hanging Together & Expanding Our Movement to Win," first heard from Ron Arnold, an author and founder of the Wise Use Movement, who discussed the dynamics of social and political movements.

The gun rights movement, he said, has natural affiliates, perhaps people who do not own guns, but sympathize with your right to own guns. Rights, of themselves, are important to many movements. "Groups involved with property rights might well be your natural allies. There are about 3,000 or so groups in the Wise Use Movement that could be your friends. Take a look around for other groups to form coalitions with—they can help you out in time of need."

The next speaker was Leland Bull, Esq., a board member of the Washington Arms Collectors. In Washington state, in 1996, Bull said, we had the opportunity to build the coalition against I-676—certainly one of the best examples of gun rights organizations working together anywhere. Before we started working, polls showed that 676 was favored to win. Once we formed a coalition, we were able to get our message out. With the formation of the umbrella group, WeCARE, we were able to pull together. We defeated that initiative with about 74% of the vote.

"Firearms groups have been getting together before the legislative session to determine strategy. The NRA has been important in building coalitions within the state. How far can we go in building coalitions with other groups? During 1996, we were able to bring in groups sympathetic to firearms rights, firearms owners who were not members of any group," Bull said.

The last panelist to speak was Andrew Kelley, director of communications for the Sporting Arms & Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI).

"We want shooting sports to grow," he said. "We want to educate the public on safe and responsible firearms ownership. We want to battle as many legislative fights as we can. SAAMI believes that educating the public and the media will have the greatest impact. There is an immediate need, and there is an opportunity to build partnerships.

"We do work with the grassroots as well. Your impact is felt in many ways. SAAMI feels that we have the experience and expertise to educate in a ‘don’t berate, educate’ sort of manner."

Kelley then discussed other SAAMI and National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) projects, including: a non-fiction writer’s guide for journalists; a Video News Release focusing on gun locks, and other programs to help make shooting sports more accessible.

Following a final question and answer session, the resolutions committee comprised of Dennis Walker (Ohio), John Hosford (Wyoming), Bob Weist (Tennessee), Phil Wahlbom and Lynda Staples (Oregon) presented resolutions which were debated and acted upon by the body of the conference.

Alan Gottlieb and Joe Tartaro then closed the conference with special thanks to CCRKBA and SAF staff, particularly John Barnett, executive director of SAF, for the fine job in organization of the event. Barnett announced that the 14th annual GRPC will be held in St. Louis, MO, Sept. 17-19, 1999.

CLICK HERE FOR AGENDA OF GRPC 1999!

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR THE GRPC 1999

LETHAL FORCE INSTITUTE CONCEALED CARRY SEMINAR!

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO GRPC 1999