Issue 095

November, 2002

 

ANTI-GUNNERS EXPLOIT SNIPER ATTACKS

 

Once again, the anti-gunners are using the grisly crimes of madmen or fanatic terrorists to call for even more gun control laws to disarm the law-abiding American public.

 

This time, exploiting the Washington-area killing spree by accused snipers JOHN ALLEN MUHAMMAD and JOHN LEE MALVO, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.), the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and Sen. CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY), are crying out for a federal “ballistic fingerprinting” law, which, they say, would have “solved this crime after the first shot.”

 

Wrong again.

 

Taking a firearm’s “fingerprint” isn’t like getting inked at the cop shop. Real fingerprints stay pretty much the same your whole life.

 

But ballistic marks change with repeated shooting. And once crooks know about it, they’ll just scratch up their gun barrels and create a new set of “ballistic fingerprints” every time they go shooting.

 

Even President BUSH has come out against a national ballistic database.

 

The “ballistic fingerprint” idea appears to be useless. In two states where it has been used, Maryland and New York, it hasn’t helped convict a single criminal despite the testing of thousands of guns, according to science writer Steven Milloy.

 

That’s bad enough, but as soon as police arrested sniper suspects MUHAMMAD and MALVO, the Violence Policy Center’s senior policy analyst, TOM DIAZ, came up with a new scary term: the “sniper subculture.”

 

It’s supposedly a vast conspiracy of gun owners using books, websites and training centers who will kill us all unless...  Unless what?

 

Well, said DIAZ, maybe not ban the books and websites (that’s a First Amendment right), but federal and state lawmakers must ban the sale of some long-guns and stop training centers he contemptuously calls “sniper schools” from teaching individuals long-range marksmanship (Second Amendment rights don’t seem to count).

 

JOE WALDRON, executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), said, “This is another attempt by the Violence Policy Center to exploit tragedy and select buzz words that appeal to people’s emotions. I don’t believe it exists as an identifiable subculture.”

 

Much more seriously, in the midst of the Washington sniper shootings, House Judiciary Committee Chairman JAMES SENSENBRENNER (R-WI) announced that Maryland, a state with some of the most obnoxious gun laws in America, went nearly six months this year without providing the FBI with criminal records of potential gun buyers for use in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

 

SENSENBRENNER said that Maryland was the only state refusing to provide those records, the collection of which is mandated by the Brady Act.

 

The Maryland State Archives in March informed the federal government that it would no longer be able to participate in the background check system unless it was reimbursed for the work, according to SENSENBRENNER.

 

But Maryland has received $6.7 million from the NICS History Improvement Program since 1995 to improve its criminal records. Where did all that money go?

 

SENSENBRENNER has asked the General Accounting Office to investigate how Maryland spent the money, and also called on Maryland Lt. Governor KATHLEEN KENNEDY TOWNSEND, now a Democrat candidate for governor, to cooperate with the General Accounting Office.

 

TOWNSEND, according to CCRKBA’s JOE WALDRON, “is just another disingenuous Democrat” who demonizes guns and gun owners while demanding more intrusive gun laws, yet she has failed to enforce or support existing laws that could help catch a killer.

 

WALDRON criticized TOWNSEND and Maryland Gov. PARRIS GLENDENING for advocating the expansion of the discredited “ballistic fingerprinting” scheme to include hunting rifles.

 

WALDRON added, “KATHLEEN KENNEDY TOWNSEND is campaigning to become Maryland’s next governor by savaging the gun rights voting record of her opponent. Yet TOWNSEND, as lieutenant governor under GLENDENING, has been part of an administration that has refused to provide critical information to the NICS system. In light of recent events in Maryland and neighboring Virginia, that amounts to a gross dereliction of duty.”

 

Despite criticisms and questions about the effectiveness of the idea, TOWNSEND continues to call for a national ballistics database.

 

She is joined by New York Democrat, Sen. CHARLES SCHUMER, who recently announced he would introduce legislation for a national program, saying that his state’s 2001 ballistic “fingerprinting” law does not provide for the tracing of rifles such as the one used by Washington sniper suspects MUHAMMAD and MALVO.

 

SCHUMER spokesman PHIL SINGER said SCHUMER’s federal measure also wouldn’t necessarily locate someone like the Washington-area sniper, but it would give an immediate lead to police, who were stumped for days before apprehending the suspects.

 

National Rifle Association Executive Vice President WAYNE La PIERRE said that such a database is “flawed, unworkable and infringes on the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding Americans,” tantamount to gun registration.

 

In a move to avoid the blind rush to legislate a ballistic database into law, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) called on Congress to move quickly and require a study of ballistic imaging technology to determine its appropriate use. The study would be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences.

 

NSSF president DOUG PAINTER said, “I know it is very late in the congressional session, but I am calling on the House and Senate to bring up and pass H.R. 3491 and S. 2581, the Ballistic Imaging Evaluation and Study Act of 2002.”

 

The legislation, PAINTER said, would provide the scientific facts necessary to determine how ballistic imaging is best utilized in law enforcement. It was sponsored in the Senate by Sen. ZELL MILLER (D-GA) and U.S. Rep. MELISSA HART (R-PA) in the House.

 

PAINTER said, “There is a lot of misinformation being circulated in the media and within policy circles that ballistic imaging is ‘DNA for guns,’ and this simply is not true. We need facts and that is what this study will give us.”

 

The NSSF call is timely. A California Department of Justice Report recently said that “automated computer matching [ballistic imaging] systems do not provide conclusive results.” The report was hushed up before finally being released.

Facts are sorely needed when tragedy is so deliberately exploited.

 

ANTI-GUN PROFESSOR RESIGNS UNDER FIRE OVER FALSIFICATION

 

MICHAEL BELLESILES, the history professor who wrote that firearms were rare in early America, has resigned from Atlanta’s Emory University after a blue-ribbon panel found he “willingly misrepresented the evidence,” in his award-winning book, Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture.

 

The book claimed that America’s gun culture was an “invented tradition,” and made him an instant hero to gun-control advocates who praised him for “debunking the mythology propagated by the gun lobby.”

 

Unfortunately for BELLESILES, numerous scholars questioned his data. After Emory’s own probe found serious problems, it was his own mythology that got debunked in a 40-page report by an outside investigative committee of scholars appointed from Princeton University, Harvard University and the University of Chicago.

 

Many parts of BELLESILES’ book were faulted in the report, but the committee’s main barrage was fired at the core of his argument: his unusual use of probate records and wills that might list firearms owned by the deceased, which he claimed showed very few guns in early America.

 

It seems that data for California cited by Prof. BELLESILES came from records that were destroyed in the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906. BELLESILES later said he meant to cite Contra Costa County documents that were not destroyed, but they couldn’t be found, either.

 

The committee wrote that it “cannot prove that Professor BELLESILES simply invented his California research,” but that “neither do we have confidence that the Contra Costa inventories resolve the problem.”

 

The report said BELLESILES’ work showed “evidence of falsification,” “egregious misrepresentation,” and “exaggeration of data.”

 

BELLESILES resigned, he said in a statement, because he “cannot continue to teach in what I feel is a hostile environment.”

 

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) feels that Columbia University should immediately revoke the Bancroft Prize BELLESILES won for his book, “along with the $4,000 cash award that came with it,” said DAVE LaCOURSE, SAF’s Public Affairs Director.

 

SAF maintains a complete account of the Arming America scandal on its website at www.saf.org.

 

AROUND THE WORLD

 

The UN declares war on small arms: As many gun rights observers expected, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has asked the Security Council to find ways to force countries to trace more than 255 million firearms the UN considers illicit. Proposals include forcing firearm manufacturers worldwide to mark every single piece of military equipment with embedded serial numbers -- every part of every rifle and handgun.

 

The Swiss government wants gun control after their worst-ever shooting, in which a gunman killed 14 people in Zug earlier this year. A new law proposes to require permits to buy a gun, places bans on selling firearms through the Internet or newspaper ads, and wants a ban on imitation guns and air guns. Swiss men would still be allowed to bring their rifles home after leaving the army and in between periods of active service -- the Zug gunman used his army rifle in the shooting. Critics say the proposed revisions don’t go far enough: private ownership of guns should be banned.

 

Australia’s gun control lobby is trying to revive its failed campaign to ban semi-automatic handguns, claiming its views tally with those of most Australians. The National Coalition for Gun Control claims the ban on semi-automatic rifles introduced after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre is not enough. GARY FLEETWOOD of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia says criminalizing law-abiding citizens is not the way forward. Both groups say they will be in Alice Springs for the upcoming Australian Police Ministers Council meeting.

 

“LAME DUCK” CONGRESS MAY ADDRESS GUN BILLS

 

2002 will see a continuation of the tradition of reconvening for a special “lame duck” session after Congress adjourns for the year. Among the many critical issues left for this year’s “lame ducks” are several firearm-related proposals.

 

Bills supported by gun rights advocates include a prohibition on reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt law-abiding gun manufacturers (see next item), and the establishment of an effective armed pilots program.

 

We’re also likely to see attention given to anti-gun bills creating a national ballistic imaging database (H.R. 408 and S. 3096).

 

However, H.R. 3491, the Ballistic Imaging Evaluation and Study Act of 2001, may put the issue to a test, and has the support of most gun rights advocates.

 

TABLED GUN LAWSUIT BILL EXPECTED TO GET ACTION

 

Although House leaders concerned over the sniper killings tabled a measure that would shield gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits related to shootings, insiders expect the bill to re-emerge now that suspects are in custody.

 

The House bill cleared both the Commerce and Judiciary committees and was scheduled for a floor vote when the sniper slayings prompted the decision to hold off. Support by the measure’s 231 sponsors in the House and 43 in the Senate remains strong.

 

HOUSE PASSES NICS FUNDING, SENATE BALKS

 

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a funding bill authorizing $1.1 billion in federal money to assist the 50 states in updating and computerizing their criminal records.

 

Senate Minority leader TRENT LOTT (R-MS) tried to clear the bill for a Senate floor vote, but was unable to get cooperation from the ruling Democrats.

 

The lack of fully computerized records has been a major criticism of the system by both Democrats and Republicans.

 

POLL: MORE GUN LAWS WON’T HELP

 

A recent FOX News poll conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation found that most Americans are doubtful that tougher gun laws would help stop the kind of sniper attacks that recently terrorized the Washington, D.C. area.

 

The poll was taken by telephone October 22-23 in the evenings, one day before the arrests of sniper suspects JOHN MUHAMMAD and JOHN MALVO. In other words, the subjects interviewed were not aware that police would be arresting the alleged shooters early the next morning (October 24). The case was still unsolved in their minds.

 

Seventy-six percent of people surveyed said people like the serial snipers will always find ways around gun laws. Only 14 percent said tougher gun laws can stop acts like the sniper shootings from happening.

 

The poll also addressed the media coverage of the sniper attacks, which had been filled with live reports and press conferences on the shootings. Most Americans characterized the coverage as being sensationalized rather than responsible (52 percent to 36 percent).

 

In addition, two-thirds thought the extensive nature of the media coverage was more likely to encourage the sniper (67 percent) than to help police (16 percent).

 

Law enforcement got positive marks, even though no suspect was known at the time. Fully 79 percent thought the police and other law enforcement officials were doing a good job handling the sniper case (8 percent said bad job).

 

Concern about the sniper attacks was high, but ranked below concern over terrorist attacks and the nation’s economy.

The poll shows a majority believes in the basic right of Americans to own a gun. Fifty-six percent said all U.S. citizens have the right to own a gun. 30 percent said no (12 percent said “depends”).

NRA STICKER WASN’T ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY AUTO SEARCH

 

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a National Rifle Association sticker on a pickup truck was not enough justification to warrant a police search of the vehicle for a gun.

 

In a 2-1 decision, the Court found that police in a Dallas suburb did not have probable cause when they searched the truck of JEFFREY L. ESTEP in turned up a pistol shut in a case.

Professor Bellesiles resigns  ·  United Nations declares war on gun ownership   · Poll: More gun laws won’t help  · Supreme Court hears “restored gun rights” case  · Can an NRA sticker on your car get you arrested?   ·  They picked the wrong house in our Page Eight “Parting Shot”

Estep sued three Garland, Texas police officers over the March 29, 1993 search and his subsequent arrest. He had been initially stopped for speeding, according to the court record.

 

The vehicle also contained a camouflage jacket, according to the court. Estep heard one of the officers tell another officer that he suspected a weapon had been present because of the NRA sticker.

 

The panel’s majority wrote, “If the presence of an NRA sticker and camouflage gear in a vehicle could be used by an officer to conclude he was in danger, half the pickups in the state of Texas would be subject to a vehicle search.”

 

SUPREME COURT HEARS ARGUMENTS IN “RESTORED GUN RIGHTS” CASE

 

Gun dealer Thomas Bean obtained a court order restoring his right to own firearms after being convicted of a felony in a Mexican court in 1998.

 

Bean’s offense, having loose boxes of ammunition with no firearm in his car when he crossed the border at Laredo, Texas to have dinner on the Mexican side, isn’t even a crime in the United States.

 

Bean served a year of his five year “arms smuggling” sentence in Mexico before being returned to the U.S. in a prisoner exchange -- but he returned as a felon.

 

He fought to get his gun rights back and won in federal district court and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Then the government sought to overturn the court order restoring Bean’s gun rights, asserting that courts do not have such power. That’s how the case got to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Federal law forbids convicted felons from owning firearms, but since 1965 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) has had the authority to make exceptions when it can be shown that the felon no longer poses a danger to society.

 

But then in 1992, when the Violence Policy Center claimed that those with “restored gun rights” went on to commit more crimes, Congress barred the BATF from using any federal funds to restore gun rights to reformed felons.

 

And that’s about all the Supreme Court talked about when it recently heard oral arguments in the case of United States. v. Bean.

 

Gun rights supporters had hoped for more. With Attorney General JOHN ASHCROFT’s view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right rather than a collective right of militias, gun rights advocates had expected a strong Second Amendment argument to enter the case, but it didn’t.

 

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court, most of the Justices appeared to si