Hindsight from The New Gun Week April 7, 1995

Time, Tides and the Gun Debate

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

	Few publications have been as virulently opposed to firearms
ownership by the general public than Time magazine. Throughout its
recent history, Time has not failed to feature guns and gun ownership
in the worst possible light. Seldom have they ever presented an
objective story or one that reflects kindly to law-abiding gunowners.

	Issue after issue has dealt with guns -- kids and guns,
teenagers with guns, young adults with guns, urban dwellers with guns,
seniors with guns, etc. Guns as evil objects which cause tragedy in
our society have not been only the feature story in many issues, but
have been graphically exhibited on Time's covers in ways that are sure
to foster the most unfavorable image.

	There may still be some reporters and editors at Time who
claim that the stories are written objectively but read subjectively
by rabid gun nuts. If pushed, however, they will admit to overlooking
certain facts or not pursuing the information available from a variety
of independent sources. A typical Time story will be written before a
pro-gunner is even contacted to comment on the conclusion already
reached.

	Time has not been bashful about admitting its bias. In form
letters to readers who complained of bias in a July 17, 1989 cover
story, Time magazine, though Gloria Hammond of the publishers
executive offices, replied:

	"The July 17 cover story is the most recent in a growing
number of attempts on the part of Time editors to keep the
gun-availability issue resolutely in view. Such an editorial closing
of ranks represents the exception rather than the rule in the history
of the magazine, which has always endeavored to provide a variety of
opinions and comment, in addition to straightforward news reporting as
a way of engaging readers in interpreting the significance of issues
and events as they arise. But the time for opinions on the dangers of
gun availability is long since gone, replaced by overwhelming evidence
that it represents a growing threat to public safety. As we see it and
as we indicated in the report, our responsibility now is to confront
indifference about the escalating violence and the unwillingness to do
something about it."


Concealed Carry


	Given that 1989 editorial statement and the magazine's support
of every prominent anti-gun initiative offered in Congress, or in the
states, it was surprising to find the story on firearms in the Mar.
27, 1995 issue. Gunowners who are still subscribing to Time were
probably amazed to see the way the magazine dealt with a report on the
progress of concealed carry laws at the state level. For Time, the
report by David Van Biema in Washington, with help from other Time
reporters; Sam Allis in Boston, Greg Aunapu in Miami and Richard
Woodbury in Colorado Springs, it represented a major movement toward
traditional unbiased reporting.

	Van Biema notes that the license to carry concealed push is
being pushed on a broad front on the state level, propelled by a
number of reasons, including fear of crime and a desire for simple
clarity in firearms laws. He notes that the US has never had a unified
policy on who can and cannot carry a firearm outside the home, and
reports that there are 23 states with fairly lenient concealed carry
laws, 11 which make it almost impossible, and 16 which require a
showing of "compelling need," usually "unique need." Van Biema also
reports that the drive for new, uniform "shall issue" type concealed
carry laws is most often waged in these restrictive 16 states.

	A subhead for the Time story notes: "Barely putting up a
fight, the states are giving in to new legislation (for the right to
carry) as citizens clamor for the right to bear arms."

	The Time story leads with a report of the decision of John
Wesley Anderson, sheriff of El Paso County in Colorado, who decided to
liberalize the issuance of concealed carry licenses, after making a
November campaign promise to do so. Anderson was surprised only by the
level of the demand. The Colorado state Legislature has been grappling
with the right to carry issue, but has not moved fast enough for many
people.

	Colorado a state law which permits sheriffs and police chiefs
to issue licenses in their areas, provided that the application
demonstrates sufficient need or is well enough connected. In many
areas of the state, particularly Denver and other cities, there have
been very few licenses issued. The new right to carry law that is
being advanced in the legislature would reform the present one and
require that the licenses be issued to any qualified law abiding
citizens.

	Instituting his own local reform policy under existing law,
Anderson had expected that a thousand applications would suffice to
handle the demand, but has already handed out 4,000 application forms
and received 1,800 completed applications in the first few weeks of
the process.


Surprising Candor


	Van Biema's report is filled with surprising candor for a Time
story. Here are a few examples:

	"If the passage of the Brady Law and the "assault-weapons" ban
made 1994 a banner year for the forces of gun control, 1995 is quickly
shaping up as the year of the Great Rollback."

	"So far this year, three states (Virginia, Arkansas and Utah)
have joined the four states that loosened restrictions on CCW
(carrying concealed weapons) permits last year. Legislation is pending
or awaiting gubernatorial signature in 16 states."

	Van Biema also reports on the success of the Florida concealed
carry law which went into effect in 1987. And he reports accurately
that while 266,700 permits have been issued under the reformed law,
only 19 have been revoked for firearms-related crime. He also notes
that Florida's homicide rate has decreased by 29%.

	Of course, Van Biema quotes Handgun Control, Inc. and other
sources who are opposed to the liberalization of the right to carry
laws, but he makes it clear that the pro-gun forces concerned with
self-defense are making great headway.

	This would have been a singularly honest and unbiased report
on firearms if it had appeared in any general publication. In Time, it
is nothing short of a miracle.

	But miracles do happen. The same week that the Time story
reached readers, USA Today also demonstrated a rare doze of logic in
an editorial dealing with the firearms liability issue. Dennis A.
Hennigan, director of the Legal Action Project for the Center to
Prevent Handgun Violence, a tax-exempt sister to Handgun Control,
Inc., found himself in the unusual position of writing an "Opposing
View" commentary for the Mar. 27 issue of USA Today.

	In its editorial that day, USA Today did not abandon its
traditional anti-gun position. They made it clear that they were still
for banning and restricting firearms ownership. But they also opposed
the tort concept that the manufacturers and sellers of firearms should
be civilly liable for what people do with guns.

	"If you run over someone with your car, you're responsible,"
USA Today said. "The same applies to guns."

	In fact, the national newspaper concluded the editorial with
the following statement with regard to the suit emanating from the
high-rise law office killings in San Francisco in 1993:

	"Want real gun control? The first step should be to drop this
misplaced suit."

	What is apparent from the treatment of the issue in Time and
USA Today is that there are more and more people in the media who are
not just taking the straight HCI line to the bank. They are not even
agreeing with us all the way. But they are acknowledging the logic to
some of our arguments and that is a dramatic change from what has been
common in recent years.

	If all of this gives the folks at HCI a bit of indigestion,
that's too bad. On the other hand, they can console themselves with
the way Glamour magazine handled the issue in its current issue.

	It is interesting though to see that the anti-gun media
monopoly may not be as monolithic as it used to be. The tides have a
way of changing the coastline.


*********************************************************


The New Gun Week is a weekly publication of the Second Amendment
Foundation.  Hindsight is a weekly commentary written by SAF President
and Gun Week Executive Editor Joseph P. Tartaro. This commentary may
be reprinted so long as credit is given to the author and the
publication. For more information or to subscribe write Gun Week, PO
Box 488, Buffalo, NY 14209, or call 716-885-6408 Monday through Friday
9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST, or inquire on Compuserve to John Krull, EDP
manager - 75143,3674.
=+=+=
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the Second Amendment Foundation (206-454-7012) and the Citizens
Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (206-454-4911).  Some
useful URLs: http://WWW.SAF.Org, gopher://GOPHER.SAF.Org,
wais://WAIS.SAF.Org, ftp://FTP.SAF.Org, mailto:LISTPROC@SAF.Org (Send
the word help as the body of a message)

SAF.org and CCRKBA.org are maintained by Mainstream.net
mailto:info@mainstream.net