What Should Be Done to Target Criime?

Raising Gun Dealer Fees Is a Worthless Proposal



Paul Simon, a self-proclaimed defender of civil liberties, is getting a lot of attention these days with his pro­posals to restrict the First Amend­ment's freedom of speech and the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.

Under the Simon plan, the government, rather than parents, would determine what kind of television shows can be viewed in a fam­ily's home. Although the censorship is based on appeals to public safety, history shows that the more power that a government has to control what can be said. the more danger­ous the government becomes .

Letting the government censor television and movie violence (or having the govern­ment coerce the media to adopt "voluntary" censorship standards) will make it much easier for future censors to outlaw other forms of speech they claim to be socially harmful-such as erotic entertain­ment or speech that fails some censor's standards of "political correctness."

The other prong of the Simon Constitution-control scheme--raising the license fees of gun dealers--is also worthless as a public safety proposal.

Since 1938, federal law has re­quired that all gun dealers obtain a license. Dealers must keep per­manent records of all their sales. Law-enforcement agents may in­spect dealer records at any time in conjunction with a criminal inves­tigation. Once a year, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms may make an unan­nounced inspection of the dealer, simply to go fishing through his or her records.


The dealer license fee, which started out at $1, was raised to $200 for three years by the Brady law. Now Simon claims that rais­ing the fee even more-to $1,800 for three years-will make us safer .

The BATF has testified before Congress that the bureau only needs about $150 to perform a thorough background check of an applicant. So the fee increase has nothing to do with preventing crim­inals from getting dealer licenses.

Given the BATF's record of in­eptitude and maliciousness-in­cluding the fiasco that led to the deaths of more than a dozen chil­dren in Waco, Texas-BATF is the last agency that deserves even more money and more power.

Raising the licensing fee by 1,700 percent will drive about 80 percent of legitimate gun dealers out of business. Will destroying more than 100,000 small business­es make America safer? Most of the smaller dealers sell a few dozen (or fewer) guns a year to friends, members of· their rifle club and other people they know. Such sales should be encouraged, because dealers who know all their customers are the ones least likely to sell to a criminal with false identification.

And small-dealer sales make sense for gun safety, too. A small-scale dealer is more likely to take the time to help the buyer pick out a firearm chat he can use safely-as opposed to a clerk at a giant shopping mart who may know little about guns or gun safe­ty.

The small business firearms dealers usually sell at more reasonable price& than do larger stores-which is why the business

association that represents the larger gun stores has endorsed Simon's proposal to drive the small guys out of business.

Some gun prohibition advocates claim that raising the dealer tax will disarm criminals such as the gang members who murdered Thomas VandenBerk Jr. Yet drugs have been illegal for nearly a century, and gang members get rich on the drug trade. Who can seriously think that raising taxes on small business is going to take guns out of the hands of people who trade in cocaine?

Helping the big gun stores earn monopoly profits will, however, help price guns out of reach for law-abiding poor people who need firearms for protection. In-depth research by Florida State Univer­sit:\{ criminologist Gary Kleck has shown that guns are used about

. 2.4 million times a year for protec­tion in the United StateIJ (usually without a shot being fired). In a study by the federal National In­stitute of Justice, 38 percent of felony prisoners said they had personally been deterred from committing a crime by fear that the victim might be armed.

So if Simon really wants to fight gun crime, he should be working to lower-not raise-the cost of protective gun ownership. And if the senator really wants to reduce television violence, he ought to tell the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to stop inviting tele­vision crews to accompany the agency's "surprise" assaults on people's hoines.

Dave Kopel is research director of the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank in Denver, Colo. His book on international gun control, The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy, was chosen as international criminol­ogy book of the year by the Amer­ican Society of Criminology.


Why restrict law-abiding citizens from carrying guns for self-defense?



By Dave Kopel






omicide in Colorado and in Denver has declined in 1993 compared to 1992. But several random murders hy youn adults in Denver helped prompt Governor Romer to call a speciallegisla­tive session. which is scheduled to end to­day, to address the issue of Juveniles own­ing guns - even though the murders were not perpetrated by juveniles. Unfortu­nately, the governor drafted his legisla­tive "call" in an extremely narrow man­ner that prevented the legislature from debating one "gun control" measure that really might have saved some lives.

Consider the case of Tom Hollar. Alter shopping for groceries late one night at the Capitol Hill King Soopers, Hollar and his wife were approached by two men in the parking lot who demanded their car keys and money. When Hollar resisted, he was murdered. His wife was abducted, only to be found later in an alley, stripped of most of her clothing and incoherent. The two men (both adults) accused of the murder have lengthy criminal records.

When Hollar's aunt came up from Tex­as for her nephew's funeral, she urged Coloradans to revise the state's laws re­garding the carrying of concealed hand­guns. She suggested that Colorado follow Florida's lead and adopt a law requiring that handgun carry permits be issued to trained, qualified citizens. Under Colora­do's law, permit issuance Is discretionary with law enforcement officials, and per­mits are issued principally only to securi­ty personnel, ex-police and those with p0­litical connections.

We don't know if Tom Hollar would have followed his aunt's advice to obtain a handgun carry permit. But under cur­rent Colorado practices, Hollar was de­nied the opportunity to make his own choice. In Denver, for example, a city or­dinance specifies that the police are sup­posed to evaluate carry permits accord­ing to certain criteria, such as the applicant's "need" and proficiency with the weapon. But the Denver police hierar­chy refuses even to allow citizens to pick up application forms.

Florida's carry law eliminates the pos­sihility for abuse of discretion, by man­dating that permits must be issued to any law-abiding citizen who satisfies fixed, objective standards.

While some overnment officials urge reliance on the police as our only protec­tion against crime. the police are not per­sonal bodyguards. The police exist to act as a general deterrent to crime. both by their presence and by the apprehension of criminals after the facl. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of the police. The result of this per­spicacity is that you can pretty much bet your life that the police will not be there when you're attacked. Your personal safety is your responsibility.

The uniform concealed carry permit law enacted by Florida in 1987 requires county authorities to issue a permit to any applicant who is a resident, is at least 21 years of age. has no criminal record, no record of alcohol or drug abuse, no his­tory of mental illness. and who provides



evidence of having satisfactorily com­pleted a firearms safety course taught by qualified public or private instructors.

The applicant must submit to a back­ground check, which must be completed within 90 days. The permit is valid throughout the state, and must be re­newed every three years. providing au­thorities a regular means of reevaluating whether the permit holder still qualifies.

Passage of this legislation was vehe­mently opposed by Handgun Control Inc. and Florida's media. The law, they said. would lead to vigilantism and to citizens shooting each other over traffic incidents and other everyday disputes.

But Florida did not fulfill the anti-gun lobby's expectation of becoming the "Gunshine State." Despite the fact that Miami and Dade County have severe problems with the drug trade. and despite the Florida prison crowding crisis that has returned thousands of violent felons to the streets, tbe homicide rate fell 25 percent in Florida following enactment of the carry reform law. There are several documented cases of new permit holders using their weapons to successfully de­fend themselves.

Information from the Florida Depart­ment of State shows that, from the begin­ning of the program on Oct. I, 1987, through June 30,1993, there were'160,823



permits issued. and only 16 permiL •. (rw· er than I in 10.000. have been rrvokrd du to the post-issuance commission of  crime involving a firearm. Clearly. the criteria established by the Florida statute are extremely effective in ensuring thaI permits are granted only to those stable. law-abiding individuals who simply wish to defend themselves if criminalll' as· saulted, and who may safely be entr'usted to carrY firearms.

The Florida leislation has been used as a model for legislation adopted by Orr gon, Idaho. Montana and Mississippi States with similar laws include Main". North and South Dakota. Washington. West Virginia and (with the exception of cities with a population in exces of I mil· lion) Pennsylvania. Vermont simply rp ­quiresthat a peron who intends to carry a gun notify the local police department.

A recent Issue Paper from the Indeprn­dence Institute examines the homicid<­rates in these states. and finds no evi­dence for the anti-gun lobby's frantk claim that carry reform laws lead to an increase in homicide. To the contrary, the experience of other states demonstrates that carry reform enhances the protec­tion of innocent lite.

Will Colorado enact its own carry rp. form law? If it saves one innocent life. it's worth it.








MAy 3,1993




A premature obituary for gun rights


 menca's coemopoUtan me­dia have n crowtng aver' the polltlc:aJ demise of the gun-rights movement. but the obituarIes may be premature. The theory that strIct gun control will sweep the nation JUst as soon all President Clinton fixes the health care problem may turn out to be wishful thinking.

There's no more llberaJ JurisdiC­tion In th United States than Madison. Wis. ProgrSS( maga­zine Is published there. Secretary of Health and Human ServIces Donna Shalala perfected the art of political corrtttness while running the UniversIty of Wlaconsln.

So when the Madison Common Counctl dded to uk voters If they wanted to ouOaw handguns In the ctty. most pundIts expected the prohIbition forces would WIn In a landslide.

But to everyone's surprise. Mad­Ison rejected handgun prohIbition

In an April 6 vote. CBS News. which had n closely follawtng the election contest. curIously did not find time to run a story about the election results.

Out In bedrock Amenca. gun­control lobbyists are getting no­where. Gun restrictions have gone down to ddeat for the umpteenth time In the legIslatures of Colol1l­do. Utah. F'lorlda. New MexIco. West Vlrgtnla. Georgta. Nebl1lSka. Washington. illInOis and Kansas. Even In more cosmopolitan Mary­land and New York. guni:Ontrol laws strongly supported by Gov3. William Schaefer and Marlo Cuomo have n killed.

Meanwhile. laws to allow cttl­zens to cany licensed handguns for protection are moving forward In WyomIng. Missouri. North Car­olina and Texas. Arkansas has enacted pre-emptive legtslatlon to ouOav.· local gun controls.

Against all the successes of the pro-rights forces. the gun-control lobbies can chalk up only two victories. Luckily for the gun con­trollers. both victories happened next to national media centers. so the media reported that the gun controllers had a 2-0 record. wherea.s the real score Is about 2­12.

Even the gun-control lobby's two wins are mixed bleSSIngs. The one-handgun-a.month btU passed In Vlrgtnla mainly because It was so margtnal. Very few handgun


buyers pun:hasc two guns at a time.

In N Jersey. Democl1ltlc Gov.

JIm FIorio,.howed ftIe pouucaj skllla by defeating an NRA-backed effort to repeal the state's "assault weapon" ban (which applies even to BB guns). The victory must be cold comfort for Florio. however. since the enactment of a gun· confiscation law In 1990 helped to cost his party control of the New Jersey legtslature.

At the national level. the odds look slim that much gun control could make It plUt a Senate rul­ buster. The ddeats of pro-i:Ontrol Sens. Terry Sanford. D-N.C .• and Wyche Fowler. D-Ga . In close elections In which the gun Lssue was cructal sent a clear wamlng to other senators In marginal seats. Conversely, strong support from gun owners helped Sens. Ar­len Specter. R·Pa., and AI D·A· mato. R-N.Y . retain their seats against strong challenges.

Only • temporary 'rlctory

The one gun-<:ontrol biD that might make It through the U.S. Senate would be a weakened ver· slon of the Brady Bill. Even then. the gun-control lobby' victory would be temporary. ?-a, Intro­duced In the new Congress: the Brady five-government-workIng· day waitIng period would automat· lcally disappear In no mon: than

five years and be replaced by the NRA alternative of an Instant. polnt-of -sale computer check or

   gun buyers ......... .

Nearly as unnoticed as the de­feata of gun control In Madison and In various state legislatures have n gun-i:Ontrol reversals In . state courts. In February Denver's "assault weapon" ban was thrown out by a Colol1ldo state court. on the grounds that It was voId for vagueness and violated the rtght to bear anns. A while before that. a Georgta court had thrown out an AOanta "assault weapon" ban on constitutional grounds. and the West VirgInia Supreme Court nixed a law forbidding the cany­Ing of concealed handguns with­out a pennl!.

Since the late 19705 gun-i:On· trol lobbyists have been feeding a credulous press stories of the sup­posed coUapsc of the pro-Second Amendment movement. Support­ers of the right to bear anna. IncludIng the NRA. 8I":'n't Invlnct­ble and never ha been.

The unreported pollUcaJ and JU­dicial action around the country suggests that we're In for. future of repeaUng old gun laW'S, rather than adding new ones.

Kooe' I •• """" 01 TM s.rrur.,. ".,. MI:x61hf1 ."" ",. Cor $IICUI<1 """"" c. "'''''''f ",. a.n Cot1,,,, •• of orr­ o.mocr.coe. ?




Should Jews Think Twice About Gun Control? by Dan Gifford & Dave Kopel

Release Date: April 29. 1994

There was an amazing and ironic juxtaposition in a Los Amgeles Times article a while ago, one that should concern Jews and all other minorities.

In one article, then-acting Attorney General Stuart M. Gerson, who happens to be Jewish, claimed that the Second Amendment won't prevent passage of federal gun control laws because, basically, it's outdated and citizens are now protected by a standing army. The message is that we should never forget lest it happen again.

We have. We have forgotten the power vacuum gun control creates for government power. Before German legal rights could be abridged, before Jews could be required to register, before the "final solution" could be enforced, the Nazi government implemented firearm purchase waiting periods, background checks, registration, and finally confiscation. The Nazi gun controls, many of which were inherited from the Weimer regime, looked reasonable on their face, with kind and gentle phrases about "public security" and preventing possession of guns not configured for "hunting and sporting activities." The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, the foundation of American gun controls, has many provisions similar to the old German laws.

No that doesn't mean that Sarah Brady or anyone pushing for a federal handgun waiting period is a closet Nazi. Gun control opponents who call their opponents "Nazis" deservedly lose credibility. But the German experience, as well as our own history, should warn us to evaluate the right to bear arms in light of its fundamental purpose: protecting people from the government.

While waiting periods, gun registration, and other "gun

controls" may sound reasonable, they are acknowledged as merely the "first step" by persons who wish to outlaw gun ownership except for police and the military. Maybe you think that's a terrific idea. But in so many societies where private firearms ownership has been curtailed, let alone those where it's been banned, the curtailment and eventual loss of other rights we take for granted has often followed.

The framers of the Second Amendment saw a relation between British monarchs such as James II aAl Charles II disarming their subjects and those same monarchs imposing a state religion. Many people in 1989 saw a connection between the ruthlessness with which the Chinese Communists suppressed the democracy movement and the fact that in China, the government has all the guns. As Mao


Zedong put it, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

The Clinton administration and its department of Justice, though, don't agree. Attorney General Janet Reno favors a waiting period as a first step to gun prohibition. Former Acting Attorney General Gerson explains "The Framers [of the Constitution] tied an uninfringeable right to bear arms to the protection of the security of the country by 'a well regulated militia'." Mr. Gerson goes on to say that since the country is now protected from foreign attack by the large standing army and by the National Guard, the Second Amendment's citizen militia is irrelevant. By Mr. Gerson's reading, apparently shared by Ms. Reno, all that the Second Amendment really guarantees is the right of government to use a citizen militia for protection.

Unfortunately, Mr. Gerson got things exactly backwards; the Second Amendment affirms a right of individual people to protect themselves from the federal government.

Indeed, when you look at the actual language, the Second Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," just as the First Amendment guarantees "the right of the people" to peaceably assemble and the Fourth Amendment guarantees the"right of the people" to be free from unreasonable searches. In the 1989 Supreme Court decision United States v. Verdugo - Urquidez. the Court explained that "right of the people" in the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments is a Constitutional "term of art" that refers to a right of individual Americans. Did Mr. Gerson overlook that case?

More fundamentally, Ms. Reno and Mr. Gerson overlook the reason why the Second Amendment recognizes a right of individuals to have guns: not for duck hunting, not for collecting, not even

mainly for shooting burglars. The Second Amendment is written to guarantee "the security of a free state." The authors of the Bill of the Rights believed that an armed populace played an important role in protecting people from a potentially tyrannical federal government.

James Madison, reassuring the American population that the new federal government could never successfully impose a dictatorship, rejoiced in "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." Madison predicted that the European dicta.(orhips, which were "afraid to trust the people with arms" would 'be "speedily

overturned" if their people had guns. Thus, in the eyes of the framers of the Constitution, the fact that America has a much bigger uniformed, standing army than it did in 1789 would be all the more reason for Americans to be armed to resist potential tyranny.


Is an armed populace obsolete in the nuclear age? If so, the proper approach is to repeal the Second Amendment, as Congressman Major Owens (D-Brooklyn) ?as proposed. Simply deciding to ignore the Second Amendment, as Ms. Reno wants to do, is no more proper than Louis Farrakham, if he were Attorney General, deciding that the First Amendment should be ignored.

And is it really true that an armed population is helpless

against a modern army? Many people in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Algeria, and Vietnam don't think so, and they were right. Modern Israel was allowed to come into being only after Jewish guerillas harassed the occupying British army so much that the British decided to get out. The Jews of the Warsaw ghetto uprising started out with only a dozen or so low-quality handguns, yet they were able to pin down tens of thousands of Nazi soldiers.

Is state tyranny in America impossible? When an indifferent government sits idly by while mobs kill unarmed minorities, that is surely state tyranny. Blacks experienced it frequently in the Jim Crow South, as sheriffs went fishing when lynch mobs formed. Jews in Crown Heights, Brooklyn experienced it in 1991, as a rioting mob murdered one Jew and assaulted many more in "retaliation" for a car accident involving a Jewish driver and a Black child. New York City's police force, under the command of politically correct Mayor Dinkins, was notably ineffectual during much of the riot.

We all want to keep firearms away from criminals and crazies.

At the same time, we need to remember that all of our constitutional rights, including the right to bear arms, are intended not to strengthen the government but to protect people from government in dire circumstances. Perhaps the souls of the Warsaw ghetto, of Auschwitz and Dachau might agree that all legal limits on

government must be strictly obeyed, so that murder sponsored or tolerated by the government will take place "never again."

Dan Gifford of Los Angeles is a former reporter for ABC News, MacNeilILehrer News Hour and CNN. Dave Kopel of Denver is Research Director with the Independence Institute, a think-tank In Denver. (Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election oP' . .legislation action. Authors speak

            for themselves.)



; IN THE VIRGISIA legislature, Dem­rats nd Republicans are arguing about what. k.Jnd of gun laws will slow the flow of ,vlrglDla guns into the hands of New York ;CII)' streel criminals. Omitted from the ebate has. e the most important ques­non: po YIma guns actually supply New York s cnmsnals?

                                                                                      . The evidence suggests Dot.        ,

       !                                                                               " True. Go\'. riler and Batman both

       !                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           mSlSt that VlrgJnJa IS the main source of

uns used in violent crimes in New York II)'. And gun-conlrol advocates recite sta­:_ 'stics indicating thaI the federal Bureau of

Alcohol. Tobacco and Firearms found that

. I percent of New York City's "crime uns" came from Virginia.

:.. But the bureau does Dot trace every IUn confiscated by the police. ID New York

Cit)', the police ask the BA TF to trace only percent or less of the guns that the police Ize.


-, The small fraction of guns that the

 A TF is asked to trace may not be repre I ntative of crime guns as a whole. That

fact was clearly demonstrated during the

1989 controversy over "assault weapons."

In early 1989, two journalists from the _Cox Newspaper chain studied gun traces run bv the BA TF and announced that 10

percent of the guns traced by the bureau were "assault weapons," and that hence 10 _percent of crime guns were "assault weap­ons."

But the actual data from police depan­"ments contradicted the assenions based on .BA TF traces. For example, in Los Angeles,  19 percent of the guns that the BA TF was , asked to trace were assault weapons. But

 when the Los Angeles police took a com­prehensive inventory of the guns that they

                                                                                     · _ bad taken from criminals. they found that                                                                                                     In tracing the guns, the BA TF simply

       only I percent were assault weapons.                   looked up the serial numbers to see wbere

 . The same story was repeate.d in. e the gun was originally sold. The bureau did . • pohce departments of other major cIties not attempt to determine bow the gun:

= uch as Ne York. San FranCISCO, v.:ash moved from Virginia to New York. Thus, a'

      IDgton, Chicago, Denver and San Diego.                        I' V· .                         d b                  t1

Assault weapons usually amounted to 1 gu sto en In Irglma an su seqen. y

•• percent of crime guns, sometimes as much ppe to New York shows/up as a Vlrgln

                                           •                                                       . la gun m the New York tf'4ce· 4ata .

  .= as 3 percent, but never anywhere close to ,                 So'                                  f :. .•                 I .

       10 percent.                                                                             where s e ?r. that guns so d

' Given the wide gap between BA TF over the counter In Vlrglma are a large pan traces of assault weapons (10 percent oftbe of New York City's gun crime problem? It = total) and actual police data about use of isn't there.


     ·the guns in crime (only I percent of the                                   .

      tota!), is it safe to use BA TF traces to lay                 Before Jumping IOtO a wrestling .th

 the blame for New York's gun crimes on over hw to fUl the .problem of Vlrg1Dla.

       Virginia? Probably Dot.                                          guns belOg smuggled IOto New York, Gov.

  =                                                                Wilder, the legislature (and Batman) would

have done better to determine whether there really was a problem in the first place.



Most of the guns traced from New York back to Virginia were not connected . with violent crime. Last year. only 32 of the guns that so traced were thought to be related to violent crimes.

True, it's been claimed that all the Virginia guns were taken from "crime scenes." but you have to keep in mind what constitutes a crime in New York City: just owning an unlicensed handgun. Except for influential folks like Donald Trump, it's very difficult to get a license to own or carry a gun in New York City. Accordingly, as many as 2 million New Yorkers own illegal handguns, since they know that the city is dangerous and the police cannot be every­where at once.

Thus, when a policeman conducting a traffic stop finds an unlicensed handgun under the front seat of a secretary's car, the secretary gets charged with felony posses­sion of an unlicensed gun. And if the gun came from Virginia, it's counted as a New York City crime gun, although most people don't consider owning a handgun a crime.

Indeed. the frightened secretary is more likely to own a traceable bandgun than are street criminals. Ordinary folks who own guns for protection rarely file ofT a gun's serial number (thus making it untra­ceable). But according to a National Insti­tute for Justice study of convicted felons, 60 percent consider a gun's untraceability "very important" and another 21 percent consider it "a little" or "somewhat" impor­tant.

Of course, 32 of the violent criminals who were caught in New York City had Virginia guns bearing serial numbers. Were those guns smuggled in along tbe so-called iron corridor of Interstate 95, after being bout by straw purchasers in Virginia? Again, the BA TF trace data don't say.







'\:'L\lffi;:; w'dI <o:P':O "",,o I  T' II; :,?,o;

    allJ \) \, II) KoPtL                                                                           •.• garden was for growing manJua t.espasslng, listened .unconvll1ced wise.                            and Ibrns posed a threat to an bccause he couldn't see Ihrough

When the FBI lIoslane Rescue na, the drug ne.\us needed to gel to some lies about being sent by a One marshal shot the family H!I helicopter circling over the Ihe door's window. A drawing he

'eam (I! RT) \lew te> Rlby Ridge, the Defense Department to assist real eslate agent to check out dog in the back as it ran, away cahin as long as the copier was in made several days later. reveals d,lIlO. on Aug. 21, 1'1')2, it was In their surveillance.) The mar somc property, repeated Ihat they lrom II/m In Ihe direction 01 Ran tI,1e </Ir .leadlng somc to wonder whal he thought was belund the II1Jer the impression it was going shals knew Ihis was a lie; it's in wen: trespassll1g, and they left. 'dy. Another mal:shal shot Sammy II Ihe helicopter was In the air as door: Weaver and 11Is 16-year-old

                                                      LJ perhaps Ihe nh)sl dangerous sit- their reports, One doesn't booby                                      On the mornll1g of Aug. 21, aft 'afte Sannny hred toward IllS an excuse 10 kill.                    .                                                       daughter Sara.                                                       "

                                                                                                                           "ilion il had ever faced. Randy trap a place where children and er three marshals managed to lure dog s killer . an;l. was, .In lurn, But the snipers  <md !helr FBI                                                                                                                            Defemhng all of their actions

VeahT lias supposedly incredibly dogs run loose. the lamily dog to chase after killed, by IIams. r he third mar- supervisors - were lYing. The related to Ruby !{Idge at congres­angerous, having been, among The marshals told the FBI that them, they werealso chased by the ishal latally shot Sammy .'11, the copter was unlhrcatened by slonal hearings, !cderal authOrities

                                                            ther things, traiued by the Unit Weaver would kill an    federal three deer hunting males. Randy, ,b<ck as Sammy, heedll1g 11Is lath IIams Id Weaver, and H RT lead some senators to wonder


          St'II" \rmy                                                                                                                tit t h' l' taking a different route from 1115 er s orders to go home, ran. knew It. I he hehcopler was gener what they had learned from the

   , c.,,   .               agen w 10 wen on 0 IS property     "                 •.    , , .

Tl rUI        ' . Cd '            I                                       I II t I        r· t J son, Sammy, and sonhke fllend As, the I'BI "Hostage Rescue ally below the ridge hne, nSll1g mnltmlllllOn-doliar fiasco, Appar-

  ) .                     W'IS nflCJI:     uy t H: arh       la H \\'i1S car lcr supcc C K . II'    r         .          "                                     .

.    ,    "        "       fl'     .   I rr f I     "    eVIn                         ams, came Irst to view Tcam, sllIper-observcrs        took bneOy lor a qUIck View, and never ently, they learned to he, The

Inned Sidtes Marshals SerVice, a tllel1enll1g t le I  OtIC prest- two of the three marshals, The their places the next day they visible to the cabin long enough to unthreatening Weaver is still a ,Inch has bc'en ob>erHng Weaver delll 01 the United States and the third was not only dressed in cam- were under orders to shoot :Irmed allow a clear shot. dangerons threat in their testimo­nd hi> family dnd Inends for govem.>r of Idaho. 1 he laller ouOage, but hidden in the woods, adult males on sight, if the shot But lIoriuchi had two "clear" ny. Why, he even killed his own e"rlyl.) year:, an.\lols lO arre,l char!?e la? beeJ Invsllg:ted, and According to the government, wouldn't endanger the children. shots. One wonnded Weaver, SO!l, the day before he was threat­m. IIlIlh),Ut cunlront,ltlon" 1"11 dlS,m.': a.b)lS yelrs al'crby Weavr had been seeking a violent As nlper Lon Honllchl PUI it, the whom he thought was Harris. The elllng their helicopter.

"Irllil .. III l11arsh,ds t,old th I BI th Sccrt Senlce - and th n1.r- confrontation with the feddal deCISion had already been made other went through the cabin's h,ll 'VCl\Cr l'l,IY h,IVC ,?ooby r,,- shals knw thaI. . government for nine' years. that armed adult males pO,sed an open fronl door and Randy's ': ,III 'Iod hIS. hc>us dd al- Indeed, 111 spnng 19n, tw,o Armed, knowing. two armed snp- nl1medlate deadly IhreaI. It s hard wife's head before striking lIarris, !en area . " IlIch Ihcy c,lIled a marshals strayed onto Weaver s porters wre comIng from the oth to see how, slllee Ihe sl11pers care- whom IIOlluchl thought was the Cl)mpl)nnd. propeny. Wilhout threatening er ,ide, Randy looked at the two 'fully hidlhemselves from view. same man he'd jusl shot at. lio-

n hey had earlier a"efled that them with the gun he generally marshals, Ilirned tail, and ran, But the snipers invented anoth- rinehi insisted he didn't know



PAGE 7 * '11m COLORADO STA1T!'SMAN "* ,July 28, 1905 ."* uTILe ignorculce of one voter is a democracy impairs the security of all."  John R Kennedy

Handicapping the 1996 race for President




Sizing IIp the '96 ractp for presiclent, cont .

 { so much monoy that he was tho only'

major candidate over to turn down

\ public financing in tho primaries, so ( as to not be bound by fund-raising

. limits. Connally won exactly one .

                                                                                                                                                                                                              delogate, tho most oxponsive in                                                                                                                                                                                                               .


As a Senator, Phil Gramm has put his heart and soul into debates over spending issues. While he has generally votod conservative on social issues, he has not (unUl tho Foster nomination for Surgeon General) led' tho charge. A similar emphasis on monoy over people has churacterized his Presidential campaign. He has raised money at a rato that could pay

, off the national debt in a few years,

i but he has not built a strong volunteor

'\ network.

                                                                                                                                                                                                              !                                                                                                        The Gramm fizzle has, "                                                                                                                                                                                                               .

I understandably, been one of the

[ major conventional wisdom stories of

 tho 1995 phase of tho Presidontial olection. But don't rulo Gramm out

. yet.

Back in 1983, Gary Hart announced for the Presidency, and in the first half of tho year, was toutod. by notional pundits as being at the

, .  . ..•...•.•. --.

By Dave Kopel

With the flrst Presidential primary over half a year away, the conventional wisdom has already announced which candidates have things just about sewn up [Dole), which candidates are just about finished (Gramm). and which . candidates have defied the death sentence that the conventional wisdom imposed half a year ago (Clinton). A word to the wise: take all the conventional wisdom with a grain of salt. Instead, here's some unconventional wisdom about tho prospects for the 1996 race.

BjlJ Clinton: Yearbefore



extrapolations about a Presidential general election are notoriously unreliable. In 1971 and 1983, Presidents Nixon and Heagan had only tiny leads in the polls (and very high negatives). but they went on to win landslides. Conversely, President Bush looked unbeatable in the summor of 1991. On the other hand, somotimos trouble signs in one year really do forecast problems the next year, as with President Carter.

President Clinton has, of course, done well to prevent any serious Democratic challenger from taking him on. This allows him the advantage of spending all his primary



money in a manner calcu]ated to work as advertising for the general election. (Such as his recent paid political television ads which incongruously proclaim that President Clinton's governing policy is "not about politics." Sort of like a Budweiser ad claiming that the product is "not about beer.")

Even if Bill Clinton trails in the polls by twenty points three weeks before the election, it would be foolish to coun(,}lim out. He is the only man in history to have won the Presidency after losing tho New Hampshire primary.

Although it is commonly assum{Jd

..•. , . .CD.tinut>u from Pagt> 7


about taking the Truman analogy too far. Although Truman's first term had some major mil itary and foreign policy accomplishments, Tnunan's second tenn was by most accounts a failure. Truman's approval rating sank to a depth that no President ever eclipsed until Richard Nixon shortly before ho was forced to resign. Tho Truman,second term also set up the Republicans for their dramatic 1952 victories, in which they captured the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.


Bob Dole. Republicans tend to be more hierarchical than Democrats, and the fact that Doie has paid his dues results in many Republicans thinking that it is now Dole's "turn"

.·to have the nomination-as if the Presidency wore some kind of gold watch to be handed out for meritorious consumption of chicken at Lincoln Day fund-raisers. Such thinking eacHer led the national Republicans to nominate Richard



that a Jesse Jackson third partY";', candidacy would be fatal to Clinton's chances, it ain't necessarily so. In

1 948, President Truman faced the equivalent of a Jackson candidacy (former Vice-President Henry Wallace's third-party ticket advocating appeasement of Stalin). as well a fourth-party candidacy (Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrats). Thurmond's white-supremacist ticket carried four Southern states, and defections to the Wallace ticket let the Hepublicans carry New York, Truman still prevailed.

Democrats, though, should hesitate Continued on Page 111

Nixon in 1960 and 1968, and George Bush in 1988, and led Colorado Republicans to nominate Ted Strickland two times for governor. The last time the Republicans have not nominated the early front-runner for President was 1940, whon

Wendell Winje, "the barefoot boy from Wall Street," captured tlie nomination, defeating the party reguiars who favored Robert Taft or Thomas Dewey. Other than facilitating tlle import of slave labor products from China, it is hard to find many enduring accomplishments of tho Nixon-Bush presidencies, a

record which might suggest that electing yet anotlJOr Hepublican President whose only ideology is his ambition might not be such a good idea.

Like Walter Mondale in 1983, Bob Dole has support that is a milo wide and an inch deep. As was Mondale, Dole may be vulnerab]o to an insurgent candidate .

PMI Gramm. The specter of JOhJl Connally hangs heavy over Phil:., Granun's campaign. Democrat-turned­Republican COIUlally of Texas raised

t op of the second tier of Democratic candidates (underneatll Monda]e and , Glenn). But in tho second half of 1983, the campaign appeared hopalessly stalled: there was no

; money; Hart was going nowhere in

: the polls, and tlle campaign had no coherent message. But in early 1984, Pet Caddell gave Hart some new ideas about shaping his messago; a rag-tag band of "Gary's Guerrillas" helped Hart squeak into second placo in the

. Iowa caucus; Hart mortgaged his home to pay for telovision commercials in New Hampshire, and Gary Hart suddenly found himself surfing on one of the largest tidal waves ever to hit American politics. Hart nearly knocked Mondalo out, and it was only at tho very end of the primary season that Mondalo finally scraped together enough delogates for tlle nomination.

Phil Gramm, for all hi 1995 troubles, is a lot stronger today than Hart was in 1983. So don't think that you've heard your last Dickio Flatt

, story.

       .        Hart's near knock-out of Mondale

Continued on Pago 19


in 1983 illustrates the sometimes unexpected effect of a front-loaded primary calendar. Mondale's allies (the Democratic party regulars in almost every state), had front-loaded the primaries so as to maximize the advantages of Mondale's money and organization, and to prevent a challenger from gaining strength over a long primary season. (The Minnesota primary was obligingly scheduled for the same day as the mid-March illinois primary,

which was supposed to be the day that Mondale wrapped up the nomination.)

But when Hart won New Hampshire, Mondale, like the victim of a judo throw, found that all his strengths had set him for a very hard fall. Mondale's inch­deep support evaporated, and

Hart won one primary and caucus after another, as Mondale lacked the time to slow Hart's

momentum. All of a sudden, the illinois primary, only a few weeks after New Hampshire, loomed as the date when Mondale would be knocked out of the race. (In part as a result of some mistakes by Hart, Mondale narrowly won illinois, and thus ensured that the front­loaded primary season turned into

                                                   a marathon.)                                    .


The 1996 Republican schedule

is even more front-loaded than the Democrat 1984 schedule, and is again supposed to favor the richest candidates (Dole, Grariim, and Wilson). If Dole does what Mondale could not, and convincingly wins every one'of the early contests, then. he can sew up the nomination and stop pretending to be a hard-right conservative. But if one of the lesser­known candidates can break through early, then the large number of Republican regulars who endorsed Dole may find themselves with an unexpected surprise nominee on April Fool's day.

Speaking of practical jokes, this brings us to Bob Dornan, nephew of the TIn Man from The Wizard of Oz, . and the only Representative to blame somebody's mother for his short checks at the House bank. (He was . using the money to build a shrine to the Virgin Mary in his back yard.)

Doman's career illustrates the steady erosion of the lines between politics and entertainment. He was a talk-show host before being elected to Congress, and these days, he sits in as a guest host on the Rush Limbaugh show.

The largest recipient of individual campaign contributions in the 1994 Congressional campaigns, Doman ought to have built up a much larger volunteer base and have raised much more money than he currently has.

Perhaps Doman's problem is that his main issue specialty is national security, and without a Soviet Union, national security just doesn't get folks fired up. Dornan's other issue, flamboyant opposition to gay rights, gays in the military, gays in the classroom, and gays in America, has apparently been co-opted by the Buchanan campaign, which puts gay­baiting in the broader context of baiting numerous other


minority groups. (Unlike Buchanan, Dornan was a civil rights activist in the

1960s, and he proudly wears a belt buckle given him by the Israeli Air Force, thereby limiting his baiting options.)

Could Pat Buchanan actually win he Republican nomination? Well, \'es. if Dole stumbles and Wilson :eplaces Dole as the centrist, big­money candidate. All the moderate

Republican candidates have alienated one element of the core Republican activist groups: Dole has supported numerous tax increases; Specter has pitted himself against the religious right; and Lugar has broken campaign promises by voting for gun prohibition. But only Pete Wilson has aggressively set himself against tax reducers and the Christian right and gun rights activists. A Buchanan­Wilson contest would turn into a replay of the Main Street vs. Wall

Street contest that characterized the 1964 Goldwater-Rockefeller contest and the 1980 Reagan-Bush contest Main Street won those two races, and the Wall Street faction of the Republican party is less powerful now than it was then.

Any success by Buchanan will be music to Clinton's ears, since the more plausible a Buchanan presidency becomes, the more that the Democratic base will be frightened into sticking with the Democratic President, despite the President's support (this month) for balancing the budget at some point after he leaves office.

The Clintonites had been counting on Phil Gramm to do the job of scaring the Democratic base into supporting Clinton, but Buchanan would be much more effective for this purpose. First of all, have you ever been scared of an economics professor, even a mean one? Second, the top item on Gramm's social agenda - abolishing race and gender quotas - isn't nearly as scary to many minorities as Clinton would like to think. Third, Gramm's other big social issue - federalizing crime control even further - is one where Gramm and Clinton differ on many details, but not on the basic premise of increased federalization. Finally, tagging Gramm as a racist is rather difficult, since he is married to an Asian-American, economist Wendy Gramm.

In contrast, it is doubtful than when the young Pat Buchanan was dating women in Washington, D.C., that there were the names of many Black women in his little black book.

As a writer with a four-decade long" career, Buchanan has made a rather large number of remarks which most Americans would consider


Buchanan's fundraising letters have nothing to say about any kind of freedom agenda (e.g., gun rights, lower taxes, or home schooling, as some folks define freedom). Instead, the pervasive theme of the fundraising is that various types of

many of you are on both the Buchanan list and the NOW mailing list?), you might think .that Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, and the rest of the Republican right are all cut from the same cloth. And from the point of view of abortion rights and gender quotas, they basically are. But Buchanan, virtually single-handedly, has brought nativism and protectionism back into the Republican party.

Unfortunately, this demonstrates Buchanan's potential to attract crossover Democratic votes, both in open primaries and in a general election. Buchanan's predecessor as the leading voice of protecting manufacturing jobs for Americans rather than letting [non-white)

:/ Ainericans have them was 1988

. DE)rnocratic presidential candidate Richard Gephardt, who found a rather sizable base of support among Democrats for protectionism.




So where does this lead? If Buchanan does not win the nomination (and he probably won't, since he hasn't been waiting his turn and speaking at party rundraisers as long as Dole), he may come into the San Diego convention with a large bloc of delegates, and a huge base of volunteers. Like Jesse Jackson, with his strong second-place finish in 1988, he will have the right to major concessions from the nominee.

Buchanan can't get too many concessions on the party platform; since the Republican platform is already so hard-right, there's not much more to ask for. Buchanan can, if he has done well in the primaries, credibly threaten to lead a walk-out and a third-party [or fourth-party, if Jackson runs) campaign, if Dole tries to move to the center by choosing a moderate, pro-choice running mate (such as governors Weld, Whitman, or Wilson).

If Dole (like Bush in 1988, and Eisenhowerin 1952), needs to choose a Vice-President who can appeal to the party's right-wing activists, who

people (subtext: homosexuals, immigrants, feminists) are out to get you and destroy your way of life, and only Pat Buchanan can save it. This of course assumes that your way of life is based on the premise that the 1950s were great [when men were men, and women were subservient) (and people of color didn't exist, at least not on television).

If, on the other hand, you read fundraising letters from the National Organization for Women [and ho

can he pick? Buchanan himself 6uld frighten too many folks. All the middle-aged ladles in tennis shoes who refer to a person's "gender" rather than her "sex" would spend hundreds of hours ringing doorbells to help Clinton-Gore beat Dole­Buchanan. Same for all the folks who say "persons of color" rather than "minoriti es."

"B-1 Bob" Dornan, the mouth that roared, is too much of a loose cannon for Dole to trust.

That leaves, as a logical choice for Dole: Alan Keyes. Keyes would excite, and not merely appease, the Republican right. Keyes accuses Buchanan of not talking enough about abortion. Keyes defends the right to arms as grounded in the necessity of the people to be able to resist a tyrannical government. [This viewpoint is in accordance with the original intent of the Second Amendment, but, for obvious reasons, not very popular among career politicians.) He is a pro­home schooling, anti-United Nations, quota-hating, tax slasher social conservative par excellence. All of Buchanan's little old ladies in tennis shoes would go wild for him.

He is also Black, and, in personal style, not very scary.

Americans who are skeptical about quotas can vote for Dole­Keyes, impervious to Clinton's moralistic assertions that opponents of quotas are insensitive to racial justice.

Currently a radio talk-show host and Presidential candidate, Keyes is an outstanding, passionate orator. In contrast to Dole and Clinton, he also has a lot to talk. about, since he has deeply-felt ideological reasons for wanting to be President.

Now Keyes probably can't get very far on his own steam. His campaign is at least as disorganized as the Jesse Jackson campaigns. During his second run as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in Maryland, Keyes used campaign funds to pay himself a Senate-level salary. There was nothing illegal about this, but Keyes is without even a solid base of volunteers in Marvland.

But as a vice-presidential candidate, Keyes would be supplied with organization, staff, and living expenses by the party.

Certainly Keyes is not the only choice for a Republican nominee who is looking to his right. Tax-reforming Texas Representative Bill Archer and Dick Armey have also been mentioned, and both of them may impress the public as far more capable than Keyes of assuming the office of the Presidency in case Dole's health turns worse. Keyes' oniy public offices thus far have been as a member of the American delegation to the United Nations, jobs which [like hosting a radio show), are long on talk, but short on the hard decisions of governing.

The Dole campaign has been leaking word that California Attorney General Dan Lungren is Dole's first choice for Vice-President. Although Lungren's enthusiasm for asset forfeiture, gun control, and expanded police powers willlirnit his appeal to some activists, he has a strongly

pro life record, which Dole believes will solidify conservative support.

Still, if Keyes can keep his campaign going past New Hampshire, and thereby gain some national visibility, the Republican party may just win the race to put the first person of color on a nationai ticket.

A Boulder attorney and a Democrat, Dave Kopel was a researcher for Gary Hart's 1984 and 1988 Presidential ampaigns.





  0"'"  .•.•..•.•. L"""

By David Kopel low income and crime," as Barbara that Hill and O'Neill discovered that Onceagain.congressisgearingup Dafoe Whitehead noted in her "Dan a 50 percent increase in AFDC and to spend as much money as possible Quayle was Right" article in The foodstampbenefitsledto I 17 percent

    enacting a pointless crime bill.                                                                    Atlantic. increase in crimes perpelraled by

                                                                                                                                         r. But almost by accident. congress                         So, if illegitimacy leads to crime; young black males. The increase in

may end updoingsomelhing which. then what leads to illegitimacy? crime was primarily a long-tenn " in the long run. will lead to a major ChangingsocialmoresareonefaclOr result of the increase in illegitimacy. decrease in violent crime. lhat is beyond government's reach. In other words. the government's f And Colorado may do thC same But the current welfare system is promotion of illegitimacy through < thing withoulwaiting for congress to another factor, which congress and the misnamed ".welfare system"

                                                              . act . '<.' "         _:. the Colorado legislatueshould creates concentric circles of victims.

( Last ·summer. the Democrats in refonn immediately.  '" _._·n' . nlegitimate children are the first . congress got tough on crime in their . You get what you pay for and the set of victims because they grow up

favorite ways: by cracking down on current welfare system pays. women in homes without.':! father. The next law-abiding gun owners (through a to have illegitimate children  . Set of victims are persons murdered. banshovelingmoneyatvarioussocial Dr.O'Neillfoundthata50percent robbed and raped by these children programs.) '·',I::.!:I '. :_!.h.''.I.' ••• .'.i;; increase in the value of fOod stamps. when they get ?Ider.' Finally; as .0' TheR,epublicans are now poised _ . andAFOCledtoa43percentincrease politicians slash at the Bill of Rights ,

:fr::thCi'r:turl1;!j thc"prciposedt:)nthe'nuberor out.of-wlock\; in a ftile. ef!"0.ct to be'"tOg" ,on :;?': _.,:':,:.


getting" the- co·nstitutiOat ban 'on  thatan increaseo.fonly $lo.qtp$:?T metim3ie_ci!f!o !,lf0:J2 u.n!e cs ,an s:cizurf?s. _ ir:a annua1 wctfare ncfits led to a: homes don't become criminals at· .

Y·I.I<!:!?'frtt_in.lC:·f __ }?)11gi}:bi;__?v . y';})O­iIlegan_:se der.<1 . t· by tee!:13ge1'it11i\iEEt_f1ca;.ply_g_,_ ' 1;1,.: Si.K£onl{ a 'tinypem;iiiagcof,f"i! Rghly half the increaSe in black; leas!', IS ;more :years' of· eSCaIatin 'c1'ases are disffiissedon tIiC b3sisofillegitini3cysinCethemidI960'scari;;'crime; as the childre;;whom

&ad Ches;:ii'iStWrl tosec bc;.Pji@;f1t@)g'E,1:

scrappmgtheFourthAmendmentls. benefits and_eaSier ehgl:Hhtyto·be3r:"'but-not·to·'raise pro 'oing to he1p make us safer."·l':i··:::; standards':i::";'":,;':"5· '_,.""!.:.:} . :;t' become adoIescents.;; __ •.  .. ,_: "'_·:;:i, __ . _ . ,.' ButforalltheunproductivedebatC·,.L .•. Increased,welfare benefits andf"'BuI'a 'massive change in th5":C,,: bo'_" federal '' .bills:: .both::riereligibility:pave I) ·shown to:_'::_('ineriti'ofme welfare system will ;:;i: .\ Rei"iblicansand oenibcr:itsSeeined:; have.ledto higherillegitimacy rntes:: 1e3d, in the, 10 a significa';L" 'l;,

to havef?und a c"n.sensus on doing'''' by hothblack and'white leenageffi:_: in illegitimacy,'And that,in the3;:;. Somethirig'wh_ich'could 'cut ·crime:; 'Y!elfar<:.almost; al;i.aYs ,implic;'s_ :!,.1ong-run:_'N.ill··A.T;lrica h':p •

: =\::t 11:::!f.=;r;f·j:;;t'i1trrit:;ci

Schaffei', and· Mike' Coffman" and',i" Th'US: it should not be:surpriin_; h.depencIn.,C.,InStitub,iDGoiden.)'!:;;"'

f '8:5iaBf·i"··!,r\i:;;:Lr,ii'::O:if'}

            ,,;; . ',w,. ,. 'C·"                                  •• "'.'''' •• ",."' •                                                                 •}'it' . ? .• ,·,·,. ,rCORTlRHOTPOST/1

lst;::.,:\ i; . ',;, fWlq;; Ilj?:;r

     .' . , ... ..,'.a:'" ... . ·':·",""c./., . w, I,·;·II.:.";!.                                       ,'\ .

:{:g:l::'; 1.!f

.".;;., Almost 70 percent of juveniles: ':;"'.,"'"

of other single-parent families, the

",!di .?f the young, man becoming

,involved in cr1n1e are tripled.':

f';};iesC: findil{g;' are based ·'·>a

sidicOnducted for the Department

of Health and Human Services by M.

'Anne HiU and June O'NeiU ofHealth

BaruchColiege. Thesludycarefully

held constant all socioeconomic

. variables (sucli'is income, parental

. educatio, or urban setting) other

. than single parenthood., _ '.'

         Crime has often been thought of as                                                                                           . <t. •

        a problem of race or poverty. since                                                                                                :.

poor peop1e and racial minorities comprise a larger portion of the violent criminal population than of the population as a whole.

But in fact. thecasuallink between fatherlessness and crime "is so strong that controlling for family configuration era. •.• es the relationship between race and crime and bctwn