PAGE 20
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1994
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
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?
JEFF SNYDER & DA VE KOPEL
By Dave Kopel
S
H
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.
STAR
INDiANAPOLIS, INDLA.A
MAy 3,1993
A premature
obituary for gun rights
A
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
d
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
.
history.
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.
THE GOP'S 'TURN' IN '961 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
; 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.)
.
BUCHANAN'S SUCCESS COULD HELP CLINTON
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
frightening.
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.
VEEP CANDIDATE COULD BE KEY
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 :;?': _.,:':,:. !·t=:ir;&j!¥i:fJ$j}:feflY:l;i',
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 'cri.me' .bills:: .both::riereligibility:pave I) ·shown to:_'::_('ineriti'ofme welfare system will ;:;i: .\
Rei"iblicansand oenibcr:itsSeeined:; have.ledto higherillegitimacy rntes::
1e3d, in the short.run, 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
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