So the Brady bill was not a fluke after all. With the assault-weapons ban, the tectonic plates of American politics shifted. Whether the shift is slight or profound isn’t clear yet, but something significant happened last week in the House of Representatives. The NRA, the most fearsome Washington lobby in the entire postwar era, has itself become a useful target. Some politicians now find that being attacked by the organization bolsters their reputation for independence. All sorts of old categories are breaking down. Republican Henry Hyde was for the ban. Democrat Lee Hamilton was against it.
Richard Nixon may be dead, but a new “Silent Majority” has been born. This majority, fed up with crime, has for many months asked its representatives to do everything possible to address the problem. The NRA stressed that this meant everything except trying to keep toddlers from being killed by stray bullets fired from assault weapons. The NRA argument failed not because the president bought votes with pork (he didn’t this time) or because another strong lobby flexed its muscles. it failed because enough legislators actually read the bill and made the kind of conscientious decision they are paid to make. Even sore loser Rep. Jack Brooks of Texas, still scheming in a closed-door conference committee, won’t be able to thwart the popular will. A $25 billion-plus crime bill will be signed by summer, and gun control will take its place with more prisons, more cops and tougher sentencing in what is finally being recognized as our war at home.
In a sense, the NRA is right that the assault-weapon ban is a “feel good” solution that allows politicians to posture on crime without seriously reducing it. Only 1.5 percent (the NRA’s figure) or 8 percent (Schumer’s figure) of gun deaths can be attributed to these weapons. Passage gives legislators an excuse to say “We’ve done gun control” for this session, though they merely scratched the surface. A total of 19 kinds of guns and their copycats were banned; 650 were specifically exempted. Even with the supply cut, many criminals will still get their hands on these weapons.
But if the ban will be only marginally effective as a crime-control measure, it is nonetheless landmark mental-health legislation. Yes, mental health-the sanity of the U.S. Congress in the eyes of 80 percent of its citizens (according to polls) and the rest of the world was on the line. Amid the familiar arguments, the anti-ban forces were reminiscent of those tobacco flacks who say smoking doesn’t cause cancer. You can’t “prove” that an assault-weapons ban will save lives, just as you can’t “prove” that taking matches away from children will save them. But what rational person wouldn’t want to lessen the odds of “Street Sweepers” finding their way into the hands of itchy-fingered 14-year-olds?
This was a victory for common sense, with an emphasis on “common.” For years, narrow interests have routinely trounced broader ones. The few felt strongly; the many were indifferent. Minority ruled. Rep. Butler Derrick of South Carolina argued on the floor that given the huge public support for the ban, “if this bill fails, we are no longer a democracy.” This was overdrawn, perhaps, but the outcome did make the phrase “representative government” a bit less oxymoronic. “It gave me faith,” said Schumer. The last time a similar bill came up (before Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s skillful compromise exempting hunting weapons), it lost by 70 votes.
The reversal of fortune was part skill, part luck. The president, Vice President Gore, Attorney General Janet Reno and Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen divided up the swing votes and began calling. Reno made contact with small editorial pages in more than 60 swing districts. By enlisting police and repeatedly stressing their support for hunting, the Democrats looked anti-crime rather than anti-gun. Recent Capitol Hill retirements also helped. Freed of their political bondage to the NRA, several departing members switched sides.
The lucky part was that the NRA bullyboy tactics backfired. Two key swing votes, Reps. Matthew G. Martinez and Douglas Applegate, decided to support the ban explicitly because they found the NRA’s tactics so offensive. After the vote, the NRA vowed vengeance against certain members in November. This will just set the organization up for more defections. Every time a member of Congress survives an election after being targeted, the fear that the NRA depends on dissipates a bit more. Almost all incumbents win. That means the next Congress may be even more willing to confront the gun lobby.
The NRA continues to be enormously wealthy and powerful. Last week’s loss will be used to scare up big money But the increased militancy (the organization’s new president is from the most aggressive faction) will enhance the Clinton strategy of dividing average gun owners from gun fanatics. One of the keys to the victory, Schumer says, is that wavering members heard from the same 100 or so extremists in their districts who had protested the Brady bill. Members realized that these activists didn’t reflect the views of tens of thousands of other gun owners.
Still, there’s little chance of more gun control this session. The Schumer-Bradley bill, a gun-registration measure based on the principle that owning a gun should be subject to roughly the same requirements as owning a car, has yet to be endorsed by the administration. Feinstein says that she wants to make sure the Brady bill and the assault-weapons ban are properly implemented before moving on. Josh Sugarmann, whose Washington-based Violence Policy Center is dedicated to having guns regulated just like toys, fireworks or any other consumer product, says the next phase is to target manufacturers: “Americans are ready to hate somebody-and it’s going to be the gun industry.” Whatever path the movement takes, the consensus is clear: gun control is not the answer to crime, but it is one part of that answer. Anyone ignoring this fact can’t expect much of a role in the great national debate over violence and quality of life.
The National Rifle Association has begun to lose key battles in the last few years. Examples of its waning influence:
The NRA spends $6 million but loses fight to ban Saturday-night specials, the gun used on James Brady and former president Reagan.
After a California schoolyard massacre, George Bush, a lifetime NRA member, bans imports on 43 types of assault weapons.
The state legislature snubs NRA and passes the nation’s toughest ban on assault weapons.
Despite a $500,000 advertising blitz, the state’s powerful gun lobby fails to block a bill setting a one-a-month limit on handgun purchases.
Clinton signs into law the long-stalled measure requiring a five-day handgun waiting period to allow for background checks.
