Losing Political Clout? : Friends Hurt as NRA Calls the Shots

During his 10 years in Congress, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., a conservative Republican from Wisconsin, has been called lots of names by political opponents. But no one ever called him Ted Kennedy until he clashed earlier this year with the National Rifle Assn.

Sensenbrenner, an opponent of gun control and past ally of the NRA, angered the group when he endorsed a bill to impose a seven-day waiting period before people could buy handguns. The NRA fired back by sending a negative mailer to his constituents, which likened him to the liberal Massachusetts senator, an outspoken supporter of gun control.

“What they did to me and other congressmen on this issue was outrageous,” said Sensenbrenner, whose complaints were echoed by other House conservatives. “This group is no longer welcome in my office. They’re losing credibility around here.”

Master at Pressure Politics

For years, the NRA’s success in defeating a variety of measures to limit gun ownership has made it one of the most effective lobbying groups on Capitol Hill. It has attacked enemies with media blitzes and has mobilized grass-roots letter-writing campaigns that are unsurpassed in the world of pressure politics. Like other groups, it has also rewarded its friends with millions of dollars in contributions.

Now, however, there are signs that the NRA may be losing some of its almost legendary clout.

Although the organization helped defeat the waiting-period law, it won by only 46 votes, a smaller margin than it might have commanded in previous years.

In a key development, leaders of the nation’s law enforcement groups, once vocal supporters of the NRA, are now feuding openly with the organization.

Elsewhere, the gun lobby is locked in a closely fought battle to overturn a new Maryland law banning the sale of cheap handguns. If proponents of the state law win this Tuesday’s vote, gun-control advocates say it could trigger campaigns for similar bans in other states.

Loss of Influence Denied

NRA officials deny that they are losing influence, saying that the 2.8-million-member group continues to win the key battles in Congress and other arenas. They also contend that public support for their gun-rights agenda is still strong.

But just in case, the NRA is spending nearly $5 million in its effort to overturn the Maryland law, and it makes no apologies for that, said Executive Vice President J. Warren Cassidy.

“What’s necessary is what wins,” he declared. “In the long run, it doesn’t hurt an organization to be forced to show that it’s not a paper tiger . . . that there is some clout there, despite what the opposition says.”

Why has the NRA come under stronger attack?

One reason is that public concerns about the proliferation of guns seem to be growing amid the wave of drug-related violence in the nation’s cities. A Gallup poll released last month showed that 91% of Americans favor some waiting period before handguns are purchased, so that felons and other undesireable purchasers can be screened out.

At the same time, law enforcement officials who traditionally opposed gun-control measures have become alarmed by the arsenal of new weapons aimed at them, such as armor-piercing bullets and automatic weapons. In a notable shift, they are now calling for restrictions on some weapons.

The same sentiment is increasingly apparent in Congress, where some lawmakers, including strong conservatives, are experiencing a change of heart on the issue. For years, NRA lobbyists won over members with the slogan: “Guns don’t kill, people do.” But the debate has changed, with new gun-control measures focusing on some of the people who buy guns rather than the weapons themselves.

“What we’ve seen in Congress, in law enforcement and in the public at large is a real shift on the handgun issue,” said Charles Orasin, president of Handgun Control Inc., a nationwide advocacy group. “Now, some of the NRA’s most traditional allies can no longer go to the mat for them, because the issue has changed.”

But if the gun-control debate has changed, the NRA has not. When new proposals on firearms or munitions have emerged, the organization has lashed out against them with its full, traditional vigor, targeting both old adversaries and, now, straying allies alike.

That was clear during the battle in September over the so-called “Brady amendment” to the omnibus drug bill. The amendment for the national seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases was named after White House Press Secretary James S. Brady, who was crippled by a pistol bullet fired during the 1981 attempt on President Reagan’s life.

Brady’s wife, Sarah, helped lobby for the bill, contending that police should be given the time to screen out criminals and potentially dangerous persons before handguns are sold. Gun advocates argued that such a law was unenforceable and infringed on the rights of legitimate gun owners.

The NRA mounted a furious lobbying campaign directed at wavering members of Congress. It prevailed on a 228-182 vote, but the price was the alienation of some conservative allies.

Gun lobby officials continue to defend the controversial mailer they sent to Sensenbrenner’s district. Jim Baker, the NRA’s legislative liaison official, said that the Wisconsin Republican invited such an attack when he sought political contributions from gun owners shortly after announcing his support for the national waiting-period law.

“We were more than a little bit upset, and that’s what got this started,” he said. “It was turnabout being fair play.”

But that attitude could backfire on the NRA in the future, said outgoing Rep. Daniel E. Lungren (R-Long Beach), an opponent of gun control but a supporter of the waiting-period law.

“When you attack someone like that who has been with you 95% of the time, it doesn’t show a good deal of common sense,” Lungren said. “You don’t shoot your own wounded on the battlefield. You don’t go after longtime friends. That does not build loyalty.”

Others were more blunt, saying that the NRA has to mend some fences in a hurry and become more willing to compromise on moderate proposals. Proponents of the waiting period, planning to capitalize on the battered feelings, predict victory for similar legislation next year.

“There is considerable bitterness toward them (the NRA) now,” said Rep. Charles W. Stenholm (D-Tex.). “These people say that all that counts is the end result, winning. That may help you in the short run, but around here, that attitude eventually catches up with you.”

Despite this criticism, congressional leaders acknowledge that the group continues to be a powerful force and that any obituary on its predominance would be very premature.

“They’ve just got to be careful,” said Rep. Tony Coelho (D-Merced), the House Democratic whip. “If they can’t build bridges to other groups, they’ll have trouble. Like anybody else, they have to remember who their friends are.”

For years, law enforcement was one of the best friends the NRA had on Capitol Hill. Leaders of police unions and police chiefs across the nation backed the gun lobby’s defense of hunting rights and endorsed the same conservative, law-and-order values.

But that coalition has begun to unravel in recent years, as many law enforcement officials began to embrace some limited controls on gun ownership while the NRA has held to its hard line.

Initially, for example, the gun lobby opposed a federal ban on “cop-killer” bullets that could pierce protective clothing. It also opposed bans on plastic handguns that could elude metal detectors in airports and the sale of new machine guns.

Just before the House vote on the waiting-period law, hundreds of representatives from a coalition of 11 national law enforcement groups descended on Capitol Hill in uniform in a dramatic show of support for the legislation.

All were embittered by the NRA’s opposition and vowed to keep pushing for the law.

“In a way, we law enforcement people owe them (the NRA) a debt of gratitude,” said Omaha Police Chief Robert Wadman, who described himself as a conservative. “They’ve awakened a sleeping giant. We can exert real influence on these issues, if we just hang together.”

Has the split with law enforcement hurt the NRA? Gun lobby officials minimize the problem. Baker said, for example, that the national leaders of these groups are frequently out of touch with their grass-roots members.

“There are hundreds of thousands of rank-and-file officers around this country who didn’t support this (the waiting-period law),” he noted. “There was an honest disagreement among police themselves.”

As for the bans on cop-killer bullets, plastic handguns and new machine guns, Baker contended that the NRA helped negotiate compromises that were eventually approved. Gun-control advocates disagree, saying that the gun lobby came on board only when it was clear those laws would pass.

Regardless, the split with law enforcement has not gone unnoticed. Rep. Terry L. Bruce (D-Ill.) said that his district generally supports the NRA’s positions on gun rights, but “many of us are concerned about the growing distance between them and law enforcement. . . . They can’t keep winning battles if they turn off people who should be their strongest allies.”

Bruce’s warning will be put to the test Tuesday, when Maryland voters decide whether to retain the state law banning the sale of cheap handguns. The NRA, fearful of interest in other states for such a law, has saturated the airwaves with television ads and sent out a flurry of mailers warning that the law will take handguns away from law-abiding citizens.

Polls indicate that the race is a dead heat, but Sarah Brady suggested that handgun-control advocates, backed by Gov. William Donald Schaefer, can claim a victory either way.

“We’ve been outspent, but we’ve shown that you can stand up to the NRA, that you can take them on,” she said. “We may lose this battle, but we’re going to win the war.”

Last week, the governor angrily denounced the NRA for using “deception and fear” in literature issued by the Maryland Committee to Defeat the Gun Ban. In Baltimore, black leaders protested reports that the Maryland committee was hiring black activists to recruit voters to support repeal of the law. Opponents estimate that the committee has allocated more than $1 million of its $5-million Maryland war chest to woo inner-city voters.

Schaefer, who was advised last month by Fred Grisser, chairman of the Maryland committee, that his stand for the law would generate political opposition, snapped back last week in a letter to Grisser published by the Washington Post.

“Do not count on me,” the letter said. “I want Saturday night specials off the street. Incidentally, do you use one when you hunt?”