Clinton Pledges New Legislation to Control Guns

President Clinton, decrying the “crazy” way guns have been permitted to proliferate in the United States, has declared that he is prepared to challenge the powerful National Rifle Assn. and introduce major new gun control measures.

The American people “are way ahead of Congress” on the gun control issue, Clinton said in extraordinarily candid and at times heated remarks made in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine. Gun violence has created enough public concern to support a ban on certain kinds of guns and “a lot of other reasonable regulations,” he said.

White House aides said Thursday that the President will introduce major new gun control measures early next year but that he believes the time is not ripe to propose a total ban on handguns.

An Administration task force on crime and violence that is working with First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton is considering various gun control proposals, the aides said. Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, Education Secretary Richard W. Riley and Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala head the task force.

In the interview that appears in the Dec. 9 Rolling Stone, Clinton indicated that one day he may propose a total ban on handguns and that he might have enough public support to get it through Congress. “I don’t think the American people are there right now,” he said.

The interview, by Jann S. Wenner, Rolling Stone editor, and William Greider, the magazine’s national editor, took place three weeks ago.

*

In the article, Greider said the President became angry and emotional as the session ended, displaying behavior that was “an awesome thing to behold, especially when it is right in your face.”

The President’s outburst came as Greider suggested that Clinton tends to back down on crucial issues and told the President that one of his own supporters wanted to know what Clinton is “willing to stand up for and die on.”

Clinton declared: “I have fought more damn battles for more things here than any President in 20 years, with the possible exception of Reagan’s first budget, and not gotten one damn bit of credit from the knee-jerk liberal press. And I am sick and tired of it, and you can put that in the damn article.”

On gun control, Clinton said he is prepared to “go a long way,” first getting the so-called Brady bill passed and then moving on to “a whole range of other issues.” The Brady bill is named for former White House Press Secretary James S. Brady, who was wounded in the 1981 assassination attempt on then-President Ronald Reagan. The bill, which has passed the House and awaits Senate action, would require a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases to give authorities time for background checks.

Among other things, Clinton said, the Administration will consider pushing for federal laws identical to some tough state gun control laws. He mentioned a proposal, similar to a Colorado law, that is part of the Senate crime bill. It would bar people under 18 from owning or possessing firearms except under the supervision of their parents or another qualified adult.

He also suggested that a Virginia law limiting handgun purchases to one a month is worth incorporating into federal law.

Clinton said his Administration will examine the licensing of federal gun dealers. About 286,000 gun dealers pay $10 each for federal licenses, and Clinton said that “a whole lot of questions . . . need to be examined. Should we raise the price of the license? Should we do a more detailed check of the people who have them? . . .

“It’s crazy what we have permitted to happen here, literally crazy. A number of things are finally galvanizing the attention of Americans--starting with the killing of the foreign tourists in Florida. But . . . I’m prepared to try to move on this.”

Asked whether the American people are ready for more radical solutions, he said: “We know from national surveys that people are way ahead of Congress on this. They don’t know why the Brady bill hasn’t passed already. They don’t know how to hold legislators accountable yet because there have always been parliamentary niceties to explain away why we’re not trying to stop this mindless violence.”

*

A public debate about whether violence on television or film causes violence has just started, Clinton said. He responded guardedly when asked to comment on Reno’s recent congressional testimony that government might intervene if television and movie officials fail to curb some of the more violent programs.

“I didn’t know the attorney general was going to say what she said, but I don’t mind the fact that she started the debate,” he said.

Reno, whose testimony touched off a furor and cries of censorship in the movie and television industry, said restricting violent content on TV and in films would not violate the Constitution.

Clinton said he had not researched the constitutional question. He said the government probably could impose controls, but added: “I hope it doesn’t come to that.”

He had no doubt about “the cumulative effect of mindless, destructive behavior communicated through TV or movies on a society that is breaking down anyway.”