Taming the Gun Monster: The Federal Role : The national gun-violence crisis requires a national solution--but is Congress up to the heaviest lift of all?

A bandwagon can roll forward, backward or off the road. Which way for the anti-gun movement in Congress? Congress now has more than 40 gun-control bills before it. Some of them are not worth much more than the paper they’re printed on. But a few of them represent a clear advance: They are earnest, thoughtful attempts to stop the killing and restrict the poisonous circulation of guns.

In Part 2 of this series, we weighed the strengths and weaknesses of many generic approaches to gun control such as waiting periods, bans on types of guns, stiffer penalties for gun crime. Here we’ll look at some specific proposals now before Congress--which ones will help reduce gun violence and which will do little more than try the patience of fearful Americans.

But let us be clear: With one exception, the many bills now pending before Congress will not meaningfully end the killing because none will reduce an arsenal of more 200 million firearms or do much to slow the unrelenting production and sale of new guns.

That’s why The Times supports a near-total ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons, leaving those guns solely in the hands of law-enforcement officials. Individuals would be permitted to own sporting weapons only if they had submitted to a background check and passed a safety course. Other special, closely monitored exceptions could be made, such as for gun collectors. But short of that monumental achievement--a near-total ban on handguns and automatic weapons--would any of the congressional bills actually help?

WHAT ABOUT TIGHTER GUN LICENSING?

More than a quarter-million Americans hold federal firearms licenses--or FFLs--allowing them to ship and receive large quantities of guns and ammunition. But both the rules under which these licenses are granted and the system to monitor those who hold them are shamefully inadequate. Too many dealers--including some with criminal records--peddle guns out of their homes and private offices often in direct violation of federal, state and local firearms law. The feds estimate that these so-called “kitchen table” dealers make up fully four-fifths of those holding FFLs.

This situation is clearly both an absurdity and an abomination. Sens. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) and Paul Simon (D-Ill.) have introduced legislation to target renegade dealers and toughen licensing procedures. Their proposals are so obviously sensible, it is hard to see why anyone could be against them. They would mandate that prospective dealers comply with all state and local firearms laws before they receive their federal firearms licenses. The proposals would also raise license fees, increase dealer reporting requirements, require more inspec- tions by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and extend the time period allowed the ATF to issue a license. What’s also needed is for President Clinton to authorize many more ATF inspectors. Nationally, the ATF has only about 1,900 agents and even fewer compliance inspectors.

WHAT ABOUT BANNING ASSAULT WEAPONS?

California was the first state to ban the production, sale and possession of specified models of military-style rifles, pistols and shotguns that had no legitimate sporting purpose. But California was also the first state to discover that gun manufacturers could easily evade the model-by-model ban by ever-so-slightly modifying old firearms or introducing new ones.

California’s Sen. Dianne Feinstein has learned from that. Her federal bill, approved by the Senate last week as an amendment to the pending crime bill, would forbid the manufacture and transfer of 19 specific models of assault weapons, plus any models that have high-volume detachable ammunition magazines with 10 or more bullets and other generic features.

The Feinstein approach hardly crowds legitimate hunters: About 650 sporting guns are protected, which is politically understandable. But her bill would do nothing to reduce the existing 1 million assault weapons in private hands. Even so, The Times supports the Feinstein effort as a step forward.

WHY NOT TAX AMMUNITION?

Gun violence now costs the nation about $16 billion a year and if Sen. Moynihan has his way, the firearms industry and its customers will appropriately bear a heavier burden for the grievous harm their weapons cause.

Moynihan’s proposal, now tacked on to the President’s health-care reform bill, calls for a 40% federal tax increase on several types of bullets and a license fee of $10,000 on manufacturers and importers of handgun ammunition. These new fees would raise and estimated $200 million annually.

Granted, this is just walking-around money compared with the annual bill from gun violence. And as long as there are so many guns in circulation, a black market in ammo would meet the demand. Still, Moynihan’s proposal pushes America in the right direction.

AND WHY NOT WORK TO KEEP GUNS AWAY FROM KIDS?

The Senate, as part of its crime bill, has approved a provision by Sen. Herbert Kohl (D-Wis.) banning handgun possession by anyone under age 18. The one beauty of this measure is that it gives police the additional legal tool they need to disarm kids. But without funds for vigorous enforcement or a meaningful decline in the gun supply, we fear that angry young people bent on violence will be undeterred by this measure. Still, it too is worth trying.

BUT CAN THE NOW-FAMOUS WAITING PERIOD HELP?

Criminals and individuals who are emotionally unstable simply should not be able to leave a gun store armed. That self-evident premise alone makes the Brady bill--imposing a five-day waiting period to permit background checks on handgun buyers--eminently sensible. Last week, after six long years, Congress finally passed the Brady bill, which President Clinton had said he would sign. The Brady bill is worthy, even though its impact would be limited solely to new handgun sales.

BETTER YET, THEN, WHY NOT JUST BAN HANDGUNS, PERIOD?

Perhaps the boldest and most far-reaching gun measure now on Capitol Hill is that by Sen. John H. Chafee (R-R.I.) to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of all handguns. The Chafee bill would establish a six-month period during which citizens could turn in their handguns to federal, state or local law enforcement agencies for monetary reimbursement. After that time, violators could face criminal penalties of up to $5,000 and/or five years in jail. The bill would exempt law enforcement and the military and certain kinds of collectors, hunting guns, gun clubs, security guards and gun dealers.

Chafee’s proposal may sound radical. It’s not. It’s sensible. The bill, stuck in committee, focuses on handguns, often the street gun of choice. Chafee says it’s time to “turn off the spigot” flooding our neighborhoods and schools with these weapons. He’s absolutely right.

But if the Chafee measure would do much to stem gun violence and the Brady bill and others we have mentioned would do less, there are some proposals floating around Congress that are not wholly on target. For instance, limiting individuals to the purchase or transfer of one handgun per month--a measure designed to frustrate importation of guns from more lenient states into stricter ones--is obviously only a small piece of the puzzle. And imposing on firearms manufacturers liability for injuries caused by the handguns or assault weapons they make is stretching product liability laws to absurdity.

Two things must happen if gun control is to work. First, a strong public consensus must emerge for bold and sweeping action. That is beginning to happen. Second, Congress will have to shed its interest-group shackles, roll up its sleeves and get serious. Our future is on the line: Either we act decisively or we can expect to watch the slaughter in our homes, streets, malls, schools and churches proceed apace.