Reps. Beilenson, Gallegly Part Company After the Brady Bill : Guns: Both voted for measure, but the similarity ends there. The Democrat favors even tougher laws, while the Republican leans toward the NRA stance.

Faced with rising concern about firearms violence, Ventura County’s congressmen both voted for the recently adopted Brady bill to impose a national five-day waiting period on handgun purchases. But they agree about little else on the explosive gun-control issue.

Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills) favors, or would at least consider, additional proposals to strengthen gun-control laws. In contrast, Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley) says he would generally prefer to see tougher enforcement of existing laws to punish those who commit crimes with firearms.

The debate is likely to intensify.

Vowing to press for additional reforms following last week’s mass shooting on a Long Island Rail Road commuter train, President Clinton is exploring the possible adoption of a national registration and licensing system for handgun owners.

Beilenson and Gallegly generally reflect the continued polarization on gun-control issues in Congress beyond the broad support that emerged for the Brady bill after a long campaign. The law is named for James S. Brady, Ronald Reagan’s former press secretary who pushed for the measure after he was severely wounded during a 1981 assassination attempt on the then-President.

Beilenson and Gallegly agreed in separate interviews that the proliferation of guns is a national scourge. And each noted growing public sentiment to stem this tide.

But they approach the topic from fundamentally different perspectives.

Beilenson is more sympathetic to the views of gun-control advocates; Gallegly, with the exception of the Brady bill, tends to extol the positions of the National Rifle Assn. and other gun-owner advocates.

“I’ve always been supportive of what I believe to be reasonable gun-control proposals,” said Beilenson, whose 24th District includes most of Thousand Oaks.

“There’s got to be a middle ground where we can do something sensible and useful that would not interfere in any way with what the public in general understands to be legitimate reasons for people to have guns.”

Said Gallegly: “Guns in this country are causing a major problem. But all too often we are penalizing the people who are law-abiding citizens rather than the ones who are causing the problem.”

Even in their mutual support for the Brady bill, the congressmen differed in their reasons. The measure will require law enforcement to check the backgrounds of prospective handgun buyers for a criminal record, history of mental illness or other reasons they would be ineligible to make such a purchase. California already has a 15-day waiting period.

Beilenson said the law “is not going to solve more than a modest fraction of the problem in itself.” But he added that California’s waiting period “has resulted in many thousands of applications for purchases of guns being turned down” because of the background checks.

Gallegly said: “I don’t think the Brady bill in and of itself is going to do much good.”

Still, he said he supported it because it will put more pressure on states to implement a national program of computerized “instant checks.” This approach, which has been established in some states, is favored by the NRA.

Both lawmakers also voted for a measure passed unanimously by the House last month that would make it a federal crime to sell a handgun to anyone 18 years old or younger.

But they differ on other proposals:

* Beilenson supports an amendment sponsored by U. S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and passed by the Senate that would ban 19 semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition at a time. Gallegly said he was not familiar with the measure and would “have to see specifically what we’re talking about.”

* Beilenson called a proposal by Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan (D-N. Y.) to increase taxes dramatically on ammunition to help finance health care reform “intriguing and interesting,” although he stopped short of endorsing it. Gallegly said the measure might violate what he regards as a constitutional right to bear arms.

* Beilenson said he would consider banning the sale of handguns “if there was ever a serious proposal” to do so. “I’m not sure,” he said. Gallegly said he would strongly oppose such a law “because there are a lot of (law-abiding) individuals in this country who do rely on a handgun to protect themselves from all of those out there who illegally own handguns.”

Rather, Gallegly said he would impose mandatory jail sentences on those who use a gun in the commission of a crime. He said this would “take some of the discretion in sentencing out of the hands of some of the more liberal people sitting on the bench.”

Beilenson acknowledged that neither the Brady bill nor other proposed measures would have prevented the shooting rampage this month by former computer engineer Alan Winterbourne in Ventura County. But, he added, “it’s not an argument against passing these laws.”

Armed with four guns, the chronically unemployed Winterbourne killed four people, including an Oxnard police detective, before police shot and killed him. Authorities say that Winterbourne, 33, had no criminal record or history of mental illness and that he had obtained his .44-magnum pistol, a powerful rifle and other firearms well before the assault.

“In this case, given his previous ownership of guns, nothing would have been accomplished if any of the pending bills before Congress had been adopted,” Beilenson said.

“On the other hand, it’s perfectly easy to see some instances where someone similar to this man all of a sudden snaps after all these years unsuccessfully seeking to get a job and gets it into his mind to punish someone. . . . Clearly, a waiting period might prevent that kind of occurrence.”

Gallegly called the gun debate “a very emotional issue” among his constituents.

He said his mail and phone calls range from those who think that “no one should even have a slingshot to people who think you should be able to own a machine gun.” But, he said, “we’re hearing more and more from people who want to stop the use of guns.”

Beilenson said he still tends to hear from gun owners who strongly oppose any new restrictions. But he said he weighs this communication against polls that indicate growing public support for reforms amid increasing anxiety over bloodshed at the end of a barrel.

“It’s difficult to have a rational discussion about this with people who feel strongly in opposition,” Beilenson said. But, he added, “people back home who care a great deal about gun control know my feelings on the matter.”