Bush Gets Chance to Balance Books on Guns

Whatever happened to President Bush’s gun control agenda?

No, that isn’t a trick question, like whatever happened to Madonna’s sense of modesty.

As a candidate in 2000, Bush offered a modest but tangible series of gun control proposals meant to convince voters he’d strike a reasonable balance between the interests of gun owners and the demands of public safety. But in office, his administration has focused almost entirely on gun owners’ rights--most dramatically last week when the Justice Department adopted an expansive interpretation of the constitutional right to bear arms long sought by the National Rifle Assn.

If Bush really hopes to produce a balanced record, he’ll need to beef up his record on the public safety side of the ledger. As it turns out, an upcoming legislative fight may offer him a chance to do just that.

Let’s start with the history. Candidate Bush received guns-blazing support from the NRA. But he was also determined to avoid the impression he would religiously follow the NRA line. In his final debate with Al Gore, a voter asked Bush about an NRA leader’s boast that the gun lobby would operate out of the Oval Office if Bush won. Bush told him not to worry: “I’m a pretty independent thinker,” he insisted.

No one was going to mistake Bush for a gun control crusader. He shared the NRA’s conviction the federal government should place its priority on enforcing existing gun laws rather than passing new ones. And he portrayed Gore’s gun control proposals as excessive. “I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be allowed to protect themselves,” Bush declared.

But Bush also tried to reassure centrist voters uneasy about gun violence. Bush renounced earlier Republican efforts to repeal the ban on assault weapons President Clinton squeezed through Congress. And he offered several new gun proposals of his own, many echoing Clinton’s ideas after the Columbine High School massacre in Colorado.

“I believe that we ought to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn’t have them,” Bush said in that final debate with Gore. “That’s why I’m for instant background checks at gun shows; I’m for trigger locks....I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun.”

Since the election, though, Bush hasn’t been nearly as enthusiastic about these ideas. He’s moved forward on only one of them. As a candidate, Bush promised to spend $75 million annually to provide free trigger locks that could keep handguns from being used by children; he’s fulfilled that pledge in his first two budgets.

The rest of Bush’s gun control agenda, though, has been conspicuous by its absence. He said he would support raising the age for handgun ownership from 18 to 21. But he’s offered no legislation to do so. Likewise, he said manufacturers should be required to install child safety locks on all new handguns, but he hasn’t offered a plan to do that either. Nor has he proposed a bill to close the legal loophole that exempts purchasers at gun shows from the background checks required on those who buy their hardware at gun shops.

Instead his administration has emphasized the priorities of gun owner groups, led by the NRA. Today, the government maintains the records of all background checks run through the national database of gun purchases for 90 days, so it can audit the system for fraud or irregularities. Gun groups consider that an invasion of privacy. The Justice Department has now proposed to destroy the records after one day.

Last fall, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft refused to allow the FBI to use the database to check whether any of the 1,200 people detained after Sept. 11 had bought guns. Then last week, Ashcroft aligned the government more unequivocally than before with the NRA’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. In a filing to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department broke from decades of federal policy to declare that the amendment guarantees the right of gun ownership to individuals and not just those engaged in military service (the Revolutionary era “well-regulated militia” cited in the amendment).

Ashcroft insisted the Justice Department will continue to defend the constitutionality of all existing federal gun control laws. But critics fear he’s given gun owner groups a powerful new legal club against restrictions on gun ownership at the federal, state and local level.

Given the NRA’s ferocious work for his election, it was inevitable that Bush would respond to some of its priorities. But he also promised he would maintain his independence from the group. Now, two old rivals are offering the president an opportunity to prove he meant it.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) signaled last week he’ll soon force a floor vote on legislation he’s co-sponsored with Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) to close the gun show loophole, which they say is being exploited not only by criminals but also by suspected terrorists. Bush insists he’s for closing that loophole too, but only if the background checks are conducted within 24 hours. The problem is, that’s like endorsing daily shuttles to Mars. No state now has the computer capacity to research the background of gun buyers that fast; the checks most likely to take longer are precisely for the people we most want to keep away from guns.

Many experts would accept 24-hour checks (which the NRA prefers) as a reasonable goal, once they are practical. The question is what to do in the interim. McCain’s solution: For the next three years, provide law enforcement three days to run the checks. After that, states could petition the Justice Department to switch to an instant check once they’ve demonstrated the capacity.

The bill is landing in a cross-fire. The NRA hates the three-day checks; the most ardent gun control groups oppose the eventual switch to a 24-hour standard. But the proposal may be the only way to break the logjam that has blocked action on the gun show loophole since Columbine.

It will also be a revealing test of Bush’s intentions. He routinely scolds Congress for stalling his priorities. Will he demand that it send him a bill that closes the gun show loophole and then work to fashion a compromise that can win a majority? Which is another way of asking whether Bush was shooting straight in 2000 when he told that voter, and a huge national audience, that he would always think for himself about guns.