Date: 04 Oct 94 11:51:09 EDT From: Hal Berenson <71640.3535@compuserve.com> To: Best RKBA Subject: GRPC '94 Message-ID: <941004155109_71640.3535_BHM32-1@CompuServe.COM> Gun Rights Policy Conference '94, 9/30-10/2 This is a trip report on GRPC'941 for those activists and gun owners unable to attend. Usually I make the entire conference, but this year I could only attend on Saturday, the main day of the event. This means I missed some important sessions, such as Sunday's discussion about key Congressional races and the resolutions. There were approximately 400 attendees, about 1/3 new and 2/3 repeat. Due to scheduling conflict (the NRA Board of Directors meeting was the same weekend) a number of usual attendees were not present. After the conference was opened by CCRKBA and SAF dignataries, NRA-ILA Director Tanya Metaksa gave the first session by videotape. Tanya described NRA political strategy where the highest priority is to achieve a majority in the Senate and replace anti-gun leader Joe Biden with pro-gun leader Orrin Hatch as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. This includes support for decidedly anti-gun republicans such as Huffington over (similarly anti-gun) Feinstein in the CA senate seat race. Huffington would vote for a Republican majority leader leading to the Hatch SJC chair. That's why they are endorsing Huffington despite his strong anti-gun position. Tanya also made it clear that the NRA is not a pro-Republican organization, it is a single issue organization: Gun Rights. She urged support for the Democratic congressmen who consistently have supported the right to keep and bear arms as a way to avoid becoming too beholden to one party. Each GRPC has had one controversy that threatens to split the gun rights community and Tanya's comment was the first blow in this year's battle: the proper response to Congressman Jack Brooks' crime bill vote. As you will see in my notes below, the Brooks situation kept re-appearing throughout the day. Unfortunately I wasn't present on Sunday but I'm sure it figured even more prominently. I expect that a resolution was introduced calling on all pro-gun groups to not endorse or support Jack Brooks. Hopefully someone else will send out the final resolution information. So before I go further I'll present the Brooks situation and the two opinions on the topic. There are several members of congress who have been long time gun right defenders who voted against us on either Brady, the Crime Bill, or both. Some of those legislators clearly turned against us, lobbying specifically for passage of gun control positions. Congressman Tom Foley D-WA is an example of a clear turncoat (Dick Swett, D-NH is another). Some others who have supported us long term who turned against us after the Brady vote because of the tactics of some gun owners (see David Kopel's comments). But now we come to the group in question. Some congressman/senators argued strenuously against the Brady Bill and against the gun control provisions in the crime bill. They used procedural mechanisms to try to kill the gun control provisions in their subcommittees, committees, and on the floor. They never let up in fighting against gun control. They really fought for our side. But when the vote on the final bill was due, other political considerations caused them to vote for the bill and therefore against us. Two prominent names come up in this category, Jack Brooks D-TX and John Dingell D-MI. Both have significant seniority and are powerful members of the House Democratic Leadership. Let's treat Dingell's case first since it is easier. An NRA Board Member, Dingell fought the gun control provisions of the crime bill to the very end. In the very speech where he announced the he was going to vote for the crime bill because he couldn't vote against the various good crime fighting measures it included (a topic that can be debated, but is not relevent to the gun control discussion) he continued to attack the gun control provisions. He also resigned from the NRA board, probably to avoid embarrasement. Even Gun Owners of America conceeded (at GRPC) that Dingell is still our friend and we shouldn't hold his vote strongly against him. Gun Owners of America does not give Jack Brooks that same benefit of the doubt. Brooks never turned on us the way Foley did, but he ended up in a position that left him compromised. As chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Brooks technically had the ability to tie the Crime Bill up indefinately. But, he also had the responsibility to the House Leadership to expedite it. He tied it up for a considerable amount of time while he fought the gun control provisions, but finally was forced to release the bill for floor debate. As chairman of the Crime Bill conference committee Brooks was specifically charged by both the House and Senate leadership with guiding the bill to Clinton's desk. Brooks used his chairmanship to try to kill the gun control provisions. When that failed he used his chairmanship he got the NRA an offer of compromise (water down the gun control provisions in exchange for the NRA dropping its opposition to the bill) which the NRA rejected. When all was said and done, he dutifully exercised his charge as conference committee chairman to cheerlead the crime bill through to passage, including voting for the final bill. But he never let up on his attacks on the gun control provisions. So we are left with a Jack Brooks who will fight for our gun rights tooth and nail, but when our cause is tied up in a bigger issue and his head (his position of leadership) is on the chopping block he won't commit suicide for us. Now we are faced with a dilema. Do we treat Brooks as one of our own soldiers who executed a "he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day" strategy or do we accord him the same treatment as traitor Foley. GOA says "traitor", the NRA says "friend with an affirmative defense: the political equivalent of the doctrine of competing harms"2. All the other national groups and figures are apparently, either publicly or privately, supporting the NRA position. The bottom line on this is that we can only afford to "punish" congresscritters like Brooks who gave in to political necessity if we truely have the power to establish a majority in Congress with a 100% single issue voting priority to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Without that power, if we go after anyone who wavers even the slightest we probably will lose all influence in Congress. And, I'll observe, if we had that much power then Jack Brooks could have killed all the anti-gun provisions and never been forced to support a broad bill into which gun control had been inserted! Now onto the rest of the conference: Senator Ted Stevens (Alaska) addressed the conference via tape since the Senate is in session and he couldn't get away. CCRKBA awarded Senator Stevens the Gun Rights Defender of the Year award. Congressional Affairs Panel: John Snyder (CCRKBA Public Affairs Director and Chief Lobbyist), Richard Feldman (ASSC Exec Director), Jim Fotis (LEAA Exec Director), Peter Lake (Writer/Lecturer) John: Pointed out that we've just suffered the worst year ever legislatively. We need to fix this in November by really focusing on electing pro-gun politicians. We need to throw out the bums, and the occasional bummette. Removing Feinstein from office is a high priority. Richard: Pointed out that we don't know how many gun owners there really are in the U.S. He estimates 85-90 million. What we do know is that 50 million gun owners buy ammunition every year and its time to mobilize those known active gun owners. Although the NRA is accused of being a lobby for the gun industry, Richard pointed out that when he was with the NRA he always wondered why the industry wasn't involved. The ASSC is now the industry's lobbying arm. We need to be very discerning in how we use our votes this year. Republicans are no more our friends then Democrats are our enemies. The trick in Washington DC is to always be the swing vote. When you become beholden to one party then you get the situation we had with George Bush (import ban, proposal to ban high capacity magazines, etc.). The name of the game in politics is winning. There is a big difference between how Foley treated us this year and how Brooks and Dingel treated us. Foley turned on us. Brooks and Dingel fought for us all year long, although their broader political concerns caused them to vote against us in the end. Brooks and Dingel continue to fight for us, and if we take them out we are only going to hurt ourselves. If we lose Brooks then either Conyers, Pat Schroeder, or Schumer will take over the Judiciary Committee. Also, if we don't protect vulnerable Democrats who have supported our position then we will lose significant pull. Jim: Neither Jim or John were allowed to testify in Schumer's committee. The information from LEAA was read into the congressional record on at least 4 occasions by pro-gun congressman. HCI has created an LEAA hotline for people who want to find out about LEAA! This has actually generated membership requests to LEAA. Law enforcement did not support the anti-gun parts of the crime bill. LEAA put together a coalition of 100 law enforcement groups that proved law enforcement did not support those provisions, or other provisions, of the bill. Although the national FOP said their members supported the crime bill, many local chapters opposed it. In Ted Kennedy's home state of Massachusetts, every police organization opposed the crime bill.. LEAA brought lots of pro-gun police to DC to testify. Calls on the crime bill were 20:1 against passage. We need a comprehensive pro-gun plan including long term strategy. Anti-gun law enforcement support is not ideologically driven. Follow the money: the feds buy the support using allocation of law enforcement funds to the anti-gun political organizations. When Clinton needed support on the crime bill, it was the leaders of the organizations who get money from the feds who showed up. The feds sent out calls for members to be compelled to stand behind the crime bill, LEAA is currently suing one PD that forced its members to appear on the podium with Clinton. "Revenge is sweet, but winning is everything." Peter: Thanked SAF for their help fighting L.A.'s refusal to issue concealed carry permits (Peter now has one). The payoffs for votes on the crime bill are starting to be known. One case was an indian reservation created in Detroit specifically as a means to open a casino in that city. Another was an extended duck hunting season for some congresscritter's district. America's involvement in Haiti was undoubtedly one of those payoffs. "The facts matter to media, but they don't matter completely. What matters is spectacle, drama and conflict." The second amendment is largely irrelevent to people who are worried about getting shot. They don't understand the second amendment issue and don't care. Crime is down across the board, except for homocide. That is up, but only in the inner city. Kids have recently entered the equation. They are taking away are assault weapons "to protect the kids". It doesn't make any sense, but that is what they are doing. We need to come up with proposals to keep guns out of the hands of kids. What evil lurks in state capital: Bob Ricker(CCRKBA and ASSC California lobbyist), Dennis Fusaro (GOA, State & Local affairs director), Sam Slom (SAF Board) Bob: The various groups in CA were able to kill just about all legislation this last year. What was important about CA was that we were exposed to an entire road map of what HCI is up to. Predicts that the gun grabbers are going to abandon the crime issue and make guns a public health issue. They will primarily use civil law, making it so expensive for manufacturers that they will go out of business. They are trying to invent figures that show that "people don't kill people, guns kill people". Two law schools have received grants from a wealthy NJ individual solely to bring suit against gun manufacturers for the gun having fired (ie, don't go after the shooter just the gun maker). Free legal advice is available from a lawyers group in S.F. for the same purpose. CA tried to pass a law a strict liability law this past year. The other side is very well funded. They are using our tax dollars to take away your rights to own a gun and to defend yourself. Expect next year's legislative agenda to be like this year, 100s of anti-gun bills will be introduced in state's like California. The trend in California is that most of the new legislators are more pro-gun. On the other hand, many old stalwarts are becoming squishy on the gun issue out of re-election concerns. The ASSC and local manufacturers did a registration drive through gun shops. Peterson Publishing provided a lot of the funding for this drive. In CA, you can now register to vote just by going down to the gun store. Dennis: In the long run, "principle is pragmatic". We need to avoid sending mixed signals to legislators (using Brooks as an example). We must stand on principle. Dennis gave the story on VA, where the instant check bill was put through to stop a worse waiting period bill. A few years later the database used to run the instant check was used to enforce the one-gun-a-month bill. We should have stood on principle and made the opposition fight to pass its bad waiting period bill. Then at least we would have known our friends from our enemies, and wouldn't have enabled the longer running objectives. Our problems are not with our enemies, they are with suburban Republicans. Q: Bob mentioned that there were 300 anti-gun bills introduced in CA, how many pro-gun bills were introduced? When are we going on the offensive? Bob: About 15-20. The problem is that the committee that hears the bills have anti-gun chairman, so pro-gun bills don't get treated very well. Also, we only have 35/80 solid votes. So to pass anything we need the votes of the people in the middle who don't always vote our way. This is why its important we treat those people reasonably. Also brought up the Brooks situation. Brooks supported us completely behind the scenes but then had to vote for the bill to protect his leadership position. If we peanalize Brooks then we harm any ability to go on the offensive. Dennis: We need to find a few things, such as concealed carry reform, and push very heavily on it. David Kopel: David gave his usual great speech. He has to update the computer copy with the changes he made in the speech and then he'll make it available for network distribution. Knowing he would do that, I didn't take extensive notes. But since he talked about items relevent to the Jack Brooks situation I did make one note: David made the following important point: We need to change the tactics of some gun activists. Late night phone calls to legislators, rudeness, verbal abuse, etc. are the secret weapons of the gun banners. We are asking for protection of the right to own and carry deadly weapons...if we can't be responsible with a telephone how can we convince legislators we will be responsible with deadly weapons. The passage of the crime bill can be directly tied to the tactics of these gun owners! This concluded the first set of presentations/panels and a Q&A session was held with the congressional affairs panel members. Q: I'm getting mixed messages on Brooks. Some of you are saying we should support him, others think we should go after him. I need a clearer message. A: Lots of discussion on the Brooks problem. See my summary for the basic arguments. The bottom line is that Gun Owners of America doesn't think we should cut Brooks any slack while the other groups either believe we should, or are keeping quiet to avoid making the internal disagreement worse. The point was made that several of our traditional friends voted against us on the crime bill because we attacked them after their votes in favor of the Brady Bill. We are one issue voters, they for the most part are not. They were so offended by the attacks that they decided they might as well switch sides. Their position now being that there is no point in taking a mostly pro-gun position if gun owners were going to treat them as being anti-gun anyway. Q: What can I do to help`remove or neutralize someone like Schumer who isn't in my district and who seems safe? A:You can vote locally towards a party change that would remove Schumer's power. In particular a Republican senate would leave the SJC with a Republican chair who would not likely treat legislation coming out of Schumer's house subcommittee kindly. You can also donate to the campaigns of candidates in other districts. Harry Browne, Libertarian candidate for President: Alan Gottlieb invited President Clinton to speak, but was not surprisingly turned down. All the Republicans thought to be planning to run were also invited, but they also turned down the opportunity (apparently its too controversial for them). Harry Browne is an announced candidate for the Libertarian Party nomination and accepted Alan's offer. Harry made an excellent pro-liberty speech with real content about his approach to reducing government. The speech was very well accepted by a crowd that includes lots of known libertarians, but is generally considered to be dominated by traditional conservatives (and for completeness, there were a number of pro-gun liberals in the crowd as well). Harry was one of only two speakers to get a standing ovation, Congressman Phil Crane was the other. At best Harry will give the LP an excellent candidate in '96 while at worst he'll make the fight for the LP nomination pretty exciting. Electronic Technology.: Peter Alan Kasler, Brad Alpert, Craig Petersen, Jeff Chan GRPC was completely organized by email. So was the recent Sacramento rally. PAK gave a general description of how he uses the computer everyday. Jeff Chan talked about what computer to get. There were brief demos of Gopher and Mosaic. Also a demo of PRN and of the new Freedom and Firearms Infobase CD available from Lektra. Unfortunately this panel was not the way to attack the subject at GRPC. What was really needed were two separate activities. First, a single presenter tutorial on how to use the net that was carefully prepared for the non-computer literate. Second, a panel that went into some detail about how several projects were organized (etc.) using electronic communications technology. The panel tried to do both of these but ended up sufficiently fractured to have limited their success. I think I'm going to have to volunteer to organize this for next year. Hear that Mr. Projects Director? Grass Roots Activism Panel (Ed Worley, NRA Grass Roots Coordinator): Phil Jackson - Democrats for the 2nd Amendment Daniel Schultz, President, Lawyers Second Amendment Society Linda Farmer - NFA Edgar Suter, MD, Doctors for Integrity in Research and Public Policy Tim Wheeler, MD, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership Russ Howard, Citizens Against Corruption Darryl Jones, Olympic Arms and Washington Firearms Coalition Don Carrol, Second Amendment Political Militia Linda: NFA formed after the 1986 full-auto manufacturing ban to fight for the rights of those interested in NFA34 Class 3 firearms. NFA now including military-style semi- autos along with Class 3 since the semi-autos have been banned. They are putting together a packet of infornation on how to put on a rally. Still taking input from people who have put on rallies. Edgar Suter: Primary problem with our movement today is that we don't have a long term strategy. We are in react mode. The best front we can open up right now is on concealed carry in each state. A second front will be to see that publicly funded research has some accountability. "At every level of government we have our tax money coming back at us to attack our civil rights." "While we are talking, agents of the BATF are training in Bradly Fighting Vehicles. We call for the reinvigoration of the unorganized militia." Russ Howard - Success is due to power and focus. They put their focus on one corrupt criminal-coddling politician at a time and never give up until their career is effectively over. Concealed Carry should not be made a purely 2nd Amendment issue. It should be positioned as a victims rights issue and used to build coalitions. It is the basic right of a victim to have the means to prevent themselves from being victims in the first place. Darryl Jones - Washington Firearms Coalition was formed to coordinate the efforts of CCRKBA, NRA, W.A.C., WSDR, etc. after the WA crime bill debacle this past spring. At this point my notebook battery started running low. I had planned to take a second battery, but a bad cold had kept me away from the office and I had to live with a single battery. I took a few notes at the next session and then the battery gave up the ghost. Can we get a fair shake in the media?: J. Neil Schulman: Things to counter the media: Use the so- called "shoppers", they are starved for copy. Start your own weekly. We need to go on the offensive. Get across the message that guns save lives and protect property; guns do good. We can't let the other side set the agenda as guns are bad. It's not enough to say that a gun could save a life, you have to show that they have. "Guns don't have purposes, people have purposes." Dan Gifford - Media lies. Gave many examples (including naming some names) where the press lied and when asked about it basically answered that they don't care. See the earlier quote from Peter Lake. My notebook's battery ran out about here with one more panel to go. Although the title was something focused on liability, the truth was that this was the annual industry panel. The summary of the discussion was that the industry continues to ramp up on political involvement after years of ignoring politics (contrary to HCI's claim, the NRA is not the lobbying arm of the gun industry). A question was asked about the absence of a few major players (Ruger and Winchester come to mind) as ASSC members and what could be done about it. The answer was that gun owners should use their pocketbooks to show their support for the manufacturers who are working to protect their rights over those who are not. I didn't cover Congressman Phil Crane's lunchtime speech or the various (traditional) awards. CCRKBA gave Crane its lifetime achievement award. I also didn't cover the primary purpose of the entire conference, the networking that goes on amongst the grass roots groups and the fascinating people you meet (including many you know by name or reputation) For example, most of you are probably at least vaugely aware of Peter Lake's most famous assignment although you may not have a clue who he is. Personally, I attend GRPC because it gives me the recharge I need whenever I get so frustrated with how the government has turned against the people that I start to slip into a bunker mentality. It accomplished that goal for me again this year. _______________________________ 1 The Gun Rights Policy Conference was created in 1986 as a means of coordinating and expanding grass roots activism. It is organized and run by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Second Amendment Foundation. Financial support comes from many sources including the NRA, GOA, ASSC, etc. All, or nearly all, national pro-gun groups participate in the conference as do the leaders of most major grass roots efforts around the country. The conference is held annually and alternates between the east and the west. As a result of the alternating sites the composition of the conference attendees varies somewhat. 2 I won't go into detail, but this is the doctrine that let's you cross the double yellow line (thus violating the law against driving on the wrong side of the road) to avoid a head-on collision in your own lane.