Once more the press gets it wrong...

Sometimes, it seems like the mainstream media can't get it right even when they are purporting to correct the record. This editorial is a perfect example. First, they quote from a political advertisement in a NRA magazine:

"What's so D*!# Funny About BANNING Your GUNS?!" reads the copy framing the photo. "That's what this bunch just voted to do. Right before they posed for the camera. They voted to ban semiautomatic shotguns like your duck gun. And they voted to ban semi-automatic rifles like the one you use for plinking. And they voted to ban deer hunting rifle ammo. And they voted to shut down gun shows. And they voted to blame the gun industry for the acts of criminals. Are these the people you want to put in charge of your rights?"

That caption appeared beneath a picture of Schumer, Feinstein, Kerry, and Kennedy immediately after the assault weapons vote earlier this year. The author then describes the action as follows, purporting to describe what really happened:

The Senate was asked to vote on a measure that was aimed at protecting gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits. It had been introduced by Larry Craig, who represents the state of Idaho and the National Rifle Association, but not in that order, in the Senate. And it probably would have passed had not Democrats attached two amendments to the bill. One called for renewing the 10-year-old ban on assault weapons and the other would have required background checks on buyers at gun shows; the same kind of checks gun shop operators are required to make.

To the chagrin of Craig and Wayne LaPierre, Craig's control at the NRA, the Senate approved both amendments, with 10 Republicans joining 41 Democrats on the assault weapons ban and eight Republicans joining 44 Democrats on closing the gun show loophole. The weapons ban vote was 52-47, the gun show vote was 53-46.

None of this had anything to do with your duck gun or your plinking rifle or your deer hunting ammunition, as the ad claims.

Now, the basic facts here are correct. Unfortunately for the author, however, I covered the assault weapons ban vote in detail as it happened... and so I know what really happened. The Senate was considering the lawsuit-preemption measure (a pro-gun bill) and voted on several amendments to that bill, including the renewal of the assault weapons ban.

There was, in fact, a gun show amendment. The amendment did several things. First, it required private sellers at gun shows to conduct background checks through a licensed dealer. That's the thing that the magician waves around to distract you from what's really going on. What's really going on? Well, another provision in the amendment created criminal liability for the organizers of the gun show if the private-sale background check requirement was violated. In other words, the people who run the gun shows could be imprisoned for mistakes made by private individuals at a gun show they organized.

Criminal liability is a heavy stick, folks, and no gun show organizer would have dared to hold a gun show with that ax hanging over their head. The laws are too vague and the enforcement too malicious. There is absolutely no way that the gun show organizer could reasonably comply with that requirement to avoid the possibility of becoming a criminal due to someone else's actions.

That would shut down gun shows -- if not immediately, then as soon as the first conviction. And the Famous Foursome voted for the amendment. Fact.

Next up. One of the other amendments being voted on concerned armor-piercing ammunition. This amendment purported to ban handgun ammunition that is capable of piercing a "bulletproof" vest. If you believe the propaganda from the anti-gun lobby, it's a reasonable bill that covers ammunition specially manufactured for piercing protective clothing. Who could oppose that? Who would use such ammunition other than criminals shooting at police?

There are a couple facts that you need to properly evaluate this amendment, however. First, nothing in the language of the bill required a special design purpose for piercing protective clothing. Simply the ability to do so was sufficient. Second, bulletproof clothing is designed to stop handgun bullets (and the ban specifies handgun ammunition), and usually the smaller, less powerful calibers. Short of heavy ceramic armor plating usually seen only in the military, any centerfire rifle bullet will pierce a "bulletproof vest". In practice, that means any bullet more powerful than a ".22 long rifle", and that's the smallest rifle caliber in general use.

So far, so good, right? Rifle bullets can pierce vests, but the ban says handgun ammunition only. So the hunting ammo is safe, right?

Wrong. There are handguns capable of firing every common rifle round. Everything from the .223 used in the M-16 all the way up to the .50 BMG, explicitly including every caliber popular for hunting. They aren't always popular handguns, or even pretty handguns, but they are handguns, they are in production, and they count. The amendment, if it became law, would have rendered all that ammunition vulnerable to a ban simply by presenting an example of a handgun in each caliber to the BATFE.

The Fearsome Foursome voted for that amendment. That's a fact. And the writer purporting to correct the record doesn't even mention the amendment. Most likely, he doesn't know about it. What kind of record-correction is that?

What about your plinking rifle? Well, if you already own it, your plinking rifle is safe. But that's not what the ad said; it said that the Senators "voted to ban semi-automatic rifles like the one you use for plinking". And they did. The word "like" means something.

The guns banned by the Assault Weapons Ban differ from a normal plinking rifle in only very small, cosmetic ways. For example, semi-automatic versions of the M-16 are popular for plinking -- yet the assault weapons ban covers many versions of that firearm (those manufactured with a bayonet mount or a flash suppressor or a threaded barrel). Those are cosmetic accessories, easily removed in order to comply with the law, exactly as the manufacturers did. And by virtue of their cosmetic nature, the banned firearms are like your semiautomatic plinking rifle; there is no mechanical difference between your plinking rifle and a banned "assault weapon".

What about your duck shotgun? Well, the relevant line from the Assault Weapons Ban is this: "any shotgun which contains its ammunition in a revolving cylinder, such as (but not limited to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12". Once again, the word "like" comes into place. What's the difference between a semiautomatic shotgun that uses a revolving cylinder and a semiautomatic shotgun with an inline magazine? Not much. They both fire one shotgun shell each time you pull the trigger. Once again, the word "like" means something. (Besides, it's possible to hunt ducks with a street sweeper. It may get you odd looks, but it would work just as well).

In fact, both of the "like" statements illustrate one of the major flaws in the assault weapons ban: the ban affects only cosmetic differences. It's not based on any rational criteria, but on simple cosmetics.

Although the writer doesn't mention it, there was another amendment concerning trigger locks from Barbara Boxer, another anti-gun Senator. That passed. And the Fearsome Foursome voted for it, too.

Let's talk about blaming the gun industry for the actions of criminals, even though the writer is kind enough to concede that that was actually at issue. The reason the lawsuit preemption issue was even being discussed was because of lawsuits like this one, in which gun control groups sued Glock, a handgun manufacturer, and its distributors for the actions of a mentally-ill murderer who bought his firearms from a private party. Or this one claiming the marketing and distribution practices are a public nuisance due to firearm crime. And how about this legislation seeking to create the kind of liability the immunity bill was trying to close? How about this one, which the paper describes as a suit that would "hold gun dealers accountable when criminals get their hands on guns". Or this one, suing the store where the DC snipers shoplifted the rifle they used for their attacks.

Convinced? All those lawsuits seek to blame manufacturers, distributors, and dealers for the actions of criminals. The immunity bill would have stopped those lawsuits. The Fearsome Foursome voted against the immunity bill even with their poison-pill amendments. Fact.

If you doubt me, check their votes for yourself. Want to correct the record? Contact the paper and tell them to print a correction. But there are more issues in the rest of the editorial:

An infuriated LaPierre began e-mailing Senators urging them to vote against the measure rather than have it pass with the amendments intact. Whereupon the good soldier Craig urged his colleagues to vote against his own bill. Which they did, 90-8.

True enough as far as it goes. But was LaPierre really "infuriated"? If so, he was infuriated because his ass was on the line: shortly before the crucial votes the NRA had been exposed by hard-line, gun-rights libertarians as being willing to trade the immunity bill for the assault weapons ban renewal. This generated a firestorm of email to the NRA and a firestorm of infuriated constituents calling their Senators to urge them to vote against the bill.

It may be that the NRA gave the Senators their marching orders after the various gun control amendments passed. But if so, the NRA got its own marching orders from its members and activists, who would not stand for another repulsive compromise. If you're looking for the Secret Masters of the NRA conspiracy, look no further than the NRA members.

Supporters of the two amendments included John Warner of Virginia and John McCain of Arizona. They do not appear in the ad's photograph. And Bush, who was on record favoring both amendment measures, made no effort to support them. Flip-flop?

Gun owners have been unhappy with Bush over his position on this issue for some time, and it may cost him the election this year. However, while he stated the he would sign the bill if it made it to his desk, he never promised to push for it to pass. The bill hasn't made it to his desk, so that's that.

As for McCain and Warner, their names will be remembered by gun-rights activists, along with all the rest. We'll be remembering Warner because he voted for the renewal. And we'll be remembering McCain's vote against it -- although McCain's authorship of the Incumbent Protection Act will more than cancel out any credit for the nay vote.

But if you had to pick four Senators to represent gun control, Feinstein (who wrote the assault weapons ban renewal amendment and the original 1994 ban), Kennedy (who authored the ammunition ban amendment), Kerry (who interrupted his campaign for President to vote for the ban), and Schumer (who has a long history of support and advocacy for gun control) are as good as any and better than most.

Don't like the ad because it picks on Democrats rather than Republicans? Given that there were over 40 Democrats supporting the bill, and under 8 Republicans, and also given that the amendments under discussion were authored by Democrats, and two of the Senators pictured were those who authored the amendments being objected to, I hardly find the picture poorly chosen. That this writer does is evidence of his own bias, rather than an objection on the merits.