Five more Representatives have responded to the grassroots plea to overturn the Lautenberg gun ban and have joined onto Helen Chenoweth's repeal bill (H.R. 1009). With the additions of Representatives Cannon (UT), LaHood (IL), Smith (MI), Thornberry (TX) and Wicker (MS) the total cosponsorship number is now up to 26.
Your hard work has enabled the Chenoweth bill to become the leading repeal bill in the Congress. The total number of cosponsors on her bill continues to grow, and is pulling away from Rep. Bob Barr's compromise bill, which was introduced two months earlier than Chenoweth's.
Nevertheless, there are indications that Rep. Barr (R-GA) may begin pushing his compromise repeal measure through the Judiciary Committee shortly after the Memorial Day break (which ends in early June). Rep. Barr made it clear in USA Today (3/6/97) that he only supports a retroactive repeal of the gun ban and that he supports the actual ban itself! He stated, "This [Lautenberg gun ban] is important and worthwhile legislation, and we cannot allow its effectiveness to be reduced."
His support even dates back to the passage of the ban itself. Shortly after Rep. Barr voted last September for the spending bill which contained the Lautenberg ban, he issued a memo defending his vote. His September 28, 1996 memo was set on Congressional letterhead and stated his support for the underlying principle behind the Lautenberg gun ban. "The Lautenberg Amendment with the Barr Language is strong protection for women and children," he said.
Miscellaneous notes on the Lautenberg repeal:
A. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), the author of the gun ban, has been lobbying members on the Hill to keep his ban in place. This is, most likely, an effort on his part to halt the existing momentum for the repeal effort.
B. One gun owner has notified GOA that Rep. John Shaddegg (R-AZ) is telling constituents that he is holding off on cosponsoring the Lautenberg repeal (H.R. 1009) until he receives enough calls, letters and faxes. Rep. Shaddegg has apparently made the same challenge regarding H.R. 27, "The Citizen's Self-Defense Act." Folks, let's not disappoint him. Get those calls and faxes going!
If you have not done so already, you can still send a Western Union mailgram in support of H.R. 1009. Get your neighbors and gun clubs to send a message as well. A fee of $6.95 will be charged to their phone bill for a mailgram requesting their Congressmen to cosponsor the Chenoweth bill. Call 1-800-651-1486 to send your mailgram.
You can also call your Representative at 1-800-962-3524, 1-800-972-3524 or 202-225-3121. If you want to call, fax or e-mail directly to your Representative's office, hit the GOA website at Contact Info for the 105th Congress. Make sure he knows that H.R. 1009 is the only "no compromise" bill to repeal the Lautenberg gun ban. All the other "half-baked" repeal bills will still leave the Lautenberg gun ban in the federal code! If we're going to make the effort to repeal this onerous law, then let's do it right . . . let's remove the whole "cancer" from our lives.
UPDATE on the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC): In April, GOA alerted gun owners about concerns regarding the CWC's assault on the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the treaty allows international observers to inspect U.S. property without a warrant, and even seize American goods without probable cause. For now, the treaty would only 'authorize' infringements upon those who own chemical companies. But allowing foreign agents to violate the most basic freedoms of any American is a horrible precedent that should make every gun owner shudder. Proponents of the CWC claim that a last minute 'fix' by the Senate corrected the Fourth Amendment problems in the treaty. But according to the May 9, 1997 issue of Human Events, a conservative newspaper on Capitol Hill, such is not the case:
"Contrary to many press reports, the Senate resolution (SR 75) ratifying the treaty does not rectify the treaty's 4th Amendment problems. The resolution adds requirements for warrants, but since it is not a part of the treaty, the U.N., other signatory nations and international law courts are not required to recognize it.
"And even if the United States insists on enforcing the resolution, the treaty would still be unconstitutional because the resolution does not require that international inspectors demonstrate to the court that they have probable cause that a crime has been committed -- or even that the treaty has been violated -- in order to get a warrant."