Congressman Bob Barr has recently taken issue with GOA's position on the gun bans in the omnibus appropriations bill. In a letter responding to constituents, Barr states that "[t]he final legislation that was signed into law, though not perfect and not what I fought for, was a vast improvement over the original ... language."

You may remember that there were several rather serious anti-gun provisions in the bill. The first -- the "Lautenberg language" -- imposes a lifetime gun ban on persons who are OR WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED of a domestic misdemeanor AT SOME TIME IN THEIR LIVES.

Let's look at the major problems with the original language -- and the way these problems were or were not resolved.

ALL DOMESTIC MISDEMEANORS? -- OR MERELY SOME?

Congressman Barr rightly attacks the Clinton administration for "push[ing] for the loss of an individual's Second Amendment right for any domestic misdemeanor...."

The Barr proposal would have eliminated some domestic misdemeanors from the gun ban's coverage -- specifically, those misdemeanors which are so minor they would not involve jury trials.

Unfortunately, the final version once again applies to all domestic misdemeanors, whether or not jury trials are involved. Tragically, the only three exceptions to the lifetime gun ban remaining in the bill are the following:

-if the person was not represented by counsel and did not intelligently waive the right to counsel [18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(B)(i)(I)];

-if the person WERE entitled to a jury trial and was denied it without intelligently waiving it [18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(B)(i)(II)]; or

-if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or the person has been pardoned or has had his civil rights restored [18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(B)(ii)].

RETROACTIVE? -- OR MERELY PROSPECTIVE?

The original bill was justly attacked for applying a lifetime gun ban to someone convicted of a domestic misdemeanor in the past -- even though the conviction is over fifty years old.

Barr's language would have required that "at the time [of the conviction of a domestic misdemeanor] the person was notified ... that, if the person were convicted of the offense, the person would be prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm..." Obviously, a person could not have been informed of this fact for a misdemeanor committed in the past, because the person would not have been "prohibited from shipping, transporting, [etc.] a firearm" until the Lautenberg language was passed.

Unfortunately, this language was deleted from the final version of the bill, making the bill applicable to previously committed crimes.

VIOLENCE? -- OR MERELY THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE?

Barr correctly attacks the original gun ban language for penalizing misdemeanors "that may or may not involve actual physical violence or the presence of a deadly weapon."

Barr's language would have imposed a lifetime gun ban for "the threatened use of a deadly weapon," even if the accused did not possess a deadly weapon -- and even if the threat was merely a joking one.

The final language carries over all the inadequacies of the Barr "compromise."

ROADBLOCKS

Congressman Barr takes issue with GOA's characterization of the Kohl "school zone" gun ban as opening the door to gun-ban roadblocks in every major city. (You may remember that the Kohl amendment sets up a 1/2 mile wide gun-free zone around every school in the country.) "Nothing in the bill calls for roadblocks to be set up," he says, adding that "I believe this practice would be unconstitutional."

Has the congressman never heard of "sobriety checkpoints"? Is he unaware that roadblocks are now being set up in some locations to check for seatbelt use? Is he ignorant of the recent Supreme Court decision allowing police to visually search a passenger compartment when a motorist is stopped?

The fact is that the authority for roadblocks ALREADY exists. The school zone gun ban just sets up another trap for motorists who are stopped -- a trap that can land them in prison for many years.

BLACK AND SMOKELESS POWDER TAGGANT STUDY

Finally, Congressman Barr defends the omnibus appropriations bill's study of taggants for black and smokeless powder. These chemical "tracers" could destabilize powder and cause it to explode. Furthermore, placing taggants in gunpowder will ultimately lead to the government's registering of gunpowder purchasers.

Barr is correct that this is, at this point, only a study.

Unfortunately, most major government infringements on the Second Amendment have started with similar studies, whether legislatively mandated or performed ad hoc. Why does Congressman Barr suppose that anti-gun activists fought so hard to have this provision included in the bill, if the intent is not to use the study to impose more anti-gun restrictions?