(April 25, 1997) -- The ink on America's most recent gun ban has hardly had time to dry, and already The Washington Post (3/27/97) is complaining that the Lautenberg ban is too lax! Apparently the Post thinks that disarming mothers for spanking their kids or taking guns away from wives who slap their husbands does not go far enough.

The Post's editorial writers feel the law should also disarm people for offenses outside of the immediate family. So while the Lautenberg ban will permanently disarm two brothers for having a police record that resulted from a childhood fist fight on school grounds, the law will not disarm two neighbors who got into a fight on the same playground. According to the Post, the Lautenberg ban needs to be expanded to cover both cases.

Of course, this just highlights the slippery slope that undergirds Lautenberg. This ban is one of the most sweeping pieces of legislation that Congress has ever enacted. Never before has Congress denied millions of Americans the right to possess a firearm because of mere misdemeanors -- offenses so minor that in many cases, they did not even subject the offender to a jury trial.

Keep in mind, that federal law already prohibits felons -- including those convicted of a domestic violence felony -- from possessing firearms.

So if the Lautenberg ban does not touch felons, then who is covered by these so-called "domestic violence" misdemeanors? As suggested in the December 23, 1996 issue of The Wall Street Journal, any woman who throws a lamp at her husband, or any mother who spanks her child in jurisdictions where spanking is frowned upon, can now be disarmed forever as a result of Lautenberg.

Moreover, The Washington Post has reported (11/18/96) that women are often arrested along with their husbands when the police show up to a domestic disturbance -- even if the woman is an innocent victim. Quite often, women will plea-bargain the misdemeanor charge and pay the $25 fine. Such misdemeanors now disarm them for life! Congress has opened a huge door for the Chuck Schumers on Capitol Hill to drive their anti-gun agenda through. What will be next? Gun bans for speeding tickets? For check bouncing?

Many Hill offices have reported to their constituents that their hands were tied, that the Lautenberg amendment was part of a larger spending bill. They have stated, or insinuated, that they would not have supported the ban as stand-alone legislation. If this is true, then please show your constituents that you abhor this gun ban and that you will stand up for the Bill of Rights, specifically, the Second and Tenth Amendments.