Hindsight from The New Gun Week December 15, 1995
More About Counterterrorism Bills
By Joseph P. Tartaro Executive Editor
Many of our readers tell me that they like to turn to this column
as soon as receive a new issue; others obviously begin at the beginning.
While that is a flattering statement, it raises the specter of people
who might possibly overlook stories and articles that are of special
importance and time-sensitive.
One critically important article in this issue which no Gun Week
reader should miss appears on Page 4 (See the article by Leslie Hagin
which is also posted on Compuserve under the heading of Counterterrorism
Bill Vote). It expands on aspects of last week's Hindsight column in
which I discussed the dangers of the proposed counterterrorism bills,
one of which passed the Senate earlier this year and another which seems
likely to be voted on in the House of Representatives as early as the
week of Dec. 11.
The Page 4 commentary explores the general dangers to
constitutional rights posed by the anti-terrorism legislation and
specifically the habeas corpus reform proposals contained in both Senate
and House versions. Habeas reform is an important issue that should be
of special interest to gunowners who may not always appreciate how
important a writ of habeas corpus could be to them.
Leslie Hagin of the National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers, who has researched and written this illuminating article, may
be a newcomer to our pages, but she is far from a newcomer to
constitutional concerns. She, and the organization she represents, have
been actively involved with the Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens
Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Gun Owners of America,
National Rifle Association, American Civil Liberties Union and other
groups in the broad-based coalition of organizations which has been
seeking reform and accountability for federal law enforcement for almost
three years.
Hagin's examination of the historical roots of habeus corpus
protection and her illustration of how it serves to safeguard the rights
and property of law-abiding gunowners, as well as others should open
many eyes. Habeus reform has been for many, particularly those who
consider themselves political conservatives, a knee-jerk response to
criminal justice reform that is no more thoroughly examined than is the
"gun-control" panacea espoused by some political liberals. Just as the
issue of the right to keep and bear arms and the right to self defense
deserve careful and thoughtful study, so does the concept of judicial
review available to the accused in a writ of habeus corpus. Readers who
in the past have seen the habeus protection merely as a refuge for
scoundrels will find Hagin's article very enlightening.
Reacting to Terrorism
As with other elements of the counterterrorism legislation before
Congress, habeus reform was being promoted long before the horror of
Oklahoma City and well before the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. It
has nothing to do with protecting people from foreign and domestic
terrorists. It is a so-called anti-criminal measure which severely
restrict challenges to the authority of the prosecutors and the courts.
Like most of the so-called anti- terrorism legislation that was being
aggressively proposed before the events to which they are reputed to be
a reaction of, habeus reform will not offer society any new protection.
Saying that, however, does not preclude the possibility that some
reform of the appeals process would not be in order, particularly for
the likes of people who were convicted of particularly heinous crimes so
long ago that a large portion of our population no longer even chills to
the mention of their notorious names. But attempting to slap-dash any
review as part of a reckless stampede for government power at the
expense of our liberties is no answer; it is an even greater danger to a
well-ordered society.
The attempt to push legislation hastily without thorough public
consideration, whether by Democrats or Republicans -- and in this case
by both -- is the surest way to mistakes that will prove costly to our
citizens and dangerous to their rights. The attempt by Presidents and
lawmakers to grab more government power while appearing to solve what is
perceived to be a public problem is totally inimical to our system of
representative government.
What is especially dangerous with the counterterrorism legislation
is that it has been on a fast track greased by public insecurity and
political rhetoric. President Clinton has not officially responded to
the request for review of allegations of law enforcement abuse, which
were presented to him by the aforementioned coalition 23 months ago.
Eventual attempts by Congress to finally probe the Waco and Ruby Ridge
incidents in response to widespread public concern were mired in
politics and intentionally obfuscated by managed-media linkage to other
issues, including the Oklahoma City bombing. Something about
government, any government, doesn't like public and judicial review of
its actions.
Conference Committee
If the House passes any of the counterterrorism proposals before
it, either as introduced or as amended during debate, it will open the
door to legislative wheeling and dealing by a Senate-House Conference
Committee, because the bill passed by the Senate in May, S-735, will
differ from any House package. Procedurally, this will set in motion a
committee process to negotiate or compromise the differences, possibly
even to add other provisions. The product of this committee activity
will then assuredly pass without a roll-call vote.
Historically, the products of such conference reports have proven
to be unsatisfactory for several reasons. First, voting on such
conference reports is usually perfunctory, with none of the legislators
really aware of what a complex bill contains. This is the traditional
process for enacting revenue and spending bills or other unpopular
legislation. Second, the public will not become fully aware of what will
pass until months or years later, since even the lawmakers will not be
as schooled as the handful of bill drafters. Third, there will be no one
to hold accountable on election day. Without a roll call, every elected
official can claim political cover somewhere.
There are only two ways to assure that bad legislation does not get
to the President's desk. The first is to defeat it decisively in one or
both houses of Congress. The second is to be sure that a one-house bill
is never joined by a related proposal from the other house. This last
can be accomplished whenever a house's leadership decides that it will
simply not vote on a measure. However, the fact that the President, many
in Congress and some in the media keep calling for enactment of the
counterterrorism bill makes it unlikely that the people will thus easily
escape the dangers of the counterterrorism measures.
Those who are opposed to passage of this legislation will have to
make their opposition known before the House votes on it, and, if it
passes, afterwards when it comes before joint conference committee. With
a proposal as potentially dangerous as this one, eternal vigilance may
not be enough. Good men and women will have to do something. Meanwhile,
don't forget to read Leslie Hagin's article on Page 4 of this week's issue.
A Lighter Note
On a somewhat lighter note, it is interesting to note that the
Curse of the Gunnies first identified by attorney David T. Hardy in
these pages back in 1980 is still at work.
I received news clippings by fax today from Ohio which further
illustrate the impact of that curious phenomenon. The clipping from The
Columbus Dispatch reported on the recent problems which have befallen
for the mayor of that city who started the ball rolling on the city's
gun ban in 1989.
While still holding the office of mayor in those days, Dana G.
"Buck" Rinehart wrote to Council Member John Kennedy encouraging an
ordinance to ban so-called assault weapons. The local law eventually
passed, causing much distress to law-abiding gunowners with no
significant impact on criminals. That ordinance is the reason the
popular gun shows of the Ohio Gun Collectors Association are no longer
convened in Columbus.
The Columbus Dispatch for Dec. 5 reported that Rinehart will lose
his drivers' license for a year and be required to donate 80 hours of
community service as a result of a drunken driving charge. It was
alleged that Rinehart drove his Jeep into the back end of a Perry
Township police cruiser on Oct. 28, causing some $6,000 in damage.
In addition to the curb on his driving and community service,
Rinehart also faces suit for replacement of the cruiser if his insurance
company does not replace the entire vehicle, according to Township
Police Chief Howard Champ.
Perhaps the Curse of the Gunnies is no more than the manifestation
of the dark side of anti-gun officials.
*********************************************************
The New Gun Week is a weekly publication of the Second Amendment
Foundation (SAF). Hindsight is a commentary written by SAF President
and Gun Week Executive Editor Joseph P. Tartaro. This commentary may be
reprinted so long as credit is given to the author and the publication.
For more information or to subscribe, write Gun Week, PO Box 488,
Buffalo, NY 14209, or call 716-885-6408 Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to
5 p.m. EST, or inquire on Compuserve to John Krull, EDP manager -
75143,3674.
Transmitted: 12/8/95 2:27 AM (n120695x)
--
Stanton McCandlish
mech@eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Online Activist