Gun-sellers and lawmakers on the loose

AUSTIN — A profile in courage is hard to find these days, in D.C. or in Austin, so most of us would settle for a modicum of common sense from our elected representatives — except we can't even get that.

I especially enjoyed the Republicans' explanation of why they cannot require background checks on buyers at gun shows: The people who sell guns at gun shows are not licensed dealers. This argument was actually interspersed with the unlikely interjection, "You see."

To the untutored mind, the rather obvious question is, "Why are unlicensed dealers selling guns?" But, you see, the National Rifle Association makes very, very large campaign contributions. The NRA is now the real criminals' lobby in this country, not only defending the right of any crook to buy a gun at a gun show, but even opposing a limit of one gun purchase a month.

The notorious traffic in guns between states with weak guns laws, where unscrupulous dealers buy in bulk and then retail guns to criminals on the street in states where the laws are stronger, is the only beneficiary of this arrangement. The average citizen, really, honestly, so seldom needs to buy more than one gun in a month. The two-gun month is just not a common occurrence.

As a devoted civil libertarian, I am, of course, just as devoted to the Second Amendment as to any of the others. And what the second one says is perfectly clear: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What does selling handguns to criminals and crazies by unlicensed dealers at gun shows have to do with a well-regulated militia? Even if "militia" is taken to mean the entire citizenry (a dubious proposition), we still have an obligation to keep it well-regulated and thus are perfectly free to regulate criminals and crazies out of the deal.

Prohibition of the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons to those under 18 just does not — for all my years of defending the Bill of Rights, whether it is popular or not — qualify as a violation of constitutional liberties. I am sorry — it does not. It does, however, qualify as minimal common sense.

As though the debate on gun control weren't revolting enough, we have the further panorama of Congress passing an emergency bill to aid war refugees in Kosovo and the victims of tornadoes in Oklahoma. And how bad could that be? We want to help Kosovar refugees and Oklahoma tornado victims, right?

Of course, it's futile to bring up aesthetics in the context of Congress, but there is something particularly ugly about watching our elected leaders take a bill to help some of the saddest, neediest people on Earth and use it for pelf, gelt, pork, pet causes or anti-environmental riders, or help for the steel and oil industries.

It is not a pretty sight.

The bill has already been so loaded up with pork that it weighs $14.6 billion — more than twice as much as President Clinton sought for the war refugees and tornado victims.

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., is using the plight of devastated people to prevent the Alabama sturgeon from being put on the endangered species list. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, finds the suffering of commercial reindeer herders in Alaska to be an excuse to muscle in $3 million for them. And as The New York Times reported, Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., finds the plight of homeless people the perfect opportunity to sneak in a deal so an out-of-state mining company can blow a 900-foot hole in a mountain in northern Washington state and take out the gold it finds.

The Interior Department has refused a permit for the mining company on the grounds that its 900-foot hole would leave too much waste and cyanide-treated ore. Anyone familiar with what mine waste has done in the West knows this is an old, old story. But the mine is being sold, as usual, as a job-producer — in this case, the mine will employ 140 people for about 10 years. That would be good news if the problems that are left by old mines only lasted 10 years.

But that's a whole other argument, and it really doesn't have much to do with helping people whose lives were destroyed by an F-5 tornado. Couldn't they, like, attach all that stuff to a bill on spending for marine fisheries?

Meanwhile, our gang in Austin was in the biennial throes of the Day the Bills Die. Thursday was the deadline for House bills to reach the floor; otherwise, the bill is dead in committee. But such bills can be miraculously resurrected — they have a wonderful parliamentary habit of reappearing as either Senate bills (where the deadline is May 25) or as rather large amendments to bills that appear to be about something else entirely.

Many good bills perish by deadline every two years. But the good news is that many, many, many more bad bills also perish by deadline.

House Speaker Pete Laney, one of the great emergent political philosophers of our time, has often observed that as one travels around Texas, there are really very few problems one sees that can be solved by putting thousands of new laws on the books. I have always thought it should be a requirement that before any member can pass a bill, he or she must also manage to repeal an old bad or useless law.

Molly Ivins is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 1994 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.