news
WASHINGTON - Unable to persuade Congress to pass gun-control legislation, President Clinton is taking his campaign to the states, urging them to impose safety latches, background checks, and other restrictions on gun use.
But an analysis of state gun-related legislation shows that Clinton^s success has been spotty, at best. And the governor of Colorado, where Clinton is traveling today, does not think the president^s appearance will help in passing a gun-control referendum, said Dick Wadhams, spokesman for Colorado Governor Bill Owens.
^^President Clinton^s visit politicizes the Columbine tragedy,^^ said Wadhams, referring to the school shooting last April 20. ^^What President Clinton wants to do is to come to Colorado for a political rally to draw attention to his effort to influence the Republicans in Congress.^^
Wadhams said Owens, a Republican, would have preferred that Clinton come to his state next week, for one of the memorials marking the first anniversary of the shooting.
Owens, once an adamant foe of gun control, backs passage of a state referendum that would require background checks of people who buy weapons at gun shows.
But ^^President Clinton has some very high negatives^^ in Colorado voter polls, Wadhams said. ^^The fact is, his presence might actually hurt the initiative.^^
Clinton had been invited to ^^a slew^^ of Columbine memorials next week, but decided to attend today^s rally ^^so this type of tragedy won^t happen again,^^ said White House spokesman Jake Siewert. ^^The president^s not running for anything. But he can focus on issues that affect the American family.^^
In a few states, Clinton and gun-control advocates have had some success in passing restrictions, according to the Arlington, Va.-based firm StateScape, which tracks state legislation.
But foes of gun control have been far more successful, keeping gun-control legislation stalled in committee and passing legislation that protects the industry, said John Grant, a StateScape legislative analyst.
^^The gun-control people are not getting what they want,^^ Grant said.
On the gun-control side, California last year passed a series of gun restrictions. Massachusetts recently instituted restrictions on new handguns sold in the state, requiring them to have tamper-proof serial numbers, trigger locks, and other safety devices.
But the Massachusetts rules were not imposed by legislation.
Attorney General Thomas Reilly was able to regulate the guns without legislative approval, instead using the state^s consumer protection law.
Clinton yesterday traveled to Annapolis, Md., to attend the signing ceremony for the Responsible Gun Safety Act of 2000, which imposes new safety requirements on firearms sold in Maryland. It was the first time the president has attended a signing for a state law.
^^I hope that the United States Congress is paying attention to this event today,^^ Clinton said after Governor Parris Glendening of Maryland signed the bill.
But in many more states, it has been the National Rifle Association that has been winning over legislatures. The group and its supporters have been overwhelmingly successful in getting laws passed that prohibit cities from suing gun manufacturers without the consent of their state legislatures, which tend to be more conservative.
Some of the laws go further in the area of tort change, protecting gun makers from lawsuits that would hold them liable for gun violence.
The legislation is critical because it goes straight to the heart of the gun maker^s business: the ability to sell weapons. It also puts a crimp in a strategy employed by gun-control advocates to force firearms manufacturers to adopt safety restrictions voluntarily, or else face a long, costly court battle.
Allowing cities to sue manufacturers ^^sets a very bad precedent^^ that could encourage other such lawsuits against a range of industries, said NRA spokesman James D. Manown
Uploaded: 4/13/2000
Uploaded: 4/13/2000