Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

GARY EICHTEN: Well, of course, there are a few topics that get people more stirred up than guns and gun control. And there are few organizations that inspire more passion, pro and con, than the three million member National Rifle Association. Tomorrow, as you've heard, the NRA's annual National Convention opens in Minneapolis. There have already been some protests over the mere fact that the convention is being held. So we thought we'd spend the hour today talking about guns and the NRA.

Joining us here in the studio is Richard Gardiner, who is the Legislative counsel for the National Rifle Association. Now, some of you may have heard that Mr. Lapierre, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the NRA, was going to be on, but his schedule got mixed up, and he was unable to make it. So Mr. Gardner has been good enough to come by and sit-in his place.

Also, with us today is Saint Paul DFL State Representative Howard Orenstein, who's one of the legislators leading supporters of gun control legislation. Before we go to our callers while we get that all set up, first of all, Mr. Gardiner, I understand there's no formal NRA chapter in Minnesota, but any idea how much support you folks have here?

RICHARD GARDINER: I don't know exactly how many NRA members we have in Minnesota. Probably, it's in the tens of thousands, certainly. But I, unfortunately, couldn't give you the exact figure. It's going up so fast every day, too, that I can't even keep up with it. We're signing up 50,000 to 60,000 new members nationwide every month, and membership is actually up at about 3.5 million now.

GARY EICHTEN: Obviously, we're going to spend most of the hour actually talking about this issue. But in a nutshell, why is it that the NRA is so opposed to gun control legislation?

RICHARD GARDINER: Well, the basic reason is that it doesn't work. It doesn't reduce crime, assuming that crime reduction is the goal. And what it-- but what it does do is it diverts attention and more importantly, resources from serious efforts to reform a criminal justice system that is doing a pretty awful job right now to make it do the job it should be doing. That, in a nutshell, is the position. Now, there are obviously a lot of ramifications from that.

GARY EICHTEN: Howard Orenstein, what about that? Is there any evidence really that gun control legislation actually does anything about crime, or is it just impose restrictions on legitimate law abiding people?

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Well, Gary, we know that in Minnesota, where we've had a background check waiting period law for handguns on the books for about 17 years, that hundreds of applications are denied every year by police chiefs. And we also know that since the Brady law went into effect just a few months ago. Nationally, hundreds and thousands of applications for handgun purchases have been denied by police chiefs.

So guns are being kept out of the hands of people who are ineligible under the law to have them like convicted felons, without in any way infringing on the rights of sportsmen and sportswomen and people who people want to own a handgun legally for self-defense, to have those weapons. So the law is working without any infringement on any legitimate gun owners rights.

GARY EICHTEN: Do we know what happens, though, to the people who are denied an opportunity to get a handgun, for example? I mean, couldn't they just go out and buy one on the street anyway?

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Well, one of the things that the NRA has succeeded in doing is preventing the waiting period background check laws from applying to all handgun transactions. They've limited it to dealer transactions. And clearly, that's a loophole in the law that the NRA is responsible for.

GARY EICHTEN: How does-- gentlemen, do you know how Minnesota's gun laws compare with the rest of the nation's? Do we have generally tougher gun laws here, or how do they stack up?

RICHARD GARDINER: Minnesota, I'd say, is kind of in the middle of the spectrum, closer toward the tougher end, maybe a bit, but certainly not as extreme as Washington, DC, which, by the way, is the murder capital of the United States, primarily with handguns, but certainly not as good as a state like Vermont or the Dakotas or Montana, something like that. Where, by the way, the murder rate is much, much, much lower than the National average. So Minnesota is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.

GARY EICHTEN: Would you agree with that?

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: I'd agree with that. And I think that we do try to take the issues one at a time here rather than polarize them ideologically. I think it's important to understand that the larger national debates over the last few years over assault weapon restrictions and handgun waiting periods, have-- those debates have not been between hunters and non-hunters, or between gun owners and non-gun owners.

Hunters, non-hunters, gun owners, non-gun owners by overwhelming majorities favor these types of reasonable regulations of non-sporting weapons. The debate has been how to fashion a crime bill that addresses the crime problem in a variety of ways. And hunters, non-hunters, gun owners, non-gun owners agree in large majorities with our police officers and our police chiefs that reasonable regulation of non-hunting weapons should be a part of our approach to the crime problem.

It's only a kind of narrow extremist band of these lobbyists in Washington from the NRA, who have polarized this debate and have really taken on the large majority of the American people and held hostage, the kind of crime legislation over the years, which we've tried to pass.

RICHARD GARDINER: Well, that's obviously patently ridiculous. The majority of people in this country recognize that gun control legislation. And if you take open-ended polls and say, what do you think will reduce crime, maybe 7% or 8% will talk about gun control as a solution.

People aren't fooled that regulating my possession of a firearm or the average person's possession of a firearm is going to do any good at all. And certainly, law enforcement isn't fooled. I mean, the vast majority of street cops, the guys who are out there doing it day in and day out, know that gun control legislation is a fraud, and they are opposed to it.

Now, unfortunately, they are terrified into-- to not speaking out on the issue because of their politically led leaders. But the polls, the anonymous polls that are done by law enforcement organizations, indeed, including one in Minnesota, I think it's the Southeastern Police Association poll, showed that they know that gun control legislation doesn't work, and they don't support it.

What we'd like to see, by the way, is allowing individual street cops to come out and speak on this issue without the fear that they're going to lose their jobs if they do speak, because they know that this stuff won't work. And the suggestion that there's any dispute or that there's no dispute that all that the majority of gun owners support this legislation is, again, completely false.

As I said earlier, our membership is going up at 40,000 or 50,000 a month because people-- the average gun owner is finally recognizing that if he doesn't get involved, that this effort to enact so-called reasonable regulation is going to lead to much more radical legislation, which is actually the ultimate goal of those who support this kind of so-called reasonable legislation.

GARY EICHTEN: Howard Orenstein, would you like to see a total ban on all firearms?

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Absolutely not. I don't think there's any indication that that's warranted.

GARY EICHTEN: How about all handguns?

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: I've never taken that position. I know some people have. But I think that in Minnesota, as a state legislator, I had to do what the members of Congress have been doing, which is to approach the issues one at a time, look at the evidence, listen to the testimony. And if you do that, you'll do what Congress has done, which is try to pass laws that are well-tailored, like the Brady Bill, which is now the Brady Law, the assault weapon restrictions. And take the issues really one at a time without taking the kind of extremist approach that we see oftentimes from the lobbyists.

GARY EICHTEN: Let's go to our-- let's go to our first caller here. We've got a number of callers on the line who are standing by to talk with Richard Gardiner of the National Rifle Association. Also with us is Howard Orenstein, who is a DFL State Representative from Saint Paul, who's taken a fairly strong position in terms of gun control legislation. First caller on the line. Hi.

AUDIENCE: Hi. I'd like to make a brief comment or two, but I'd like to preface it by saying I'm not a member of the NRA, and I'm not a gun owner.

GARY EICHTEN: OK, well, keep your comments short, though.

AUDIENCE: OK. My comment is my curiosity as to why we feel that passing more laws are going to have any effect on a serious problem. I have children in elementary school, and I'm very concerned about the issue, but making things double and triple illegal, like the fact that it's been illegal for a long time for felons to own a firearms.

Let's pass more laws, make it double and triple illegal for them to own them, how they feel that will have any effect if they spent the same amount of money and effort in their legislature passing effective gun laws. It would be money. They're spending millions.

The ineffectiveness of Reagan's anti-drug program is proof of that. They like to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and yet it's having no effect. Let's spend all of our legislative time and money and effort making more and more useless laws, rather than going after the problem.

GARY EICHTEN: OK. Howard Orenstein, what about that complaint that we really have plenty of laws here? If we wanted to enforce them, we wouldn't need any more laws.

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Well, my constituents and I campaign every year, door to door, believe that there is a serious problem, especially now with children and guns, especially children and handguns. And this is a new problem. We see the statistics nationally, a 50% increase in crimes committed with handguns. We see in Minnesota, an 87% increase over the last five years in crimes committed with guns. That's in Saint Paul.

And we know that things are changing in our neighborhoods. And when things change, legislators should do the people's will and try to address those things. Should we do stupid laws? Of course not. But if you have a law on the books, just to take the caller's example, that prohibits a felon from having a weapon, you have to have some way of enforcing that.

And that's all that the Brady Law does, is set up a procedure whereby when somebody wants to buy a handgun, you can check and see whether that person's a convicted felon. So again, I try to look at the issues one at a time. And one thing that I look at is how our law enforcement leaders are advising us on these issues, because they're the ones that have to implement the laws. And if they don't think it's a good idea, I think, generally speaking, it's probably not a good idea.

Now, Mr. Gardiner somehow suggested that law enforcement people would be afraid to speak their minds. But there was a letter that was sent to President Clinton in support of the assault weapon ban that was signed by the President of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the President of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Chairman of the Major Cities Chiefs, the National President of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and five other law enforcement organizations, the National Sheriffs Association. Now, when these people are telling us that these law changes would help them do their job, I have a responsibility as a state legislator and our members of Congress to also-- to listen to them and to respond.

GARY EICHTEN: Comment Mr. Gardiner?

RICHARD GARDINER: Well, not a single one of those organizations has asked its members what their position is. We've asked them over and over and over again to do that because they are not representing the interests of their members when they speak in support of gun control legislation. The polls, as I mentioned earlier, that have been done of the law enforcement officers show overwhelmingly they are, in fact, opposed to the legislation.

And I think that as a legislator, Mr. Orenstein and other legislators have a duty to try to find out what not the leadership of organizations thinks six or seven leaders, because they're largely speaking for themselves. He has a duty to find out what the street cop thinks, because that's the guy who's out there enforcing the law.

And I'd like to mention that he uses the Brady Bill as an example of a law we already have on the books. And it's trying-- and it's stopping felons, supposedly, from buying guns. None of those people are being prosecuted. If they really-- if they're felons attempting to buy guns, they've committed a federal felony, but nobody's prosecuting them. And that is evidence of the problem that we've really got in this country is a virtual lack of enforcement of the existing laws.

And he talks about the fact that gun crime is up. I think he said 87% in Saint Paul. Again, it's evidence that gun control legislation has been a failure. You've got a permit to purchase system here that's been in effect for many years for handguns. People under 18 generally can't even possess handguns. There's no legal mechanism by which you can carry handguns, unless you happen to be lucky enough to get a permit to carry from, because you happen to know the chief of police.

All these laws are already on the books, but the fact that crime is up so dramatically indicates that they have not worked. What we need is a refocus on getting the dangerous, violent felon behind bars. And if that includes juvenile violent felons, then let's do that and stop wasting time talking about how many more laws we need. We've got plenty of laws on the books.

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Well, I know Mr. Gardiner probably hasn't spoken to many police officers in Saint Paul because he just flew in from Washington or Virginia or wherever it is that he lobbies from. But I do talk to many of them on a regular basis, and they believe-- quite to the contrary, they don't believe, as he said, that the laws are too strong. They believe that the laws are too weak, and they'd like to see them toughened up. These are beat police officers. I see them when I knock on doors in my district, and I talk to him when I go over to the police headquarters.

GARY EICHTEN: OK, let's get another caller on here. Hi, your turn.

AUDIENCE: Hello.

GARY EICHTEN: Yes. Go ahead, sir.

AUDIENCE: Calling from Duluth.

GARY EICHTEN: Yes.

AUDIENCE: And just referring to the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the right to bear arms. It has to do with a well-regulated militia and the security of a free state. It says nothing about the right to have arms for hunting, like shotguns or hunting rifles. It would seem to me that the new assault gun ban law would be unconstitutional, because it bars the very weapons, which the Constitution says we have the right to bear.

GARY EICHTEN: Can you comment, Mr. Gardiner?

RICHARD GARDINER: Yeah. First of all, let me emphasize to the caller and anybody else who's listening that that bill that is passed in Congress, in the House last week is not law. There's still a long way to go in the legislative process before it becomes law, if it ever does become law.

But the caller is exactly right. And what the US Supreme Court held in 1939 was that the arms that are protected by the Second Amendment, and that's what they found the significance of the well-regulated militia language was, where those arms, which were used by the militia, and they defined the militia as all able-bodied people, able to-- able-bodied males, able to contribute to the Common defense and recognized, by the way, that those-- that they would be arms supplied by the individuals from their own homes.

So the caller is exactly right that this isn't-- the Second Amendment doesn't deal with, are these for good hunting? It deals with, are they good for the militia? And the militia, of course, has a military purpose and a law enforcement purpose. And any gun which fits that description is, according to the US Supreme Court's, only decision on the point, the kind of arms that are protected.

GARY EICHTEN: But is there any reason why people need to have an Uzi or an M16? I mean--

RICHARD GARDINER: Well, let's also talk a little bit about the bill that passed. It only deals with semi-automatic firearms. There's nothing in the legislation dealing with fully automatics. Now, the Uzi comes in a semi-automatic and full automatic version. There are no full automatics in this country. They've been illegal to import for many, many, many years. We're talking about the semi-automatic.

And all it is, all the semi-automatic Uzi is, is a 9 millimeter pistol. It functions no differently than a Smith and Wesson or a cold or a Ruger, any of half a dozen other firearms that are out there on the market. Now, it looks a little different, but it's exactly the same gun.

And the same thing with the AR-15 that is on the list. It's the semi-automatic version, which functions no differently than any other semi-automatic rifle. So we're not talking about full automatics. It's very, very important to emphasize that, because many people misunderstand what the legislation does.

And the reason that people own those kind of guns-- you would own an Uzi pistol, for example, would be a good self-defense pistol. You might own an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle for hunting small game. Now, you wouldn't use it for hunting large game because it's too-- it's not powerful enough. But those are the kinds of reasons. People own them for competitive target shooting, and they own them for self-defense.

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Gary, I need to get back to facts for a second on the Second Amendment. Mr. Gardiner is a lawyer, but he has some fantasies about what the Second Amendment does and doesn't do. He makes the point that this kind of assault weapon ban would be illegal under the Second Amendment. But in fact, as opposed to fantasy, the NRA has litigated that issue or financed the litigation of that issue in Cities and states around this country.

To my knowledge, they have not prevailed ultimately in any state in which they've brought those challenges on Second Amendment grounds. So I think it's important to know that while there is a view of the Second Amendment that Mr. Gardiner espouses, that kind of a view has just been dismissed over and over and over again by federal courts across the country.

In fact, to take a Minnesota view of this, our former US Supreme Court Chief Justice, Warren Burger, has just dismissed out of hands the NRA's argument on the Second Amendment. And I don't think Warren Burger is any kind of extremist. I think he's a fairly conservative guy from Minnesota.

RICHARD GARDINER: I'd like to respond to that. What I was talking about is what the United States Supreme Court unanimously decided. Now, maybe Mr. Orenstein thinks that's a fantasy. I'll be glad to give him a copy of the case, because he's obviously not--

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Well, I read the case many times, Mr. Gardiner.

RICHARD GARDINER: I doubt you have.

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: You know as well as I do that that was not the point of the case. It was something that they were discussing in conjunction with another ruling, and that is not been--

RICHARD GARDINER: What ruling was that?

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: That was not-- it is not the outcome that has been reached in every single case.

RICHARD GARDINER: Mr. Orenstein, obviously, you've never read the case law. There's a--

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: I've read it a lot of times.

RICHARD GARDINER: You obviously have not, because you couldn't make statements like that.

GARY EICHTEN: OK. Well, let's move very briefly here because I don't know the law.

RICHARD GARDINER: Yeah. Let me finish responding to the statement that, no--

GARY EICHTEN: The rest of us aren't lawyers.

RICHARD GARDINER: I'd like to-- well, it's an important point. Let me respond to the point.

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Lawyers can argue all day long, but the Supreme Court and all the federal courts have consistently upheld all laws regulating weapons.

GARY EICHTEN: OK. Very briefly, Mr. Gardiner.

RICHARD GARDINER: The reason that no state law has ever been struck down on Second Amendment grounds is that none of the Bill of Rights, the US Bill of Rights, applies to the states. Now, many lawyers, I'm afraid, don't even know that, but that is what the court has unanimously held time and time again.

And the problem is that the US Supreme Court has never had a case to determine the issue of whether the Second Amendment is also a limitation on the states by virtue of the 14th Amendment. I realize that's a sophisticated legal point, but it's a very important one to understand if you want to make sense of this debate.

GARY EICHTEN: 26 minutes past the hour, and we are talking today with Richard Gardiner, who's a legislative counsel for the National Rifle Association. The NRA's Annual Convention-- National Convention, that gets underway in Minneapolis tomorrow. And joining us here in the studio as well, Saint Paul DFL State Representative Howard Orenstein, one of the legislature's leading supporters of gun control legislation. Lots of callers on the line. Lots of questions and comments. Let's go back to the phones. Hi.

AUDIENCE: Hello.

GARY EICHTEN: Yes, sir. Your turn.

AUDIENCE: Yeah, I'd just like to make a comment about the Brady Law.

GARY EICHTEN: Just a brief one.

AUDIENCE: I went to buy a handgun the other day and I was turned down. The gun store, which I have bought handguns from many times in the past. The gun store gave me a phone number of the Fridley police department to call. I called this number. And it turns out I had a parking ticket that wasn't paid for.

Now, the Fridley police considered me a fugitive of justice because of this and refused to sell me a handgun. I thought this law was only supposed to pertain to felonies and people who were not allowed to buy handguns. Now, I am legally allowed to buy a handgun. This is just doesn't make any sense to me.

GARY EICHTEN: Either one of you gentlemen care to comment? Is this just one of those bureaucratic snafus?

RICHARD GARDINER: No, unfortunately not. Under federal law, a fugitive from justice is not allowed to acquire any type of firearm. And if you have a warrant out for your arrest as a result of missing a court date on a parking ticket, the law considers you a fugitive from justice.

Now, obviously, all he has to do is pay the parking ticket and the fugitive warrant will be withdrawn. But strictly speaking, that's correct. And by the way, that kind of example is what most of or many of the examples of people who've been denied around the country are. We're not talking about denying felons. We're talking about denying people who have parking ticket warrants out.

GARY EICHTEN: Quick comment, Mr. Orenstein? Would you agree with that, that a lot of the people who are, in fact denied permission to buy a gun, or at least initially, are people who really haven't done anything wrong, they just have a parking ticket?

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Gary, I haven't seen the breakdown on the data, but I would sure be interested in following up on that.

GARY EICHTEN: Let's take another caller. Hi.

AUDIENCE: Hi. Hello.

GARY EICHTEN: Yes, sir.

AUDIENCE: Yes, a quick question here. Why does the media tend to focus on illegal and violent uses of guns, rather than give some equal time to sporting uses, such as target hunting, competitive practical pistol shooting, clay birds, sporting clays, et cetera? I'll hang up and clear the lines. Wait for your answer.

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: That's for you, Gary.

GARY EICHTEN: A little bit more volume. Sir, would you repeat the question, please? We had some technical difficulties here in the studio.

AUDIENCE: Hello?

GARY EICHTEN: Yes, sir. Would you repeat your question, please? We had some technical difficulties in the studio.

AUDIENCE: OK. Why does the media tend to focus on illegal and violent uses of guns rather than give some equal time to sporting uses, such as trap shooting, competitive bench shooting, practical pistol, metallic silhouette, et cetera, et cetera? I never see that on TV. Thank you much.

GARY EICHTEN: Well, thank you. I don't watch much TV. Let's take another caller. Hi. You're next. Yes, sir? Yes, ma'am?

AUDIENCE: Yes, I'm a female.

GARY EICHTEN: Yes.

AUDIENCE: I have a question about why the NRA is trying to misrepresent the Second Amendment to the American people. And I also want to know how the NRA can be involved in things like trying to promote cop killer bullets and to legalize machine guns.

GARY EICHTEN: OK.

AUDIENCE: I thought they were supposed to be the National Rifle Association.

RICHARD GARDINER: Well, with regard to the first question, all I am doing is repeating what the Supreme Court has said. And if you have any doubts about that, I urge you to read the opinions and the long history of what the adoption of the Second Amendment was all about.

That's all we do is promote what the court-- what the Supreme Court has said and what the history of the First Amendment says. And I think that is our duty to portray that accurately and not to invent history. And by the way, all the-- not all, but the overwhelming majority of Second Amendment scholarship today has agreed that it protects a fundamental individual right.

Now, of course, like any provision of the Constitution, any provision of the Bill of Rights, it's subject to reasonable regulation. If there is a compelling interest for that regulation, like this station is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, certainly there can be some limited regulation on firearms. It's not an absolute right.

GARY EICHTEN: OK, what about cop killer bullets and machine guns?

RICHARD GARDINER: With regard to the cop killer bullet issue, we supported the legislation that is now law. So that's an easy one.

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: They fought it every step along the way.

RICHARD GARDINER: Well, we fought the initial legislation because it was not focused on armor piercing ammunition. It banned all hunting ammunition. Now, Mr. Orenstein, you've been in the legislative process. You know that legislation, when it's initially introduced, is often different than the final version that comes out. And you know that when it's drafted--

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Well, let's be honest how it happened.

RICHARD GARDINER: I am being honest. The initial legislation would have banned all hunting ammunition once the legislation was narrowed, so that it only affected armor piercing ammunition. We had no objection to it, and it passed the Senate, but I think it was a vote of 99 to 1 because we didn't have any objection to it.

With regard to machine guns, the reason that we have not opposed the current-- the federal legislation that was enacted in 1934, which is still the law that says that if you want to possess a machine gun, it has to be registered with the federal government. So I don't know exactly what the caller is talking about.

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Well, you did oppose legislation in 1986, didn't you?

RICHARD GARDINER: We oppose legislation in 1986, which banned the complete possession of machine guns, even for people who wanted to go through the waiting period, the registration process, fingerprinting and all that, because there is no need for that.

According to the government itself, no registered machine gun has ever been used in a crime in this country with regard-- with one exception, and that was by a police officer who used one to commit a crime with it. And there is absolutely no need for federal legislation completely banning them for people who are willing to go through that kind of elaborate background process.

GARY EICHTEN: Let's take another caller with a question. Hi.

AUDIENCE: Hi. I have a question. If the NRA would offer me support, I'd like to lease handguns to every foreign tourist and visitor who comes to our country. So they can arm themselves and protect themselves. Would I get NRA support for that, please?

RICHARD GARDINER: Well, you'd have to be a federally licensed firearms dealer. And it would require an Amendment to federal statute to do that, because under current federal law, a person has to be a resident of a state to be able to acquire a firearm from a dealer. And I don't think realistically, there's any chance that the Fed-- that Congress is going to change the requirement of residency.

GARY EICHTEN: Other countries have lower gun violence rates than the United States, in some cases, substantially lower. Does that have any relevance in the United States at all? Is that something that should be considered as part of the discussion of what kind of laws we should have?

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Well, we do have a different culture, I think, in this country that has always been much more tolerant of guns than the cultures in many other countries. And it's just-- it's part of our history. And I think all of us as legislators struggle with how in 1994, we try to assure that the good parts of that history, hunters and people who want guns for self-defense, don't feel threatened, but also that we can have some reasonable regulation to deal with the violence on our streets. And that's an ongoing battle. I think we'll be fighting over that until the end of the Republic.

RICHARD GARDINER: I think there's certainly some relevance. Although the problem with international comparisons is that the cultural differences are so, so great that the comparisons are largely really worthless. And in fact-- but what's interesting is the studies of places that have gun control laws, like England, for instance, have shown that it has been, in fact, a miserable failure in England. But making direct comparisons is really not very helpful given the different cultures.

GARY EICHTEN: Back to the phones. Let's hear from another listener. Hi.

AUDIENCE: Hello.

GARY EICHTEN: Yes, go ahead. I wonder-- this is, I hope, a non-controversial question, but I was wondering for the NRA man, if he would tell us whether, in light of recent events, there has been a financial drain or loss in the NRA. And more importantly, is there a faction within the board of directors seeking a really new strategy or a change of policy from the past?

RICHARD GARDINER: Well, there has been-- we have spent a lot of money in the last few years. There's no question about that. A lot of it going into a membership promotion and some of it going into some-- what turned out to be bad investments in computer equipment. But the NRA is very healthy financially. As I said earlier in the show, membership is going up at 40,000 or 50,000 a month.

And so we in very good shape financially. As far as factions within the board, there are certainly individuals on our board of directors who think that there ought to be some differences in how tact-- difference in tactics. But by and large, the board of directors is very unified on what the approach should be. Now, like any time you get 75 people together, who all think they have good ideas, you're going to find debates. But that's what the process is all about.

GARY EICHTEN: How much does the NRA spend on lobbying each year?

RICHARD GARDINER: The total budget for all our legislative political activities each year is in the $20 million, $22 million, something like that.

GARY EICHTEN: Does that go-- has that been going up quite a bit, remained about constant, or been going down?

RICHARD GARDINER: Well, it's been going up gradually every year as membership has increased, because one of the major components of that expense is when we do mailings to our members, letting them know about legislation. And obviously, the more members you have, the more money you're going to have to spend in printing and postage.

Most of that expense, by the way, is absorbed by postage because we do so much in the mails. I think we put out in 1993 something like 12 million pieces of mail. And you figure $0.50 per piece. You can see a huge amount of money gets spent that way.

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Some of that mail has been targeted at some of my legislation. In fact, in 1989, Mr. Gardiner signed a letter that came into Minnesota to his membership that about a half dozen police chiefs stood up at a press conference and denounced as a pack of lies. And so I think that we need to understand that as we try to deal with this crime problem, one of the NRA's tactics has maybe been to start with facts and then to-- if that doesn't work, to move on to lies. And if that doesn't work, to move on to political intimidation.

And I think what's happening right now is that legislators are wising up to that. And we're finally starting to see members of Congress and members of state legislatures distinguishing between the mail that Mr. Gardiner talks about coming in and the kind of lies and half truths that are in those letters and the kind of information that legislators are getting from police chiefs, doctors, nurses, teachers that says that our crime-- our approach to crime has to be multifaceted.

RICHARD GARDINER: Well, as a famous lawyer once said, when you don't have the facts, argue the law. When you don't have the law, make it personal attack. If that's how Mr. Orenstein believes--

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Well, it's just the true. It's the truth. I have the letter in my file.

RICHARD GARDINER: I challenge him to show me where there's a false statement and anything that I have ever signed.

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Well, I had a bunch of police chiefs--

RICHARD GARDINER: You show it to me then. Let's see it right now. And you show me where it's a mistruth and we'll be glad to go over it now.

GARY EICHTEN: Meanwhile, let's move along here. Let's take another caller. Hi.

AUDIENCE: Yeah, I'm from Oakley, Minnesota. I just moved to the state of Minnesota from Missouri. And in the state of Missouri, they have a registration where you have to register to purchase a firearm. And you can carry a firearm in your car, in your pickup, just as long as it is where you can see it. And since I have recently moved to the state of Minnesota, Mr. Orenstein was talking about a foolish law.

I think this permit to carry is a rather foolish law, due to the fact that it prevents people from protecting themselves. I am also an over-the-road truck driver, which there are a lot of the commodities that I have hauled and am hauling is far more dangerous than any of the firearms that he's wanting to banned.

And also, as far as the Second Amendment Right goes-- and I should have some vague ideas of what our forefathers was talking about is, because my family was related to Thomas Jefferson and had done quite a bit with George Washington. And when they wrote up the Second Amendment, they come from England, which there was a lot of oppression and tyranny over there. And the reason that they wanted to keep the people with firearms is to prevent this government from getting so corrupt and not availing the people to do as they did back then.

GARY EICHTEN: OK. What about the permit to carry legislation? Do we really need something like that once you've checked people out and had them-- cleared them to buy the weapon? Is there a reason that they then have to have a permit to walk around with one?

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Well, I don't think that we want this to be the Wild West, where everybody is walking around the streets with a handgun. You don't need a permit to carry a long gun, a rifle. But sure, with respect to weapons that are concealable and that are mainly used in crimes, I think that that's been an appropriate legislative tool.

Somebody who's eligible to buy one, if they're not a convicted felon or one of the other disqualifying factors, they can have one in their home, or they can have it when they go out hunting. But just to carry it around the streets, I don't think that's good for public safety.

GARY EICHTEN: Seems pretty reasonable. Mr. Gardiner, do you support that kind of legislation?

RICHARD GARDINER: We would support legislation, which says that you have a right to a permit if you want to carry a handgun for self-defense, and you have passed all the criminal history checks, and if the state so chooses that you pass some kind of training course as well. This talk about the turning into the Wild West was exactly the kind of frivolous argument that was made in Florida back in '87 when Florida was considering amending its legislation.

And in fact, the homicide rate nosedived in the years after the law went into effect, there was no-- and the police-- some of the police officials who had publicly stated, this will be like the Wild West throughout Florida, essentially publicly apologized a few years later by saying they were wrong. At least they had the decency to recognize they were wrong and to come out and say it.

And the same thing will be the effect in Minnesota. More people will be able to protect themselves, and we will not see any kind of increase in crime on the streets. In fact, if any-- if Florida is any indication, we'll see a dramatic decrease in homicides.

GARY EICHTEN: I mean, if a lot of people had guns or carrying guns, a lot of people in the streets, that you wouldn't have an increase in people shooting each other when they get mad at each other, and get drunk.

RICHARD GARDINER: Absolutely not, because you're talking about people who've gone through a complete background check, who've gone through safety training. And what that situation presents is the-- it increases the likelihood for someone who would commit a personal crime against an individual, that he may be resisted. And as a consequence of that, the likelihood that someone will be attacked goes down.

I mean, indeed, the whole society benefits because the criminal doesn't know who among his potential victims is the one that's going to resist him. And this has been the experience in Florida and also Oregon. We've got-- the nice thing is we've got other states to look to, to see what the consequences have been, and they've all been favorable.

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Gary, I think this discussion has been fairly revealing. We haven't had to talk at all about any restrictions on the rights of hunters to take their weapon out into the fields or the woods. We haven't talked at all about any problems that homeowners are having defending their homes.

But what we've heard Mr. Gardiner defend so far is machine gun ownership, Uzi ownership, and the rights of people to carry concealed weapons on the street. And I think the National Rifle Association really has gotten far away from the mission that the sportsmen and sportswomen in Minnesota want to support. And they're off on some of these fringe issues, which really have nothing to do with the legitimate rights of gun owners.

RICHARD GARDINER: Well, I think that's obviously wrong. One of the reasons that we're not, fortunately, dealing with those more fundamental issues about should we be taking-- should the legislature pass laws to take guns away from people, is that the vast majority of the public opposes that kind of legislation, and the vast-- as a consequence, the legislatures are opposed to that kind of legislation. I mean, that kind of radical legislation is not being talked about, fortunately, because it is so unpopular.

So we are talking about issues that are, if you will, more difficult issues. But for many people, these are very important issues. I mean, the right to carry a concealed handgun for many people can be the difference between life and death. And anybody who says that he supports the right of gun ownership for self-defense, but then says, but you can't carry a gun with you to defend yourself when you may need it the most is obviously somebody who really doesn't believe what he's saying.

I mean, the caller is a good example. He said he's an Interstate trucker. Now, he obviously needs to be able to carry a gun wherever he goes. But if he drives into Minnesota and he has a gun concealed in his truck for self-defense, he's committed a crime. Should he go to jail? I don't think so. But I think Mr. Orenstein thinks he should.

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Well, if he has that weapon in his trunk in a locked box, then he hasn't committed any crime.

RICHARD GARDINER: I said in his truck that concealed around him so that he can use it for self-defense. Now, if you think that the only appropriate way to carry a gun is to be able to put it-- locked in the trunk so you can't use it, then you don't believe in the right to defend yourself. And that's really what this issue is all about.

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Well, Mr. Gardiner can attack my motives or my beliefs, but we don't have any problems in Minnesota with drive by fishing poles or with any other kinds of sporting implements. But we do have problems with guns, and I don't think we need people carrying around in their cars free to use them whenever they choose.

RICHARD GARDINER: Well, now, if there's a problem with drive by shootings now, that means that the law is not being enforced as it now exists. Again, it's an example of how the law has been a failure. What we have to be focusing on is reforming the criminal justice system, so that people feel that there's a real threat to them, so that they won't commit drive by shootings. We don't have a realistic threat of prosecution in this country. Crime pays, and that's the problem that the legislature should be focusing on.

GARY EICHTEN: But hasn't the crime problem gotten or at least the perception of crime and people's fear of crime gotten worse as the number of guns have proliferated on the streets?

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Of course.

RICHARD GARDINER: No, in fact-- certainly the perception that crime is worse now has increased, but not as a consequence of more firearms. In fact, crime was higher 10 or 12 years ago than it is now. What's changed, you're right, is the perception, because the media is talking about crime much more than it has before. And so people's perceptions have changed.

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Well, here's a perception. The Justice Department released figures that say that crimes with handguns are up 50% over the last five years. Now, I don't know if that's a perception. It seems like a fact to me. Other types of crimes are down.

So what we're really talking about here is focusing in on where the increase in crime is coming from. And that's coming from handgun related crimes. Now, if Mr. Gardiner thinks that our law on drive by shootings, for example, isn't working, then I wonder if he'd support repealing that. We have a very tough law on drive by shootings. Very tough law.

RICHARD GARDINER: We support laws which focus on the misuse of firearms so that we can get at the criminal misuser. There's no question that crime is up in the last few years from what it was five or six years ago. And the problem is that we have a criminal justice system that is essentially ground to a halt.

And we need legislation to give the system more money, more resources to make it work. And that's where the focus has got to be. And what this gun control debate does, it forces the focus away from what the real problem is. We've got a lot of criminals who are out there on the street who shouldn't be able to get any kind of weapon.

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Yeah, but here's how the--

GARY EICHTEN: Very briefly here, then I want to get back to the phone.

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Sure. Here's how the equation has changed. We have kids in school who know how to get a gun within five minutes. Now, these aren't your hardcore criminals. In Saint Paul suburb just-- I think it was last week, a 12-year-old had a semi-automatic pistol taken off of him.

Now, I don't know if Mr. Gardiner would want to send him to prison for life, but the problem we're seeing, which is how things have changed with the gun issue, is the easy availability of these kinds of firearms. And the legislature does have to respond to that, when 12-year-olds are carrying semi-automatic pistols in our schools.

RICHARD GARDINER: But that is already illegal. It's already illegal. Again, it's an example that the law is not the problem. There's something else that needs to be addressed.

GARY EICHTEN: Let's have another listener with a question. Hi.

AUDIENCE: Hi. Yeah. My question is these people here that want gun control, but they don't punish anybody that commits a crime. We have a kid up here in Gilbert High School that took two pistols, a rifle and a shotgun to school, and they can't expel them. They can't even publish his name.

GARY EICHTEN: OK.

AUDIENCE: And you talk about outlawing guns or registration in this. Hey, if I want a machine gun, I can go to Duluth and buy one. I don't have to go through the Coast to Coast. And also this law, there is no punishment anymore.

GARY EICHTEN: Where would you get it in Duluth?

AUDIENCE: Hey, I can find one there or I can get it in Minneapolis. If there is a market for it, somebody will fill it.

GARY EICHTEN: OK.

AUDIENCE: There isn't any punishment anymore for people that commit crimes.

GARY EICHTEN: All right.

AUDIENCE: Instead of outlawing guns, they should outlaw murder. Thank you.

GARY EICHTEN: OK. Well, thanks for your comment. I think we've talked a little bit about the need to enforce crime. Let's take another caller. Hi. Your turn. Hello.

AUDIENCE: Hi. I have a question directed mainly to Mr. Orenstein. The crime with guns is-- does he feel it's more of just a symptom of a social problem or a sign of a larger problem, and that possibly the guns aren't the problem?

GARY EICHTEN: OK.

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Well, that's a thoughtful question. I appreciate the caller asking it. And it's the sort of thing that probably the NRA and those on my side can agree on, which is that we have problems in families, in our society, kids growing up without role models.

They're looking for something that makes them feel powerful. And guns are one answer that they turn to. Obviously, it's the wrong answer. But sure, we need to be addressing all aspects of our social problems, including reforming our education system and trying to get role models for young people to keep them out of gangs.

But where Mr. Gardiner and I would disagree is I think that there are legitimate tools that the police should have to control the easy availability of a semi-automatic pistol to a 12-year-old. There's just too many of them on the street. They're too easily available. There's too many of them. They know where to get them.

And what the police keep telling me over and over and over again, is that what has changed in our crime problem is the addition of the gun. Kids used to settle things by fighting, and now they're bringing guns into the equation. And I just-- I don't think as a policymaker, I can turn my back on that and say we have enough laws on the books, because the situation has changed and our legislation has to change. And that includes some reasonable approaches to regulating these deadly firearms, especially with kids.

GARY EICHTEN: Given the fact that kids are turning more and more to guns to settle their disputes, isn't there a room here for legislation to at least try to get at that problem, that part of the problem?

RICHARD GARDINER: Well, we've already got all the legislation. It's law. The assault is a crime. A murder is a crime. Carrying guns is a crime without a license. Acquiring guns by people under 18 is already a crime. There is a changing situation. And what we need to be doing instead of focusing on should we enact more laws that also won't work is, why do we have this situation? Why do we have children who are out on the streets committing more violent crimes?

And it goes back to the questions about the families and role models. But it also has to get to the question of-- at least as far as juveniles go, is what reforms do we need to the juvenile criminal justice system to make it work, so that children-- and I hate to use the word children, because that's-- these aren't-- we're not talking, in many cases, about children as if they're innocent little people.

The laws need to be reformed, so that a juvenile like the one the caller mentioned a few minutes ago, who takes a bunch of guns into the school, can be dealt with effectively. Now, maybe putting him in prison isn't the best way to do it, but something needs to be done to get the message out there that if you do things that the law already prohibits, there's going to be a price to pay.

That's one of the foolish things about passing more laws. People don't believe there's any price. Now, passing another law isn't going to change anything. And any people should know that laws aren't magic. Laws allow for prosecutions for people who violate them. That's all.

GARY EICHTEN: We've got time for at least one more caller, maybe two. Let's go back to the phones. Hi. Hello.

AUDIENCE: Hello. This is Bob Walker. I'm from Lake Minnetonka.

GARY EICHTEN: Yes, sir.

AUDIENCE: And I have a question for your guests. I just read here about a week ago about a sheriff in Arizona, who has said he's not going to enforce the Brady Bill because it's illegal. And there's been a lawsuit filed now declaring the Brady Bill to be void as a violation of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Would your guests care to comment?

GARY EICHTEN: All right. This is the Montana ruling earlier this week that found at least the section of the law that requires local officials to conduct the background checks for the feds, that part of it unconstitutional. Any quick comment? Is that going to have a profound impact on the law enforcement issue across the state?

RICHARD GARDINER: Well, it's certainly going to have an impact on assuming that it's upheld on appeal. And certainly, one district court judge's opinion is not going to be the final word on the subject. But assuming that it is upheld on appeal, it's certainly have an impact on other federal legislation that is in the pipeline, which also attempts to impose duties on state officials.

GARY EICHTEN: Minnesota's waiting period would not be-- that law would not be affected really by the Brady Bill anyway. We had a longer waiting period. Is that right?

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: That's right.

GARY EICHTEN: OK. Let's take another caller. Hi.

AUDIENCE: Hello.

GARY EICHTEN: Yes, go ahead.

AUDIENCE: It's an interesting program, and I have before me an article from the Star Tribune of January 23, 1994.

GARY EICHTEN: Well, don't read it all.

AUDIENCE: I just want to give you the basis.

GARY EICHTEN: OK, quick question because we're running out of time.

AUDIENCE: Well, it's a statement of former Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Warren Burger. He states in that article, nothing outrages me more than the conduct of the National Rifle Association. The fact is, they have trained themselves and their people to lie about the problem. And I can't use any word less than lie. It's nice to have a nice, clear voice in this matter. Thank you.

GARY EICHTEN: Mr. Gardiner, care to comment?

RICHARD GARDINER: Well, what can I say about Chief Justice Burger? He was brought to Washington by Richard Nixon because Richard Nixon's view was that the Bill of Rights was given too expansive and interpretation. He's continuing along those lines. When he was on the Supreme Court and had to be more focused in his thinking, he was part of an opinion that agreed that the Second Amendment focuses on the right on which arms are protected. So it's really very hard to respond to Mr. Burger.

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Well, I'll give you another example, not just of a Minnesotan where Mr. Gardiner is now, but of a Virginian where Mr. Gardiner practices his trade. And that's Justice Lewis Powell. And I think that he takes the same view of the Second Amendment as Justice Burger.

GARY EICHTEN: All right, let's see. Let's have one more caller here. Hi.

AUDIENCE: Hi. I'd like to ask a couple of questions with Mr. Orenstein.

GARY EICHTEN: Just one quick one. Just one quick one.

AUDIENCE: Well, what I was wondering-- I mean, I'm not into firearms myself, but I do read the news and stuff and all these laws that it keep passing. And it seems like they don't bother the criminals much. And what I was wondering is these criminals bring in hundreds of tons of heroin and cocaine and hashish, not hundreds of pounds, but hundreds of tons every year.

And you think you're going to stop them from getting guns? I think you're only going to stop the law abiding citizens from getting guns. And what I'd like to know is, if that's your deliberate plan, or if you're just too dumb to look beyond your own ideology.

GARY EICHTEN: Representative Orenstein?

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: Well, I can't speak about how dumb I am. My constituents have elected me four times. But the caller's concern about the laws being enforced, I think, is one that we hear many times. And I just want to assure the caller that we are building prisons in Minnesota as fast as we can fill them up.

We had a 400% increase in prison construction costs this year over the bill that we passed two years ago in the legislature. And I want to assure the caller that people are going to jail and going to prison in Minnesota for longer and longer and longer sentences. And that the legislature is extremely concerned about the crime problem.

GARY EICHTEN: Quick answer from each of you. First of all, Mr. Orenstein, will you-- are you going to drop efforts to control guns in the state of Minnesota if it turns out that crime isn't affected by our existing gun control laws?

HOWARD ORENSTEIN: I think that we look at the issues one at a time. As I said, we listen to our police chiefs and our police officers, and we respond to them. And there are lots of statistics that show lots of different things. And I'm just going to have to take it an issue at a time.

GARY EICHTEN: Mr. Gardiner, if it turns out that, in fact, some of the new gun control laws that have been passed, if it turns out that they are, in fact, reducing crime, will you folks be willing to support maybe additional legislation or at least support the laws that currently exist?

RICHARD GARDINER: Well, I have no doubt that won't happen. We've got years and years of experience. We've got piles--

GARY EICHTEN: If.

RICHARD GARDINER: Well, that's like saying, if I could jump from the Earth to the moon, would I do it? And I can't. So it's a pointless question, really.

GARY EICHTEN: I see.

RICHARD GARDINER: The laws will not, they never will, they cannot. So I'm not even worrying about that possibility ever occurring.

GARY EICHTEN: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming in. We could be here a long time. I sure appreciate it. Richard Gardiner, who is the legislative counsel for the National Rifle Association. The NRA's National Annual Convention opens tomorrow in Minneapolis. And our other guest today, DFL State Representative Howard Orenstein, Saint Paul DFLer, who's been very active in trying to pass gun control legislation in the state of Minnesota.