Bush loosens restrictions on guns

During the 2000 presidential campaign, an official from the National Rifle Association famously boasted that, were George W. Bush to win, the NRA would be working out of the Oval Office.

So far, that hasn't happened. But the group could hardly have hoped for a more sympathetic administration.

Over the past two months, the administration has taken several steps to halt or amend gun control measures it regards as too restrictive, ineffective, or both:

• Last week, the Department of Housing and Urban Development canceled a gun-buyback program that brought in weapons from small cities nationwide.

• Earlier this month, the State Department opposed a United Nations plan to curb international trafficking of small arms, winning passage of a less-restrictive measure.

• Attorney General John Ashcroft has moved to reduce the amount of time the FBI may keep records on gun purchasers from 90 days to one day.

• Mr. Ashcroft has also moved to change the Justice Department's official reading of the Second Amendment, interpreting it to guarantee the right of individuals to own guns.

While no one thought President Bush would be racing to add new restrictions on guns, the speed with which his administration has moved to roll back existing measures has alarmed some gun control advocates. They warn that other federal laws and programs could be repealed in coming months, leading to a dramatic overall shift in US gun policy.

"It's clear that they are beholden to the NRA and they feel obligated to them, and so they'll do whatever the NRA wants," says Brendan Daly, a spokesman for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun-control group here.

Meanwhile, pro-gun lobbyists point out that not all recent policy changes go as far as they would like.

For example, although they're pleased with the reduction in the amount of time gun-purchase records can be held, from 90 days to one day, "we want no days," says James Baker, chief lobbyist for the NRA here. "We don't think that the federal government, the FBI, or anybody else, for that matter, ought to be keeping records on law-abiding citizens simply because they decide to purchase a firearm."

As for HUD's gun-buyback program, Republicans in Congress have opposed it from the start as an expensive measure with mediocre results (so far, 21,000 guns out of an estimated 200 million have been purchased, according to Clinton-administration figures). Critics say the money could be better spent in other ways, such as prosecuting criminals who use guns.

Indeed, at a meeting with black law-enforcement officers this week, Bush drew attention to the $550 million his administration is devoting to that purpose over the next two years. "We need to spend more resources and energy in a coordinated way that says to people, if you carry - illegally carry a gun - there is a consequence," he said.

Still, to gun-control advocates, the repeal of measures like the gun-buyback program looks more political than pragmatic. "It appears to us that there are a number of things that the gun lobby has asked [the administration] to do," and they're just checking off the list, says Mr. Daly.

He defends the gun-buyback program, saying there's evidence that law-enforcement groups found it effective. And he says gun-purchase records need to be held for 90 days so that the FBI can audit them to enforce proper background checks.

But the move that could have the most wide-reaching effect is Ashcroft's assertion that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to bear arms. This position marks a departure from that of previous Justice Departments - and the sole Supreme Court decision on the matter in 1939 - which held that the amendment only guarantees the collective rights of states to keep militias. The attorney general, who is a member of the NRA and is featured on the July cover of its magazine, outlined his views in a letter that was read aloud at the group's annual conference in May.

The ultimate impact of this shift is hard to predict. But it could lend serious support to suits challenging the constitutionality of gun-control laws.

Currently, there is a case on federal appeal that could force Ashcroft to choose between upholding his stated position and enforcing the laws on the books. In Texas, a man was arrested for owning a gun while his wife held a restraining order against him. The original judge ruled in favor of the defendant, and the case is now pending before an appeals court. Should that court also rule in favor of the defendant, it would be up to Ashcroft to decide whether to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. A high court ruling on the matter, both sides agree, could have an enormous impact on gun-control policy.

Meanwhile, gun advocates say they will continue to press the administration to lift restrictions on gun ownership - but they don't believe that more sweeping changes lie ahead.

"We're pragmatists," says the NRA's Mr. Baker. "If we had a United States Senate that was more conducive to that kind of thing, in addition to the current House of Representatives, we might be in a position to do that."