The proposal, presented in the State of the Union, may fare better on the campaign trail than on Capitol Hill.

By Chris Mondics

INQUIRER WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON – President Clinton’s proposal to license handgun buyers is by far his most ambitious to date on gun control.

But with Congress on record as opposing all but minor restrictions on gun ownership, the proposal unveiled Thursday in Clinton’s State of the Union address may fare better on the Democratic campaign trail than it does on Capitol Hill.

After the President announced that he would seek congressional approval for a national plan to license handgun owners and require them to pass a safety course, congressional Republicans began lining up to say it had no chance to pass.

Leading the charge was Sen. Larry Craig (R., Idaho), a board member of the National Rifle Association, who said there was little support for the idea in Congress.

“Congress will look at gun control measures, but when it comes to the licensing and registration approach they back away very quickly, because that is strongly opposed by the gun-owning community in America,” said Craig. “It was a throwaway political stunt by the president to get into presidential politics.”

Under the proposal, handgun buyers would first have to obtain a state-issued photo license showing they had passed a criminal background check and had undergone certified gun safety training. States would not be required to participate, but if they chose not to, licenses could be issued by a federal agency or by federally-approved gun dealers.

Clinton also proposed additional spending to enforce current gun laws, and to pay for the development of “smart gun” technology that permits only the owner of the weapon to fire it.

Even if the licensing plan goes nowhere in Congress, there may be political value in it for Democrats, analysts say.

Since the proposal mirrors Al Gore’s call for licensing handgun owners, it likely would enable the vice president to remind voters that he and Clinton have fought for tighter gun controls and are continuing that fight through the president’s last year in office.

“Firearms regulation is broadly popular. When you poll on it, people say they like it, so it is a good issue even though one can’t get far with it in Congress,” said Christopher H. Foreman Jr., a political analyst at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. He added that the plan also is “a way to speak to the Democratic Party’s base.”

Foreman said another likely consequence of the proposal is that it reminds Democratic primary voters that Gore is a proponent of stronger gun controls. His rival, former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley, has proposed national registration of handguns.

But Foreman and many others who track the debate over gun control in Congress say there is virtually no chance the Clinton plan could pass this year. Even in the wake of the Columbine High School shootings, Congress failed to muster majority support for modest gun control proposals, and Clinton is in his lame-duck year – a time when presidents lose leverage on Capitol Hill.

Even so, some gun control advocates praised the president’s move.

“This adds to President Clinton’s legacy as the chief executive who has done more to protect Americans from firearms,” said Naomi Paiss, spokeswoman for Handgun Control Inc.

The NRA blasted the proposal on its Web site yesterday as a breach of the Second Amendment, and said it would have no impact on violent crime. Bill Powell, an NRA spokesman, charged that while law-abiding gun owners would go along with the plan, criminals would still buy guns on the black market, avoiding the licensing scheme altogether.

Clinton’s proposal is likely to generate particularly fierce NRA opposition because it would effectively do what the gun lobby has always said is the worst of all worlds: put the government in position of telling most citizens whether they could own guns. Currently, the government bars gun ownership only for such categories as felons, people convicted of domestic abuse and those who have been adjudged mentally ill.