NRA efforts draw local police fire

The suspect was wanted for a handgun attack that left two federal officers wounded. In May, FBI agents in Green-belt, Md., found him. As they approached to arrest him, he opened fire, this time with an assault weapon. One of the agents was instantly killed.

For a number of local law enforcement agents, this incident crystalized their support for the assault weapons ban that was central to the Clinton Administration’s 1994 crime bill. That provision is now under attack.

“It’s a matter of survival for [police] officers,” says Sean Kirkendall, legislative assistant for the International Association of Police Chiefs (IAPC), in Alexandria, Va.

Efforts to overturn the weapons ban are opposed by virtually every law enforcement group in the country, as well as the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities and the United States Conference of Mayors. In fact, the National Rifle Association’s support for provisions weakening the ban has so angered the nation’s police chiefs that they have taken the unprecedented step of banning the organization from IAPC functions.

The NRA, however, argues that it is the police chiefs who are out of touch. They are, according to the group, pawns of local officials who are shamelessly using them to promote their political agenda by playing on the fears of the people. “The rank and file officers support us,” says Tanya Metaksa, chief lobbyist for the group.

Kirkendall scoffs at that notion, pointing out that most police chiefs are on the front lines in the fight against crime and have the solid support of their troops.

Bud Meeks, executive director of the Alexandria-based National Sheriffs Association and a former Fort Wayne, Ind., sheriff, agrees. “Any officer who would argue in favor of assault weapons has simply never faced one,” he points out.

The NRA’s hard line has even alienated some gun owners. A CNN-Time magazine poll revealed that only 47 percent agreed with the leadership’s position — a 20 percent drop in five years. And 49 percent of those gun owners actually want stricter gun laws.

Still, despite the fact that polls show 95 percent of Americans favor a mandatory five-day waiting period before all handgun purchases and 75 percent favor the assault weapon ban, the NRA appears determined. Its heroes within Congress are pushing language that seriously water down the most innocuous provisions. For example, one little-known paragraph would allow anyone turned down for a handgun purchase to sue for damages — despite the fact that the law allows for appeals in such cases.

That provision, says Kirkendall, “would compromise the abilities of local law enforcement [officers] to [deny anyone a permit,]” a frightening proposition in light of Treasury Department statistics that show the waiting period prevented 70,000 felons from buying handguns in 1994.

The position of local government organizations on the issue is clear. “If we are to reduce violence, we must have reasonable controls on weapons and the sale of handguns,” says a letter from 118 mayors to members of Congress.

The NRA’s refusal to support even reasonable limits has infuriated local law enforcement and elected officials, who cite its opposition to a proposal that would ban the manufacture of so-called “cop killer” bullets that can penetrate the bullet-proof vests worn by police officers. Indeed, at the organization’s behest, a House panel in June effectively killed the proposal by asking for a commission to study it, a turn of events that Meeks labeled “the kiss of death.”