Pubdate: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 Source: Oakland Tribune (CA) Copyright: 2000 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers Contact: 66 Jack London Sq., Oakland, CA 94607 Feedback: http://www.newschoice.com/asp-bin/feedback.asp?PUID=486 Website: http://www.oaklandtribune.com/ Author: Josh Richman GORE, BUSH SPLIT OVER GUNS; OTHER JUSTICE STANDS SIMILAR Even in the context of the never-ending tug of war over gun control, the past four years have seemed particularly tumultuous. Children died at Columbine High in Colorado and in other school shootings. Cities including Oakland, Berkeley, East Palo Alto and San Francisco, as well as Alameda and San Mateo counties, sued gun makers for their products' misuse. NRA president Charlton Heston made his impassioned vow never to relinquish his firearms. In California, city and state lawmakers passed new laws to create some of the nation's tightest restrictions on gun ownership. It's no wonder, then, that almost two-thirds of voters consider gun control among the major issues that will help them choose a president this November, according to a Gallup Poll taken in May. In fact, gun control and hate crime laws are among only a few clear differences in criminal justice policy between Republican nominee George W. Bush and Democratic nominee Al Gore. Unlike drug policy and victim rights, they're issues in which the candidates have different goals, rather than just disagreeing on how to reach similar ends. There is some common ground on guns. Both candidates support the current ban on assault weapons, and would bar juveniles from possessing assault weapons, ban imports of high-capacity ammunition clips, raise the minimum age for handgun possession from 18 to 21, require that trigger locks be sold with handguns, and close the legal loophole allowing purchases at gun shows without background checks. But that's where the similarities end. "George W. all the way!" exclaimed Anthony Cucchiara, owner of Traders Sports in San Leandro, Northern California's biggest gun retailer. Cucchiara believes the government has gone too far in curbing Americans' Second Amendment right to bear arms, "hurting law-abiding citizens ... with all the hoops you have to jump through to get a legal firearm." He has sued the city of San Leandro over a gun sales tax that would cost him about $75,000 per year; he lost in Alameda County Superior Court, and the case is pending before the state Court of Appeal. Bush staunchly opposes requiring gun owners to get state-issued photo licenses, citing law-abiding Americans' constitutional rights. Instead of passing new laws, he wants to provide more money for stronger enforcement of those already on the books, particularly through aggressive prosecution programs such as Project Exile in Oakland and other cities. He also supports automatic detention for young people who commit crimes with guns. "Bush would be our choice in this election," Cucchiara emphasized. "He's for enforcing the existing laws, and we do have more laws than we really need presently." Not so, countered Griffin Dix of Berkeley, local spokesman for the Million Mom March Foundation, which seeks to prevent gun death and injury and to support gun trauma victims and their families. Dix's teenaged son died in an accidental shooting. "George W. Bush is very extreme in his record in being against public safety," he said, citing Bush's support of Texans' right to carry concealed firearms, and banning Texas cities from suing gun makers for negligent design, distribution and use of their products. GOP running mate Dick Cheney, while in Congress, opposed bans on ``cop-killer" bullets and plastic guns that can evade metal detectors, Dix added. Gore wants safety training and state-issued photo licenses for all gun owners - something California lawmakers are now contemplating. He also wants to limit gun purchases to one per month and to ban cheaply made "junk guns," sometimes called "Saturday night specials" - both things California already has done. Finally, Gore would force gun makers and federally licensed sellers to report their sales to state authorities, and would maintain firm restrictions on concealed handguns. Dix says Gore's plan would save lives, and limiting gun purchases would reduce trafficking: "Texas is now the fourth-leading state in terms of crime guns that've been traced back to a state ... in other words, in supplying criminals with guns." Drug Policies Some analysts say America's "war on drugs" is a failure - a system too quick to imprison and too slow to treat addicts, and a zealous yet futile plan to stop the flow of drugs into the country. The next president must grapple with the question of where we go from here. Yet both Bush and Gore offer a mixed bag of treatment and punishment options that differ little from what the nation has been doing for years. Both, for example, favor bolstering anti-drug messages aimed at children via in-school and after-school drug prevention programs and media campaigns. Gore proposes a matching grant program for states and cities to test, treat, and punish probationers, prisoners, and parolees. He would expand drug courts that divert some addicts away from jail and into treatment under judicial supervision. He would toughen penalties for those who sell drugs to kids, use kids to sell drugs, or sell drugs on or near school property, and he would step up federal funding for police efforts. Bush wants to improve surveillance and interdiction to stop drugs at the borders, in part by beefing up the sometimes-understaffed Border Patrol to its full force. He wants to help drug-exporting countries promote other crops, and he supports the Clinton administration's $1.3 billion in aid to Colombia, saying that nation's government needs help protecting its people and fighting the drug trade. The next president will have to decide what to do about medicinal marijuana. The Justice Department is battling in court to shut down the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, claiming the federal ban on marijuana trumps the California law that lets seriously ill people use the drug as medicine; activists everywhere are watching for this case's outcome. Jeff Jones, the Oakland cooperative's executive director, wouldn't say whether he believes Bush or Gore would go so far as to move marijuana to a less strictly regulated classification under federal law, but he said Democrats generally are more sympathetic to the medical marijuana cause. "Out of the two parties, if you had to pick one, it's Gore," Jones said, adding "I still believe he's more of an openable candidate ... than little 'CIA junior.' " - a reference to Bush's father's former job as central intelligence director. But Jones said pressure on Gore from the pharmaceutical industry - which fears losing profits from conventional drugs if patients can legally obtain and use marijuana - has made the Democrat backpedal from earlier, circumspect statements of support. In fact, Gore said Tuesday he opposes medical use of marijuana because "thus far, there is absolutely no evidence" it is medically effective." In the end, Jones said, he doesn't really trust either candidate. Groups from the American Medical Association to the California Narcotics Officers' Association want marijuana kept on the government's most-restricted list at least until clinical research proves it's an appropriate medicine. "When Prop. 215 was on the ballot ... the CNOA was strongly opposed to it because it violated federal law and there were no scientific studies showing it was safe and effective," said Robert Ellsburg, the CNOA's representative to a state task force on medical marijuana. Since the proposition's passage, "we still have a problem endorsing something that violates federal law," he said. "We are not opposed to making marijuana a medicine if it's approved by the Food and Drug Administration and it's not a federal violation." Other groups simply see medicinal marijuana as a dangerous prelude to drug legalization. Carla Lowe, a Northern California anti-drug activist and the state's delegate for the Nebraska-based Drug Watch International, said the medical marijuana advocates she debates today "are the same people I've debated for over 20 years ... their agenda has never changed. "Smoked pot has not been found safe or effective, period, and it carries the risk of any inhaled smoke," she said, adding medical marijuana, advocacy of hemp products, needle exchange programs and movements to offer treatment without punishment for drug addicts comprise a "four-point plan of those who would see drugs legalized." Hate Crimes Bush and Gore talk tough on hate crime, but differ on whether it's a legislative issue. Gore wants the federal definition of hate crimes expanded to include those committed on the basis of gender, sexual orientation and disability, something California already has done. Bush opposed including sexual orientation in Texas' hate crime law, yet speaks - albeit more abstractly - about abolishing separatist hatred by urging parents to teach their children respect and national unity. Fred Persily, executive director of the California Association of Human Relations Organizations - a statewide coalition of people and groups promoting civil rights protection - doubts Bush's dedication. Under Clinton, there has been "an immense amount of support from the Justice Department, which has essentially pushed the FBI and the U.S. Attorneys to build community networks to address hate crimes throughout the country," he said. "I don't think there would be an effort to pull back on this" with Gore in the White House, Persily said, "whereas if Bush got in ... I think there would be a strong effort to pull back on some of the things that have been done." Texas' weak and rarely used hate crime law leads Persily to believe we wouldn't ``have much progress in terms of pushing for hate crime legislation along the model of California's - which is one of the stronger ones in the country - if Bush is there." Some say we don't need such legislation. "It violates the freedom of conscience and freedom of speech in that it's trying to regulate hate, which as we all know is an emotion," said Robert Regier, a policy analyst with the socially conservative Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. "Government has never been given authority to regulate thoughts and beliefs, it has only been given authority to regulate actions and behaviors." Regier said he opposes hatred, ``but I just have a different way of combating it. That's the role of the church, the role of the family and community. It's not the role of the government." And in that regard, he said, this election poses a choice. "The Clinton/Gore administration certainly has fought for years against the concept of equal protection by fighting for this hate crimes bill," Regier said. "George W. Bush, as governor, did what he could to uphold that concept of equal protection." Crime victims' rights The major-party presidential candidates' positions on crime victims' rights are so close that the state's biggest victims' rights group doesn't know which way to go. Harriet Salarno, chairwoman and president of Crime Victims United of California, said her nonprofit education and lobbying group recently spent about three days discussing a presidential endorsement, and finally decided to delay its decision. "We're holding back for awhile because both candidates expressed their concerns for victims' rights issues," she said. "You heard Gore announcing when he gave his speech at the convention that he would support the Constitutional amendment on victims' rights. On the other side of the coin, we have Bush, who has always been very supportive for victims' rights issues." Republicans blast Gore for not supporting Senate legislation earlier this year that would have enshrined victims' rights in a constitutional amendment. But both candidates now say they support an amendment granting crime victims the rights to be heard on sentencing, to be notified if a prisoner is released or escapes, have their safety considered in determining probation or parole and receive restitution from a convict. Salarno said her group is seeking more information about the kind of U.S. Supreme Court justices and federal judges the candidates would appoint: ``What we're hoping to see is the type of judges who will support and believe in equal justice." "We need to see the proof in the pudding - we don't want lip service, we want action," she said. - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens