[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book I)]
[March 15, 2000]
[Pages 463-466]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 463]]


Remarks at a Rally for Gun Safety Legislation
March 15, 2000

    The President. Thank you very much. Please be seated. Good morning, 
and welcome to the White House. I want to thank all the Members of the 
House who are here. We have a large contingent, as you can see, and a 
bipartisan one, for which I am very grateful. In a moment we will hear 
from Representatives McCarthy, 
Morella, and Lofgren, speaking on behalf of all the Democrats and Republicans 
who are here with me today.
    I want to thank Attorney General Reno and 
Secretary Summers for being here and for 
their support of our endeavors. I thank Deputy Attorney General Eric 
Holder. The Chief of Police of the 
District of Columbia, Charles Ramsey, is 
here, and other representatives of law enforcement.
    I want to thank Michael Barnes from 
Handgun Control, and former Member of the House, for his leadership. And 
I want to say a special word of welcome to my friend Suzann 
Wilson, who lost her daughter in the 
Jonesboro, Arkansas, school shooting, who has bravely carried on the 
struggle for a safer future for the children of this country ever since. 
And I want to welcome all the young people who are here today.
    Six years ago, at the White House, I signed the Brady law. I was 
especially pleased that day to be standing beside two very brave 
fighters against gun violence, Attorney General Reno and Sarah Brady. Today, as I 
stand with Congresswomen McCarthy, 
Morella, and Lofgren, I am reminded again that women from both parties have 
been and remain at the forefront of this fight. And I know I speak for 
the other people who are here today to say I am glad they allowed some 
of their male counterparts in the House--[laughter]--to join them.
    When I signed the Brady bill, I said that our efforts proved once 
again that democracy can work. The American people, in their grassroots 
demand for commonsense action against gun violence, prevailed over a 
very powerful Washington gun lobby. Today, America is a safer place 
thanks to the Brady bill and other measures that many here in this room 
championed, from banning assault weapons to cop-killer bullets, to 
putting 100,000 police on the street. The overall crime rate has fallen 
7 years in a row, homicide to the lowest rate in 30 years. But time and 
time again we see still, from Columbine to Buell Elementary School, it 
is still far too easy for guns to fall into the hands of criminals and 
children.
    We have been trying for some time now, as all of you know, to 
further strengthen our gun laws, by passing a strong juvenile justice 
bill that closes the gun show loophole, requires child safety locks with 
all new handguns, and bans the importation of large capacity ammunition 
clips, which unbelievably is still legal and threatens to make a mockery 
of our assault weapons ban.
    Once again, the gun lobby and their allies in the leadership of the 
Congress are standing in the way of real progress. And once again, we 
battle not just for the safety of our families but for the soundness of 
our democracy. For over 8 months, the majority leadership, under 
pressure from the gun lobby, has refused to allow the House and the 
Senate conferees to meet and have a substantive debate on the juvenile 
justice bill.
    Representative Conyers has negotiated 
in good faith with Representative Hyde. I had 
the conference leaders here last week, and it was clear to me, from the 
discussion between them and with the rest of us, that they were much 
closer together, even though still considerably apart, than the position 
that the NRA has taken against our legislation. But we still haven't 
been able to get the committee to meet.
    Now Representative Zoe Lofgren from 
California has offered a simple motion. It simply says, one version of 
this bill passed the Senate; one version of this bill passed the House 8 
months ago; the conferees should meet. That's all it says. It says the 
Congress ought to do the job it was hired to do.
    Again, I want to thank the Republican Members who have shown up here 
to stand here today. I don't even know, because we haven't talked about 
it, whether they would agree with me on every provision of this bill. 
But they want a bill, and they want the conferees to

[[Page 464]]

meet. And I will say again, I know the conventional wisdom is in 
election years we're not supposed to do anything. I think that's wrong. 
We all still draw a check in election years, just like we do in 
nonelection years, and we're all here. And these kids, they keep dying 
every day. They don't know it's an election year. So I thank Zoe 
Lofgren and all these people who are here, for 
saying that we ought to get on with the business of the Nation.
    Now unbelievably enough, the gun lobby--who would do well in this 
conference, I think; I don't like it very much, but I think they'd do 
pretty well--they don't want this conference to meet. And they're 
actually threatening retribution against lawmakers if they vote for Zoe 
Lofgren's resolution to meet. Why is that? 
Because they know the people aren't with them, that's why. Because they 
know that the people who have experience out there in the country, 
whether they're Republicans or Democrats or independents, once they 
understand what the issue is and that nobody's trying to take any 
hunter's gun away or burden anybody's legal rights, we're just trying to 
keep children alive--once they understand that, they know that they 
cannot win the public debate.
    I got a little tickled over the weekend when they got a little rough 
with me. I mean--[laughter]--you know, I have so much scar tissue now, I 
can't even feel it. [Laughter] So it's totally immaterial to me what 
they say. And that should not be an issue for any of you.
    You know, none of us--any of us get these elected jobs, we ask for 
them; nobody makes us take these jobs. So that's completely irrelevant. 
The only thing that should matter--the only thing that should matter--is 
what is the best course in our country to make America the safest big 
country in the world and to save the lives of these dozen kids that are 
getting killed every day from gun violence. That should be the only 
thing that matters.
    And there are legitimate, practical issues that have to be worked 
through in these areas. But believe me, I've been there. I'm one of the 
few Presidents that's ever been to any of these gun shows. I've actually 
been to them. And I've been to them way out in the country, where all of 
the practical problems allegedly arise. And in all candor, I think that 
taking a little time and a little inconvenience to save a lot of lives 
is a good deal for America.
    I also believe that we cannot make this the only area of our 
national life where our only response is punishment and no prevention. 
Suppose I gave a speech to you today. Suppose I called you here to say, 
``My fellow Americans, I am incredibly burdened by the fact that these 
airport metal detectors are a pain for a lot of people. And 99.9 percent 
of all the people who walk into airports are good, law-abiding citizens 
and would never do anything wrong, and a lot of them have money clips in 
their pockets and have to go through those metal detectors 2 or 3 times, 
and I just think it's terrible. And so we're going to take the metal 
detectors out of the airport, and the next time somebody blows up an 
airplane we're going to put 10 years on their sentence.'' [Laughter] 
Anybody want to support that policy? [Laughter]
    Suppose I said to you, ``My fellow Americans, I brought you here 
because I'm getting older and a little heavier and those seatbelts are 
really uncomfortable for me--[laughter]--and because the overwhelming 
majority of automobile drivers in America are good, law-abiding people 
and safe people, I want to abolish the speed limits and rip the 
seatbelts out of all our cars--[laughter]--and if somebody does 
something wrong, I want to add 5 years to their sentence.'' Now, that's 
the logic here.
    Why should this be the only area of our national life where we say 
no prevention, only punishment? Attorney General Reno has increased gun crime prosecutions. Why do we fight 
for 100,000 police? Why are all these police groups here fighting for 
100,000 police? Not primarily to catch criminals quicker but because 
they knew if they were on the street in the neighborhoods, they would 
prevent crime in the first place. That's what this is about.
    So, again, there's an old proverb that says, he who throws the first 
blow admits he has run out of arguments. [Laughter] In 1993, they said 
the Brady bill would violate the second amendment. But the right to keep 
and bear arms in deer season is still alive and well in Arkansas, but 
500,000 felons, fugitives, and stalkers weren't able to get handguns. It 
was the right thing to do.
    Gun crimes have fallen by 35 percent-plus since 1993. Today I'm 
honored to announce the results of the Justice Department's first annual 
review of the instant criminal background check system put in place in 
November of 1988 under the Brady law. In the first year, the insta-check

[[Page 465]]

system, in one year, stopped 179,000 illegal gun sales, over two-thirds 
to people who were indicted or convicted of felony crimes. Most of the 
rest were fugitives or domestic or drug abusers. All told now, as I 
said, half a million guns have been stopped from falling into the wrong 
hands since 1993, proof positive that those who opposed the Brady bill 
in 1993 were wrong.
    This is not an argument--we're having the same old argument. We have 
evidence now. And when it comes to the gun show, I would just remind you 
that back in 1993 the same crowd that's fighting closing the gun show 
loophole said, ``You don't need the Brady bill because no bad actors 
ever buy guns at gun stores. They get them all at gun shows and urban 
flea markets and out of the backs of pickups and trunks of cars.'' So 
now we say, ``Well, we did get a lot of them, but you're right, there 
still are a lot of those bad''--now they say, ``Oh, well, we can't do 
that. It's too much of a burden.''
    Now, I don't believe that we can't reach agreement here. But the 
leadership of the Congress continues to resist and to cling to arguments 
that won't stand up in honest debate. And I'll bet, in their heart of 
hearts, they're pretty embarrassed by some of the things that their 
allies have said in the last few days.
    They say gun shows would be put out of business if unlicensed 
dealers who sell guns have to comply with the background checks, which 
can take up to 3 business days to complete. But licensed gun dealers at 
gun shows already have to do background checks, if they're licensed, and 
they're still doing a very brisk business. Nearly three-quarters--now, 
listen to this--nearly three-quarters of all the Brady background checks 
are completed within a few seconds under the insta-check system; 95 
percent now completed in 2 hours or less. Less than 5--here's the rub, 
and I want everybody to focus on this--this is the rub of this 
legislation. Less than 5 percent of the Brady checks take longer than 24 
hours. So if we put this in, most of this will be over in 2 hours; 95 
percent will be over in 24 hours. But of the 5 percent that take more 
than 24 hours, they are 20 times more likely to be rejected for a 
problem. So this whole big old fight here is, in large measure, about 
those 5 percent.
    Now, why in the wide world any organized group would be in the 
business of worrying about the inconvenience of those 5 percent is 
beyond me. Ninety-five percent of the people are going to be out of 
here; 75 percent of them are going to be out of here in an hour or less. 
Representative Conyers here has offered an agreement that would have the 
whole thing done in 24 hours, except for those that can't be done.
    So again I say, I've heard all this--if you read the press on it, 
because so much of it is--and this is not a criticism of the press, it's 
the rhetoric of the fight--you would think this is about will there be 
background checks or not. Why in the world would we not want to have an 
adequate check of these 5 percent that are 20 times more likely to be 
problem people and hurt innocent children and other people? That is the 
issue here.
    And I'm telling you, I don't care what anybody says about people 
traveling from one town to the next to another gun show and being out in 
the rural areas and how much trouble it is. It's not that much trouble. 
They deposit the guns at the local police department or the sheriff's 
office. There's 50 different ways to solve this problem.
    This is all just a smokescreen. Every last issue is turned into some 
major battle over the Constitution, when all we're trying to do is save 
lives.
    So again, I want to say again, I'm grateful to the people who are 
here. I'm grateful that we have bipartisan representation. I hope the 
Republicans who are here don't get too much grief when they go back to 
Congress.
    But I would like it if this were not a political issue. I would like 
it if it were not a partisan issue. I would like it if not a single vote 
could be made on this in the November election. I would like it if no 
one ever had to vote for any candidate on this ever again. I would like 
it if we had a national consensus to protect our children.
    And it would not in any way, shape, or form interfere with Americans 
to go about their business in the ways that Americans in my part of the 
country have from the beginning, in the hunting season, in the skeet 
shooting, in the sport shooting, and all that. It doesn't have anything 
to do with this.
    But we're making a grave mistake when we continue to put up excuses 
for that for which there is no excuse and to pretend that this is the 
only area of our national life where only punishment and not prevention 
is the answer.

[[Page 466]]

    So I thank the folks who are here. I wish Representative 
Lofgren well, and I particularly appreciate the 
leadership of the women Members of the Congress in this issue that 
affects all of us.
    I would like to now call on someone who, of all the people on this 
stage, has paid the highest price for our failure to do the right thing 
by our country, Representative Carolyn McCarthy.

[At this point, Representatives Carolyn McCarthy, Constance A. Morella, and Zoe Lofgren made brief 
remarks.]

    The President. I want to leave you with two thoughts. First of all, 
not many people who pay the price Carolyn McCarthy did wind up having the personal strength to run for 
Congress. One of the biggest problems here is most of the people out 
there whose kids get killed in crimes or by accident, it's all they can 
do to put their own lives back together, take care of the rest of their 
kids, and go on with their lives. I can't believe that Suzann 
Wilson is still doing this after all these 
years. There is only a--it was just kind of a God's grace that 
Jim and Sarah Brady 
happened to be nationally prominent people and in a situation where they 
could go on. Mike Barnes is trying to organize 
people that don't have anything like the natural inclination or ability 
to come up with the kind of money and power and then employ the kind of 
tactics that the typical lobby group does. But they're everywhere.
    Yesterday I was contacted by a man that I've known for many years, 
to remind me of the incredible damage done to his family when his son 
and his son's friend were playing with a gun that killed the friend. His 
son doesn't have a mark on him, but it took him years to get over it, 
watching his best friend die there. There are people like this 
everywhere. And they shouldn't be denied and disenfranchised just 
because they're not organized. You have to speak for them.
    The second thing I want to say is Congressman John Lewis is here. The Sunday before last, I joined him in the 
35th anniversary of marching over the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, a 
march that led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act. People in our 
lifetime, those of us that are old enough, over 35, actually died so all 
Americans could vote. I don't think they marched and died so that their 
votes would vanish in a howl of special interest politics in Washington. 
That's not what the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or the civil 
rights revolution was all about.
    This is about more than guns. This is about whether democracy works. 
So I ask you, don't just go out and talk about how well these women did 
today and how moved you are. Do something. Mobilize your friends to do 
something. We can win this battle with your help.
    Thank you very much.

 Note: The President spoke at 11:40 a.m. in the East Room at the White 
House. In his remarks, he referred to Michael D. Barnes, president, and 
Sarah Brady, chair, Handgun Control, Inc., and former White House Press 
Secretary James S. Brady, who was wounded in the 1981 assassination 
attempt on President Ronald Reagan.