Henry Hyde (Republican) is pushing more gun control, including some type of ban on the sale (possession also?) of full capacity magazines. I copied this letter from the FreeRepublic site.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
April 12, 2000
The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
As you know, I have been working diligently for nearly a year to forge a meaningful gun safety and juvenile justice
package that can pass and be signed into law. I have met with you and communicated with leaders of both the Democratic and Republican parties in both the House and Senate. I have drafted and circulated compromise proposals
and openly invited a dialogue with any Member willing to make headway rather than deadlines.
Unfortunately, I have become increasingly disappointed with what I view to be the strategy of leading House Democrats to avoid any compromise on gun safety legislation. Last November, Ranking Democratic Member John Conyers abruptly backed away from months of encouraging negotiations. I responded by sending a compromise proposal directly to Minority Leader Gephardt and asked for his comments. The Minority Leader has never responded
to that letter.
I was encouraged by the meeting you called last month with Senator Hatch, Senator Leahy, Representative Conyers and me. I was especially delighted that Rep. Conyers accepted your request to renew our negotiations. However, my hope quickly faded when Rep. Conyers refused to meet or even allow our staffs to meet unless a conference meeting was called. Any conference would be much more productive if Rep. Conyers and I could present an offer of compromise to the Senate Conferees. While I was pleased with Rep. Conyers' comments during our debate on the floor yesterday, it has become clear to me since we met last month that House Democratic Leaders do not want a compromise. They have again rejected meaningful negotiations and chosen soundbites at the expense of sound policies.
It is with this background that I appeal directly to you. When we met last month, you repeatedly expressed that you wanted a bill more than you wanted a political issue. I believe you meant what you said.
I have refused to become discouraged by the refusals of House Democratic leaders to act. Rather, I have chosen to rely upon your pledge to work with leaders of your party and focused my efforts on those House Republican
conferees whose support is necessary to move a conference report that includes gun safety provisions.
I am pleased to report that a majority of House Republican conferees on gun-related provisions have signed a conference report to support a package that includes:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>Child safety locks
<LI>Ban on high capacity ammunition clips
<LI>Preventing juvenile possession of assault weapons
<LI>Preventing juveniles who commit serious crimes from owning guns
<LI>Gun show background check system without loopholes
</UL>
This proposal is similar in many respects to those that I have circulated in the past but with one significant exception. It directly addresses the concern that you expressed in our meeting last month that a three business day waiting period should apply not only to purchasers who have red flags for other disqualifying offenses like unlawful drug use, mental incapacity, dishonorable discharge, domestic violence or stalking.
For this proposal to move forward, it needs only the signatures of three Democratic conferees on the gun safety provisions--only three Democratic Members. As you know, the controversy has always been focused on gun-related provisions. Once we have agreement on the gun safety proposals among the appropriate House confeerees, I believe the remaining juvenile justice, education and cultural provisions will be easy to conclude. Respectfully, we need you to weigh in and help secure these three signatures.
Mr. President, I would also urge you to persuade Representative John Dingell, the senior Democratic Member in the House, to support these reasonable gun safety provisions. Last June, Rep. Dingell led an effort to weaken the gun show background check proposal that Rep. McCollum and I advanced on the House floor. With the support of forty-five Democratic Members, Rep. Dingell's provision passed and effectively ended our chance to retain Democratic
support for gun safety measures. Ultimately, Democrats in the House voted against the final gun safety package, which included child safety locks, by a margin of 196-10. In fact, only eight of the forty-five Democrats who supported the Dingell amendment ultimately supported the final package.
I urge you to support this package as a substantial advancement that can be enacted into law. Please resist those who would reject this compromise as an attempt to hold child safety trigger locks as a political hostage. I believe the fate of truly meaningful gun safety legislation rests with you and your ability to convince three Democratic Members of Congress to accept this proposal. I am convinced you have a unique opportunity to persuade those Members to accept this compromise and move forward.
Sincerely,
HENRY J. HYDE
Chairman[/quote]
[This message has been edited by Brent (edited April 13, 2000).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
April 12, 2000
The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
As you know, I have been working diligently for nearly a year to forge a meaningful gun safety and juvenile justice
package that can pass and be signed into law. I have met with you and communicated with leaders of both the Democratic and Republican parties in both the House and Senate. I have drafted and circulated compromise proposals
and openly invited a dialogue with any Member willing to make headway rather than deadlines.
Unfortunately, I have become increasingly disappointed with what I view to be the strategy of leading House Democrats to avoid any compromise on gun safety legislation. Last November, Ranking Democratic Member John Conyers abruptly backed away from months of encouraging negotiations. I responded by sending a compromise proposal directly to Minority Leader Gephardt and asked for his comments. The Minority Leader has never responded
to that letter.
I was encouraged by the meeting you called last month with Senator Hatch, Senator Leahy, Representative Conyers and me. I was especially delighted that Rep. Conyers accepted your request to renew our negotiations. However, my hope quickly faded when Rep. Conyers refused to meet or even allow our staffs to meet unless a conference meeting was called. Any conference would be much more productive if Rep. Conyers and I could present an offer of compromise to the Senate Conferees. While I was pleased with Rep. Conyers' comments during our debate on the floor yesterday, it has become clear to me since we met last month that House Democratic Leaders do not want a compromise. They have again rejected meaningful negotiations and chosen soundbites at the expense of sound policies.
It is with this background that I appeal directly to you. When we met last month, you repeatedly expressed that you wanted a bill more than you wanted a political issue. I believe you meant what you said.
I have refused to become discouraged by the refusals of House Democratic leaders to act. Rather, I have chosen to rely upon your pledge to work with leaders of your party and focused my efforts on those House Republican
conferees whose support is necessary to move a conference report that includes gun safety provisions.
I am pleased to report that a majority of House Republican conferees on gun-related provisions have signed a conference report to support a package that includes:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>Child safety locks
<LI>Ban on high capacity ammunition clips
<LI>Preventing juvenile possession of assault weapons
<LI>Preventing juveniles who commit serious crimes from owning guns
<LI>Gun show background check system without loopholes
</UL>
This proposal is similar in many respects to those that I have circulated in the past but with one significant exception. It directly addresses the concern that you expressed in our meeting last month that a three business day waiting period should apply not only to purchasers who have red flags for other disqualifying offenses like unlawful drug use, mental incapacity, dishonorable discharge, domestic violence or stalking.
For this proposal to move forward, it needs only the signatures of three Democratic conferees on the gun safety provisions--only three Democratic Members. As you know, the controversy has always been focused on gun-related provisions. Once we have agreement on the gun safety proposals among the appropriate House confeerees, I believe the remaining juvenile justice, education and cultural provisions will be easy to conclude. Respectfully, we need you to weigh in and help secure these three signatures.
Mr. President, I would also urge you to persuade Representative John Dingell, the senior Democratic Member in the House, to support these reasonable gun safety provisions. Last June, Rep. Dingell led an effort to weaken the gun show background check proposal that Rep. McCollum and I advanced on the House floor. With the support of forty-five Democratic Members, Rep. Dingell's provision passed and effectively ended our chance to retain Democratic
support for gun safety measures. Ultimately, Democrats in the House voted against the final gun safety package, which included child safety locks, by a margin of 196-10. In fact, only eight of the forty-five Democrats who supported the Dingell amendment ultimately supported the final package.
I urge you to support this package as a substantial advancement that can be enacted into law. Please resist those who would reject this compromise as an attempt to hold child safety trigger locks as a political hostage. I believe the fate of truly meaningful gun safety legislation rests with you and your ability to convince three Democratic Members of Congress to accept this proposal. I am convinced you have a unique opportunity to persuade those Members to accept this compromise and move forward.
Sincerely,
HENRY J. HYDE
Chairman[/quote]
[This message has been edited by Brent (edited April 13, 2000).]