Rethinking the Assault-Weapons Ban After Oklahoma’s Tragedy

H oward (Buck) McKeon received his first gun at age 16. He has owned them ever since. Howard Berman, on the other hand, is no fan of firearms. It is not surprising that the two San Fernando Valley congressmen find themselves on opposite sides of the national debate over gun control. Berman, a Democrat from Panorama City, supported the ban on 19 assault weapons that the House of Representatives passed as part of last year’s crime bill. For him, the issue is simple: Reducing the number of rapid-fire guns will reduce senseless killing. McKeon, a Simi Valley Republican who has received campaign contributions from the National Rifle Assn., opposes the assault-weapons ban. After all, McKeon reasons, he owns two of the banned weapons himself and has no intention of using them to break the law. He says cracking down on weapons violators is the key. House Republican leaders are eager to lift the ban. But last week’s bombing in Oklahoma City and the attention it has drawn to heavily armed militia groups around the country has galvanized gun-control advocates and delayed the congressional vote. The two lawmakers offered their views in interviews with Times staff writer Marc Lacey . Should we repeal the ban on assault weapons?

McKeon: I voted against the ban last time and I probably would vote to repeal the ban--but it’s a difficult vote. None of these are simple black-and-white answers. They are all very difficult decisions and just like abortion, you have people very passionate on both sides of the issue. As an elected representative, that’s what I’m paid for, to make choices.

Berman: I am opposed to repealing the ban on assault weapons. Every major law enforcement organization in the country has said that the ban on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons is an important part of controlling crime. These weapons are the weapons of choice for drug dealers, for gang members, for terrorists. And they are used in a disproportionately high number of crimes committed with firearms. When the people who are risking their lives to protect our community say banning these weapons will help them do their job, I take that recommendation very seriously.

Are there legitimate, legal uses for these assault weapons?

McKeon: Yes. I have one. I used it for target shooting and I used it for rabbit hunting. It’s the Ruger Mini-14. Also I have an automatic, a 9-millimeter pistol with the full clip, and that may be illegal. In Israel, they require you to get training to qualify for the permit. I like that idea. People who have weapons should know how to use them. If they don’t, they sometimes become a hazard.

Berman: I am sure there are people who own some of these weapons who do no harm with them. But on balance I have to come down on the side of what law enforcement says. Too many of them are used for unlawful purposes and they are more deadly than other firearms. There is a general consensus now that we were right when we banned the possession of machine guns. I think this is a logical extension of that without compromising the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Do you use guns recreationally?

McKeon: I have a deer rifle that I bought a few years ago that I haven’t used yet. I have another semiautomatic deer rifle that I’ve used a couple of times. I’ve had it maybe 10 years. I’m not really big on guns personally. I just don’t have the time. But I believe in the principle that you should be able to have them and to own them.

Berman: No, I am not a hunter.

How essential is the Second Amendment to you?

McKeon: All of the amendments are very important to me. My personal feeling is that the Constitution is an inspired document. While I don’t consider myself a gun nut, I think there is a reason why we should be able to have guns. I don’t really fear people coming in and taking over this country, but I guess there is always that possibility. I think that was what the framers of the Constitution were concerned about. Times have changed a lot. We have bombers. We have a lot of other things. But there are lots of places where people have lost their freedoms, and maybe if they had been able to have their arms they might not have lost their freedoms. I just think it’s important for people to have that right.

Berman: I think it’s irrelevant how important the Second Amendment is to me. It’s part of the Bill of Rights. It means something. I don’t think this assault-weapons ban infringes on the Second Amendment, but we have a whole judicial system to tell me whether I’m wrong.

Should the bombing in Oklahoma City affect the debate on the assault-weapons ban in Congress?

McKeon: I think people are trying to make political hay out of some crackpot who has really gone off the deep end--if that is in fact what happened. If somebody who is upset with the government bombs a government building and kills a lot of innocent people, I think out of 260 million people you are bound to have some people who will do things like that. It’s unfortunate. I felt frustration and that’s why I ran for Congress. I think you have to work through the system. That’s how you do things in this country. This is a tremendous tragedy, but I don’t think it should be used for political gain.

Berman: I don’t really see them as connected. It was a terrible tragedy. It was heinous act. But fundamentally it was not an act committed with assault weapons, so I’m not really sure what the relationship is. I think the bombing certainly has focused attention on organizations that are preparing to utilize arms and weapons against innocent people and against the U.S. government. We have democratic means to change policies and any conspiracy or plan to resist the U.S. government or injure people connected with the government by force I think should be condemned and deterred as strongly as possible.

What do you think your constituents think about this issue? Have they been contacting you?

McKeon: I get more calls to overturn the gun ban, more calls against gun control than for gun control, but I know when I voted against it last time, I had some very good friends who were upset with me.

Berman: They’re split. I tend to hear more from the people who are opposed to the ban. But the polls show that the vast majority of the people in this country, and in my area, oppose it. They are just less noisy about it.

What is your prediction on what will happen?

McKeon: There may be enough votes to repeal it, but this Oklahoma thing may throw a monkey wrench into it. I don’t know. It could go either way.

Berman: At first blush one might think the House might change its position based on the positions of the new members. But I think some of those who might have opposed the ban originally might rethink their positions given law enforcement’s very strong position, and I think President Clinton has made it clear that he will not sign a bill that repeals the ban. I don’t think there are sufficient votes to override a veto.