Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Riding shotgun for NRA

Friday, March 12, 1999 | 11:57 a.m.

WHO IS Bob Barr gunning for now?

As someone who got real tired, real fast, of seeing the Georgia congressman's face on every television talk show whose ratings needed the anti-Clinton boost he gave them, I suppose I should be happy that he seems to have given up the impeachment ghost for something seemingly more achievable.

He is just as happy, it appears, to be seen at the side of the National Rifle Association in its quest to get Congress and the states to shield gun manufacturers from the fate of the tobacco companies. Barr, not surprisingly, is one of the first to dance to the gun makers' tune, which has lawmakers singing an anti-consumer song.

Now that's not a novel position for Georgia's remaining back-bencher, who continues to have trouble getting a political life beyond the safety of his own district. In fact, if it is unpopular or unwise, Bob Barr is usually the first in line to hear himself talk. This time, though, he may be more right than wrong, although good sense tells me that I should withhold judgment until all the facts are in. Can you imagine how bad it would be for my image if I actually agreed with him? And the NRA?

So what is this latest stink that has aligned Barr and the NRA against the best interests of the public? It's all about guns, the people who make them, buy them and ultimately use them to kill innocent people, many of whom are children. In fact, if you watched "The Practice" last Sunday night -- yes, I did -- you would have seen a preview of this soon-to-be national policy debate unfold in front of your very eyes in an emotional attempt to convince us that Barr's side is wrong and the people who have lost innocent loved ones are right.

The only thing Barr has going for him, besides his compelling personality, is the U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment, which is a powerful ally in any national debate that has as a goal the curtailment of any of our precious rights. To be fair, a major downside of the constitutional argument is the people who are making it -- namely, gun manufacturers and the not-so-likable Congressman Barr. It is a bit like the fight the tobacco manufacturers are in the middle of, with most Americans, all the states and the federal government and common sense on the opposing side. The difference, of course, is that tobacco is not protected by the Bill of Rights.

So what is the nature and extent of this protection afforded to gun manufacturers by the Constitution? Is it similar to that protection provided by the First Amendment to publishers of newspapers and broadcasters of television shows? Is it akin to that relief provided for those who wish to practice religion free from interference from the state?

The likely answer is "yes." So why are we even thinking about allowing states to sue gun manufacturers for making guns that they have a reasonable belief will fall into the hands of criminals who will use them to kill innocent people? And why are we considering any legislation or court action which could hold manufacturers liable for the deaths of children who find it harder to remove a safety cap from household medicines than the safety of a loaded pistol?

The reason we are considering such action is because, as a society, we cannot find any other rational way of dealing with a national epidemic. So we start to look at the irrational. And as is usually the case, we find a way to justify the minor erosion of an individual right in favor of the common good.

Take the First Amendment for example. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press ... " That's as clear as a bell. But so is the penalty for yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater or yelling "fighting words" at a mass rally of angry citizens. And heaven help the newspaper which prints a libel against a person.

Clearly there are proscriptions against some kinds of speech and some kinds of press and most people, even the absolutists among us, will not argue too strenuously against them. And that's the First Amendment!

As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It says nothing about the responsibility of those people who manufacture those guns to be accountable for the marketing and selling of their products.

And that is what the lawsuits seem to be about. Not to stop the responsible gun owners who enjoy and take comfort in their Second Amendment rights, but to discourage the irresponsibility of manufacturers who know what they make will wind up, for certain, in the hands of people who will kill innocent children.

As I said earlier, this is not an easy question to answer nor one we should rush to judgment on. But I suspect that the place from which the answer should come is the courts, whose job it is to determine the law, the facts and the constitutional requirements.

If cigarette manufacturers can be held liable for making a legal product that just happens to kill not-so-innocent people, what is the rationale for not holding gun manufacturers liable for making a product that kills completely innocent people?

It is a bit of a quandary, I admit. But, I am not so sure that Congressman Barr and his colleagues at the end of the NRA's economic largesse should be the ones to come up with the answer.

Let the courts decide the matter first. If we are not satisfied with the result, there will be plenty of time to create some legislative chaos. And who better to do that than Bob Barr.