Hart's Smoking Gun

MUCH HAS been made of Democratic Presidential aspirant Gary W. Hart's (D-Colo.) appeal to the emerging political bloc of young urban professionals, or yuppies. But more scrutiny should go to the Colorado Senator's flirtation with an older, more established constituency--thousands of urban gun holders, or thugs.

Though Hart and his chief rival, Walter F. Mondale, are indeed quite similar on several key issues, they differ substantially on at least one vital concern--gun control. Democrats mesmerized by Hart's futuristic visions should pause to consider their candidate's stand on this question, and what it indicates about his candidacy.

The clear contrast between the contenders over gun control emerged at the end of last Wednesday's nationally televised Columbia University debate when moderator Dan Rather asked for a brief position on the issue. The Rev. Jesse Jackson endorsed several strong measures; Mondale said he supported a ban on the sale, manufacturing and possession of Saturday night specials, or snub-nosed pistols. Hart, without qualification, said he opposed federal control of handguns.

Actually, Hart's stance is not quite so simple. A spokesman for the Washington-based Handgun Control, Inc. says the lobbying group received a statement from the Hart campaign the day of the debate explaining that the Senator favors a federally mandated "cooling off period," a 14-day gap between the time someone applies to purchase a gun and the actual sale, to allow officials to investigate the purchaser's record. He also indicated that he would endorse federal legislation regulating the importing and interstate sales of handguns, and mandatory additional sentencing for the use of firearms in a federal crime.

One possible way to reconcile these opposing stances is to look at the definition of the word "control." While most people define gun control as any sort of regulation. Hart apparently says control implies a ban or confiscation, which he opposes. A Hart spokesman explains the seeming contradiction this way: Rather's question in the debate was "too broad" and did not allow for Hart's more sophisticated approach. The spokesman adds that Hart opposes "traditional," forms of gun control-- such as a ban--because they would be ineffective, and that the candidate is open to new proposals, although he has none of his own.

There is, unfortunately, no record to pin Hart down on. He has repeatedly said that he has never supported a federal gun control measure. But that is hardly a meaningful claim since the question has only reached the Senate floor twice--in 1968 and 1972--while Hart first reached Washington in 1975.

As a result, Hart's "flexible" approach to the issue makes it difficult to evaluate precisely what a Hart Administration would do on gun control. But even if Hart's strongest statements accurately reflect his position, such measures would fall far short of what is needed to curb domestic violence. The simple fact is that more than 50 million handguns are is circulation in the United States today, and the number grows by two million a year. More than 11,000 Americans fall victim each year to handgun deaths. Hart's proposals are unlikely to lower this toll. His suggested background check would have little impact. First, states which already have such procedures acknowledge that because of limited police resources, they rarely run the examination. Second, a large portion of violent crimes are committed by those without a previous record. Finally, established criminals would have no problem buying weapons "hot" or simply stealing them.

Hart's mandatory additional sentencing is also weak--if a criminal is not deterred by a possible 10-year sentence for robbery, the risk of drawing an extra five years for doing it armed would probably mean little.

Logic dictates that the best way to limit handgun deaths is to limit the supply of handguns. Some, such as Hart, base their opposition to such restrictions on the assertion that a bun is ineffective. Yet most of Western Europe, Japan and Canada have either bans or very strict regulations, or registrations and suffer much lower murder rates. Hart's true reluctance to embrace such a measure, an side acknowledged in an interview, lies partly in his belief that somehow people have some right to own whatever weapon they choose.

BUT HART'S position on gun control is not only inadequate on its merits, it also raises broader doubts about the Senator's desirability as a candidate. Specifically, it seriously challenges Hart's contentions that he offers fresh solutions and can resist the pull of "special interests."

At a Syracuse press conference, the candidate said that gun control was not a high priority of his and expressed doubts about whether New Yorkers were overly concerned with the issue, despite the statements and action of local officials to the contrary. This was in character for a man who--despite talking in complex, detailed, academic sounding jargon--has a rather simple world view. To Hart, all domestic issues seem subsumed by the overriding concern of economic growth. There is a very rigid formula for attaining that goal and exceptions do not exist.

In the 90 pages Hart's campaign book A New Democracy devotes to revitalizing the economy, not one parenthetical expression acknowledges that certain demographic groups fare worse than others, even during prosperity, and no special provisions are outlined. Hart seems to be saying that social concerns are secondary to economic ones, and that solving economic dilemmas will cure the social ills. That is why he irritates "paleo-liberals"--not because of the policies he supports, but because of the problems he ignores. It is not enough to simply vote the right way on a bill when it comes up; a President sets the agenda by taking the lead and demonstrating commitment.

Hart's lack of commitment has led him to overlook racial discrimination, as well as other social problems such as crime. It is why his staff has yet to draft an issues paper on the subject of domestic violence, and why he can blithely oppose gun control without feeling compelled to come up with an alternative.

HART'S handling of the gun control issue also helps put the lie to his more-independent-than-thou image. If the candidate's Isreali embassy flip flop failed to convince observers of his susceptibility to special-interstates, his un control waffle should persuade them.

Hart did not hurt himself by flatly declaring on national television--which includes in its audience the Western states, where anti-gun control fever is high, and where the voters have yet to vote in the primaries--that he is against federal gun control, then telling reporters in New York--where a majority of the voters favor gun control--that he backs some restrictions. He all but conceded duplicity when, in a New York Times interview, "he acknowledged that he was walking a fine line between his role as a Colorado Senator whose constituents strongly oppose federal gun control laws and as a Presidential candidate eager to win the New York primary."

Gary Hart's aversion to effective domestic arms control has gotten little attention, but with more exposure it should jar some of his backers into reconsidering their positions. His stance is disturbing not only on the merits of the issue alone, but also because it shoots a few holes in his image.