‘Mr. SCHUMER, We are. Boing to hold each of us to the 5-minute rule as well in. terms of our questions Well, my first question is for Mr. Gardiner. Mr. Gardiner, I heard your tes- timony: It totally disagrees with everything I believe in but it is reasoned argument. {was old 15 minutes before our hearing began you were telling a group of peo- ple that Chuck Schumer wants to take away the guns of law-abiding citizens. Mr, GARDINER. | never said that, Mr. Chairman. Mr, SCHUMER. OK. So you dont believe that, Do you believe Sarah Brady wants to do that? Mr. GARDINER. I didn't make that statement. Mr. SCHUMER, Well, what do you believe? Mr. GARDINER, Do I believe that Mrs, Brady wants to deprive people of fire- arms? The answer is yes Mr, SCHUMER, Law-abiding people? Mr. GARDINER. Yes. She said it to the New York Times. Mr. SCHUMER. Do you believe that I do? Mr, GARDINER. | have no idea what you want, Mr, Chairman, I know that this particular bill is a lousy bill. Mr. SCHUMER. Well, let me say—1 understand your view of that—that I cer tainly resent that fact that NRA and the rest of the gun lobby has distorted what the Brady bill is, what I believe in, what other proponents believe in. We believe that law-abiding citizens have a right to a gun, We also believe that those citizens, and the polls show it, are willing to go through some slight inconvenience such as a waiting period to allow law enforcement to prevent criminals, the mentally ill, and others from getting guns, Now, how do you disagree with that fundamental premise? And just one more point. There was a recent survey of NRA members done by the Harvard School of Public Health, not an organ of anything that | know, and they said that 68 percent of the NRA members they surveyed, random survey, were for it, That mirrors what [ have found out. How is it that the heads of the organizations, not here today but out there and in the publications, don't seem to represent, not only the views of Americans, not only the views of the gunowners, but the views of their own membership. It is just wildly distressing, And it is certainly distressing when I hear my name, the good name of Sarah Brady and others used in ways that just don't tell the truthatall, and that is the veason—NRA has aright to lobby. Gunowners have a right to lobby. In fact, | have said that the NRA does have lots of grasstoots support But what the leadership does is it misleads its members, and that is why, No. 1, we don't have rational gun policy; but, No. 2, why you are getting weaker and weaker and weaker, because you are so far over that nobody believes any more, You may respond Mr. GARDINER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like you to provide me copies of whatever documents you are talking about— Mr. SCHUMER. I sure will Mr. GARDINER [continuing]. Where we have made those statements — Mr. SCHUMER. | sure will Mr. GARDINER. We have never said anything incorrect about the Brady bill. My reasoned testimony that you just referred to is what we have told our mem- bers the bill would do. And if you can find anything that is published by NRA that is inaccurate, I will be very glad to make corrections to it. We try very, very hard to make sure that our members receive accurate infor- mation about what is in a bill. We can't discuss a bill unless the information is accurate One of the problems is you have now taken two positions with regard to the bil. Six months ago you said the bill doesn mandate a background check. Now you say it does. How are we supposed to explain that when the sponsor cant even explain his own bill Mr. SCHUMER, The original H.R. 7 did not mandate the check. In the confer- ence report the check was added. That is what was added in and that is why people get confused Mr, GARDINER. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. You were referring to—this was in March of this year. You were referring to H.R. 1025, which was introduced on February 22 Mr. SCHUMER. H.R. 1025 has always, always required a check.Mr. GARDINER. OK. Now the Department of Justice says it does not Mr, SCHUMER. Do you want to require a check? Is it better to require a check or not require a check, Mr. GARDINER. | just want to know what the bill says so we know what to tell our members Mr, SCHUMER. Which do you prefer? Mr. GARDINER. I think if it requires a check—I know if it requires a check it is unconstitutional. Mr. SCHUMER. OK. So you think—and if it didn't require a check it would be better? Mr. GARDINER. It would not be unconstitutional for that reason. Mr. SCHUMER, But you opposed H.R. 7 which didn't require a check. Mr. GARDINER, That is right. Because we don't believe that the— Mr. SCHUMER. You will oppose it either way. Mr. GARDINER [continuing]. That a waiting period is a solution to a problem. ‘With regard to your assertion about the survey of NRA members, Lam sure you are very familiar with the weaknesses of... that survey, in fact, lit] involved a survey of 93 people who asserted that they were NRA members. That informa- tion, of course, was never verified. So that basically the answer to your question is the poll is essentially a piece of junk, and whoever did it if they were doing that in a sociology study in college they would probably flunk. Mr. SCHUMER. Well, they are with the Harvard School of Public Health. So you did not say outside to reporters that Chuck Schumer wants to take away people's guns? Mr, GARDINER. | did not. { haven't spoken to a single reporter today. I have sat in here and listened to all the testimony—Mr. SCHUMER. Or to somebody else out there? Mr. GARDINER [continuing]. So that | could respond to it when questions came up, Mr. SCHUMER. Glad to hear that. Mr, Sensenbrenner. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, thank you very much Mr. Gardiner, as you know, am a victim of NRA vituperation, and a certain mailing which your organization sent to your membership in my district con- tained 11 major inaccuracies about the Brady bill that was voted out in 1988. And I called a press conference to outline those inaccuracies and there was never any rebuttal atthe time. So I think that the record should state that Mr. GARDINER, Mr. Sensenbrenner, if | might, let us—why don’t we sit down at some point this week and go through those, through that letter with you. | will be glad to justify each one of them. Mr, SENSENBRENNER. Well, that is 5 years afier the fact. The fact of the mat- ter remains that | have treated the NRA as an organization with respect and its membership with respect, as you know. You are entitled to your viewpoint on this issue, We disagree. | hope we can disagree agreeably rather than disagreeably. Now, the question that I have to ask of you is, in 1976 I served as a member of the Wisconsin Senate when the 48-hour waiting period was passed without—almost without dissent in my State. At that time the NRA communicated to the members of the senate that it would take no position on the waiting period legislation there, and implicit in the communication was a feeling that a background—not a back- ground check, but a waiting period did not pose second amendment violation questions, Since 1982, the NRA has taken the position that the second amendment is violated with the concept of a waiting period. The second amendment has not changed since 1976. The NRAS position has. And why is that? Mr. GARDINER. Well, because unlike Handgun Control, for example, other supporters of this legislation —Mr, SENSENBRENNER. No, I am not asking about them. They are not very consistent either, and I have told them that. 1am asking about you. ‘Mr. GARDINER. Right. We have studied the data that are out there and the data ate voluminous, probably the best single work in Professor Kleckes book “Point Blank.” Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am not talking about the policy question that is posed, Iam talking about the fact that before 1982 the NRA did not express an opinion on whether the second amendment was violated with the passage of a waiting period. Since that time, both at the Federal level and at the State level, the NRA has said that the second amendment has been violated "Now, again, the second amendment hasn't changed, There hasn’ been a Supreme Court decision on this issue. The NRA has flip-flopped, and why is that? Mr. KNOX. Mr. Sensenbrenner, may I— Mr, SENSENBRENNER. No. I want Mr, Gardiner. He is the representative of the NRA You have been consistent, Mr. Knox. Mr, Gardiner’s organization has not been and it ought to be on the record why that is— Mr, KNOX. There was an election, Mr. GARDINER, I was not with NRA in 1976, but I can tell you that since then—Mr. Knox was. Since then the NRA has changed its positions because we have read not only the—and studied not only the scholarly works with regard to the policy issue, but also with regard to the second amendment. ‘Mr, SENSENBRENNER. OK. Mr. GARDINER, And the NRA at that point, and Mr. Knox can give you more history than I can, But the NRA at that point was a much smaller organization and was not as educated in these issues as it is now. And we recognized we were wrong, ‘Mr. SCHUMER, But isnt it your job to educate your members? Mr. GARDINER, Absolutely. And that has been— Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, letS put it on the record that the NRA has changed its position on waiting periods. Jim Sensenbrenner has not. Mr. GARDINER. And we were wrong then.