For the record, here's what the NRA had to say about the terrorism
bill:
From: NRA Alerts 
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 00:28:07 -0500
Subject: Comments On The Passage Of The House Anti-Terrorism Bill
March 15, 1996
     Comments On The Passage Of The House Anti-Terrorism Bill
                           by Neal Knox
The anger directed at NRA-ILA concerning House passage of the
anti-terrorism bill is a combination of misunderstanding about
what the Barr and Bartlett amendments did to the bill, and
manipulation of the unenlightened by the "Get NRA" crowd within
our supposed allies.
Critics need to be asked precisely what is wrong with the
legislation as passed, OTHER than the fact that the conference
committee will try to meld it with the awful Senate bill.  The
bill isn't perfectly sanitized, but so close that I expect our
enemies to kill it.
The bill has been gutted, to the best of my knowledge, of
everything that gives blanket new powers to Justice Dept., ATF
and White House.  The one controversial area is "habeas reform,"
which rarely is a factor in any gun case -- and even then habeas
appeals would be limited but not eliminated.
Admittedly, some of our Libertarian brethren, some of whom are
NRA members, are unhappy because of habeas.  But ending
interminable delays in carrying out executions is strongly
supported by most of the public -- which is why the Republicans
put it in their "Contract With America."  NRA has long supported
imposition of a meaningful death penalty, and abuse of habeas has
made a mockery of the death penalty and the justice system.
When a bill passes the Senate by 91-8, you can bet hard money
that it's going to eventually pass in some form.  By steadfastly
opposing a bill that IS GOING to pass, as some would have had ILA
do, ILA would have lost all leverage in determining the form.  By
working with Barr, et al, to continuously water down the bill,
then gut it on the floor, ILA kept a hand on the tiller.  That is
both an infinitely more difficult thing to do successfully, and
an infinitely more sophisticated method of lobbying.
Note that both Henry Hyde and Charles Schumer screamed about the
bill having been "eviscerated."  Chucky boy called it "an NRA
wish list," and fumed that Congress "isn't interested in fighting
terrorism but in doing obeisance to NRA."  Were they secretly
laughing up their sleeves, trying to confuse their supporters by
claiming to have been beaten?  Get real.
The big issue is the melding with the Senate version.  By
remaining a player, instead of being rolled as Henry Hyde was,
ILA will have a major say in the final bill that comes out of
conference -- and whether it is accepted by the House.  The guy
that flamed ILA assumes that ILA folks must be idiots not to have
thought of the obvious; instead there's a calculated risk that
ILA can do to the conference bill what was done to the House bill
-- spin it our way.  There have been communications with key
players in the Senate to indicate that they will accept the House
version with few changes and no substantive changes.
Maybe we'll get screwed, but "maybe" is better than "certainly."
The best indicator of who came out on top, other than the
unanimous anger of our enemies on the Hill, is Bill Clinton.  He
said yesterday that he doesn't want a bill if it isn't the bill
he wanted; that 246-171 House vote to accept the Barr package
indicates he isn't going to get what he wanted.   Because of
Habeas, the National Commission to investigate law enforcement
(including another look at Waco and Ruby Ridge) which has Janet
Reno steaming, I think Clinton's likely to veto the bill.  If he
chooses to veto it, I'll lose no sleep.  Let him explain why he's
"pro-terrorist."
While ILA's detractors are screaming that NRA was screwed,
Schumer, Clinton, Reno et al are screaming that NRA screwed them.
Who has the best grasp of what is going on in Washington?
Clinton, Reno and Schumer or flamethrowers who have never been
inside the D.C. beltway?
And who is to be believed about who screwed whom?  Clinton and
Schumer, who are furious because ILA did what it has done, or Gun
Owners of America, an outfit which is making a career of blasting
NRA, mayhap because it can get contributions from gunowners only
if said gunowners are led to believe they aren't being properly
represented by NRA.
Since Wednesday's key vote, I've talked with numerous of our
best, hardest-nosed friends on Capitol Hill -- people who
understand the place, and understand what it means when Freshman
Bob Barr, backed by NRA, stands up to and defeats -- by a 75-vote
margin -- the combined frantic efforts of Judiciary Chairman
Henry Hyde and Ranking Member John Conyers, and Crime
Subcommittee Chairman Bill McCollum and Ranking Member Charles
Schumer.
The knowledgeable folks were awed.  It was as slick a piece of
sophisticated lobbying as you're ever going to see.   But what do
I know?  I've only been a close observer of Capitol Hill for a
few months shy of 30 years.  -- Neal Knox
=+=+=+=+
This information is provided as a service of the National Rifle
Association Institute for Legislative Action, Fairfax, VA.
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------