On Campaign Trail, Al Gore Endorses Concept of
Concealed Carry For Active & Retired Cops
After Eight Years Of Silence, Support for H.R. 218 Is Hollow Promise
By James J. Fotis, LEAA’s Executive Director (date - summer 2000)

With all the preliminary campaign tasks completed, except for the formalities of picking Vice Presidential running mates and accepting their respective party’s nomination amid raucous convention cheers, Al Gore and George Bush have squared off as the heavyweight contenders in this November’s free-for-all. No less important are the state and local elections that will coincide. As in years past (although it hasn’t garnered much attention yet), law enforcement’s support will likely weigh heavily in the outcome of virtually every race.

For the past eight years, LEAA’s push for national law enforcement Right-To-Carry legislation (H.R. 218 in the House and S. 727 in the Senate) stands as one of the key political touchstones for a candidate’s allegiance to law enforcement, and demonstrates an appreciation of the fact that “good guys” with guns improve public safety.

In fact, when the legislation came up in June 1999 as an amendment to a larger bill, 86% of the House stood with us and approved the measure (only for the larger bill to be rejected later in the day). Many politicians, even the rabidly anti-gunners, have a hard time denying a current or retired officer the right to defend himself (and his family) when off-duty and out of his jurisdiction.

Some leaders, however, maintain a deafening silence. During the eight years that he’s served at Clinton’s side, Al Gore has remained silent on H.R. 218, as this Administration has opposed virtually any acknowledgement of the life-saving role of firearms in deterring crime (whether used by officers or law-abiding citizens). Now, as he seeks the front-door keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for himself and Tipper, the Vice President has broken his silence.

Does this look like the man you'd look to for guidance on gun issues? Perhaps Mr. Gore should begin his personal quest for "gun control" by pointing his rifle AWAY from his own forehead...

From The Campaign Stump
Among the issues Al Gore pitched in a bid to gain law enforcement support May 2 in Atlanta, was an unexpected endorsement of the concept of “allowing all off-duty and retired police officers to carry concealed weapons,” as reported by the Washington Post.

This belated and obviously self-serving support, nevertheless, shouldn’t be seen as an indication of whether Candidate Gore would someday sign such a bill into law (IF he were to win the race in November). Talk is cheap, particularly when flowing from the campaign stump, but law enforcement should demand more than conciliatory words from candidates. And we should demand action and a proven track record from those wanting to hold high office.

Gore’s support for an H.R. 218-style bill was brought about, it seems, in discussions with one national law enforcement group whose presidential endorsement has yet to materialize, but appears to be leaning toward the VP. Obviously, the Gore campaign is searching for some law enforcement support heading into November ­ even though the Clinton-Gore Administration has spent eight years ignoring H.R. 218 while exploiting every photo opportunity to be surrounded by law enforcement personnel and boast of 100,000 new cops.

Nominal support for pro-gun legislation is not a new concept for Al Gore. Prior to his pledging allegiance to the Clinton political agenda, the Tennessee lawmaker often sided with gunowners during his tenure in the House and Senate. His votes against waiting periods and bans on military-style self-loading rifles, as well as high-capacity magazines, are 180 degrees from his current embrace of the White House’s anti-gun ownership agenda. Voting with gunowners played well when Al Gore represented Tennessee constituents, but now this latest endorsement of H.R. 218-like legislation must be to appease a different segment from which he undoubtedly needs support ­ mere political pandering for the appearance of “police support.” But will it ultimately prove to be a hollow promise should he emerge victorious in November?

Al Gore has perfected the political methodology of sticking his finger in the air to test the wind and make decisions based on focus groups (remember Elian Gonzalez?). What does he really stand for?

It seems that Al Gore can play a “moderate” or even “conservative” role while being something entirely different.

Wasting Precious Time
If Al Gore really wanted the million-plus current and retired cops to be able to carry their firearms from state to state, why did he waste eight years as the ex officio president of Senate? Why didn’t he usher H.R. 218 to passage? This legislation has had companion bills in the Senate over the years, and he’s never paid any attention to it.

LEAA has urged Al Gore to put his money where his mouth is, and to once and for all announce unequivocally that he believes honest people with guns improve public safety. If this is truly his position, why doesn’t he distance himself from Clinton’s legacy of not trusting Americans with firearms?

LEAA's Ted Deeds, Kevin H. Watson and LEAA President John Chapman meet with then-Governor George W. Bush in Arkansas.

This first presidential election of the new century should be one where voters everywhere, particularly those wearing the badge and servicing their communities, must take a clear and forceful stand. We must demonstrate through our votes that only those candidates whose actions and words are rooted in character — not in campaign rhetoric and the hope of a few votes — should occupy high office.

Today, the effort to protect our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms while providing law enforcement officers with the tools they need to do their jobs effectively (including the legislative tools) must be a primary goal of office-holders. And with the ultimate passage of a national Right-To-Carry law looking more promising all the time (especially now that we have the most sponsors ever), we can’t afford to elect a White House occupant who is unwilling to sign it into law — and Al Gore’s recent endorsement is simply overshadowed by his eight years of inaction. It’s a scenario that this country simply doesn’t deserve.

So, that’s why it is imperative between now and the first Tuesday in November to choose wisely who will be the standard-bearer for the nation’s law enforcement community ­ for both justice and the right of self-defense — and to let that choice be known to those who value the opinion of the men and women sworn to uphold the law and serve and protect our communities.

“Gore doesn’t have to wait till he’s president,” LEAA announced in a press release to the mass media. “This legislation has already been introduced in the House and Senate, and Gore is President of Senate. But considering all the police organizations and members of Congress who have supported LEAA’s H.R. 218, it’s no wonder Al Gore wants to jump on the bandwagon at this late date.”

Actions, Not Words
Texas Gov. George Bush, on the other hand, supported and signed a Right-To-Carry statute into law in the Lone Star State. His actions there indicate that he would not only champion H.R. 218, but he would also sign it into law, should the November election prompt him to move from the governor’s mansion in Austin, Texas, to the White House.

LEAA President John Chapman, a former Texas law enforcement officer, knows that George W. Bush is one of the rare candidates who backs his words with actions, having been involved in that state’s push to allow law-abiding citizens the right to defend themselves.