Assault Weapons Ban Set to Expire on September 13

The quest for safe neighborhoods, secure communities, and sane gun laws will soon take a huge step backwards, for less than two months remain before the ban on assault weapons is removed from the public record. The ban, passed in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, contains a sunset clause that slates it to expire on September 13, 2004. Tragically, violent crime is ever present in the United States, and 30,000 people die from injuries caused by firearms each year, too many of the victims under the age of 18.1 Regardless, there has been little traction in this so-called "lame duck" Congress for efforts to renew and/or strengthen the ban on assault weapons, even though 76 percent of Americans believe the ban must be extended.2

While an extension of the ban (S 2498) has made it onto the Senate calendar, there seems to be little political will to bring it to a vote. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who sponsored the legislation with several colleagues, intends to offer an extension of the ban as an amendment to any bill that is moving through the Senate, such as the Class Action Reform bill, S 2062. The ban on assault weapons will certainly expire unless the House takes a similar action, or approves HR 3831, sponsored by Representatives Castle (R-DE) and Shays (R-CT). Rep. Castle's resolution proposes that the ban be extended for 10 years, and is identical to the bill sponsored by Sen. Feinstein.

Assault weapons banned by the 1994 legislation are characterized by their capability to spray a large area with bullets in a short period of time, such as the military-style AK-47s and Uzis. A large majority of Americans agree (including two-thirds of the members of the National Rifle Association), that these types of semi-automatic assault weapons are not used for hunting or sport, but rather for gunning down people. However, since the ban went into effect, a rash of copycat weapons have been developed by gun manufacturers to circumvent the ban — weapons such as the Bushmaster XM15, used in the D.C. sniper shootings in 2002.

An ideal legislative decision by members of Congress would be to strengthen the Assault Weapons Ban, as proposed by Reps. McCarthy (D-NY) and Conyers (D-MI) in HR 2038, and by Sen. Lautenberg in S 1431. However, it is highly unlikely that the ban will be strengthened before the election in November.

It is absolutely necessary that we raise our voices in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban. Rev. Dr. Susan Andrews, former Moderator of PCUSA, has written: "We believe every human life is precious in God's sight, and we are certain our Creator God did not make the world so that a powerful gun industry could devise increasingly efficient tools to maim and kill others made in the image of God." As Christians, we are called to create peaceful, supportive communities, and a safe world for all members of God's creation. As Presbyterians, we have stood for the eradication of gun violence and for sensible measures of gun control since 1968.

In the words of Reverend Jim Atwood, Presbyterian minister and Interfaith Coordinator for the Million Mom March to End Gun Violence, "80 gun deaths a day demand some righteous indignation."3

We must be compelled by our faith to demand that the ban on Assault Weapons be renewed and strengthened. This is a very crucial time for advocacy, as there are fewer than 15 legislative days before the ban will expire.

Call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to vote in favor of any amendment to extend the Assault Weapons Ban. Call the House and Senate leadership and ask them to bring S 2498, S 1431, HR 2038, and HR 3831 to a vote! September 13 is coming, and life is much too precious to allow dangerous assault weapons to flood our streets once again.

General Assembly Policy:

• Recognizing that the instruments of assassination need not be so readily available, we call upon the Congress to end the unparalleled promiscuity with which nearly all of our states allow firearms to be bought and sold, owned and carried, hidden and used (1972 Statement — UPCUSA, p. 485)
• Urge the Congress of the United States to work seriously toward some effective system of firearms control . . .(1981 Statement — UPCUSA, p. 85)
• The 202nd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) supports gun control at federal, state, and local levels as the most effective response to the present crisis of gun violence. . . (1990 Statement —  PC(USA), pp. 605 and 606)
• CALLS upon the United States government to establish meaningful and effective federal legislation to regulate the importation, manufacture, sale, and possession of guns and ammunition by the general public. Such legislation should include provisions for the registration and licensing of gun purchasers and owners, appropriate background investigations and waiting periods prior to gun purchase, and regulation of subsequent sale.
• CALLS upon government agencies at all levels to provide significant assistance to victims of gun violence and their families.

Footnotes:

1. Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, www.csgv.org
2. Consumer Federation of America, www.consumerfed.org/022304_assault_weapons_survey_ 2004_release.html.
3. Atwood, Jim. "Remarks at the Million Mom March" printed in the Presbyterian Outlook, 186.22, 14 June, 2004. www.pres-outlook.com

— by Catherine Dodson

Protect Workers' Rights: Oppose CAFTA

Commissioners at the 216th General Assembly voted to approve a resolution opposing the Central America Free Trade Agreement in its current form. They urged Presbyterians to learn more about this trade agreement and to communicate the assembly's concerns to their Members of Congress.

Liberalization of trade has been associated with rising levels of violence and social and political instability. It has failed to reduce poverty and has increased economic inequality. Because of the non-democratic implementation of development policies (like trade liberalization) and the lack of any perceived benefits, there is increasing distrust in the democratic process.

CAFTA is a trade agreement negotiated and signed by the United States and six Central American countries - Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, and El Salvador. Many organizations-including religious, humanitarian, development, labor and public policy groups- have voiced concerns about its provisions, and there is growing opposition in Congress. The administration has yet to submit CAFTA for a congressional vote, which is a necessary final step in implementing the agreement.

In late May the administration acknowledged that it would not bring it up for a congressional vote before the presidential election. Many doubt that it will win approval from Congress this year because of concerns that it does not do enough to protect workers' rights in the countries involved.

The countries that are party to the agreement do not have labor laws in place that meet international standards. In some countries, workers fired for union organizing have no right to be reinstated. Nicaragua bars federations and confederations of unions from playing a role in collective bargaining. In Guatemala, workers can be held liable for damages resulting from a strike and can face criminal charges for striking. CAFTA would not require needed labor law reforms and would only require the enforcement of the severely deficient laws that already exist.

In addition to concerns about workers' rights, the PCUSA and others have grave concerns about process and transparency, agriculture, the right to access to medicine, investment rules, and essential public services.

The CAFTA negotiations did not bring in a broad base of participants from within the civil societies of the countries and did not operate within a democratic framework of accountability. The actual text of the agreement was not released until after negotiations were finalized. There was no independent review of the potential impact on those most vulnerable, such as workers, people living in poverty, women, indigenous and ethnic groups.

Under CAFTA, Central American farmers will compete against the highly subsidized agricultural production of the U.S. Central American countries are required to reduce tariffs, subsidies and other supports that protect the agricultural sector, thus making the small farmers and others more vulnerable to downturns in the economy and unable to compete on an uneven playing field.

The investment rules in CAFTA conflict with the obligations of states to protect the basic rights of their own citizens, and undermine their ability to pursue their own national development plans. Investments will be market driven and will be based on maximizing profits. Foreign investors will be able to operate with no conditions on their investments.

CAFTA would force countries to allow foreign corporations to compete in their domestic service markets - including essential public services like water, public health, and education. This will limit the control of local and national governments in ensuring fundamental services, and could lead to increased fees and limited access to public health care, education, and water.

The 216th General Assembly stated that "CAFTA will not contribute to equitable, just and sustainable development in the United States or Central America." While it does not seem likely to pass this year, there is no guarantee. Let your Members of Congress know that you oppose this unfair trade agreement.

— by Catherine Gordon

Raising Up the Issue of Poverty in 2004

"Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream."

(Amos 5:24 NRSV)

Are candidates for elected office addressing the issue of poverty in their 2004 election campaigns? In an effort to encourage people of faith to call upon candidates to lift up the needs of the disenfranchised, the National Council of Churches and the Center for Community Change have launched "LET JUSTICE ROLL: Faith and Community Voices Against Poverty." "LET JUSTICE ROLL" events, scheduled across the country, will allow people of faith the opportunity to ask candidates, delegates to the Party Conventions, and public officials what they plan to do to end poverty.

Last September, the U.S. Census Bureau released poverty figures for 2002. The Bureau found that in 2002 alone, 1.3 million more Americans joined the ranks of those in poverty. There are now almost 35 million Americans living in poverty — 12 percent of the population. Alarmingly, the portion of children living in poverty also increased in 2002 -from 16.4 percent of the population to 17.2 percent. The official poverty rate for a family of four in 2002 was $18,392. A single person is considered poor at $9,183.

"LET JUSTICE ROLL" events, organized primarily by state ecumenical organizations, aim to raise awareness on issues related to poverty — including health care, housing, access to nutritious food, quality education, economic justice, and other essential protections — and call on individuals and candidates for action. Read more on the LET JUSTICE ROLL principles on the NCCC USA Web site.

Events began in Seattle, Washington, Portland, Oregon, and Eugene, Oregon in June. This multi-city initiative will continue in Rochester, N.Y.; Minneapolis, Minn., and beyond and will include events in Boston, Mass., and New York City concurrent with the Democratic and Republican National Conventions. The full schedule of events is listed below. The Rev. Dr. James A. Forbes, Jr., Senior Minister of The Riverside Church in New York City and featured during the 2003-4 season on PBS' "NOW with Bill Moyers," will be the featured speaker at at least seven events.

Local "LET JUSTICE ROLL" events will be one or two days in length and typically will include meetings of religious and community leaders with elected officials and Party Convention delegates; a news conference on local and national issues; voter education, registration, mobilization and protection, and a worship service or rally that roots the work to overcome poverty in religious convictions.

For more information, go to Save These Dates or visit www.ncccusa.org/letjusticeroll. Contact local event coordinators (see below) or the Presbyterian Washington Office for more details.

"LET JUSTICE ROLL" Cities Events Schedule (at press time)

To date, events have been scheduled for:

Seattle, Wash., June 25-26. Contact: Washington Association of Churches, (206) 625-9790 x11, in collaboration with the Philip Randolph Institute, Church Council of Greater Seattle, NAACP and Central Area Motivation Program

Portland, Ore., June 26-27. Contact: Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon, (503) 221-1054

Eugene, Ore., June 28. Contact: Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon, (503) 221-1054

Rochester, N.Y., July 11-12. Contact: Greater Rochester Community of Churches and the Downtown United Presbyterian Church, (585) 325-4000 x23

Minneapolis, Minn., July 23. Contact: Minnesota Council of Churches, (612) 870-3600, and Minnesota State Baptist Convention (NBCUSA, Inc.)

Boston, Mass., July 28, concurrent with the Democratic National Convention. Contact: Massachusetts Conference of the United Church of Christ, (774) 279-0211; Old South Church, (617) 425-5150, with Bread for the World

New York, N.Y., August 31, concurrent with the Republican National Convention. Contact: National Council of Churches, (212) 870-2361, and The Riverside Church, (646) 483-3459

Milwaukee, Wis., Sept. 18. Contact: Wisconsin Council of Churches, (608) 837-3108; Interfaith Conference of Greater Milwaukee, (414) 276-9050, with the Gamaliel Foundation

Albuquerque, N.M., September 18. Contact: New Mexico Conference of Churches, (505) 255-1509, with Bread for the World

Chicago, Ill., October 9-10. Contact: Protestants for the Common Good, (312) 223-9544, in collaboration with Call to Renewal

Additional events are being organized in:

Raleigh, N.C. Contact: North Carolina Council of Churches, (919) 828-6501

Columbia, S.C. Contact: Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Columbia, (803) 772-5087/252-9000, with South Carolina Fair Share and South Carolina Christian Action Council

Columbus, Ohio. Contact: Ohio Council of Churches, (614) 885-9590 x15

Philadelphia, Pa. (tentative date October 17). Contact: National Council of Churches, (212) 870-2361

New Jersey. Contact: New Jersey Council of Churches, (609) 396-9546

— by Carolynn Race

Ask the Director: How do you deal with the constant attacks against the Washington Office and you personally?

We do not take these attacks and mischaracterizations personally. As we have always said: We speak from the historic policy base of the General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Attempts to derail us are really attempts to derail the actions and directives of the General Assembly.

When we repeat this understanding often, we recognize that it is not the Washington Office speaking; it is the voice of the commissioners of the many General Assembly meetings that have passed new policies and reaffirmed previous policies. If we come to see these as the words of the General Assembly and not of any one person, then it stands to reason that we see these attacks as being against the General Assembly and the commissioners who approved such policies. It is the approving Assembly and its sitting commissioners who are being disrespected and dismissed. The Washington Office staff is the messenger. You have heard it said: "Don't kill the messenger."

If you or someone you know has ever served as a commissioner, you will know that there is oftentimes a controversial issue before the meeting of the General Assembly. I cannot think of a single year when that was not the case.

Once the commissioners return home, someone is left to carry out their decisions and directions. That 'someone' is the staff of the General Assembly Council. Almost immediately-sometimes before we leave the city where the Assembly has met-staff will begin to get either praise or criticism for policies that were not only passed by the commissioners, but policies that give explicit orders to take a certain action. Actions often entail communicating with Congress or the President, or supplying a resource to congregations. The Presbytery-elected commissioners leave their decisions to the General Assembly Council and its staff to implement.

For each year the General Assembly meets, the national staff has to give a response about how we carried out the directives of the previous Assembly. Following through on these directives may bring negative comments from those who did not like them in the first place.

A prime example is one of the most controversial issues that comes to almost every Assembly — abortion and reproductive rights. Even though this has come before an Assembly almost every year since the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, we constantly hear that we are "representing our personal view and that we do not speak for all Presbyterians."

The first part of that allegation is not true. We are not representing our own view on these controversial issues, and we often simply cut and paste the actual GA policies that have been affirmed, reaffirmed and reaffirmed by subsequent GAs. Regarding the second part of the allegation — we have never claimed to speak for ALL Presbyterians. We only present the policies of the General Assemblies as they have met over the years. Now I am back to where I began when I say the attacks are really aimed at the elected commissioners and not me. I do not make this stuff up.

— Elenora Giddings Ivory