The Hancock Amendment continues to be the subject of much wrangling and dispute in Jefferson City and across the state. When, exactly, it requires either a refund to taxpayers or a vote of the people on tax or fee increases is not always clear, by any means.

The fires of this controversy were stoked once again this week by Senate President Pro Tem Jim Mathewson, D.-Sedalia. The Senate's Pro Tem, in an extraordinary attack, devoted a full page of his seven-page text to a denunciation of U.S. Rep. Mel Hancock, R.-Springfield. Hancock is leading a new petition drive (Hancock II) to further tighten and more clearly define his 14-year-old amendment, which Missouri voters passed overwhelmingly in 1980. In case anyone missed the point he had made with sledgehammer and pole-axe just moments before, Mathewson was quoted telling reporters afterward that Hancock is "out of control ... an absolute phony." My, my.

Between now and November, the passage of time will tell who is closer to the public mind: my friend and colleague Jim Mathewson, or Congressman Hancock. I believe I know where the voters of Missouri are on this one.

Last April, a constituent wrote me, declaring his disappointment with my position that before taxes were increased, the people should have the vote they were promised just months earlier. In a response sent a few days later, I stated my position in the following words:

".... Where such Hancock Amendment doubts exist, I would resolve them in favor of a vote of the people, in keeping with their plain intent in adopting it. ..."

Last month, on December 22, a unanimous Missouri Supreme Court agreed with my position. The high court ruled that in close cases interpreting whether tax and fee increases must be submitted to voters for approval, it would rule in favor of the voters' rights to approve or reject rate increases.

Writing for 6-0 court, Judge Edward "Chip" Robertson declared that while the Hancock Amendment contained "ambiguous language", he had no doubt that it reflected the voters' "basic distrust of the ability of representative government to keep its taxing and spending requirements in check."

* * * * *

Gun Control

President Clinton's ink was not yet dry on the Brady Bill he signed, requiring a five-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun, before proponents gushed about how this was just a "first step." One test of the efficacy of a reform is whether small doses of it help to remedy the undesirable condition. But we already know that our cities with the most stringent gun control laws are our most murderous urban areas.

In the Dec. 27th-Jan. 3 New York Observer, columnist Richard Brookhiser commented on the Long Island Railroad' recent mass murderer:

"If ever there was a hate criminal, Colin Ferguson is it. He hated whites, Asians and "Uncle Tom Negroes" who did their bidding. His wife divorced him because of the virulence of his racial views; his landlord was about to evict him for the same reason. He had been arrested (by the Transit Police, as it happens) for a racial tiff. After his murderous deed was done, his pockets were found stuffed with racist rantings. The usual watchdogs of hate crimes have fallen strangely silent in this case, however, for the obvious reason that Colin Ferguson's hatred was not the kind of hatred they expected to be punishing. The category of hate crime was meant to draw attention to the level of white racism in America."

It is worth noting that in California, Colin Ferguson made a legal purchase of the gun he used to such murderous effect back east, after waiting the 15-day period required in that state.

The principal effects of Clinton administration efforts to restrict gun owners' rights are two-fold. One is the reassembling of the Reagan-Bush coalition that George Bush's fecklessness allowed to dissolve. One example: Since Clinton's November 1992 election, the National Rifle Association has been gaining a net two thousand members each day, and has topped three million members for the first time ever.

The other principal effect has been an explosion in gun purchases, as law-abiding citizens arm themselves while it's still legal to do so. One Sikeston gun dealer sold 4,000 rifles in a few weeks after passage of the Brady Bill; other area dealers report they are sold out of new shipments in advance. (It's also worth noting that no outbreaks of violent lawlessness have accompanied these purchases.)

The Second Amendment reads: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the survival of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Those who want to restrict gun owners' rights should just come out for the flat-out repeal of the Second Amendment, as some of the more candid among them admit. They would then at least have an intellectually honest position.