Daschle for gun rights before votes against

Jennifer Sanderson has an Ad Watch on the Ave Maria List radio ad that makes this claim:

An announcer says Daschle has switched his position on several key issues, including abortion rights, balancing the budget, protecting gun ownership and the sanctity of marriage.

Sanderson’s analysis includes this point regarding the gun control issue:

Daschle voted in 1998 to make gun safety devices, such as trigger locks, "available" but not mandatory as a condition for dealers to receive and keep their licenses (S.AMDT.3238 to S.2260).

The Ad Watch report did not mention that Daschle switched his position on the specific gun control issue on February 26, 2004:

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require the provision of a child safety device in connection with the transfer of a handgun and to provide safety standards for child safety devices. (S.AMDT.2620 to S.1805)

If the dealer does not provide the mandatory locks here is the penalty:

``(i) suspend or revoke any license issued to the licensee under this chapter; ``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty of not more than $15,000; or ``(iii) impose the penalties described in clauses (i) and (ii).

Tim Johnson even voted opposite of Daschle on this one.

The Ave Maria List ad is correct, Tom Daschle changed his position on guns. I don’t think the Ad Watch report was clear on that. In fact I believe the intend of the analysis was to say otherwise.

I am willing to give Sanderson the benefit of the doubt and believe this was an honest oversight. The problem I have is my letter to the editor that will correct this will probably be rejected by the Argus Leader editor(s) because it is “anti-Daschle”. If the truth about Daschle’s voting record is “anti-Daschle”, then the “pro-Daschle” letters maybe lies. Shouldn't the truth be the criteria to print or not print letters?