N.R.A. Chief Says He Will Counter Gun-Control Campaign by Bloomberg

The chief executive of the National Rifle Association said on Sunday that his organization would lead a national campaign against efforts by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York to persuade Congress to adopt stricter gun controls.

The mayor and the rifle association executive, Wayne LaPierre, appeared separately on the NBC program “Meet the Press” on Sunday. Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire and a registered independent, said he was spending $12 million on advertising in support of pending federal legislation to curb gun violence. But Mr. LaPierre, said, “He can’t buy America.’’

“He can’t spend enough of his $27 billion to try to impose his will on the American public,” Mr. LaPierre said. Referring to Mr. Bloomberg’s well-known campaigns against smoking and junk food, he said: “They don’t want him in their restaurants, they don’t want him in their homes, they don’t want him telling them what food to eat. They sure don’t want him telling what self-defense firearms to own.’’

Mr. Bloomberg formed a “super PAC’’ last year to donate to candidates and causes that he supported. The causes include gay rights and tougher gun laws.

Mr. LaPierre said that gun owners would be a political counterweight to the mayor. “We have people all over, millions of people, sending us $5, $10, $15, $20 checks, saying, ‘Stand up to this guy that says we can only have three bullets,’ which is what he said,’’ Mr. LaPierre said. “ ‘Stand up to this guy that says ridiculous things like the N.R.A. wants firearms with nukes on them.’ I mean, it’s insane, the stuff he says.’’

Mr. Bloomberg, on the same program, said the power of the rifle association was “vastly overrated.’’ Moreover, he said he was “cautiously optimistic’’ that Congress would follow public opinion and vote for stricter gun controls. The Senate is expected to begin debate on gun legislation next month soon after it returns from a two-week break for the Easter and Passover holidays.

“Ninety percent of the public, 80 percent of N.R.A. members even, say that they think we should have reasonable checks before people are allowed to buy guns,’’ Mr. Bloomberg said. “They all support the Second Amendment, as I do. There are an awful lot of people that think that this is one of the great issues of our times. We have to stop the carnage.’’

Mr. Bloomberg said lawmakers could pay a political price for opposing stricter gun controls. “If 90 percent of the public want something and their representatives vote against that, common sense says, they are going to have a price to pay for that,’’ Mr. Bloomberg said.

“We’re running ads around the country,’’ Mr. Bloomberg added. “We’ve got people manning phone banks and calling. We’re trying to do everything we can to impress upon the senators that this is what the survivors want, this is what the public wants.’’

The bill going to the Senate floor is expected to include enhanced background checks for gun buyers.

Asked if his lobbying efforts were thwarting the will of the American people, Mr. LaPierre said, “No, not at all.’’ And he added: “The whole thing, universal checks, is a dishonest premise. There’s not a bill on the Hill that provides a universal check. Criminals aren’t going to be checked. They’re not going to do this. The shooters in Tucson, in Aurora, in Newtown, they’re not going to be checked. They’re unrecognizable.’’

Mr. LaPierre criticized the current National Instant Criminal Background Check System, set up by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether prospective buyers have criminal records or are otherwise ineligible to purchase guns.

“It’s not fair, it’s not accurate, it’s not instant,’’ Mr. LaPierre said. “The mental health records are not in the system, and they don’t prosecute any of the criminals that they catch. It’s a speed bump for the law-abiding. It slows down the law-abiding and does nothing to anybody else.’’

Mr. LaPierre said gun control advocates “want to take this current mess of a system and expand it now to 100 million law-abiding gun owners.’’

Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, predicted that the Senate would approve some kind of universal background check. But he said that Congress must recognize concerns that the federal government would keep and possibly misuse records of gun purchases.

“I don’t know a Republican that doesn’t want to have significantly enhanced and universal background checks,” Mr. Coburn said on the C-SPAN program “Newsmakers.” “How you do that and protect the Second Amendment at the same time is very important.’’

“Remember,’’ Mr. Coburn said, “there are a lot of people in this country that â€" and rightly so, given the behavior of the federal government, in terms of its fiscal capability, in terms of regulatory overreach, in terms of poking its nose into every area of everybody’s life, in terms of domestic drones, in terms of all this other stuff â€" that you’ve created a certain level of paranoia in this country, and some of it’s justified.”

Mr. Bloomberg said he still hoped Congress would approve a ban on assault weapons, which appears to have little chance of being adopted. “I don’t think we should give up on the assault weapons ban,’’ Mr. Bloomberg said.

Gov. John W. Hickenlooper of Colorado, a Democrat, appearing Sunday on the CNN program “State of the Union,’’ said that a ban on assault weapons was “a tough sell.’’

Colorado recently adopted gun control bills that call for an expansion of background checks and limits on the size of ammunition magazines. But the State Legislature did not ban assault weapons.

“I think the feeling right now around assault weapons, at least in Colorado, is that they’re so hard to define what an assault weapon is,’’ Mr. Hickenlooper said.

Days Early, a Line Forms at the Supreme Court

Nearly 30 people formed a line in front of the Supreme Court over the weekend, hoping for one of the roughly 50 seats reserved for the public to witness arguments in the landmark same-sex marriage case that begins on Tuesday. With thousands of tourists streaming into Washington for the holiday break and the National Cherry Blossom Festival, gawkers and passersby alike paused to ask what people were waiting for or to offer their opinions on the case.

But not everyone in line could speak passionately - or even with feigned interest - about the laws at the center of the case: Proposition 8, which prohibits same-sex marriage in California, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits and recognition to married same-sex couples. That is because some line-standers weren’t tolerating the swift winds and below-freezing nights in the name of activism or political interest. They were there for a paycheck.

By hiring companies like LineStanding.com and Washington Express, patrons can pay for a proxy to hold their place in line hours or days ahead of time, improving their odds of getting a font row seat to one of the most highly anticipated cases the court is considering this year.

The second and third person in line on Saturday seemed indifferent toward the cases and declined to give their names or say whether they were being paid to be there. One of them said that this was his third time waiting in line for a Supreme Court hearing, but he could not remember which cases he had waited in line to attend. This time he had been there since Thursday; seat assignments are to be given out on Tuesday morning.

“There’s been a huge demand for standing in line,” said John Winslow, director of operations for LineStanding.com, a service that charges $50 an hour to hold places in line for Supreme Court and Congressional hearings, among other events. “I’ve got between 50 and 60 people available, and I’m anticipating that I’ll have to dip into my fleet of couriers.” His company doubles as a Congressional messenger service.

Carisa Cunningham, a spokeswoman for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, called it a “stampede panic going on right now” to get in line for the proceedings as activists and opponents from across the country arrive in town. GLAD sent a volunteer to stand in line on its behalf, and Ms. Cunningham knew of at least one private citizen who was paying to have someone hold a spot.

Some people or organizations with high stakes in the outcome simply do not want to rely on tweets or dispatches from inside the courtroom. They want a real-time experience, to see the expressions on the justices’ faces as the lawyers present their cases - and they are willing to pay for it.

“There’s probably about only two or three other big companies in this space, but it certainly is competitive,” Mr. Winslow said.

The practice has drawn ire from some in Congress who say that the services give an unfair advantage to those willing to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for access to Supreme Court hearings.

Former Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, is not a fan of paying for a position in line. He made a wry remark on Saturday about wealthy lawyers paying poor folks to suffer in the cold on their behalf. He went on to suggest that it would not be necessary if the court would allow its hearings to be televised.

“It’s not a bad redistributive method, for those of us who care about inequality,” Mr. Frank said in an impromptu interview at the Reagan National Airport on Wednesday. “It’s a disgrace that they do not allow these hearings to be televised.”

But Mr. Frank, who is gay and whose home state was the first to allow same-sex marriage, will not be in attendance. “My presences [] couldn’t possibly influence anybody to vote for it,” he said.

In 2007, Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, proposed banning line-standing services for congressional [] hearings, saying that lobbyists or wealthy individuals should have to stand in line like everyone else.

But the real tipping point in the business came in 2012, before arguments over the Affordable Care Act.

“That one was historically significant and the first time we’ve ever done three days in line at the Supreme Court,” Mr. Winslow said. “Prior to that, the max was 24 hours. Obama health care set the bar.”

After waiting in line together for days, those who were there for their own benefit said they held no animosity toward those who were being paid - after all, they sat on the same cold concrete and had saved one another’s place in line during coffee or bathroom breaks.

“I really like the individual people in this line. We get along really well, and they are very friendly people. I like all of them,” said Jason Wonacott, a 24-year-old Washingtonian who had been there since Friday. “But about place holding, I don’t think it’s about the people actually standing in line. It’s just another example of how in government if you have money you have access.”

Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting.

Days Early, a Line Forms at the Supreme Court

Nearly 30 people formed a line in front of the Supreme Court over the weekend, hoping for one of the roughly 50 seats reserved for the public to witness arguments in the landmark same-sex marriage case that begins on Tuesday. With thousands of tourists streaming into Washington for the holiday break and the National Cherry Blossom Festival, gawkers and passersby alike paused to ask what people were waiting for or to offer their opinions on the case.

But not everyone in line could speak passionately - or even with feigned interest - about the laws at the center of the case: Proposition 8, which prohibits same-sex marriage in California, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits and recognition to married same-sex couples. That is because some line-standers weren’t tolerating the swift winds and below-freezing nights in the name of activism or political interest. They were there for a paycheck.

By hiring companies like LineStanding.com and Washington Express, patrons can pay for a proxy to hold their place in line hours or days ahead of time, improving their odds of getting a font row seat to one of the most highly anticipated cases the court is considering this year.

The second and third person in line on Saturday seemed indifferent toward the cases and declined to give their names or say whether they were being paid to be there. One of them said that this was his third time waiting in line for a Supreme Court hearing, but he could not remember which cases he had waited in line to attend. This time he had been there since Thursday; seat assignments are to be given out on Tuesday morning.

“There’s been a huge demand for standing in line,” said John Winslow, director of operations for LineStanding.com, a service that charges $50 an hour to hold places in line for Supreme Court and Congressional hearings, among other events. “I’ve got between 50 and 60 people available, and I’m anticipating that I’ll have to dip into my fleet of couriers.” His company doubles as a Congressional messenger service.

Carisa Cunningham, a spokeswoman for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, called it a “stampede panic going on right now” to get in line for the proceedings as activists and opponents from across the country arrive in town. GLAD sent a volunteer to stand in line on its behalf, and Ms. Cunningham knew of at least one private citizen who was paying to have someone hold a spot.

Some people or organizations with high stakes in the outcome simply do not want to rely on tweets or dispatches from inside the courtroom. They want a real-time experience, to see the expressions on the justices’ faces as the lawyers present their cases - and they are willing to pay for it.

“There’s probably about only two or three other big companies in this space, but it certainly is competitive,” Mr. Winslow said.

The practice has drawn ire from some in Congress who say that the services give an unfair advantage to those willing to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for access to Supreme Court hearings.

Former Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, is not a fan of paying for a position in line. He made a wry remark on Saturday about wealthy lawyers paying poor folks to suffer in the cold on their behalf. He went on to suggest that it would not be necessary if the court would allow its hearings to be televised.

“It’s not a bad redistributive method, for those of us who care about inequality,” Mr. Frank said in an impromptu interview at the Reagan National Airport on Wednesday. “It’s a disgrace that they do not allow these hearings to be televised.”

But Mr. Frank, who is gay and whose home state was the first to allow same-sex marriage, will not be in attendance. “My presences [] couldn’t possibly influence anybody to vote for it,” he said.

In 2007, Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, proposed banning line-standing services for congressional [] hearings, saying that lobbyists or wealthy individuals should have to stand in line like everyone else.

But the real tipping point in the business came in 2012, before arguments over the Affordable Care Act.

“That one was historically significant and the first time we’ve ever done three days in line at the Supreme Court,” Mr. Winslow said. “Prior to that, the max was 24 hours. Obama health care set the bar.”

After waiting in line together for days, those who were there for their own benefit said they held no animosity toward those who were being paid - after all, they sat on the same cold concrete and had saved one another’s place in line during coffee or bathroom breaks.

“I really like the individual people in this line. We get along really well, and they are very friendly people. I like all of them,” said Jason Wonacott, a 24-year-old Washingtonian who had been there since Friday. “But about place holding, I don’t think it’s about the people actually standing in line. It’s just another example of how in government if you have money you have access.”

Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting.