"In fact, even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. The current leader of the NRA used to support these background checks."

— President Obama, remarks on Senate vote on gun bill, April 17, 2013

Some readers were curious to learn more about the National Rifle Association's purported support for background checks. As it happens, there is a bit of fact checker dispute about this history.

PolitiFact in March rated as "true" this statement by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg: "In fact, if you go back to 1999, [NRA chief executive] Wayne LaPierre testified on behalf of the NRA that background checks were appropriate and should be done."

But last week FactCheck.org dinged Vice President Biden for making a claim similar to the president. FactCheck.org, which issues no ratings, said Biden described the NRA's policies through "rose-colored glasses," because the organization only supported language denounced as a sham by then-President Bill Clinton.

When fact checkers disagree, it's often because the statements being vetted are slightly different. Bloomberg, for instance, carefully did not use the word "support" and he did not refer to the "good old days" of working with the NRA, as Biden did. (PolitiFact, however, on Thursday reiterated its "true' ruling for Obama's statement above.)

The Fact Checker has learned from decades of covering politics and diplomacy that looking at the words sometimes is not enough; actions are also important. Is this a case where "support" for a particular action may have only been tactical, designed to block or kill proposals that pose a danger to an organization?

As former House speaker Newt Gingrich memorably explained during the GOP presidential debates in 2011, the individual mandate that formed the core of President Obama's health care law was originally designed to block health reform efforts by Hillary Clinton: "In 1993, in fighting HillaryCare, virtually every conservative saw the mandate as a less-dangerous future than what Hillary was trying to do….It's now clear that the mandate, I think, is clearly unconstitutional. But, it started as a conservative effort to stop HillaryCare in the 1990s."

In other words, it was tactical maneuver — subject to change later.

The history of the NRA's "support" for expanded background checks is worth recounting, in part because it has striking resemblances to the current gun-control battle.

The Facts

As with this year, the gun-control battle of 1999 was sparked by a horrific school shooting: the April 20, 1999, Columbine High School massacre in which two students killed 12 students and a teacher before committing suicide. President Clinton, similar to President Obama, pushed for immediate action on gun-control legislation.

In the context of Columbine, LaPierre testified before a panel of the House Judiciary Committee, and trod a very careful line between "what's reasonable and what's not." So, LaPierre said he was in favor of "instant checks at gun shows just like at gun stores and pawn shops." But then he described as "unreasonable" nine aspects of the key legislation being pushed by Democrats at the time, led by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.).

Essentially, he opposed the entire Lautenberg bill as "made-for-TV lawmaking"—and the NRA lobbied hard against it. But it also ran an ad campaign in newspapers titled "Be Reasonable" that reprinted LaPierre's testimony. If you read his testimony, you will see that the crux of it is that existing laws must be better enforced — exactly the same position the NRA takes today.

Also, note that LaPierre uses the modifier "instant" before the word "checks." That subtle word choice became important later in the debate.

In the legislative process, Lautenberg's proposal to expand background checks was increasingly weakened (the Internet was excluded, for instance) but when it came for a vote, it passed by 51-50, with Vice President Al Gore casting the deciding vote. The victory actually came about because one senator, Democrat Max Cleland of Georgia, changed his vote at the last minute after another school shooting the day of the vote in his home state.

That legislation did not have to meet the 60-vote hurdle that this week's gun amendment needed to achieve, so in some ways it was a less impressive victory. Still, at the time, it was viewed as a seminal moment. "This is a turning point for our country," Gore declared.

But the NRA was just biding its time. The 51-50 vote on May 20,1999, turned out to be a Pyrrhic victory for gun-control advocates, similar to the successful vote earlier this month to proceed to debate on the gun amendments.

When the House of Representatives took up the issue the following month, the NRA worked with a longtime supporter, Rep.