Did The Brady Bill Strengthen Or Weaken 2d Amendment?


PDA






MikeIsaj
May 27, 2005, 08:25 AM
Another thread this morning made me realize that the Brady Bill actually strengthened my rights as a gun owner in Pennsylvania.

We had a waiting period to buy handguns, now with insta-check, we don't.

Can/Shall issue was a foggy subject, now it's clearly "shall issue."

Before I had to justify my need for a carry permit as well as list the weapon(s) I will be carrying. Now I don't.

My first permit cost $25.00 in 1986. Last one was $19.00.

I know the assault weapon bans were the crown jewel of the bill, and they are now gone. But I look at all the benefits I have received and wonder if I should be writing a thank you letter to Sara Brady.

If you enjoyed reading about "Did The Brady Bill Strengthen Or Weaken 2d Amendment?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Lone_Gunman
May 27, 2005, 08:32 AM
We had a waiting period to buy handguns, now with insta-check, we don't.


Right, instead of a waiting period, you now have your name run through a government computer. This information may or may not be deleted, despite whatever the law is. We know for sure it was not deleted during the Clinton administration.

How are can/shall issue related to the Brady Bill? Issuing permits is a state issue, not a federal, and as far as I know was not affected by the Brady Bill.

There is no 2nd amendment advantage to the Brady Bill at all.

jefnvk
May 27, 2005, 08:44 AM
Honmestly, and I know I will probably be flamed for this, but I don't think the background check is a bad thing, if the records are not kept. Until we can get to a point where prisoners are not let out until they can be fully trusted back into society, I don't have a problem with them.

Alex45ACP
May 27, 2005, 10:49 AM
It's nothing more than a backdoor registration.

ccw007
May 27, 2005, 10:56 AM
I don't think the background check is a bad thing

I agree. I do not have a problem with the background check, but I have a CCW and in NC you do not have to do a background check when buying firearm with the CCW permit. However, what burns me up is when someone is denied when they know they cannot buy a firearm. According to the owner of the gun store I go to all of the time they never follow up with him when someone is denied. From what I understand lying on the form is a felony. The law is there but it is not being enforced and then the anti's say we need more gun laws :banghead:

Lone_Gunman
May 27, 2005, 11:00 AM
So, if you support background checks, how do you feel about records being kept indefinitely?

Do you really believe anything kept on a computer is deleted?

Zrex
May 27, 2005, 11:26 AM
Yeah. I support background checks, and really, is a 5 or 10 or 15 day waiting period that bad? I mean - if you need a gun that bad, you should already have one. Being able to pick up a gun on the same day you buy it only encourages people to not plan ahead.

Also, I don't think there is anything wrong with banning machine guns. Afterall, why does anyone need one of those? They are only for killing people. Not to mention those .50bmg rifles. Isnt a .300 Mag enough rifle for anyone? Do you really need to make 2000 yard shots?

And what is with all the hype about "high capacity" magazines? If you cant hit what you are aiming at with 10 rounds then you need to learn to swap mags quicker. "High cap" mags only encourage people to spray and pray. When I go duck hunting I use an O/U shotgun. I get two shots to hit a duck flying at 50 mph! Why should any reasonable person need more than two rounds in his gun? People are alot bigger than ducks, and move much slower AND they will be much closer.

Did I miss anything? Oh! Assault weapons ... ... maybe I will leave that one for a later date.



/sarcasm

armoredman
May 27, 2005, 11:28 AM
Anything that infringes on our rights weakens what's left of the Second Amendment.

atk
May 27, 2005, 11:37 AM
Zrex,

I read your post, and it makes me want to ask the question: What do you believe the purpose of the second ammendment actually is? Why do you think it was written?

WayneConrad
May 27, 2005, 11:39 AM
To those who support backround checks:

You are, I assume, in favor of denying 2nd amendment rights to felons. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

Now, let's just make more and more crimes felonies. Let's make there be so many felony crimes that it's going to be pretty easy to make a convicted felon out of anyone we don't like.

We'll start with druggies. Nobody likes those scummy druggies. Who would stick up for them?

Who's next?

Dmack_901
May 27, 2005, 11:44 AM
I mean - if you need a gun that bad, you should already have one. Being able to pick up a gun on the same day you buy it only encourages people to not plan ahead.
Waiting periods are the worst, particularly for people who are being stalked, or those women who realise they boyfriend isn't joking when he says he's going to kill her. Sure, I agree that everyone should have a gun to begin with, but a lot don't and regrettibly, many of those who don't want guns are those who need them the most. oops... kinda O/T

Zrex
May 27, 2005, 11:55 AM
I read your post, and it makes me want to ask the question: What do you believe the purpose of the second ammendment actually is? Why do you think it was written?


The 2nd amendment allows the states to have a militia, ie. the National Guard. If the 2nd amendment actually guaranteed the rights of INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms, then how could we possibly have as much gun control as we do?

/sarcasm

jefnvk
May 27, 2005, 11:57 AM
So, if you support background checks, how do you feel about records being kept indefinitely?

Likek I said, I'm in favor as long as it is guaranteed that records aren't being kept. And if we have the system, it needs to be kept up to date to minimize the amount of people that are denied purchase that shouldn't be denied. Also, there needs to be an easy and reasonable way for felons to have their rights given back.

In my perfect world, people would not be out of prison until they could be completely trusted to be members of society again. In that world, there would be no need for background checks, because anyone not in prison or a mental institute would be a safe person in society. However, I realize that this is not the case, and it doesn't appear to look like it is going to happen aytime soon.

Zrex
May 27, 2005, 12:03 PM
Waiting periods are the worst, particularly for people who are being stalked, or those women who realise they boyfriend isn't joking when he says he's going to kill her. Sure, I agree that everyone should have a gun to begin with, but a lot don't and regrettibly, many of those who don't want guns are those who need them the most. oops... kinda O/T

Well, if the woman being stalked, the police will protect her. Thats what they do, afterall, protect individuals from harm. And if she calls the police and something bad happens to her, that should not be a wake up call for people to try to defend themselves, on the contrary, it should be a call to hire more police and further restrict access to weapons so bad people cant get them.


/sarcasm

atk
May 27, 2005, 12:13 PM
Zrex,

Could you clarify as to whether your entire post is sarcasm, or if only part of it is? I am not quite sure how to read it...

Zrex
May 27, 2005, 12:14 PM
Ok - just to let everyone know, in my above posts I am being sarcastic.

I should have put proper <sarcasm> </sarcasm> tags around the sarcastic parts, but figured the "/sarcasm" at the end of my posts would suffice.

I apologize for any confusion this has caused.

To set the record straight, I am indeed pro-gun, anti-brady, anti-waiting period, pro-machine gun, pro-.50, pro-2A, pro-self reliance, anti-GCA, anti-NFA, etc..





and I don't like John McCain.... but I do like Ron Paul, walks on the beach, and puppies.

atk
May 27, 2005, 12:19 PM
Zrex,

Thanks for the clarification.


Oh - and puppies are good :)

Standing Wolf
May 27, 2005, 12:23 PM
No infringement of the nation's civil rights can ever be a good thing. There may well be silver linings—that Brady clique, for example, helped pump up N.R.A. membership—but in and of themselves, infringements are always evil.

CarlS
May 28, 2005, 10:25 AM
Honmestly, and I know I will probably be flamed for this, but I don't think the background check is a bad thing, if the records are not kept. Until we can get to a point where prisoners are not let out until they can be fully trusted back into society, I don't have a problem with them.

Does the govenment require background checks before a politician is allowed to make a speech? Are background checks required of reporters and publishers before a news story is printed (Newsweek) or aired (CBS)? These are rights guaranteed, not granted, by the Constitution. Why should the Second Amendment be treated in differently than the First?

El Tejon
May 28, 2005, 11:14 AM
There are no "benefits" to the Brady Bill.

Background checks shift the presumption of innocence to the presumption of guilt. One must "prove" themselves able to own a gun.

The Brady Bill was a horrific blow to civil rights as it shifted the burden to the gun owner and allowed easier registration.

Where this notion that the AWB is part of the "Brady Bill" is beyond me. The AWB was part of the VCCA of 1994. The Brady Bill came way before this law.

jfh
May 28, 2005, 12:42 PM
Do any of us really believe this?

Think about this for a moment from the IT perspective--think about data backup.

Now think about the history of insta-check. Go back to the AWB tradeoffs we made, etc., etc.

Finally, think about the regulations of bureaucracy, as opposed to the law.

It doesn't take long to for a reasonably-intelligent person to thread their way through that tangle to have an excuse to check our insta-check history.

We're fools for encouraging any sort of government "OK" system.

MountainPeak
May 29, 2005, 09:09 AM
Since this is The High Road, I believe I will take it, and remain silent about what I really think about this thread starter's opinion!!!

bjbarron
May 29, 2005, 12:31 PM
Since this is The High Road, I believe I will take it, and remain silent about what I really think about this thread starter's opinion!!!

I don't want to read anything into someone elses post, but all the Brady stuff showed us that the NRA was not to be trusted, and that we would need to reverse the trends via grassroots activism.

It showed us there is no possibility of reasoning with the anti-gun faction and compromise just brings more (added to the 20,000) gun laws on the books.

If anything, we might thank Brady for being so insufferably unconstitutional that it brought pro 2A activists out of the shadows and into mainstream politics. The 2A is on it's way to becoming the new third rail of politics...touch it and lose.

The next thing to get rid of is that Bush Senior law and then go after the stuff from the 60s. I don't ever think we would be able to get rid of the 1930s machinegun law, even tho the 2A mandates that we be armed with modern military equipment.

In the Eighteenth Century, well regulated had the meaning of working well or well maintained, or well built; think of the Regulator Clock pattern. It did not mean well controlled.

In this context the meaning of the 2A would be that as a well equipped militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the rights of citizens to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. As the militia is made of citizens, this would require that the citizens must have access to military grade weapons as they did back then. I believe that nearly all, if not all, states have militia statutes on the books covering males 16 to 60.. The National Guard was not created until early in the 1900s.

I can see gun-grabbers having a stroke over that one, but I believe that this was the intent of the founders. A citizenry armed with modern weapons is essential to the security of a free state.

Sorta looks like guns are necessary for the people to have so they can quickly become Militia if necessary. Nothing is said about institutionalized organizations like the NG.

One of the reasons I believe that SCOTUS has avoided 2A cases is that they would have to rule that as the founders intended, this is an individual right and covers military class weapons.

From a High-Road post to God's ear.

beerslurpy
May 29, 2005, 12:42 PM
There are no "benefits" to the Brady Bill.

Background checks shift the presumption of innocence to the presumption of guilt. One must "prove" themselves able to own a gun.

The Brady Bill was a horrific blow to civil rights as it shifted the burden to the gun owner and allowed easier registration.

Where this notion that the AWB is part of the "Brady Bill" is beyond me. The AWB was part of the VCCA of 1994. The Brady Bill came way before this law.

Thank you very much sir, this is exactly my opinion on the matter. The whole concept of asking the government for permission to do things is anathema to the American way of life and the rule of law. Either something is illegal for everyone, or it is legal for everyone. The government doesnt get to pick and choose to whom laws apply. Also, I should be free to do whatever I want as long as I dont hurt other people or thier property. Lol crazy talk.

I agree with BJBARON that the SCOTUS has held off because they want to make a proper ruling on the 2nd. You can see bits of their true opinion poking through in cases for years now. It also seems fairly obvious to me that they have read up on the current 2nd amendment scholarship and, go figure, the justices of the supreme court may actually understand the constitution.

jfh
May 29, 2005, 04:19 PM
I'm going to disagree here, bjbarron.

There is no doubt that the NRA (and Bob Dole) compromised us. OTOH, had they not done that, the swing votes at the time would have guaranteed an even worse bill that would have passed.

As it is, they were able to sabotage the bill well enough by limiting it to specific models / names, which left the loophole for continued production. It got me going to go buy a Colt 'Sporter,' just the GHWB bill got me to buy a Springfield Armory 91.

The resultant publicity got the gunny grass-roots movement finally rolling--and although it's taken over ten years, that grass-roots movement may even have impacted a few of the "hunters" and made them into some sort of gunny.

If anything, we might thank Brady for being so insufferably unconstitutional that it brought pro 2A activists out of the shadows and into mainstream politics. The 2A is on it's way to becoming the new third rail of politics...touch it and lose.

However, these should not be perceived as 'benefits' to having the bills--they should be seen as the backlash--and the beginnings of the current progun activist program.

Yup, and yup on your next goals for the pro-gun activism.

AZRickD
May 29, 2005, 04:59 PM
Numerous studies from Jacobs & Potter (Northwestern U), General Accounting Office, and even from anti-gunners Cook & Ludwig, have shown that the Brady Law doesn't reduce crime and, in fact, has been used to thwart gun purchases of non-felons (for back boating tickets, parking tickets, and various other administrative reasons).

As well, if you have one government agency in control of the Brady-switch, what is to stop them from shutting the whole process down for whatever reason the want? Let's say there's a riot in Detroit. A thoughtful FBI bureaucrat gets the okay to shut down the system in that area because, "more guns would make the problem worse" of course.

Here is what Alan Korwin of GunLaws.com has to say on that aspect...

http://www.gunlaws.com/brady8day.htm
A review of FBI computer records reveals that the firearms industry has been shut down for more than eight full business days, between Dec. 10 to June 15, due to the National Instant Background Check (NICS). The four-page report, obtained last week by the National Association of Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers, indicates that legitimate businesses have endured federal closures 84 times in the six-month period.

Brady is a bad law. But even, at best, it is a law with no effect, needs to be repealed, period for that very reason.

Rick

mercedesrules
May 29, 2005, 06:38 PM
I don't ever think we would be able to get rid of the 1930s machinegun law, even tho the 2A mandates that we be armed with modern military equipment.
Isn't that law just a tax?

taliv
May 29, 2005, 10:18 PM
i agree that nothing about the brady bill was good. however, in response to the original question... i refer you to the often quoted saying here about needing to exercise ones rights regularly. the brady bill was just an opportunity to do so.

btw, i support background checks as long as the records aren't kept. (and i don't believe they are being kept currently, although that could change w/o us knowing, it. basically, I'm accepting that risk in return for the reward of not allowing some people to buyguns.)

I support restricting the rights of VIOLENT felons. (not just any felon) Generally, a few years after their release, if they've behaved themselves, I support restoring those rights completely.

I do not support waiting periods or limits of the number of guns purchased in a given time.

also, I'd accept a background check requirement for all sales, including private parties at gun shows in exchange for re-opening the NFA registry and getting rid of all import bans.

tyme
May 29, 2005, 10:40 PM
I don't ever think we would be able to get rid of the 1930s machinegun law, even tho the 2A mandates that we be armed with modern military equipment.
Isn't that law just a tax?
If only we had "just a tax" on the media, this country might get straightened out. It's for the childruhn!

Bruce H
May 29, 2005, 11:20 PM
The only thing the Brady bill strengthened was the Bradys bank account.

If you enjoyed reading about "Did The Brady Bill Strengthen Or Weaken 2d Amendment?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!