LA Times editorial: Brady Law Works; Let It Be


PDA






papercut
January 6, 2004, 02:17 PM
Note that I didn't take this from the LA Times website, but rather from the about.com gun control debate forum at http://forums.about.com/ab-usgovinfo2/messages/?msg=609

LA Times editorial from 2 Jan 2004

Brady Law Works; Let It Be

The National Rifle Assn. has steadily opposed the Brady law, which requires a background check of potential gun buyers. Now, with a friendly majority in Congress, the pro-gun lobby is close to significantly weakening this vital crime control tool. The House passed legislation before its holiday recess that would require the FBI to destroy gun buyer records within 24 hours of the sale of a weapon, wiping out a database that police use to solve gun crimes and rescind some gun sales. The Senate will take up the NRA-drafted proposal this month, and senators who regularly declare themselves to be tough on crime will have no choice but to oppose it.

The Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, approved in 1993, requires that would-be handgun buyers pass a national computer background check before they can walk out of the store with their new weapons. Prospective purchasers are barred if they've been convicted of a felony or domestic violence, are "mentally defective" or are the subject of a restraining order or arrest warrant.

The law has worked well so far. Ninety-one percent of the time, the person gets an instant green light to buy the gun; last year, the checks disqualified 136,000 dangerous or unstable people. That part of the law would remain untouched. However, federal law requires the Justice Department to keep those electronic records for 90 days. FBI agents combing through this data sometimes discover that incomplete or incorrect information let someone who can't legally buy a handgun get one anyway. That's how the FBI retrieved more than 18,000 firearms since 1994 from ineligible buyers, according to federal studies. Law enforcement agencies also use this database to trace recently purchased weapons used in crimes.

Supporters of requiring the FBI to purge its records daily, including sponsor Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), argue that the measure would protect the privacy of law-abiding citizens. By that reasoning, state motor vehicle departments should purge all data relating to licensed drivers.

Federal monitoring of firearm purchases has gotten faster and more accurate since the Brady law took effect. The FBI's computer check system is based on records fed from local law enforcement agencies. Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton has declared: "I'm very opposed to this effort to make the Brady law toothless, and I just don't understand how Congress members can even consider it. Obviously they haven't shown up at the scene of enough officer shootings."

The Brady bill works and there's no reason to change it.

Hmmm. "By that reasoning, state motor vehicle departments should purge all data relating to licensed drivers." What the LA Times editorial board omits is that you don't have a constitutional right to drive. That little fact kinda makes their remark frivolous.

Further comment from the person who posted this to about.com's forum:

What this editorial did not mention was that there was supposed to be a national instant check system in place 5 years after implementation of the law (which California does not have yet); requires the destruction of records (no time frame is given); that the Brady Law requires a 5-day waiting period, not 10 days as California currently has; that gun dealers must notify local law enforcement within 2 days of a disqualification, and that the Brady Law recognizes there may be some erroneous disqualifications.

So, how many of those 136,000 dangerous and unstable people were erroneous disqualifications, and of the remaining valid disqualifications how many were prosecuted?

If you enjoyed reading about "LA Times editorial: Brady Law Works; Let It Be" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kharn
January 6, 2004, 02:40 PM
The Brady bill works and there's no reason to change it.
The Brady Bill works, especially the sunset provision, and there's no reason to change it. :neener:

Nine months and 7 days 'till party time. :D

Kharn

riverdog
January 6, 2004, 02:45 PM
Is there a sunset to the Brady Bill or are you confusing it with the AWB?

berto
January 6, 2004, 02:45 PM
Amazing how they praise the NICS when it was the NRA that thought it up.:rolleyes:

BenW
January 6, 2004, 02:49 PM
More amazing is how a California paper mentions how quick and easy NICS is, without mentioning that it doesn't apply in Calif., where we have a 10 day wait. But hey, the LA Times has no agenda....:rolleyes:

Kharn
January 6, 2004, 03:18 PM
Oops, got my antigun bills confused. Sorry about that. :o

Kharn

papercut
January 6, 2004, 03:23 PM
Kharn said:
Oops, got my antigun bills confused. Sorry about that.

I think that's part of their strategy: put so many anti-gun laws on the books that it becomes impossible to figure out if you're breaking one or not, so why bother even owning a gun.... :cuss:

earthworm
January 6, 2004, 04:28 PM
& Elvis is still alive.

marklbucla
January 7, 2004, 05:42 AM
The Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, approved in 1993, requires that would-be handgun buyers pass a national computer background check before they can walk out of the store with their new weapons. Prospective purchasers are barred if they've been convicted of a felony or domestic violence, are "mentally defective" or are the subject of a restraining order or arrest warrant.

What am I missing? Why is this a bad thing? I understand that this will be far from 100% efficient and effective and that criminals will find a way around this, but not all of them can. If it will stop only one murder ever, then isn't it a good thing?

artherd
January 7, 2004, 07:10 AM
It's not a bad thing at all in theroey, except for the potential conflict of intrest with the people running it. And potential innacuracies. And possible abuses.


Of course, a 'waiting peroid' seems very silly when NCIS comes back in seconds (ok, minuites, this is a government computer system after all :P)


The solution is NOT to keep and compile a list of people with guns to intern, the solution is to FIX NCIS so that it bounces those 18,000 people in the first place!

Tamara
January 7, 2004, 07:31 AM
What am I missing? Why is this a bad thing? I understand that this will be far from 100% efficient and effective and that criminals will find a way around this,

Having worked in gun stores since before the Brady Bill, let me tell you something: 90% of those denied get their denials overturned, the other 10% didn't try. Folks who really shouldn't be buying guns don't generally stroll into gun shops to buy guns, they mostly buy stolen ones from fellow criminals.

but not all of them can. If it will stop only one murder ever, then isn't it a good thing?

What other Constitutional rights are you willing to infringe if it may prevent only one murder?

Marko Kloos
January 7, 2004, 07:51 AM
If it will stop only one murder ever, then isn't it a good thing?

Let me turn that logic around on you:

If it will kill only one person because they weren't able to buy a self-defense tool, then isn't it a bad thing?

Look: in order to make gun access even a little more difficult for criminals, you have to make it drastically more difficult for honest citizens. All you achieve with laws like Brady is a tilting of the playing field in favor of the criminal who routinely doesn't obey laws.

DakotaSig
January 7, 2004, 01:17 PM
So, did this LA Times writer pass his "National Instant Editorial Check?"

Did he wait the required 10 days before publishing his opinions?

We can't take a chance on letting an assault editorial get loose on the street. It's for the puppies! (rolled up newspaper) :rolleyes: :D :D

El Tejon
January 7, 2004, 01:23 PM
mark, if banning religion will prevent one murder, do we do it? If banning books will prevent one act of defamation, do we do it? If allowing the government to imprison people without trial will prevent one murder, do we do it?

I am always amused that the hand-wringing over "prior restraint" disappears when it is applied to the RKBA.:uhoh:

El Rojo
January 7, 2004, 03:00 PM
Supporters of requiring the FBI to purge its records daily, including sponsor Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), argue that the measure would protect the privacy of law-abiding citizens. By that reasoning, state motor vehicle departments should purge all data relating to licensed drivers. Except that the Brady Bill's intent was not to "license" gun owners. No permenent record was supposed to be kept. The Brady Bill is simply a check to make sure your not disqualified from lawfully owning firearms. A driver's license is permission to drive a motor vehicle on public roads. Comparing the two shows an obvious lack of comprehension about this issue. These people really lack mental capacity and yet they are allowed to write this trash and publish it without any real evidence or providing equal rebuttle. Simply amazing.

marklbucla
January 7, 2004, 03:41 PM
What other Constitutional rights are you willing to infringe if it may prevent only one murder?

OK, if you think that felons should be allowed to buy guns. I'm not looking to get into a philosophical debate over this, but I believe that once you commit a violent crime, you waive some of your constitutional rights. And just because one can find ways around a law, it doesn't mean we shouldn't put those laws in place anyway. A similar analogy would be to get rid of the min. age for alcohol purchase.

Look: in order to make gun access even a little more difficult for criminals, you have to make it drastically more difficult for honest citizens. All you achieve with laws like Brady is a tilting of the playing field in favor of the criminal who routinely doesn't obey laws.

Again, what am I missing? How is it drastically more difficult for honest citizens? As far as I knew in most free states, the gunshop runs a check in a computer and gets the gun right away. I don't really know since I'm in California. But if you don't have any felonies on your record, you get it right away. Unless there are serious problems in the computer, I don't really see what I'm missing here.

if banning religion will prevent one murder, do we do it? If banning books will prevent one act of defamation, do we do it? If allowing the government to imprison people without trial will prevent one murder, do we do it?

There is a clear flaw in logic here. We don't do any of the mentioned things because there are obvious drawbacks to imposing them. I simply asked what the drawbacks are to using a background check system like the Brady Act requires. I'm operating under the assumption that the only cost is the money and time involved in the administration of the Act.
If you had some gain to be made by doing something requiring a finitely small loss, you'd be a fool if you didn't do it. Again, someone please explain to me why this is bad.

Tamara
January 7, 2004, 03:46 PM
A similar analogy would be to get rid of the min. age for alcohol purchase.

Okay.

Next question?

greyhound
January 7, 2004, 03:54 PM
Of course any of info like that will be used eventually.

Here in MD, we do actually have to register handguns and "assault" rifles.

So gee, what a coincidence that during the sniper shootings law enforcement was knocking on doors and asking AR-15 owners to "voluntarily" submit their rifles for testing?:fire: Exactly the type of scenario for which registration was enacted.

NICS was never intended to be a registration scheme but the problem is once you let them have that power, well, its hard to get rid of.

Get rid of that part of it, use it to deny criminals (like Tamara says, really usless since crooks don't saunter into gun shops, but hey if it makes the leftists feel better..) and I'll support it as a compromise.

tyme
January 7, 2004, 03:57 PM
I reckon crooks do saunter into gun shops.

How many congresscritters don't own guns? :)

Tamara
January 7, 2004, 03:59 PM
Threads like this always depress me.

It's astounding that the kiddies that grew up under the stipulations of the Brady Law view it as right and meet that the Feds should rummage through your sock drawer before you can buy a squirrel rifle.

Does the frog jump if he's born in the pot of boiling water? :uhoh:

Gordon Fink
January 7, 2004, 03:59 PM
“By that reasoning, state motor vehicle departments should purge all data relating to licensed drivers.”

Yes, actually. The licensing of drivers and registration of automobiles do little if anything to make the roads safer.


What the L.A. Times editorial board omits is that you don’t have a constitutional right to drive.

Actually, papercut, you do. Don’t surrender your freedom so readily.


A similar analogy would be to get rid of the min. age for alcohol purchase.

Good idea, Mark. We would probably have more use but less abuse of alcohol by youngsters.

~G. Fink

grampster
January 7, 2004, 04:02 PM
Ya know....I just love it when the Statists feel the need to reduce everything to its lowest common demoninator and then force feed the rest of us that cold bowl of tripe while smugly pointing to the fact that "one person was saved". At the risk of being considered cold and callous, I frankly don't care about one person. I care more for the collective freedom that we ALL lose as a result.

The juvenile reasoning that produces laws like Brady, AWB et al ticks me off as much as when I hear gubmint people or employers or merchants or anyone say that old adage from grammar school....(Whiny voice)"If I do it for you...I'll have to do it for everybody"(turn off whinny voice):barf:

:scrutiny: grampster

Marko Kloos
January 7, 2004, 06:57 PM
What the L.A. Times editorial board omits is that you don’t have a constitutional right to drive.

Your comment betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant me any rights, it merely recognizes them. The Constitution is a limitation on government, not the citizenry.

The proper way to approach the question is, "Where in the Constitution does the government get the authority to regulate my driving?"

The idea that I may only do what the Constitution permits me to do is the mindset of collectivism. The government may only do what the Constitution permits it to do. I am not restrained by it in any way.

Shooter973
January 7, 2004, 07:30 PM
Just because the LA Times is the most leftist newspaper on the West coast and has a strong Democrat leaning editoral board that They would have a "Hidden" agdena against gun rights and gun owners? Remember that these people were the ones tha tried to smear Arnold in the last few days before the Recall election with what turned out to be false charges and inuendos about him. :banghead: :cuss: :fire:

El Rojo
January 8, 2004, 02:29 AM
Mark look at what was said in the article. The Brady Law was intended to stop violent criminals from purchasing firearms right? The anti-gun liberals quickly forget about that and want to know how we can permit gun owners to own guns without some kind of record. As was pointed out, during the DC sniper shootings, all of the sudden numerous law enforcement agencies were harrassing law abiding citizens who purchased their firearms legally. How did the shooters get their AR? Illegally.

We don't have squat for rights here in the PRK. The reason we don't is because people think it is reasonable to restrict us for the "common good" or for the good of "one life" or for the "children". You know what? That thinking is the reason I just bought a FAB-10, which is a ten round fixed magazine AR-15. How ridiculous is that? This state sucks.

I agree we need to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, but how many criminals knowingly go and try and purchase a firearm from a legal FFL? Yeah the Brady Check is a good idea, until they keep the records and have a complete database of who owns what. Yeah it is a good idea if it is an instant check. We have a rotten 10 day waiting period here. How much has crime gone down in the PRK because of it?

You give these gun grabbers an inch and they take a mile. You need look no further than your current residence in Los Angeles. You can't really buy anything there. You can't get a concealed weapon permit. Nearly all of the gun stores are gone. If you go to UCLA like I think you do, you can't park on the wrong side of the street or you will get a $45 ticket on certain days. Look at that socialistic paradise you live in! It makes me sick and I liked UCLA.

If we could go through an instant check and buy whatever we want, I would go for it in a heart beat. However, look no further than this article to see what the libs think of that. They think the Brady Check is only effective when you have a permenant database of gun purchases. Nevermind the fact that such a thing was never part of the Brady Bill. Make no mistake about it. The people of Los Angeles will not be happy until all guns are banned. They will not be happy until everyone assimilates to their socialist mindset. You give those people any slack, they are going to run with it. Want more proof, make sure you go to the Great Western Gun Show one of these weekends in Pomona at the Fairplex like I did a couple times when I lived in Westwood. Oh wait, you can't. The LA County Supervisors spent a few million dollars to terminate the contract with the largest gun show in the country by banning firearms on county property and they threw away the several millon dollars a year the show generated for the local economy. Why? All because guns are evil.

So are you a UCLA student? PM me if you want and we can shoot the breeze.

If you enjoyed reading about "LA Times editorial: Brady Law Works; Let It Be" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!