Sarah Brady: We Don’t Want to Prosecute Criminals

It’s interesting, NPR interviewed Sarah Brady to talk about current push for control.

They asked her about the argument that current gun laws are not actually being enforced. She didn’t answer and said that the problem is that gun control didn’t go far enough. So they directed her back to the actual question and asked a second time.

I think it’s very telling that she flat out says that they have no interest in actually seeing the prohibited people prosecuted.

SIMON: But again, let me get you to address the reservation some people have, that we really have good common sense gun control laws on the books now and they’re only sporadically successfully enforced.

BRADY: Well, in the first place, I don’t think many people feel that way unless you’re talking about are people prosecuted. I have heard complaints from the gun lobby about that. Because if they’re trying to purchase a gun and they were not able to, what the law does now – as far as it enforces it – is to not allow them to get a gun. And our main concern is not to prosecute these people as much as it is to have their complete background checked, so that anybody cannot buy a gun if they’re not qualified. (emphasis added)

So that means that The Brady Campaign isn’t concerned that a felon who tries to buy a gun may go out and steal one. By the logic put forth by their Chair, they think that’s just cause for another law on the gun owner who may be victimized by the felon instead of actually putting the felon behind bars again so that he will not try to steal a gun in the first place.

20 thoughts on “Sarah Brady: We Don’t Want to Prosecute Criminals”

  1. Did you hear that?

    That was my jaw hitting the floor.

    These people are so f-ing consumed with their pathetic vilification of guns that they would pass over a criminal if it meant one less legal gun in America. Amazing.

  2. As much as I hate to agree with Sarah Brady I am not in favor of enforcing laws that I fought against when they were proposed. All of the gun laws that exist today are in violation of the Second Amendment. For people who claim to be pro-gun to argue for their enforcement is just plain stupid. You can’t have it both ways.

    1. For people who want gun control to refuse to enforce the laws they already have is stupid.

      That we point out they are unwilling/unable to enforce the laws they already have is to point out that they won’t enforce the new laws, either.

    2. You make an intriguing point, Giggin. You are making think – ow! That hurts!

      Seriously, that’s a good point. And I understand Rob Crawford’s retort that the issue isn’t that WE support the present laws, but that those who do (Brady, etc.) are hypocrites for not enforcing them against criminals, only against the law-abiding.

      But are we also hypocrites castigating Brady for not enforcing federal laws we personally would not want enforced against us because of their unconstitutionality? You do make me think, sir! Thank you!


  3. It has taken a VERY long time but these knuckleheads are finally running their mouths about what they TRULY want….

  4. I think this displays the simplicity of Mrs. Brady’s thinking: person is prevented from legally obtaining a gun = problem solved!

  5. No, I don’t think she said something outrageous. Background checks are intended by the gun-grabbers as a way to set criteria for who can own guns and prevent the unqualified people from buying them legally. That’s all the checks are intended to accomplish. If someone fails the background check and is denied the purchase, then to the gun-grabber, the check “worked” and the work of the check process is done. Since the check prevented the purchase by the unqualified purchaser, the check did what it was supposed to do. It is like if you try to get into a bar while you are underage and the bouncer a the door rejects your false ID and will not let you in. It pretty much should end right there. Sometimes it does. Often they seize the ID. But that process does not often lead to criminal investigation and charges. It can, but it does not often happen. It is only the sick Nazi’s who run so much of our lives who think that trying to get a drink underage and failing to convince the bartender or bouncer should itself be a crime worthy of punishment. Same, I think Sarah Brady is saying, about buying guns. If the unqualified purchaser gets denied the purchase, that is all that she sees as necessary. And, I’d ask my fellow gun owners this: Do you REALLY want the government to enthusiastically go after each and every person who fails a PICS/NICS check when trying to buy a gun? Do you really want that? I don’t. And, apparently Sarah Brady does not want it either. What’s next? Should we prosecute small kids who try to go on a ride at Hershey Park even though they are not tall enough for that ride? Should the mere fact that they stood next to the candy bar poster that measures height be a win vs. lose big and go to jail for access device fraud situation for little kids?

    1. That would be a better argument if, for example, the 2008 numbers didn’t show that 13.4% of federal checks that resulted in a NICS denial were from current fugitives from justice. She just said that the Brady Campaign simply is not concerned at all about the fact that current fugitives are trying to secure guns and that the government simply isn’t prosecuting them. Another 1.4% of the federal denials are for illegal aliens trying to secure firearms illegally. That’s 15% of denials right there that show some sort of current criminal intent. These aren’t situations where some person who had a conviction for something pretty minor and had no idea it was a lifetime disqualifier gets denied 20 years later. But Sarah Brady says that her group just doesn’t care about prosecuting those violations of the law named after her.

      I agree that a massive crackdown in actually enforcing every single law on the books would be a bad thing for society. That extends far beyond gun laws. But, when this woman who has dedicated a significant part of her life to saying that just having a law with a punishment in place will solve these crime problems up and says that actually enforcing the laws she claimed would solve the problem isn’t really any type of priority, then she needs to follow up and answer questions about why prosecutions of those who are current fugitives or here illegally aren’t important at the very least.

      What this blatant statement reiterates and proves to those who may not be as familiar with intent of anti-gun activists is that whatever law they are selling now isn’t really what they want. It also shows that they aren’t actually serious about dealing with likely gun crime. If they were, Sarah Brady would have said that they do need to focus on prosecuting those trying to illegally purchase firearms who are likely to be major threats to society because if they are that eager to get a gun, they may well have a future gun crime planned that could be stopped. But that’s not her interest. She doesn’t want them prosecuted and is happy to let them roam free on the streets so that she can blame whoever has their house burgled and has their guns stolen by that fugitive who was turned down a few days prior.

  6. I can’t say I am surprised. I never believed gun controllers had any interest in criminals. I’ve always believed their sole reason for existing was to turn the screws on those of us who aren’t criminals.

  7. Of course not. The Brady Campaign doesn’t want gun control laws to work. They want a perpetual excuse to pass the NEXT law which they wouldn’t have if their legislation actually fixed the problem they were allegedly trying to solve. She said it herself “The current laws do not go far enough.”

    Both sides know full well that UBCs won’t reduce violence…gun controllers are BANKING on it:

    “UCBs do not go far enough. We need a full scale registry.”
    “Registries do not go far enough. We need to take these weapons of war from citizens. Do it for the children!”

  8. I basically agree with Trevor above. For discussions sake, what IS the average punishment when a felon fails a NICS check?

  9. Brandon wrote:

    “Of course not. The Brady Campaign doesn’t want gun control laws to work.”

    Hey Brandon, guess what! There are millions of gun owners who don’t want gun laws to work either. Gun laws do not accomplish anything of value, even when they do work. Gun laws are anti-freedom. They have no place in a free society. You seem to be a happy slave, but there are lots of us who don’t share your bliss.

    1. Mr. Shot, I don’t think Brandon was necessarily defending the current gun laws. I think his point was that the Brady’s don’t want them to work so they will have an excuse to pass newer, more restrictive ones until they’ve taken all our militia weapons. He was pointing out the agenda behind her hypocrisy. I didn’t get from his comment that he himself wanted the present laws to work. I could be mistaken, and I probably should let him provide his own defense, but I actually agree with his point. And NOBODY is more anti-federal gun law than I. I’m right up there with Giggin. They’re all unconstitutional!
      Respectfully, Arnie

    1. Because rights don’t have an obligation to be convenient. She has the right to her speech, even if we consider the opinion distasteful. Even as you have the right to arm yourself in defense of freedom, much as she might find that thought distasteful.

Comments are closed.