Guns – Page 693 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Brady Act Turns Sixteen

The Brady Campaign is celebrating 16 years of the Brady Act. I think it would indeed be a good time to reflect on the Brady Act. The fight for the Brady Act was longer than most people today realize. The first Brady Bill was introduced in Congress in February of 1987, by Ohio Representative Ed Feighan and Senator Howard Metzenbaum. Feighan did not stand for re-election in 1994, probably due to his involvement in the House banking scandal. Metzenbaum left the Senate in 1995, and was replaced by a Republican, who defeated Metzenbaum’s son-in-law.

The Brady Act didn’t pass the House of Representatives until 1991. That version required a seven day waiting period on handguns. The excuse for the waiting period was so that local law enforcement would have time to conduct a background check. NRA became very fearful the votes were there in the Senate to pass the Brady Bill there too, so that’s when they hatched the “instant check” language, and tried to get it attached to the Senate bill, but failed. Compromise language was worked out where the waiting period would be reduced, and would no longer apply once an instant background check was feasible. At this point, the Brady Bill started to take the form of what was eventually passed. This “remodeled” Brady Bill passed the Senate in 1991, but the conference version died when there wasn’t enough votes to end debate on the measure. It wasn’t until November 14, 1993 that Congress passed the final Brady Act, with it being signed into law on November 30th, 1993. The law did not go into effect until February 28th of 1994.

It’s not widely known, but a significant aspect of the Brady Act was actually found to be unconstitutional, though not on Second Amendment grounds, but rather federalism grounds (1oth Amendment). The Brady requirement here was at issue:

A chief law enforcement officer to whom a transferor has provided notice pursuant to paragraph (1)(A)(i)(III) shall make a reasonable effort to ascertain within 5 business days whether receipt or possession would be in violation of the law, including research in whatever State and local recordkeeping systems are available and in a national system designated by the Attorney General.

The Sheriff of Ravalli County, Montana, Jay Printz (now an NRA Board member, BTW), and the Sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, Richard Mack, filed suit in federal court over this provision of the Brady Act, arguing that the federal government did not have the authority under the Constitution to commandeer state and local officials to administer a federal program. The case was Printz v. United States once it reached the Supreme Court, and was argued by Steven Halbrook. BTW, the Attorney for Richard Mack was someone I’m sure we all know well.

The practical effect of Printz on the Brady Act was negligible, since it left in place the waiting period. The ruling just meant the local law enforcement was simply not required to conduct any background check despite the language in federal law, and is considered to be a major victory for federalism and the Tenth Amendment.

The original Brady waiting period expired on November 30th, 1998, when the National Instant Background Check System went online. A lot of hard liners are still bitter about NRA pushing NICS, but had NRA not done that, you’d still have a five day waiting period for purchasing guns, in addition to local law enforcement knowing about every gun you buy, and doing Lord knows what with that information other than running a background check. NICS is far from the ideal system, but the alternative was worse. There was no alternate universe where we were going to defeat the Brady Act outright, and I think, for the most part, the NICS is a reasonable compromise.

NSSF Alerts on Transportation Proposal

I received an alert from NSSF on a bill before Congress that could potentially impact ammunition manufacturers in an adverse way. The Bill is a transportation safety bill known as H.R. 4016. The way the bill is currently written, it could potentially introduce serious delays into the supply chain for ammunition manufacturers, since several ammunition components are obviously hazardous materials.

NSSF is advocating for an amendment to the bill, offered by Representative Sam Graves from Missouri, that would, according to NSSF, “help protect the shipment of materials necessary for the manufacturing of ammunition. Without the Graves Amendment, the rate of production will slip, perhaps precipitously.”

The essential weakness with this bill is that it does not outline clear standards for DOT to measure the suitability of manufacturers to ship hazardous materials. Representative Graves’ amendment will force DOT to establish clear standards through the rule making process, which allows for public comment and input from affected parties, including ammunition manufacturers, and should help prevent arbitrary decision making on the part of the Department of Transportation that could essentially cause ammunition manufacturing to grind to a halt.

NSSF is asking folks to contact Congressman James Oberstar, who is the Chairman of the Transportation Committee, and urge him to support the Graves Amendment. Time is of the essence, since Oberstar has indicated that he’s going to bring this bill up for consideration in the Transportation Committee soon. The number for his DC office is (202) 225-6211.

Editorial Love Still Shows the Weakening Arguments

The anti-gun groups are all touting this editorial at the LA Times that they no doubt love. But for all the people who want to claim Heller a defeat, you will notice that they concede that handgun prohibition is off the table, and America’s gun culture is unlikely to change. But short of that they bring up the usual canards, about licensing guns like we license drivers, even though we generally already do, and the current push for closing the so-called “gun show loophole.” But they are now forced to making their arguments from a weaker position. Fifteen years ago, I don’t think you’d see too many major media outlets claiming “there are few gun laws that could have prevented the tragedy short of a blanket ban on handguns, and the Supreme CourtÂ last year ruled that Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban was unconstitutional.”

We still have a lot of work to do, and we’re hardly safe from the predations of anti-gun groups, but I actually loved that the LA times had to concede that.

Court Date Set for McDonald

March 2nd, 2010. I will be there, outside the Supreme Court building. I won’t miss this one like I did Heller.

All I have to say here …

… is that if you can honestly say given a situation like this, you’d rather be unarmed than armed, you’re either insane, or seriously and delusionally committed to the proposition that guns are just bad all around. Yes, people who carry guns can still end up being victims. Guns are not a magic talisman that wards off all evil. If that were the case, no police officers would ever be shot and killed with guns. But police officers still carry them, because they’d be foolish not to. You have to wonder if these people honestly believe police officers would be better off without firearms for self-protection.

Vintage Assault Rifles

Rather busy today just coming back from vacation, and we got in really late last night from Virginia, and then my dads, so no time to find things to blog about today. In the mean time, go read what Tam has to say over at The Arms Room, on vintage assault rifles.

Getting Anti-Gun Messages Back into Hollywood

It looks like the Joyce Foundation is going to try, and they have some recommendations. The good news is we have the opposition in hearts and minds territory, the bad news is this is ground they’ve traditionally been very good at fighting on. They are laying the groundwork for the next big legislative sweep against us, and if this succeeds it’s going to be ugly. It’s always a situation of winning, until you aren’t.

Apparently Lots of Guns Get Found by TSA

This is one “oops” I can relate to, after my TSA experience in Phoenix.Â Apparently there’s about 902 firearms found at security checkpoints each year. Although I was a lot more careful with the guns themselves, I can easily see how someone in a rush can forget a pistol in a tote bag until it runs through the system. It’s one big problem with off-body carry, and one reason I don’t often practice it.

Bloomberg Continues to Lie About Tiahrt

From the Washington Post today:

During the Clinton administration, the FBI had access to records of gun background checks for up to 180 days. But in 2003, Congress began requiring that the records be destroyed within 24 hours. This requirement, one of the many restrictions on gun data sponsored by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), meant that Hasan’s investigators were blocked from searching records to determine whether he or other terrorist suspects had purchased guns. When Hasan walked out of Guns Galore in Killeen, Tex., the FBI had only 24 hours to recognize and flag the record — and then it was gone, forever.

The idea that Tiahrt Amendment restricts this is utter nonsense. You can find the language of the actual Tiahrt Amendment on the Congressman’s web site here. MAIG might be slick compared to other gun control groups, but they would appear to carry over the tactic of using outright deception to promote their agenda. The language that calls for NICS records to be destroyed is in the United States Code, and has been ever since the system was established in 1994. From the 1994 Brady Act, which is the signature piece of legislation passed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (then Handgun Control Inc.), and which created the National Instant Check System:

(2) If receipt of a firearm would not violate section 922 (g) or (n) or State law, the system shallâ€”(A) assign a unique identification number to the transfer; (B) provide the licensee with the number; andÂ (C) destroy all records of the system with respect to the call (other than the identifying number and the date the number was assigned) and all records of the system relating to the person or the transfer.

Sorry, Bloomberg, it’s in the signature piece of gun control legislation, you know, the one that was rammed down our throats in 1993 and partly resulted in the Democrats losing Congress in 1994? Suddenly now it’s inadequate and is responsible for arming terrorists? Perhaps they need to complain to the Brady Campaign for pushing their signature legislation.

The problem for Bloomberg is that the truth is inconvenient. If a lie helps discredit the Tiahrt Amendment, which thwarted the City of New York from continuing its lawsuits against firearms manufacturers to hold them responsible for criminals using guns, so much the better. I’m only sorry a paper like the Washington Post is only so willing to play along. It’s not hard to fact check these claims, but it appears helping with the agenda is more important.

UPDATE: I would also point out there was nothing in the Tiahrt Amendment language that prevented law enforcement from tracing the firearms used in the Ft. Hood shooting. That’s how we know he acquired them through legal channels, since he was not convicted of anything prior.

UPDATE: Here’s the original appropriations bill that the Tiahrt language appears in. It does contain this language:

SEC. 617. (a) None of the funds appropriated pursuant to this Act or any other provision of law may be used forâ€”

(1) the implementation of any tax or fee in connection with the implementation of subsection 922(t) of title 18, United States Code; and

(2) any system to implement subsection 922(t) of title 18, United States Code, that does not require and result in the destruction of any identifying information submitted by or on behalf of any person who has been determined not to be prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm no more than 24 hours after the system advises a Federal firearms licensee that possession or receipt of a firearm by the prospective transferee would not violate subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or State law. (b) Subsection (a)(2) shall take effect not later than 180 daysÂ after enactment of this Act.

I should note that the current appropriations bill also contains this language (See Sec. 512). This language was necessary because the Clinton Administration had implemented a rule that allowed the records to be kept, despite what the Brady Act called for. Apparently this was upheld by the courts when challenged. So it would seem I was wrong, and Bloomberg isn’t lying about Tiahrt. Bloomberg merely wants the federal government to return to the previous practice of ignoring the Brady Act, and thus federal law.

Philly Inquirer Latches on to VPC Google Research

The Philadelphia Inquirer also notes that concealed carry is utterly dangerous, because VPC’s highly scientific Google research shows that concealed carry license holders across he whole country over a two years murder at a rate considerably less than your average Philadelphian. Maybe that’s because the city just lets murder suspects walk out of jail. Maybe one day Philadelphia newspapers like the Daily News and Inquirer will actually start holding city leaders responsible for the real causes of the city’s crime problem, which have precisely nothing to do with the state’s gun laws.