Politics and Political Issues -  Gun Control (time to stop the NRA?) (81664 views) Notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion.Subscribe
 
From: Glen (GEAATL) DelphiPlus Member Icon9/5/97 10:27 AM 
To: All  (1 of 1862) 
 4470.1 

The Brady Bill continues to be a success.

Police last year conducted 2.6 million background checks on handgun buyers.

Since 1974 250,000 sales to people with felony records have been stopped - including over 70,000 guns last year.

 

  • Edited 5/5/2007 12:31 am ET by Glen (GEAATL)
 

 
From: Guest9/5/97 6:02 PM 
To: Glen (GEAATL) DelphiPlus Member Icon  (2 of 1862) 
 4470.2 in reply to 4470.1 
In Message 27388, GEAATL said:

The Brady Bill continues to be a success.

Police last year conducted 2.6 million background checks on handgun buyers.

Since 1974 250,000 sales to people with felony records have been stopped - including over 70,000 guns last year.

CHOMP!

If Brady is such a wild success, how come only THREE people have seen the inside of a jail cell due to Brady-based background checks? It is, after all, a FEDERAL FELONY for felons to even ATTEMPT to purchase a firearm or ammunition. Yet despite the easily catchable nature of this offense (just tell the perp to come pick up the gun, and have the cops waiting), AND the constantly escalating claimed number of "felons disarmed" reaching into six digits, there have been, IIRC, a grand total of seven arrests, five prosecutions, four convictions, and only three actually sent to prison.

The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of rejections under Brady are NOT because the person is a felon or a nut. Rather, they are because the person's name appeared in a some database (generally NOT a database of felons, as proposed by the NRA), either because of minor causes like unpaid (or even paid!) parking/speeding/etc. tickets, failures to purchase pet licenses, other minor regulatory infractions, or because the person has the same or similar name to someone fitting any of the above conditions. IIRC, about 80% of them are cleared up with just a little bit more digging, and most of the rest are approved upon formal appeal.

Furthermore, remember that Brady no longer REQUIRES a background check -- the Supreme Court has struck that down as an unfunded mandate in violation of the Tenth Amendment. (The Second Amendment issue was not even raised... damn chickens!) Even before that, it was overly vague WRT exactly how deep a check was to be done; the local hick sheriff could figure "Well, I know Johnny, he's not the type who would have committed a felony, I'll approve this sale"....

To top THAT part off, every bit of research ever done on the matter clearly shows that the vast majority (IIRC, about 87%) criminals do NOT get their guns from dealers, or even lawful private transactions (in states where there are such) from honest people who will bother to look at a license (to ensure state residency) and ask about felony convictions, but on the black market, or of course stealing them. Remember, we are talking about people who will not obey laws against things like murder, rape, and robbery, so why do some people think these scum will become fine upstanding law-abiding pillars of the community when it comes to obeying gun control laws???

Now, as for its value as a waiting period, of course much less documentation exists on how many hotheads WOULD have killed someone had they gotten a gun sooner. However, there have been already several cases of people who have been threatened, applied for a gun, had to wait, and WERE MURDERED BY THE PEOPLE WHO THREATENED THEM, before the wait was over! I do not recall how many; something in the back of my mind is saying I've read somewhere about a dozen or so, but the only one I can recall offhand is liquor store clerk Ronald Coleman of some southern state.

But back to delaying those hotheads. The facts of THAT matter are:

95% of all firearms are sold to people who already have one, so only in about 1 of every 20 cases is that delaying someone from obtaining a firearm in the first place (as opposed to that particular one);

people in such a killing rage will simply use another tool;

there is, AFAICT, no reason (other than deliberate inconvenience to the honest) to stretch it out to a whopping five days (actually AT LEAST SEVEN days when you consider that it's five business days), as opposed to merely three (as in many states before), or even one, especially now that the background check itself has been eliminated. If a hothead doesn't cool down in three days, he's NOT gonna cool down in five!

For LOTS more info on assorted aspects of this whole matter, see:

www.nvcdl.org (Northern Virginia Citizens' Defense League, NOT a militia but a non-profit non-partisan grass-roots lobbying and educational group),

www.nra.org (National Rifle Association (of America)),

www.gunowners.org (Gun Owners of America),

law.lib.uchicago.edu/faculty/lott/guncont.html (the Lott-Mustard study showing the benefits of allowing the honest to carry concealed firearms; yes there is no www. on it), and

www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/jpfo.html (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership).

And of course get your head out of the Internet sandbox, fire up an old-fashioned direct commo program (terminal emulator), and call my BBS. B-)

-Dave Aronson, Sysop, Air 'n Sun BBS, (703) 319-0893

 

 
From: Glen (GEAATL) DelphiPlus Member Icon9/5/97 6:38 PM 
To: Guest  (3 of 1862) 
 4470.3 in reply to 4470.2 
On 5-SEP 18:02 DAVEARONSON said to GEAATL
   >Since 1974 250,000 sales to people with felony records have been
   >stopped - including over 70,000 guns last year.

   >If Brady is such a wild success, how come only THREE people have seen
   >the inside of a jail cell due to Brady-based background checks?

I don't know where you got such a statistic. I'm a Judge in a court for a city population 35,000 that has seen more than 3 felons caught this year when they sought to buy guns. Not everything someone posts is true, and someone really pulled your leg.

   >The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of rejections under
   >Brady are NOT because the person is a felon or a nut. Rather, they are
   >because the person's name appeared in a some database (generally NOT a
   >database of felons, as proposed by the NRA), either because of minor
   >causes like unpaid (or even paid!) parking/speeding/etc. tickets,
   >failures to purchase pet licenses, other minor regulatory infractions

That shows that you are very unfamiliar with NCIC and state systems like GCIC. Ain't no way you could mix up the traffic, misdemeanor and felony charges on one of the printouts.

   >Furthermore, remember that Brady no longer REQUIRES a background check
   >-- the Supreme Court has struck that down as an unfunded mandate in
   >violation of the Tenth Amendment.

While that happened most states and counties chose to continue the checks, precisely because they worked so well. Only a handful of jurisdictions stopped checking.

    (The Second Amendment issue was not even raised... damn chickens!)

Since restriction after restriction shows that the law of the land is that the federal courts do feel it's militia's only, the federal courts clearly read the 2nd Amendment as granting rights only to militias.

   >To top THAT part off, every bit of research ever done on the matter
   >clearly shows that the vast majority (IIRC, about 87%) criminals do
   >NOT get their guns from dealers, or even lawful private transactions

Actually a recent study showed that the bulk of firearms used in crimes in NY were legally purchased in a few states with weak laws including mine, Georgia.

   >And of course get your head out of the Internet sandbox, fire up an
   >old-fashioned direct commo program (terminal emulator), and call my
   >BBS. B-)

Been a while since I did a real BBS :)

Glen {<http://www.delphi.com/perlaw> Manager, Law Forum>}(go bus per) {<http://www.delphi.com/southern>Southern States Forum} (go tra sou)

"Paranoia means having all the facts."
   -William Burroughs

 

 
From: Guest9/10/97 6:42 PM 
To: Glen (GEAATL) DelphiPlus Member Icon  (4 of 1862) 
 4470.4 in reply to 4470.3 
This message has been stored as an attachment.
Attachments
 

 
From: Glen (GEAATL) DelphiPlus Member Icon9/10/97 7:26 PM 
To: Guest  (5 of 1862) 
 4470.5 in reply to 4470.4 
On 10-SEP 18:42 DAVEARONSON said to GEAATL
   >>> If Brady is such a wild success, how come only THREE people have seen
   >>> the inside of a jail cell due to Brady-based background checks?
   >>
   >> I don't know where you got such a statistic. I'm a Judge in a court
   >>for a city population 35,000 that has seen more than 3 felons caught
   >>this year when they sought to buy guns.
   >"Caught" is not the same as "charged, prosecuted, convicted,
   >sentenced, and actually put in prison".

When the NRA and it's supporters get caught with their phony numbers they then resort to "what if?" arguments.

I can assure you that more than 3 people caught via Brady, in my town of 35,000, saw the inside of prison as a result.

There is a reason that most localities still do the checks even though they don't have to. They are working.

   > Sure, there are probably
   >hundreds of times per year that an extremely stupid felon (hey, we're
   >generally not talking about rocket scientists in the first place)
   >tries to buy a gun, and gets delayed

Or stopped, since they end up in jail for a while. In any event, those hundreds (actually thousands) are crimes that won't happen.

   >You are indeed right that I am unfamiliar with GCIC. However, if your
   >state uses
   >it (which I ass-u-me to be a computerized system, with the name
   >probably meaning
   >something like Georgia Criminal Information Computer), your state's
   >experiences mean precisely nothing with respect to the Brady Bill,
   >because Brady simply does
   >not apply to instant-check states.

GCIC is where Georgia's info comes from - although it initially did Brady checks. The same system is being converted to an instant check.

   >Now, as for militias... I could inundate you with Founding Father
   >quotes to the effect that the intention was that "the militia" would
   >be (as one put it) "every
   >man capable of bearing arms in defense of the nation".

None of that matters. The law of the land is the Constitution as interpreted by the courts, and the courts have let stand MANY gun controls. That's the law, all the discussions notwithstanding.

   >> Actually a recent study showed that the bulk of firearms used in
   >>crimes in NY were legally purchased in a few states with weak laws
   >including mine, Georgia.
   >I'd like to see a reference for this study, or better yet a summary of
   >how they determined this fact.

It was a front page AP news story, based on state and justice department studies in cases where guns were retrieved - just a couple months ago.

Glen {<http://www.delphi.com/perlaw> Manager, Law Forum>}(go bus per) {<http://www.delphi.com/southern>Southern States Forum} (go tra sou)

Error 216: Tagline out of paper

 

 
From: Guest9/12/97 6:07 PM 
To: Glen (GEAATL) DelphiPlus Member Icon  (6 of 1862) 
 4470.6 in reply to 4470.5 

>>>> If Brady is such a wild success, how come only THREE people have seen
>>>> the inside of a jail cell due to Brady-based background checks?
>>>
>>> I don't know where you got such a statistic. I'm a Judge in a court
>>> for a city population 35,000 that has seen more than 3 felons caught
>>> this year when they sought to buy guns.
>>
>> "Caught" is not the same as "charged, prosecuted, convicted,
>> sentenced, and actually put in prison".
>
> When the NRA and it's supporters get caught with their phony numbers they
> then resort to "what if?" arguments.

What "what if"??? I'm simply pointing out why the number you think I'm talking about (in your original message, apparently those denied for any reason by any background check, regardless of case disposition), is not the number I am talking about (those imprisoned specifically due to the Brady Act).

The two are WILDLY different, due to the questions of whether the denial was justified, whether the feds (not the state) bother to arrest, book, prosecute, convict, sentence, and actually incarcerate the perp, and whether the state (or in some states, smaller subdivision) in question is one where background checks were done solely because of Brady, or were already being done.

Taking those questions one at a time: Most of the denials (nationwide) were not justified, being for non-felonies or mistaken identity, and were reversed on appeal. (Georgia's subset of those may indeed be different.) The feds rarely bother with such cases, all the more so under Reno -- prosecutions for assorted types of illegal possession of a firearm (including unregistered full-auto, unregistered "other destructive device", any by a prohibited person, and a few other categories) dropped about 23% during the first couple years of her AG-ship and have stayed pretty much steady. (Possibly due to flak over Ruby Ridge and Waco. These were essentially "unregistered possession" cases, one sawed-off shotgun in the former case and an unspecified number of assault rifles (not to be confused with so-called "assault weapons") in the second.) And lastly, as I said, most locations already did background checks (and, as you noted, are still doing them, even though Brady no longer requires them). Once more, the main effect of Brady is not the check but the wait, which, if it were needed in order to do the check, could certainly have been mandated by state or local law (as in California's fifteen-day wait). In fact, several drafts of the Brady Bill did not contain any background check requirement, only the wait.

> I can assure you that more than 3 people caught via Brady,
> in my town of 35,000, saw the inside of prison as a result.

I am not disputing the "3". It's the "via Brady" I question. Prior to the passage of Brady, did Georgia do background checks?

> There is a reason that most localities still do
> the checks even though they don't have to. They are working.

They "don't have to" according to Brady. Most states, however, have other laws requiring it. You are defending the completely wrong angle. I am not claiming that background checks don't work (my own state of Virginia demonstrated long ago that they do) -- only that the Brady Act does not deserve any but a tiny sliver of the credit!

Also note that now that the background check requirement has been struck down, Brady cannot claim credit for any further such cases! It is now purely a waiting period. This may be of some use in preventing crimes, or maybe not, that's not the point at hand at the moment.

>> Sure, there are probably hundreds
>> of times per year that an extremely stupid felon (hey, we're
>> generally not talking about rocket scientists in the first place)
>> tries to buy a gun, and gets delayed
>
> Or stopped, since they end up in jail for a while.

(Assuming the system bothers to go thru all the steps. Usually, and especially on the federal level, it doesn't! I bet you've seen such charges plea-bargained away dozens, if not hundreds, of times.)

> In any event, those
> hundreds (actually thousands) are crimes that won't happen.

Agreed, in such cases. (At least, they'll get to ply their trade only against their fellow violent felons, and that's fine by me!)

> GCIC is where Georgia's info comes from - although it initially did
> Brady checks. The same system is being converted to an instant check.

Please clarify what you mean by "Brady checks". If Georgia already did background checks, then the background checks done after the passage of Brady do not suddenly become "Brady checks". Only if Georgia started doing checks only because of the Brady Act, are they "Brady checks". Otherwise, you may as well credit the Brady Act for the fact that the sun came up today!

>>> Actually a recent study showed that the bulk of firearms used in
>>> crimes in NY were legally purchased in a few states with weak laws
>> including mine, Georgia.
>> I'd like to see a reference for this study, or better yet a summary of
>> how they determined this fact.
>
> It was a front page AP news story, based on state and justice department
> studies in cases where guns were retrieved - just a couple months ago.

I will try to search for such a critter on the web. If you can find me a URL for it, or other reference, I'll check it out.

-Dave Aronson, Sysop, Air 'n Sun BBS @ (703) 319-0714

 

 
From: Glen (GEAATL) DelphiPlus Member Icon9/12/97 7:58 PM 
To: Guest  (7 of 1862) 
 4470.7 in reply to 4470.6 
On 12-SEP 18:07 DAVEARONSON said to GEAATL
   >What "what if"??? I'm simply pointing out why the number you think I'm
   >talking about (in your original message, apparently those denied for
   >any reason by any background check, regardless of case disposition),
   >is not the number I am talking about (those imprisoned specifically
   >due to the Brady Act).

You still miss the point. The federal government rarely prosecutes people also facing state charges - due to limited jail space. But the act is stoping some felons from getting guns and it is helping states. If the person goes to jail from the attempted purchase, the act has worked.

   >Taking those questions one at a time: Most of the denials (nationwide)
   >were not justified, being for non-felonies or mistaken identity, and
   >were reversed on appeal. (Georgia's subset of those may indeed be
   >different.)

From the numbers I have seen that's also not true. Mistaken identity is not common. One glitch that does happen is those charged but not yet convicted show up in checks, but since well over 95% of those charged with felonies later are convicted or found guilty those folks SHOULD be barred.

   >I am not disputing the "3". It's the "via Brady" I question. Prior to
   >the passage of Brady, did Georgia do background checks?

There were no background checks and no waiting periods before Brady in Georgia.

   >They "don't have to" according to Brady. Most states, however, have
   >other laws requiring it. You are defending the completely wrong angle.
   >I am not claiming that background checks don't work (my own state of
   >Virginia demonstrated long ago that they do) -- only that the Brady
   >Act does not deserve any but a tiny sliver of the credit!

Many states and localities that had no checks set up systems because (at that time) they had to under Brady. So it deserves a lot of credit.

Glen {<http://www.delphi.com/perlaw> Manager, Law Forum>}(go bus per) {<http://www.delphi.com/southern>Southern States Forum} (go tra sou)

Does the Braille edition of Playboy have a centerfold?

 

 
From: Paul Marquardt (pdmarquardt)9/12/97 10:30 PM 
To: Guest  (8 of 1862) 
 4470.8 in reply to 4470.4 
Dave sez:

>The occasional federal circuit court, yes -- but not when it comes to the
Supreme Court! The closest they have have gotten to ruling as you say is US
v
Miller 1939, in which they ruled that the armshad to "bear a reasonable
relation to the maintenance or efficacy of a well-regulated militia", i.e.,
be of military value.


I think you added the "i.e.," but be that as it may, there's very
straightforward evidence that you're dead wrong. It comes from the NRA. Do
you seriously believe that they wouldn't take a gun control case (and there
are more that a couple, btw -- it's consistent appellate law across the
country) to the Supreme Court if they thought they could win? There is no
Supreme Court case because the gun lobby knows the same thing everyone else
does -- the Supreme Court would slap the Second Amendment argument down cold
and deprive the gun lobby of one of its most useful POLITICAL weapons. If
it were a winnable case, it would have long since been brought.

Paul
Forum asst.

 

 
From: Glen (GEAATL) DelphiPlus Member Icon9/13/97 12:38 AM 
To: Paul Marquardt (pdmarquardt)  (9 of 1862) 
 4470.9 in reply to 4470.8 
On 12-SEP 22:30 PDMARQUARDT said to DAVEARONSON
   >Do you seriously believe that they wouldn't take a gun control
   >case (and there are more that a couple, btw -- it's consistent
   >appellate law across the country) to the Supreme Court if they thought
   >they could win?

You would have seen serious amicus 2nd Amendment briefs in the Brady case if gun control opponents felt they had a prayer. As you note, the NRA doesn't want a Supreme Court ruling because that would permanently slap down their position.

Even here in Georgia, which makes it easy to buy guns, we have a 100+ year old state supreme court precedent which says in effect the 2nd amendment applies only to a formal militia and if the legislature wanted to ban all guns it could.

It really boils down to plain English. If you wanted gun ownership to be an absolute right for ALL, you wouldn't modify that half of a sentence with a reference to both "militia" and "well-regulated".

Glen {<http://www.delphi.com/perlaw> Manager, Law Forum>}(go bus per) {<http://www.delphi.com/southern>Southern States Forum} (go tra sou)

Now: With more comprehensive sports and weather- SOUTHERN STATES

 

 
From: Ed Crosby (techtrans)9/13/97 3:44 PM 
To: Glen (GEAATL) DelphiPlus Member Icon  (10 of 1862) 
 4470.10 in reply to 4470.3 
Glen,

>> Actually a recent study showed that the bulk of firearms used in crimes in
NY were legally purchased in a few states with weak laws including mine,
Georgia. <<

A good reason for uniform firearms laws, don't you think?

Cheers,

Ed

 

 
Navigate this discussion: 1-10 11-20 21-30 ... 1841-1850 1851-1860 1861-1862
Adjust text size:

Welcome, guest! Get more out of Delphi Forums by logging in.

New to Delphi Forums? You can log in with your Facebook, Twitter, or Google account or use the New Member Login option and log in with any email address.

Home | Help | Forums | Chat | Blogs | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
© Delphi Forums LLC All rights reserved.