>>>> 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