Opinion Editorial | |
Pro-con Brady Bill: A Deadline on Public SafetySarah BradyHandgun Control, Inc., chaired by Sarah Brady, is the nation's largest citizens' gun control lobbying organization. Based in Washington, DC, HCI works to enact stronger federal, state and local gun control laws, but does not seek to ban handguns. |
Domestic abusers, drug addicts, the mentally ill, and some felons will
be able to purchase handguns more easily after November 30, 1998, thanks
to the gun lobby. Nearly five years ago, the Brady Bill's five-day waiting
period and background check for handgun purchasers became law with the support
of more than 90 percent of the American public and every major law enforcement
group in the country. Unable to block passage of this popular legislation,
the gun lobby quietly slipped in a provision that required the law's waiting
period to expire in five years and to be replaced with a computerized instant
check system. If Congress does not extend the Brady Law's waiting period
past this arbitrary expiration date, thousands of people who are prohibited
by law from purchasing guns could slip through the cracks and obtain lethal
weapons. Since the law's adoption, background checks have stopped nearly a quarter-million
felons, fugitives and other dangerous people from illegally buying guns
over-the-counter. Additionally, hundreds of people wanted on outstanding
arrest warrants have been apprehended by police thanks to background checks.
Gun-related violent crime and interstate gun trafficking have also decreased
dramatically since the Brady Law took effect. The National Instant Check System (NICS), which the U.S. Department of
Justice is implementing, relies on computerized federal data to immediately
check prospective firearms purchasers for felony convictions and some other
barriers to purchase, such as dishonorable discharges from the military
and non-U.S. residency. The 23 states that currently fall under the Brady
Law will rely solely on this system. Background checks will be conducted
instantaneously and most gun sales will be completed in a matter of minutes.
While the Justice Department has done a good job of computerizing federal
records, NICS does not have access to many of the important records kept
at state and local levels, such as domestic violence misdemeanors, court
restraining orders, involuntary admissions to mental hospitals, court-ordered
drug rehabilitation, and recent arrests. How important is it to check these records? In 1997 alone, an estimated
7,500 people were denied handguns due to domestic violence misdemeanor convictions
or restraining orders, and an estimated 4,100 fugitives from justice were
screened out by background checks, according to the Justice Department.
In Wichita County, Kansas, a Brady background check prevented a gun sale
to a man who was under a restraining order for battering and threatening
to kill his ex-wife and children. In Austin, Texas, a man who had threatened
his family and co-workers was also denied a handgun. Under the computerized
instant check system scheduled for implementation in November, these prohibited
purchasers and many others might have passed the background check and been
allowed to purchase guns. The Brady Law's waiting period also serves as a "cooling off period"
to prevent crimes of passion and suicides. A study conducted by an organization
that I chair, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, found that guns recovered
as part of homicide investigations make up a disproportionately large share
of those firearms traced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
within one week of the date the guns were purchased. This just shows that
people who need guns "immediately" usually have a very nasty use
for them. That's why Congress must pass the Brady Waiting Period Extension Act
(H.R. 4233/ S. 2324). This legislation mandates a minimum three-day and
maximum five-day waiting period for firearm purchases. While law enforcement
supports the legislation; the gun lobby is attempting to block it. The Brady Law has played a pivotal role in turning the tide on gun crime
and violent crime. Allowing the waiting period to expire will only reverse
that progress. |
Pro-con Brady Bill: Brady Bill Will Soon Be Dead-Do Not Resuscitate!H. Sterling BurnettH. Sterling Burnett is an environmental policy analyst with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education institute. |
Named after Jim Brady, the Reagan press secretary who was shot in an
attempt on the president's life, the Brady Bill requires local law enforcement
agencies to run background checks on prospective handgun buyers to stop
the sale of handguns to convicted felons and people adjudicated insane,
and gives law enforcement five working days to run the background check.
The waiting period, the provision of the bill that most troubles gun
rights defenders, lapses on November 30. The mandatory background check
has already been declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Replacing
these provisions will be an instant check system whereby all prospective
gun buyers will have their criminal and mental histories checked while they
wait. The new system, long supported by gun rights advocates, is quicker
and more comprehensive, since it also applies to long-gun purchases. Brady supporters are demanding that Congress implement a three-day waiting
period on gun purchases - known as Brady-lite - even after the instant check
system is universally adopted. As proof of its success, they often cite
President Clinton's November 1997 claim that Brady has blocked more than
250,000 handgun sales to felons and the mentally incompetent since its inception.
Unfortunately, President Clinton has again "misled" the American
people. Department of Justice statistics show that only 186,000 firearms
sales had been blocked when Clinton made his statement. And even this figure
has problems, since more than 100,000 of these blocked sales were in states
with instant check systems and not a result of the Brady Bill. In addition,
several states have reported that the figures for their states were mistakenly
high - in Indiana by 1,300 percent. When innocent citizens are wrongfully denied their right to obtain a
firearm in a timely fashion, the results are sometimes tragic. For example,
when Phillip Coleman of Shreveport, Louisiana, attempted in 1995 to purchase
a handgun for self-defense, the sale was mistakenly rejected. Coleman appealed
the decision, pointing out the error. Unfortunately, he was shot to death
outside of his work while his application was still pending. Three days
after his murder, the approval arrived by fax. Brady has done little or nothing to stop felons from either getting guns
or reducing crime. Figures from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
show that fewer than 7 percent of the guns used in a crime are bought over
the counter from legitimate firearms dealers. The other 93 percent are
stolen or bought on the black market, and Brady does not affect such sales.
When polled, more than 85 percent of America's police chiefs believed
that Brady had not prevented a single felon from obtaining a handgun in
their jurisdiction. And the General Accounting Office found that of the first 70,000 felons
caught attempting to buy guns over the counter, fewer than one in 1,000
were prosecuted, only seven were convicted and only three served time -
and none of these prosecutions involved felons previously convicted of violent
offenses. By contrast, just two states, Virginia (with more than 400 arrests) and
South Carolina (with more than 200 arrests), with instant check systems
nab more criminals attempting to buy guns from licensed dealers in a given
year than all the 32 original Brady states combined. When Brady was originally debated, its supporters argued that "if
it saves just one life, the inconvenience will be worthwhile." Maybe.
But since there are clear cases where Brady has cost innocent lives and
no evidence that it has saved even a single life, if anything has to die
it probably should be the Brady Bill. This article appeard in the following newspapers: Florida times-Union, Sept. 16, 1998; Wichita Eagle, Sept. 13, 1998; Lexington Herald-Leader, Sept. 14, 1998
Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security Debate Central | Contact Us |