Our most recent statistics estimate that more than 44,000 felons have been denied access to handguns since March 1, 1994.
Then, the ATF goes on to comment on two cases from August 1995 and October 1995 in which persons with felony records were eventually arrested. One was convicted but had not yet been sentenced. Two cases in 1995 out of 40,000 possible deterred gun purchases! In the words of Peggy Lee, "Is that all there is?" Two cases in 1995! As a former ATF agent, who in his misspent youth was once touted by his peers as a future head of the ATF Firearms section, if I were so proud of the Brady Act, I would have made mention of more than two cases.
The problem is that very few cases have been prosecuted amidst all the smoke and mirrors. In an article on his homepage, Tom Gresham talks about the lies in the speech of Sarah Brady at the Democratic convention. He states that she said that the number of "convicted felons and others prohibited from owning a gun" who have been stopped by the Brady Act is about 100,000! Ooops! There you go again, Ms. Brady. At about the same time you are talking of 100,000 gun purchases stopped, the ATF says that based on "estimates" the number is perhaps 40,000. President Clinton has pegged the number at 60,000 to 100,000, depending on how the spirit moved him. Maybe Sarah, Mr. Clinton, and the ATF chief ought to have coffee before you all write speeches and his people write newsletters. Your collective credibility suffers when you tell three different lies. I am reminded of the persistent joke(?) about witness testimony before a trial, "You lie and I'll swear to it."
Of course, even the 40,000 figure is grossly exaggerated. Write, do not call, your ATF office and ask them for the actual figures of the purchases finally and totally denied by the Brady Act and the reasons and the criminal records of those denied. Good luck. And while you are at it, ask them why after all the years and millions of dollars promoting the Brady Act, have only about 12 people been prosecuted? Drop me a note when you get the answer.
In an article in the Wall Street Journal for September 17, James Bovard explodes the myth of the 40,000 to 1000,000 denials with hard facts from the General Accounting Office (GAO). He also points out that five Federal district judges have ruled that the Brady Act is a violation of the 10th Amendment (which reserves to the states all those powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution - among them police powers). The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a Brady Act challenge this fall. You may remember that the Supreme Court held the Federal Gun Free School Zone to be a violation of the 10th Amendment and struck the law down. The Brady Act is a more onerous invasion of "States Rights" and deciding against it should be a slam dunk for the Court.
Of course, the Supreme Court has become as much an arbiter of social issues as legal issues. So, drop the justices a line and tell them what you think of the Federal Government encroaching on the rights of states, in general and with the Brady Act in particular - if you are so inclined. I have written several letters to justices of the Supreme court on issues and have gotten better response than I often get from a magazine publisher, a TV show (very rare answer), and so on. The point is; if the Court is going to "legislate" based on social considerations, let them know what you think. You don't have to know anything about the law. Many of the opinions written by the Court seem to have a similar frailty.
First the good news, the Brady Act is keeping some guns out of the hands of criminals. But, on page 3 of the ATF Newsletter, we find the following:
Federal firearms licensees are experiencing a dramatic increase in firearms theft. ATF received nearly 2,000 reports of incidents involving almost 10,000 firearms during calendar year 1995.Note the words "dramatic increase in firearms theft." The criminal gun equation of supply and demand shall always be in balance. If the Brady Act keeps some from obtaining guns legally, well then let's wait until the stores close and steal all the handguns. Those guns, along with all those stolen from private citizens and bought on the second-hand market will keep our gun habit supplied. After 35 years of watching this dog and pony show, it is more apparent than ever that the main thrust has to be on the ATF making undercover cases on those who supply criminal guns and on stiffer penalties for those who use guns. (And I don't mean undercover cases on a recalcitrant informant in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, whom you induce into sawing off two shotguns and then the FBI kills his wife by "accident" after you have screwed everything up. )
When are politicians going to realize that more and more restrictions on guns at the retail level are largely a waste of time and taxpayer money?
I try to be fair and evenhanded about my assessment of gun-control laws and gun crime. But I can find no other words than "lies and deceit" when describing the efforts of Bill Clinton, Sarah Brady, Rep. Charles Schumer, et al., when they tell you that what we need is "more gun control."
In general, I favor the initiatives on gun-crime put forth by the Republicans over the last few years. But I went into orbit during Bob Doles' acceptance speech at the Republican convention. Among other things, he said:And with my national instant check initiative, we will keep all guns out of the hands of criminals.
An instant check of criminal records will certainly not keep all guns out of the hands of criminals. It will keep about the same small number out of the hands of criminals as does the Brady Act. Two justifications for the Instant Check are: 1) If a person has a record, the dealer will find out about it immediately and can take more timely action, such as to notify authorities. 2) The instant check is less of an infringement upon the law-abiding citizen.
Here is the real joker! The Brady Act provides for the establishment of a National Instant Criminal Background Check System. As of November 30, 1998, the Brady waiting period will turn into an instant check - without a single candidate or congress person lifting a finger! Given the snail's pace with which legislation is enacted and implemented (there is always an implementation lag), even if President Bob Dole sent an Instant Check bill to Congress, it might get passed and implemented before its date of unaided gestation on November 30, 1998 - and maybe not. Once again, the ATF Newsletter on page 2 was kind enough to point out the sunset provision for the Brady waiting period.
Many of us have the text of the acceptance speech of Bob Dole. Some day, we could call it up and ask why with the Instant Check in effect do criminals still have all the guns they need? I fired off an e-mail to Haley Barbour, the RNC Chairman, suggesting that he tell Bob Dole never to utter the sentence again about Instant Check keeping guns out of the hands of all criminals. Whoever wrote it ought to be fired. Am I presumptuous? I think not. Upon reflection, Haley, and Bob, and Elizabeth will all agree that a guy sitting out on a patch of ground in Texas has a better grasp of the issues relating to gun crime and gun control than most of those inside the Beltway. I am saddened that this is true, but I have proved it with my writings in newspapers, in letters, and in a briefing book that I prepared for one of the presidential candidates (at his request) during the last election.
If you have not read it, I refer you to my article on my Web page which I wrote for the Dallas Morning News about the limits on the Federal Government's ability to combat local violent crime.
Notes:
Tom Gresham's site is in my Links.
The ATF is at:
http://www.atf.treas.gov
The Republican National Committee is at:
http://www.rnc.org
The Wall Street Journal can be found at:
http://www.wsj.com
Sarah Brady, Bill Clinton, and Charles Schumer can be found in front of a mirror learning how to say "Gun control will stop violent crime" with a straight face.
Back to the list of Topics in this SectionRichard Rhodes
09/18/1996