The Brady Campaign has taken upon itself the devilishly tricky task of crowing over the "success" (more on that in a minute) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (the "Brady Bill," requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales from licensed dealers), while simultaneously decrying the inadequacy of that law, and the need for a whole fleet of new laws to make it actually work. From their press release:
Seventeen years after the Brady Law went into effect on February 28, 1994, Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, expressed pride in the law's accomplishments, but also urged political leaders to do more to protect Americans from gun violence.
Helmke outlined 17 common sense measures, including closing loopholes allowing too many gun sales to be conducted without background checks, holding gun dealers and manufacturers accountable, slowing illegal gun sales and trafficking and more.
Hmm . . . 17 new gun laws? Very ambitious, but then again, yesterday was the 17th anniversary of the law's effective date, so really, the number has to be 17. Next year, presumably, we'll need 18 more "common sense" infringements on that which shall not be infringed, and in fact, that number would, presumably, have no dependence on whether none of this year's 17 proposed laws are put in place, or if all of them are.
This year's "17 Common Sense Recommendations for Change," as the Brady Campaign calls them, are not limited to small infringements, either, with just one of them being "Require Licensing of Gun Owners and Registration of Gun Purchases." Sounds as if they're hoping to get back to the heady days of thinking they could pass "Brady II." In the interest of fairness, it must be admitted that the Brady Campaign is at least capable of impressive feats of alliteration, as illustrated in their alternate name for this one: "Stop the Sale of Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines (aka Big Bullet-Blasting Boxes)." Really, Brady Campaign, "Big Bullet-Blasting Boxes"? Seriously?
As promised, let's take a look at the "success" of the Brady background check law, as described by Clarence Worly, in New West:
Although it may look good on paper back in Washington, the Brady Act does almost nothing to curb the purchase of firearms by those who fall in the categories listed above. If I’m a criminal, I’ll simply have someone else buy the gun for me. If I’m denied, I’ll buy a gun from a private party. Yes, it is illegal to buy a gun for someone who is a criminal, has been identified as mentally unstable, or is an illegal alien; it’s called a straw purchase, but so is speeding and cheating on your taxes, and people do it all the time.
Worly, it should be noted, is not criticizing the Brady law from the perspective of a gun rights advocate--he thinks gun laws should be vastly more draconian than they are now. This, despite his having been, he claims, wrongfully denied the right to purchase a firearm, requiring him to pay over $12,000 in attorney's fees to clear his name, and to restore his . . . privilege, as he apparently thinks of it, of legally buying firearms.
He, in fact, apparently wants all gun laws to be as oppressive as the National Firearms Act of 1934, which he describes as "the only effective gun control law ever passed," because all other gun laws are "toothless." And while the Brady Campaign might take umbrage at his casual dismissal of their efforts, they might want to at least get on board with his enthusiasm for the NFA. With that law having passed in 1934, after all, on June 26 this year, they could claim that anniversary as signifying that it's time for 77 new "common sense" gun laws.
See also:
Comments