Jim and Sarah Brady with Senator Charles Schumer
(D-NY), during fight for the "Brady Bill" in 1994
Senate Photo
For readers who have long followed the gun rights issue, today's article might not be news--it is, after all, mostly about a bill that was introduced in the U.S. Senate 15 years ago. For folks new to the debate, though, I hope to shed an instructive light on just where these "reasonable gun laws" are headed, if groups like the Brady Campaign have their way.
Yesterday, in writing about gun control groups' impatience with what they view as foot-dragging in regard to pursuit of new, more restrictive gun laws, I quoted Brady Campaign president Paul Helmke:
The president should make it clear that efforts to disrupt trafficking in illegal guns and stockpiling of private arsenals are not a threat to law-abiding gun owners.
As I pointed out yesterday, Helmke's mention of "stockpiling private arsenals" prompted me to wonder if the Brady Campaign is now advocating limits on the total number of firearms and/or the amount of ammunition a citizen may own. That, in turn, reminded me that such limits would not be a new objective for the Brady Campaign.
Enter S. 1878 (from the 103rd Congressional session), the "Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994," sometimes referred to colloquially as the "Brady Act II."
Before I go into detail, let's give some thought to where the gun rights debate stood in 1994. The "Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" had recently passed, requiring a 5 day waiting period for handgun sales, during which a criminal background check would be performed on the prospective purchaser. Additionally, the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Protection Act" became law in '94, the most famous provision of which was the federal "assault weapons" ban. In short, the forcible citizen disarmament lobby--led by the Brady Bunch--had liberty on the ropes, and was salivating at the prospect of landing the knockout blow. "Brady II," if not that knockout blow, would at the very least have been the perfect set-up for it.
"Brady II" was a veritable wish list of citizen disarmament laws, but the provision I want to focus on today is the "Federal Arsenal License"--a brief summary of which follows (full text can be found here):
Section 204 -Prohibits a person from possessing more than 20 firearms or more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition unless the person is a licensed dealer or has been issued an arsenal license. Direct the Secretary of the Treasury to issue such a license if specified conditions are met, including the payment of a $300 fee for a three-year license period. Subjects the holder of such a license to all requirements pertaining to licensed dealers. Sets penalties for violations.
"But," some might protest, "is that so bad? Who needs more than 20 firearms or 1,000 rounds of ammo?"
Setting aside, for the moment, the fact that "need" does not factor into the exercise of a Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual--a right that, indeed, shall not be infringed, a serious collector would certainly be constrained by such a limit.
Actually, that "20 firearms" limit would be a great deal easier to reach, under another provision of the bill, than one might imagine:
SEC. 312. DEFINITION OF FIREARM EXPANDED TO INCLUDE COMPONENT PARTS.
Section 921(a)(3)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking "or receiver" and inserting ", receiver, barrel, stock, ammunition
magazine, or any part of the action".
That's right--a magazine, or a spare firing pin, spring, etc., is counted as a "firearm."
As for the ammunition limit, if my supply ever falls to 1,000 rounds, I would consider it a shortage of crisis proportions.
"Fine," my tormentor might say, "then get the license--$100 per year isn't so bad."
Well, assuming that it would still be $100 per year 15 years later, and again forgetting that we're discussing paying for the licensing of a right that, not to put too fine a point on it, shall not be infringed, the license requirement carries a great deal of baggage with it. For one, it must be approved by the prospective licensee's local chief law enforcement officer. It also requires fingerprinting and other invasions of one's privacy. Perhaps most objectionable is this part:
Subjects the holder of such a license to all requirements pertaining to licensed dealers.
One of those requirements is, I believe, being subject to searches without a warrant (or warning), when such a search strikes the BATFE's fancy.
As I said earlier, the "arsenal license" was just one of many draconian provisions of the bill, which also included a licensing and registration requirement for handgun ownership, making storage of a handgun and ammunition within the reach of a juvenile a federal crime, "one gun a month" purchase limits, and much more.
"Brady II," of course, never passed, and the November '94 elections punished the Congressional gun haters in a lesson that many have still not forgotten. Now, though, conditions are becoming ripe for another gun-grabbing frenzy (some might describe it as a "perfect storm" facing gun owners). Eventually--and it may not be long--the feds are going to be done biding their time, and decide to strike. When they do, many of the Brady II provisions will cetainly be among their priorities.
Finally, although I titled this article "What the Brady Campaign really wants," that's not really true--it's more of a "good first step" (remember--every gun law is a "first step"). The ultimate goal was outlined by the group's president, Nelson T. "Pete" Shields, back when the group was still called Handgun Control, Inc.:
I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, "This is a great law. The problem is solved." And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.
And after handguns, it will be time to go after every other kind of firearm.
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Atlanta: Restaurant with anti-gun policy saved by a gun
- Austin: Does Violence Policy Center Represent the People? (Part 1)
- Boston: Accidental firearm discharge still brings maximum sentence, Supreme Court says
- Charlotte: Are sheriffs using taxpayer money to trample taxpayer gun rights?
- Cleveland: Ohio Sheriff wants help stopping gas station robber
- DC: More guns, less pirates
- Denver: Montana seeks to test states' rights
- Los Angeles: Meeting the Hate, Part III: breaking the cycle.
Meeting the Hate, Part IV: New challenges for liberty purists.
- Milwaukee: Milwaukee Police Chief Flynn bullies gun owners
- Minneapolis: Are gun owners facing a ‘perfect storm’?
- National: New York 'gun day' showcases false crime-fighting promises
- Seattle: Montana lawmakers have it right with new statute on self-defense
- Wisconsin: The time for civil obediance is now
Comments
Its obvious none of these officials have ever shopped at a Sam's or another type of warehouse club like the rest of the nation has.
You know the theory "Buy in Bulk and get the Discount Price" ?
Have the Kennedy's ever seen a 5 lb box of Cheez-its?
The entire Brady philosophy is based on a false premise, that if we could just make those evil nasty guns go away then life would be safe and good. This is wrong thinking in several ways.
Firstly it imbues evil intent on inanimate objects rather than on the humans that use them, a distraction from any effort to address the real issue of violence in our society.
Second, it demands an impossible act, to remove access to a fairly simple straightforward technology, that of firearms construction. And it never addresses the rather naive assumption that either armed authority will surrender their weapons as well or that they can all be trusted absolutely not to allow them to fall in the wrong hands.
Lastly, the Brady members take the position that if we make it harder for someone of evil intent to obtain a firearm that will somehow protect us. As though a bit of difficulty will stop them in their tracks and make them renounce their criminal plans. In truth, this type of person will not stop. If denied one solution to reach their goal they will just try another and another until they get what they want. Can't buy a gun legally, try the black market, or steal one from a cop, or create an explosive device from common chemicals and make a really big impression.
We might request that the Bradys try a taste of reality for a change, but I suspect that if they did they'd stop being Bradys.
You're just overreacting! No one is going to take your guns. Silly, ignorant Rednecks!
They never quit. They always want more "compromise". One more "sensible" law-- for the children. We all know what they want. And THEY ARE RIGHT about one thing: NO ONE is going to take my guns!
What a shocker! It's not really about safety it's about CONTROL.
Excellent article, and you are certainly aware of the following but for those intellectually honest readers who do not (yet) understand the right to keep arms or have much knowledge of firearms it is important to explain a bit about how ammunition is typically purchased by those who practice regularly.
Again, as you say, not because a right needs to be justified, but it never hurts to ensure that everyone reading understands the logic of the law-abiding.
First, practically everyone agrees that regular practice in safe firearm usage and accuracy is important if accidents are to be prevented and rounds fired at a criminal are going to be accurate and thus avoid hurting anyone innocently in the area.
Even, gun controls pay at least lip service to the "training is good" or "proving your skills should be part of being granted a license". {Yes, even though we know that rights must never be 'licensed'.]
So, practice is good.
A typical practice is easily a box (50 rounds) of pistol ammo, and might easily be 100, or 150. For those who practice weekly, this means about 200 rounds or more per month. Ammo is much less expensive when purchased by the case (not the box) of 500-1000 or even in larger quantities.
No problem say the "1000 round limit" folks. Buy a thousand rounds and don't restock until you are out -- but that is clearly unacceptable since the firearm might be needed and without ammo it is mostly useless. (This is what gun control is really trying to do by making the supply of ammo run out or the purchase more difficult.)
So, they might say, we'll "let you have 2000" rounds.
Again, this ignores the really that a responsible gun owner is going to practice regularly with at least one of each major type, rifle, pistol, shotgun, and might need to practice with each differing caliber.
A family is quite likely going to have the husband, wife, and responsibly mature children practicing as well, even though the most likely purchaser will be the head of household.
Practice is good. Ammo is necessary. Responsible gun owners tend to practice far more and far more regularly than either those who are careless or those who are criminal.
1000 rounds is not very much ammo for a responsible gun owner.
Beware of the man who only owns the rounds in the firearm -- it says something about the maturity and responsibility of that person, or perhaps even indicates that the firearm was stolen or purchased illegally -- or may just borrowed from another gun owner legally.
After all, how does one get a firearm with ONLY the rounds in the gun? Steal? Buy it that way? Borrow it?
Dealers don't sell guns that are loaded. Most legal transactions that include ANY ammo, include a box or so. (E.g., Seller says: You might as well take these two boxes of .40 ammo since I don't own another firearm in that caliber.)
Even 10 or 20 THOUSAND rounds are not a large amount for a law-abiding gun owner to have on hand. It's more than most people have, but it isn't any more unusual than finding a man who owns 5 or 6 automobiles.
Most firearms training courses beyond the most basic levels require 1000 rounds or more. So, this would have a chilling effect on private training. And isn't that what the Rosie O'Donnells of the world want? People to be trained in the firearms they own?
Oh, that's right, what was I thinking? All that is just double-speak. They just want no private citizen to have guns. Unless, of course, it is their own personal body guards. Must be nice to be able to afford that!
while they are at it, why not tack on a rider that puts a $1.00 fee on each newspaper sold to cover anticipated trash pickup and disposal, especially after the newspaper is properly used to wrap fish? Sounds reasonable to me. Do not worry yourself about the restriction on press freedoms.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!