What the Brady Campaign really wants

May 1, 3:50 AMSt. Louis Gun Rights ExaminerKurt Hofmann

Previous Next

7 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

      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):

"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.