A victory celebration
Seems Paul Helmke is tooting the Brady Campaign’s horn over how the law that bears their name passed 14 years ago. He says:
On anniversaries like this, it is important to remember what the Brady Law has accomplished, how effective the law has been at helping reduce gun crime, and how bitterly the NRA fought to kill it – including their effort to have the Brady Law struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The NRA fought it due to the waiting period. And won. And parts of the law were struck down as unconstitutional. What has it accomplished? Well, Paul tells us:
Since 1994, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (the “Brady Law”) has stopped an estimated 1.4 million criminals and other “prohibited purchasers” from buying guns from Federally licensed gun dealers.
1.4M? Sounds impressive. It’s 1.9% of all transactions. But how many were arrested? You know, for breaking the law because they were illegally purchasing guns? 1,400 were. And only 9,575 were even investigated. And only 135 were charged. 46% of rejections were due to felony convictions. 161K rejections were appealed and 57K of appeals were successful. (all data from the DOJ).
The Violence Policy Center (an anti-gun shill group) said of the law: In fact, there is little evidence that the Brady Law has had or is likely to have any significant effect in reducing the major causes of gun violence in America.
Paul then attempts to give credit to the law for the 1990s decline in gun crime. He doesn’t mention that also corresponded with the rise in states passing concealed carry laws. And advocates banning the private transfer of firearms. You know, the gun show loophole.
Personally, I don’t mind the background checks so long as they’re instant. But why aren’t more attempted illegal purchases investigated? You know, like that time someone straw-purchased a high-powered sniper rifle?
Thirdpower notes it’s their last accomplishment of any significance. Let’s keep it that way.
Hat tip jadejold.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Not that I’m a fan of Sarah Brady (go figure), but she bought the rifle for her son as a gift. She broke NO laws (neither state nor federal) in doing so, and she went through all the NICS checks.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
The allegations are that it would be illegal under Delaware law. I’m noting the hypocrisy more than any alleged law breaking.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
“He doesn’t mention that also corresponded with the rise in states passing concealed carry laws.”
Nor does he mention the fact that gun dealers at the time credited the Brady Bill and the Clintons’ anti Constitution stance for the biggest rise in gun sales they’d ever seen.
I bought my first auto-pistol just before Brady went into effect, just because I figured I may never get another chance (G20 with 15 rd mag), then got a concealable, .38 revolver about the same time. Hadn’t fired any gun for about 15 years before that. Now it’s a major hobby of mine. Why, I just bought one yesterday. Thanks, Brady Bill, for getting me into a great hobby!
Oh, and, Paul, you might want to re-read the Constitution– it specifically forbids everything you stand for. Some of us take that sort of thing pretty seriously. Just keep that in mind. I’m reminded of this little gem every day:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.htm
and this one:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
And this one, just for you, buddy boy:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/241fin.htm