| No Surprise: Anti-Gun Groups Wage Desperation Attack On Right-To-Carry Before Senate Reciprocity Vote |
| Friday, July 24, 2009 |
| Let’s just say it didn’t exactly catch anyone at NRA off-guard, when earlier this week Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center (VPC) raised superficial, misleading arguments in an effort to derail the Thune-Vitter Right-to-Carry permit reciprocity amendment.
When Brady was called National Council to Control Handguns, it called for “a ban on the manufacture, sale, and importation of all handguns and handgun ammunition.” VPC, an off-shoot of the so-called National Coalition to Ban Handguns, openly advocates banning the private possession of handguns. And, naturally, both groups have always opposed people carrying concealed handguns for self-defense, Brady going so far as to say that self-defense is not a constitutionally-guaranteed right. In attacking the amendment, both groups listed a small number of instances in which permit holders committed various crimes over the years, implying that such crimes would be the national norm if the amendment became law—basically the same old “the sky will fall” prediction heard every time a state adopts a Right-to-Carry law. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) complemented the allegation, by making the outrageous claim—and we are not making this up—that if the amendment became law, 16-year-old firearm traffickers would get permits in Vermont (an odd claim since Vermont has no licensing system), and then go to other states carrying large numbers of handguns in backpacks, to be illegally sold to criminals. Brady and VPC hoped their panic-stricken predictions would frighten senators into overwhelmingly rejecting the amendment. But we were able to show that even if you take the group’s lists at face value, they show that permit-holders are much more law-abiding than the rest of the public. Based upon VPC’s list, permit holders are 15 times less likely to commit murder, plain and simple. Try as it might, VPC could come up with only a very small number of criminal homicides committed by permit holders, in situations in which a permit was required to possess a concealed handgun. Of course, VPC did not mention instances in which murders did not occur, because people were able to defend themselves. Brady’s claim is a little more difficult to sort out, only because their list included situations in which no crime was committed, including false reports of illegal carrying, and accidents (some not even resulting in an injury); crimes not involving the misuse of a firearm, such as having a gun in a vehicle operated under the influence, or illegally possessing a firearm or having a firearm in a vehicle in a school zone or other restricted area; crimes not involving a handgun; and crimes that took place in locations where a permit was not required to possess a concealed handgun. Sifting down to violent crimes, with concealed handguns, in locations where a permit was required, permit holders again came out far better than the rest of the public. In the end, Brady’s and VPC’s efforts had virtually no effect on how the Senate voted. But, like the 10-round (or lower) magazine-capacity limit they support within “assault weapon ban” legislation, and their support for handgun ammunition microstamping and encoding, and “smart” gun requirements, they reminded us that Brady and VPC are handgun-ban groups at their core. |
Posts Tagged ‘Brady Campaign’
No Surprise: NRA ILA
July 25, 2009Brady Campaign And Lautenberg Unite To Mislead And Control–Again
April 25, 2009More from the masters of mysandry and misdirection.
This week, in a typically misleading move designed to bolster their political agenda rather than reduce violent crime, the Brady Campaign released a report calling for background checks on “all gun sales in America, including at gun shows.” The Brady report was intentionally designed to correspond with, and bolster, a “gun show loophole” bill (S. 843) introduced this week by fanatical anti-gun Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). In fact, the Brady report was released at the press conference Lautenberg held earlier this week.
Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign, said in the group’s press release, “We can do this. It will have no impact on any law-abiding gun owner in the country.” Of course, that is absolutely false—the proposal will ONLY impact law-abiding gun owners, including any law-abiding person selling a firearm to a law-abiding buyer. Does Helmke really think that criminals, drug cartel members, and violent gang thugs are going to start legally purchasing firearms and submitting to a background check? Law-breakers, by definition, break the law. They are criminals; they are predatory, they operate outside of the law. You know that, we know that, Lautenberg knows that, even Helmke knows that.
Lautenberg’s new bill is essentially a re-introduction of the same bill he introduced in the 110th Congress—S. 2577. And as before, S. 843 calls for massive new government powers to register gun show customers, register gun owners, retain information on people who pass criminal records checks when buying firearms, heavily tax both gun collectors and gun sales, and require gun show promoters to police gun show customers, as if they were agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The bill is not about gun shows. Rather, S. 843 is a solution in search of a problem; numerous government studies have determined that gun shows are an insignificant or miniscule source of firearms misused in crime. For instance, a 2000 Bureau of Justice Statistics study, “Federal Firearms Offenders, 1992-98,” found only 1.7% of federal prison inmates obtained their gun from a gun show. Similarly, a 1997 National Institute of Justice study reported less than 2% of criminals’ guns come from gun shows.
In reality, gun shows are large, public events held in convention centers and banquet halls. But S. 843 defines “gun show” so broadly that it would include a person’s home. Merely “offering” to “exchange” a firearm at an “event” could be banned. The National Matches at Camp Perry and your local gun club’s Sunday trap shoot could be defined as “events” subject to the bill’s provisions. Even talking about a gun at an “event” could be seen as an “offer” to sell a gun. Even if you are not a dealer, but you display a gun at a gun show, and then months later sell the gun to someone you met at the show, you would be subject to the same requirements as if you had completed the sale at the gun show. The restrictions and regulations S. 843 would impose upon real gun shows, and upon gun owners’ personal activities that the bill would preposterously define as “gun shows” and “events,” are unprecedented. S. 843 actually imposes restrictions on “gun show” transactions well beyond those required for firearms transactions at a gun store. And running afoul of S. 843’s numerous, far-fetched provisions could send you to prison for years. Among other things, the legislation calls for:
Gun show customer registration: A person who attends a show, even without a gun, who even discusses the possibility of selling a gun, would be required to sign “a ledger with identifying information.” Gun show promoters would have to retain the ledgers indefinitely for inspection by the BATFE.
Absurd requirement on gun show promoters: Because a promoter cannot know whether a person who attends his show will discuss the sale of a gun, he will have to require every customer to sign the ledger, and check every customer’s identification to verify the information required on the ledger.
Invasion of privacy: In addition to records kept on gun show customers, this bill would allow the FBI to retain, for 90 days, personal information about people who clear instant checks when buying guns.
Gun collector registration: If you are at home with a collection of fifty or more firearms, it would be a five-year felony to “offer” or “exchange” a single gun — even between family or friends — unless you first registered with the BATFE and paid a fee, the amount of which would be at BATFE’s discretion.
The real objective of this legislation is to over-regulate gun shows out of business. Rest assured we will continue to actively monitor the bill and will apprise you of any developments.
Please be sure to contact your U.S. Senators and urge them to strongly OPPOSE S. 843! You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121.
2nd Amendment: Crime is down, some call for more gun control
February 14, 2009The FBI has recently released 2008 statistics showing that violent crime in the United States has dropped to a 35-year low, with the murder rate at its lowest in 43 years. In fact, since peaking in 1991, the rates of murder and violent crime as a whole have fallen 41 percent and 46 percent respectively. But despite this positive news, the anti-gun Brady Campaign is continuing to wage war on our Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The Campaign is claiming, “Most states have weak or non-existent gun laws that help feed the illegal gun market, allow the sale of guns without Brady background checks and put families and children at risk.” This statement flies in the face of the cold, hard fact that violent crime stats have fallen during a time when laws restricting the purchase of firearms have become less stringent.
Manipulating data is nothing new to the Brady Campaign. Each year the group issues a scorecard for each state, on which the state scores anywhere from zero to 100. The more gun control laws it has on the books, the higher the score. The problem is, they don’t bother to check whether the laws are having any effect on crime. In truth, it’s more guns, less crime.
The Brady Bunch has a wish list… Again
January 18, 2009| Friday, January 16, 2009 |
| No one, including the Brady Campaign, seriously believes that Barack Obama was elected president because of his support for gun control. But Brady is pretending that it provided Obama the margin of victory in November, and has provided him with a very long list of gun bans and other restrictions that it expects from him in return.
If for no other reason, Obama might want to tell Brady “no,” because if he were to do their bidding, they would be sure to demand that he do even more. That’s demonstrated by Brady’s statement that their current request “is not intended to present an exhaustive list . . . but does provide a starting point.” It includes: A California-style “assault weapons” ban. For several years, Brady has referred to California’s ban–which is far more restrictive than the federal ban of 1994-2004–as the “model” for the rest of the nation. Brady doesn’t say so, but it clearly supports–as does the Violence Policy Center–the California–like ban that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) has proposed in Congress since before the 1994 semi-automatic firearm ban expired. Among its differences from the 1994 ban, the McCarthy bill would ban rifles like the AR-15, even if they do not have a flash suppressor, bayonet mount, or adjustable-position stock. It would ban the M1, the M1 Carbine, the Ruger Mini-14 series, the SKS, and many other semi-automatic rifles not previously labeled as “assault weapons.” And it would ban every semi-automatic shotgun, by banning its receiver. Brady wants .50 caliber rifles banned as well. A ban on standard magazines designed for self-defense. Brady calls them “high-capacity,” but magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are designed for self-defense, as demonstrated by the fact that most guns that use standard defensive magazines (those holding more than 10 rounds) are handguns designed for self-defense, and used for that purpose by private citizens, law enforcement officers, and military personnel alike. Now’s as good a time as any to dispel one blatant lie that Brady includes with its wish list. Brady says, “Beginning with the Brady Law in 1993, the assault weapon ban in 1994, and other Clinton Administration policies, our nation experienced an historic decline in gun crime and violence,” adding, “during the Bush years, gun crime increased as the Administration and Congress . . . allowed the assault weapons ban to expire [and] gave the gun industry special legal protection.” The truth is, violent crime began declining in 1991, three years before the Brady Act and the semi-automatic firearm ban, and more than a year before Bill Clinton took office. And, the nation’s violent crime rate has declined another eight percent since President Bush took office. Moreover, in 1998, the Brady Act’s waiting period on gun sales ceased, because it was replaced by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which the Brady Campaign has always opposed (though they try to take credit for it today, inappropriately referring to NICS checks as “Brady checks.”) And, contrary to Brady’s prediction that crime rates would soar if the semi-automatic firearm ban expired, the ban expired in 2004, and since then violent crime rates have been lower than anytime in the last 31 years. Repeal the recent Department of the Interior rule allowing state law to determine how firearms may be carried in National Parks and wildlife refuges. Brady offers no evidence to support its hunch that allowing permit-holders to carry concealed firearms “would increase the risk of gun crime, injury and death in the parks and wildlife refuges.” But as for Brady’s hunches, for the last 20 years it has predicted that allowing people to carry guns for protection will cause murder rates to soar, but people now carry guns for protection in 40 states and since 1999, murder rates have been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Brady complains that the Tiahrt Amendment “restricts disclosure of the data to law enforcement,” and prevents the BATFE from disclosing firearm-tracing data to the public. The first claim is a lie. The amendment allows BATFE to provide the data to any law enforcement agency involved in a bona fide investigation related to a traced firearm. Tracing data is not released to the public so that, among other reasons, criminals won’t know that the police are investigating them. Brady should just tell the truth, for once: even though the BATFE and Congressional Research Service repeatedly state that tracing data are not reliable enough to draw conclusions about the criminal use of guns generally, Brady wants the data so it can concoct bogus claims to use in lawsuits against firearm manufacturers who comply with every applicable firearm law. These lawsuits are currently prohibited by the PLCAA, which Brady hopes to overturn. Require all firearm sales to go through NICS (advocated by Mr. Obama’s choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder), and allow the FBI to retain the records of all NICS-approved firearm transfers. It used to be that Brady claimed that the only private transfers that it wanted run through NICS were those taking place at gun shows. Now, it’s all private transfers, including gifts between family members and sales or trades between friends. And, it wants the FBI to record all transfers. Translation: Gun and gun owner registration, no two ways about it. Allow a NICS check to reject someone whose name is on an FBI watch list. This is yet another idea recommended by prospective Attorney General Holder and Obama adviser Rahm Emanuel. The obvious problem with it is that you can get on one of these lists by having the same name as a suspected criminal or terrorist, and if you are on a list, you may not be able to determine which one you are on, much less get yourself removed. Sen. Ted Kennedy even ended up on a “no fly” list, for reasons that have not been made public. Prohibit the sale of more than one handgun to a single individual in a 30-day period, in order to thwart “large-volume” illegal gun traffickers. Federal law already requires a dealer to report to law enforcement authorities whenever a person buys more than one handgun in a five-day period. This proposal amounts to the rationing of a constitutional right with no crime-reduction benefit. Require all new guns to micro-stamp ammunition with serial numbers linking the owner in a federal gun-owner registration database. Most crimes are solved by other means, not by ammunition markings, and criminals could easily deface the firearm parts that would bear the serial numbers. Brady’s agenda isn’t about solving crimes; for them micro-stamping is another way of achieving gun and gun owner registration. Require consumer safety standards for firearms. Even the vehemently anti-gun Violence Policy Center has said this would lead to standards too difficult for firearm manufacturers to achieve, thus ending firearm production. We close with yet another Brady lie, “These proposals are clearly constitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and they pose no threat to the interests of law-abiding gun owners.” Heller clearly said that laws cannot deprive people of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for defensive purposes. As for “the interests of gun owners,” we’ll follow the Supreme Court’s example, and let gun owners speak for themselves. The Court declared D.C.’s handgun ban unconstitutional because gun owners consider handguns to be the type of firearm best suited for self-defense. |
Gun Control, the Democrats are out for revenge
January 10, 2009Ever since the election I have been commenting about how the politics of revenge will become the law of the land. My RSS feed has been going nuts about new taxes, new confiscation, and assorted other schemes that the gun control crowd are coming up with in order to deny you of your Constitutional rights with regard to being able to properly, and effectively defend your self, family, friends, and country.
What follows is among the best that I have come across.
Alan Korwin
(Prior report with Brady gun-ban lists: http://www.gunlaws.com/newstuff.htm)
The powerful gun-ban lobby has developed its own language to color and disguise its true agenda — the disarming of law-abiding Americans in every way possible, and the end of effective self defense.
Their latest set of plans — used as a fund raiser (outlined below) — is filled with nice sounding terms that put a deceptive spin on their goals. Respect for the Bill of Rights is nowhere to be found, only clever end runs and literal destruction of rights Americans have always had.
Starkly missing from these plans is any direct attack on criminals — the whole game plan is aimed at firearms the public holds. It is a product of abject gun fear — hoplophobia — that afflicts the people behind the plan. They deny they’re hoplophobic, but just look at their plans, directed solely at restricting and eliminating guns — instead of the crime caused by criminals they nominally complain about. I noticed that all mentions of accident prevention, a former holy grail for the group, are gone.
The hypocrisy is unequivocal and self evident. Sarah claims, “We need to get these ‘killing machines’ off our streets.” Well, go ahead. Any person, on any street, operating any “killing machine” belongs in prison immediately under existing law, right? Everyone, even the Bradys, know this. It doesn’t matter if your gun is black, or too short, or holds the right amount of ammo.
The problem isn’t the “machines,” it’s the lack of law enforcement — in the bad parts of town and among the gangs where most of the problems occur (see maps: http://www.gunlaws.com/GunshotDemographics.htm). They will not admit this, and they do not address this.
Instead, they act out on their phobia and attack you and me. The real problem of crime and violence is just an excuse for them to work on disarming people who didn’t do anything.
The Federal Bureaucracy of Investigation, along with the Bureaucracy of Alcohol and Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives are in complete sympathy with the plan. The Brady plan will get them more staff, more office space, more of our money and more power, the acknowledged holy grail of bureaucrats.
Politically Corrected Glossary — of Bradyspeak
(See the entire glossary: http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm)
The Brady Bunch and the NRA just more hypocrisy
December 8, 2008The Brady Bunch once again shows it’s colors with it’s latest press release. The usual ballyhoo of self aggrandizement as well as hypocrisy. The National Rifle Association jumped right on it as might be expected. What the NRA failed to recognize as usual, is their own failings when it comes to really supporting the Constitution of the United States. In any case enjoy the dog and pony show that follows.
It is a simple matter of fact, beyond dispute, that for years prior to passage of the Brady Act, the organization now known as the Brady Campaign called for a waiting period on handgun sales and vigorously opposed the establishment of the National Instant Check System (NICS). The anti-gun group, when known as Handgun Control, Inc., ranted and raved against instant check legislation proposed by Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) in the late 1980s, and by Rep. Harley O. Staggers (D-W. Va.) in 1991.
While NRA strongly opposed the Brady Act because of its five-day waiting period, when Congress passed the Brady Act in 1993, it contained a provision authorizing its waiting period on dealer handgun sales only until a NICS could be established (applicable to all dealer firearm sales). The final bill required that the NICS become operational within five years. As it turned out, Brady’s prized waiting period, which Brady claimed could reduce so-called “crimes of passion” (though by the group’s own admission no data existed to support such a theory) was abolished after only four years and nine months, having taken effect in February 1994, and having been replaced by the NICS in November 1998.
President Bill Clinton signed the Brady Act in November 1993, however, so in November 2008 the Brady Campaign released a 15-year anniversary propaganda paper praising itself and–you guessed it–calling for a federal law prohibiting private sales of firearms, not just those at gun shows, but all private sales. What they don’t say, of course, is that if private sales are prohibited, they will immediately call for the FBI to retain records on all firearm transactions run through the NICS.
The title of Brady’s anniversary propaganda? Get this: “Brady Background Checks: 15 Years of Saving Lives.” Brady checks? These are the same instant checks that Brady has opposed for 20 years, and which have been conducted for the last 10 years, instead of the waiting period that was in place for less than five years before! Barack Obama is not the only one who has “audacity.”
Adding to their lie, Brady claims “the National Rifle Association (NRA) fought long and hard to block Brady background checks.” While NRA opposes waiting periods, it supported NICS, and Brady worked hard to block it. And in the end, NRA’s proposal carried the day.
Adding further to the lie, is Brady’s pretense that the Brady Act is the reason that violent crime has declined in recent years. The Act “has been a resounding success by stopping more than 1.6 million potentially dangerous people from purchasing a gun from a licensed gun dealer,” the group claims.
The reality is something much different. First of all, as the FBI states in its annual national crime report (www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/about/variables_affecting_crime.html), a variety of factors determine the type and volume of crime, and none of these factors is guns, gun ownership, or gun laws. And the Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, National Academy of Sciences, National Institutes of Justice, and others have studied gun control and found no evidence that it reduces crime at home or abroad.
Secondly, the nation’s violent crime rate began declining in 1991, three years before the Brady Act took effect. And violent crime committed with weapons other than guns has declined, as well as violent crime with guns–the only weapons requiring a background check. This is largely due to tougher criminal justice policies imposed in the states during the 1990s, such as mandatory sentencing and reduction of probation and parole of violent criminals–precisely what NRA has advocated for years.
Thirdly, Brady incorrectly assumes that denying gun sales must necessarily decrease crime, because it believes guns are the cause of crime and it opposes the use of guns for defense against crime. However, since 1991, the number of new guns sold to private citizens has increased by 70 million, and total violent crime has decreased 38 percent, including a 43 percent decrease in murder. Let’s not forget also the deterrent factor posed against criminals by the Right-to-Carry laws now in effect in 40 states.
Brady also claims that before the Brady Act, “gun traffickers had it easy” with “new handguns bought easily over-the-counter in states with weak gun laws.” The fact is, however, that prior to the Brady Act, the 18 states and the District of Columbia that already had Brady-like laws delaying the acquisition of firearms–including waiting periods, purchase permit requirements, and license requirements–accounted for 63 percent of the nation’s violent crimes. Therefore, the Brady Act–particularly during the waiting period phase favored by the Brady Campaign–never had an effect on jurisdictions where most violent crimes occur.
Naturally, the media have reported Brady’s claims as gospel. But otherwise, the anniversary propaganda is little more than a pathetic attempt by a decreasingly significant group whose agenda has been rejected time and again, and whose views are ever further removed from the mainstream of public opinion.
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 