From: uk09365@nx21.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:25:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.180213.510@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  
dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz) writes:
> The NRA's concern is to stop, if not all, a big chunk of gun purchases
> by minors, criminals, etc.  The NRA agrees that these groups should
> by prohibited from obtaining firearms, but not at the expense of
> legitimate buyers.  As for the technology, the NCIC already exists.
> Andy Freeman has previously posted on how the Brady Bunch et al. is 
> pushing so damn hard for their waiting period because they're aware
> that the NCIC database could be available for background checks
> today.  Such a system would preclude their pet waiting period,
> and they know it.
> Well, we all agree that a background check is what's important.
> The NRA urged for passage of the Staggers Bill, which would have
> required a background check.  The Brady Bill does NOT require
> such a check.  Kind of makes you wonder what the Brady Bunch is
> up to, doesn't it?  They certainly don't seem to care about
> criminals getting guns, or they'd have supported the Staggers Bill.

	Allow me to play devil's advocate here.  The fact that
	the Brady Bill is flawed; does not preclude the drafting
	of waiting-period legislation without many of the problems.
	There is no reason that a Brady-II could not be drafted
	that required a background check, provided funding and 
	federal assistance, closed the loophole that would allow
	an anti-gun police chief to arbitrarily freeze gun transfers,
	created an appeals process, and protected police from
	liability.

	My biggest concern the problems with the current Brady Bill
	are known and its proponents have done nothing to correct
	them.  It hints strongly, IMHO, to an underlying desire to
	harrass law abiding citizens and reduce their access to
	firearms, in the guise - of course - of limiting access
	to criminals, etc.

	An editorial in the campus daily here a month or so ago
	illustrated this perfectly.  The author harped about
	the "super-soaker" shootings in NYC and Boston. Of course,
	he never mentioned a word about the gun laws in NY and MA.
	He advocated passage of the Brady Bill and berated the NRA
	for opposing it.  He also berated the new Republican
	legislature in New Jersey for threatening to overturn 
	the "assault weapon" ban in that state.  All along, he
	claimed to be writing about restricting access to minors,
	lunatics, criminals, etc.  One of his last paragraphs
	put things into perspective.  He said:  "guns are too
	easily available to ALL SEGMENTS OF SOCIETY." (emph. mine.)
	
	He was especially upset that he could call local gun 
	stores and be told where an "AK-47" was available for
	purchase.  He hinted that even giving information on
	the phone about a gun purchase was dangerous until
	the person asking the questions had submitted to a
	background check.

[finally, IMO, even a "fixed" waiting period would not do much good;
and would be an infringement on law abiding citizens.  However,
at least I'd look at it - ask "how long does it really need to be,
wouldn't 24 hours be sufficient for 'cooling off'?" - and decide
if it was acceptable.  Even then, I'd have to insist on a provision
for waiving the wait if the purchaser swears out an affadavit
that his/her life is in immediate danger.]

Robert K.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns