From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:47:19 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <6695@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> 
>    One thing I have noticed, however, is that Brady introduces de-facto
>    gun registration.  One section of it says that any dealer who is contacted
>    by a chief and informed that so-and-so is not allowed to buy or possess
>    a handgun must communicate all information about the transfer to the chief 
>    where the buyer lives, and the chief where the buyer works.
> 
>    Now, note the following:
> 
>    1) This contact can happen ANY TIME after the purchase.  No time limit.
>    2) ANY chief can initiate it.
>    3) The dealer must report ALL information about the sale.

In all fairness, the bill ALSO specifies that if the buyer does not test
dirty, the chief shall destroy ALL his records of the transaction after 
20 business days.  So one could argue that this scenario could not occur
after 20 days from the original sale.  However, the language of the bill
MIGHT be interpreted to allow the chief to issue a blanket statement of
the form, "All persons who bought weapons of type XYZ are now violating
local law if they still have them."  The language reads:

"Any transferor of a handgun who, after such transfer, receives a report
from a chief law enforcement officer containing information that receipt
or possession of the handgun by the transferee violates Federal, State,
or local law shall immediately communicate all information the transferor
has about the transfer and the tranferee to... [the chiefs of the buyer's
town of residence and town of employment]."

One other interesting upshot of this section is that the police department
actually has TWENTY business days to complete a background check on you, 
the first five of which you are forced to wait.

On a related topic, there have been a lot of claims here that instant
checks are already easy to do.  However, in an NRA pamphlet I picked up
this weekend is the statement:

"[a poll of the National Association of Chiefs of Police in 1991 showed
that] 84% agreed that a waiting period could not determine accurately 
whether or not a purchaser has a criminal, mental, or alcohol or drug
abuse history."  Since a "waiting period" can't "determine" anything,
what was the actual question asked?  I have the question from 1989:

     "The 'Brady Bill' offers a national 7 day waiting period that gives
     local  police or sheriffs an option to check for previous criminal
     activities,  possible drug or alcohol dependency and mental instability.
     Do you think  you would be able to conduct such an investigation in a 7
     day period?"  Yes -- 44.7%; No -- 55.3%.

and from 1990:

     "Do you believe that in the national 7 day waiting period proposed
     before Congress (Brady Bill) that you can fully determine that the
     applicant has  no criminal record; is not mentally unsound; or is an
     abuser of drugs or alcohol?" Yes -- 14.4%; No -- 85.6%.

The subtle shift in the direction of the question in 1991 is interesting: 
from conducting an investigation to guaranteeing its results.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns