From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Brady Bill Redux
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:50:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <20361@drutx.ATT.COM>, dfh@dwroll.att.com (D461-David_F_Haertig(Dave)83040) writes:

> The Brady Bill does not require a background check as Ms. Tucker
> implies, it merely imposes a waiting period that could be used for
> such a check.  However, the Stagger's Bill did require a background
> check, and was supported by the NRA.  

Well, folks, hold the presses on these claims for a while.

I decided to exercise HCI's informational office just a bit this week.
I asked them for a current copy of the Brady Bill.  The first woman I
talked to sent a copy of HR 7, and four pages of additional information
about the history of the bill's changes in congress (plus a whole lot
about "why we need to pass it").  I found some blatant inaccuracies
and omissions:

"Unless law enforcement notifies the dealer that the sale would violate...,
the sale may proceed 5 business days after the date when purchaser signs
the statement."  However, the "receipt" kicker was still in the bill.

"The Senate version of the bill differs from the House version in that
some strengthening provisions were added.  A background check during the
waiting period is mandatory. ...States will be given federal money to 
update their computerized criminal history records over the next five
years.  And once the Attorney General certifies that 80% of the nation's
records are on-line and accurate, the waiting period would phase out and
a national computer background check would be instated."  But the bill
contained NONE of these provisions.

I called HCI to "clear up my confusion" about the above points.  The
woman was out, but I spoke with a man who told me that the woman had
sent me an obsolete copy of the bill.  He faxed me the current version
of the bill (the one now under discussion).  It's now entitled 
"Conference report to accompany HR 3371; TITLE V -- Firearms."

And damn, from a quick reading, it looks like it actually might have
been accurately described.

The receipt kicker is gone.  There is a whole new section that looks
a lot like a whole-body transplant of the Staggers Bill, unique ID's
and all, plus funding appropriations for the system.  When the system 
comes online, Brady is dead.  There is a procedure for correction of
erroneous system information somewhat similar to Staggers.

The chief must now "make a reasonable effort to ascertain" your 
record (still somewhat short of "mandatory," but better than before).  
The part about "This law doesn't require the chief to do anything he
doesn't do now" is gone.

In addition, the requirement is waived for sections of the country
where law enforcement officers are sparse; the dealer is remote from
the chief; and there are no handy telecommunications systems.

On the down side:  the chief may not be sued for either a false
positive or a false negative; nor may the feds when their system
becomes operative.  However, the dealer can be hit for his license
and $5,000 if he knowingly sells the gun without asking the federal
system, when that system comes online.

It's 10 pages long and I'm not going to type it in; however, it 
will make a great testcase for an OCR package I'm supposed to review
for my user group, so I'll try to get it in in the next few days.
-- 

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...