From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Brady Bill Redux
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 04:15:37 GMT

In article <6407@transfer.stratus.com>
cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>
>In article <20361@drutx.ATT.COM>, dfh@dwroll.att.com (D461-David_F_Haertig(Dave83040) 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.

     Oh, god.  Can you imagine the public relations coup for HCI
if they actually produce pull NRA support for this bill, which
if described accurately, is much like what they pushed for before.
I can bet, to that the "transplant" won't be mentioned.  (Most
people don't even know the Staggers amendment existed.)
     Imagine being able to say, "The NRA supports the Brady Bill."

     I always said they were better at this than the NRA is.

>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.

     Any bill which does not hold the individuals with the power to
hurt you responsible if they hurt you bother me.  Which probably includes
about two-thirds of the legal code.
========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns