Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0/Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0 (L0pht Heavy Industries, Inc.)(1997).ISO/tezcat/Guns/Brady_II.txt

Internet Message Format | 1996-07-08 | 14KB

From the Radio Free Michigan archives

ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot

If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to
[e-mail].
------------------------------------------------

Subject: Brady II (proposed U.S. anti-gun law) FAQ
From: Will Mengarini  <[e-mail]>

Version: 1

Contents

   1) What is Brady II?
   2) What does Brady II say?
   3) What is the current status of these bills?
   4) Can Brady II become law in the current Congress?
   5) Can Brady II become law in the next Congress?
   6) Then what?

1) What is Brady II?
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"Brady II" is an informal term referring to /several/ bills currently before
the U.S. Congress.  "Brady II" isn't the official name of any of them.
 HR.3932 is the version in the House of Representatives, and S.1878 & S.1882
are the versions in the Senate (in 2 different committees), of a bill
officially named the "Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994"; aside from
verbiage introducing the bills to their respective legislative houses &
naming their sponsors, the bills are identical.

2) What does Brady II say?
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

All .45 caliber handgun ammunition is outlawed (Title IV Section 401 relating
to paragraph G).  [The bill text actually outlaws handgun ammunition greater
than .45" in diameter; .45 caliber ammunition has a diameter of .451" or
.452".]

Note that because the 1994 Crime Prevention Bill outlawed magazines that
could hold more than 10 rounds, people have been predicting that .45 caliber
pistols would become the private self-defense handgun of choice; this closes
that loophole.

But anyway, all new magazines, handgun AND shotgun AND rifle, are now limited
to at most /six/ rounds (Title IV Section 401 relating to paragraph H).

All states are required to define a "Handgun Safety Certificate", which can
be acquired only by attending a course TAUGHT BY POLICE. The course must last
at least 2 hours & MUST end with a test.  The state may set ANY fee for
taking the course to get the certificate. Then, all states are required to
define a state license to purchase a handgun, administered by state police;
this is DIFFERENT from the handgun safety certificate, but the safety
certificate is REQUIRED to get the purchase license.  The purchase license
also may have an ARBITRARY fee, unrelated to the fee for the safety
certificate. The purchase license may last AT MOST two years; states are
allowed to define it to last ANY SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME.  It's illegal to buy
a handgun without having the purchase license, which implies that you also
must have the safety certificate.  (Title I)

A lot of gun owners are responding to the new gun bans by just making sure
they buy all the /guns/ they think they'll need for the rest of their lives,
but the above purchase license and
safety certificate are also required for buying HANDGUN AMMO, including ammo
for target shooting.  This means you can NO LONGER TRAIN WITH GUNS YOU
ALREADY OWN without getting that safety certificate from the police, & then,
separately, getting the license that must be renewed (whatever that will
mean) every 2 years.

It becomes illegal for most citizens to possess more than one thousand rounds
of all kinds of gun ammunition COMBINED without getting something called a
"Federal Arsenal License", which will cost $300 for 3 years (Title II Section
204).

It becomes illegal for most citizens to buy or sell more than 1 gun in any
30-day period (Title III Section 301).

Lots of this bill is filled with stuff that's incomprehensible without access
to a /current/ copy of the U.S Code.  For example, new laws pertaining to
dealers list a whole bunch of increases in what I assume are prices for
various kinds of licenses, but the bill doesn't say /what/ kinds; instead, it
gives references to existing paragraph numbers & prices, & what the prices
are changed to.

The changes are to U.S.C. Title 18 Section 923 (a), as follow:
   1 (A) $1,000 becomes $10,000.
   1 (B)    $50 becomes  $1,000.
   1 (C)    $10 becomes  $1,000.
   2 (A) $1,000 becomes $10,000.
   2 (B)    $50 becomes  $1,000.
   3 (A) $1,000 becomes $10,000.
   3 (B) $200 / 3 years with renewal $90 / 3 years becomes $1,000 / 1 year
with renewal $1,000                  / 1 year.

I know the Federal Firearms License fee is in there someplace but I don't
know where, or what the other stuff is.  If you have any Federal license that
matches a fee on the left, it probably
becomes the corresponding fee on the right.  (Title III Section 303)

If you do decide to shell out $10,000 for whatever license government says
you need to do business, the BATF has the right to take up to six months to
decide whether to license you (Title III Section 304), & if they do license
you, to inspect you without warrant or warning up to 3 times in any 12-month
period (Title III Section 305).

Lots of licensing requirements that used to apply just to selling guns now
apply also to selling ammo (Title III Section 307). Also, handgun ammo tax is
raised from 10% to 50%, longun ammo tax from 10% to 30% (Title IV Section
402).

Newly-outlawed weapons include "Saturday Night Specials", of which a precise
definition is given (Title IV Paragraph F) that includes not only cheap
revolvers, but all pistols of .25 or .32 caliber.

All the new line of Glock polymer pistols are outlawed along with the S&W
Sigma clones, because they can fire with the magazine removed, which becomes
illegal (Title IV Section 402).

Most other current pistols are outlawed because they lack a device to
indicate whether a round is in a closed chamber.

It becomes illegal for licensed dealers to sell guns at gun shows (Title III
Section 309); they may sell only at the address specified on the license.  I
expect the BATF would interpret this to imply that multiple retail outlets
owned by the same owner would each require separate licenses.

Laws pertaining to complete firearms are now extended to pertain to any
component parts, including magazines (Title III Section 312).

There's lots, lots, lots more, most of it incomprehensible because it's just
lists of changes of words or punctuation in existing law. This might sound
harmless, but there's also a new law (Title III Section 314) that gun dealers
are responsible for damages caused by guns sold illegally, & if it's
impractical to keep track of what the law /is/, this could be financially
very dangerous.

Almost all of these new laws have exemptions for law enforcement officers,
the professional military, & other government agents.

The effect of all these laws together seems to me to be to make the sale of
firearms to private citizens financially infeasible, of course excepting the
upper classes, who can afford it, & possibly also the upper middle class.
 Those $10,000/year licenses are realistic for the kind of private clubs
politicians keep getting in trouble for belonging to because they exclude
blacks, Jews, & women; they're not realistic for Butch's Gun Shop.

(as an aside I've read the bill- It also defines ALL hollowpoint handgun ammo
as ARMOR PIERCING!!!!!!!!!)

3) What is the current status of these bills?
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

S.1878 is in the Senate Finance Committee.  S.1882 is in the Senate Judiciary
Committee, which passed it on to its Subcommittee on the Constitution.
 HR.3932 has been referred to 3 different House committees: the Committee on
Energy & Commerce, which passed it on to its Subcommittee on Health & the
Environment; the House Judiciary Committee, which passed it on to its
Subcommittee on Crime & Criminal Justice; & the House Ways & Means Committee.
 All of these referrals were made in March 1994, & no further action has been
taken on any of the bills since March 1994.

4) Can Brady II become law in the current Congress?
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Probably not.  The current session of the U.S. Congress is scheduled to
adjourn on Fr 07 Oct 94, giving them just two more weeks. Normally, a bill
gets to the floor of the House or Senate only after the committee to which it
was referred (or its subcommittees) holds hearings on it, & then the
committee votes; & there's just not enough time left.  In particular, in the
House, all 3 committees to which the bill has been referred would need to
hold hearings on the bill, according to a source in a nearby Representative's
office.

However, there's something called a "discharge petition", which allows a bill
to be forced from committee to the floor of a legislature. A legislative aide
told me that in the U.S. House of Representatives, this would require 218
votes, which is 50% + 1 vote.  I suppose it's possible that if some
horrifying gun-abuse tragedy occurred in the final days of this Congress, the
bill could be rushed thru.

This may have been the scenario the anti-gun lobby was allowing for, & they
may keep the same plan for future Congresses.  If so, we've already seen what
kind of media coverage to expect.  The mainstream media are owned by the
upper classes, who mostly support gun control because they fear the masses
but don't fear the government (because they can afford to bribe^H^H^H^H^H
contribute to the campaigns of legislators).  This year's big gun-control
bill was the "Crime
Prevention Bill of 1994".  The media universally referred to the bill's
gun-control measures as "the assault rifle ban". Well, we (me too) thought, I
don't own or want to own any assault
rifles, so I don't have a problem with that.  But I only found out two days
before the Crime Bill passed what REALLY mattered about it to a citizen who
wants a gun for self-defense: the outlawing of magazines containing more than
10 rounds.  The day AFTER it passed, I told an
NRA member about the 10-round limit; she was flabbergasted.  Brady II
contains a bunch of flamboyant measures for protecting children from adult
negligence in gun storage; the media will probably focus on those, & give no
coverage to the financial provisions that restrict
gun accessibility to rich people.

There's a congressional election coming up in November 1994. This will be an
"off-year election"; that's an election in which a President isn't also being
elected.  In off-year
elections, the President's party almost always loses some\ seats in the
legislature, because the reality of what a political party delivers to its
constituents is never as satisfying as what they hoped for.  That means that
there will be more Republicans in Congress next year than there are
this year, & Republicans generally oppose gun control.

Sounds good, but...

On Tu 27 Sep 94 the Republican Party publicly declared that it expects to
take over both houses in the next U.S. Congress.  This expectation is widely
considered realistic, because of President Clinton's unpopularity.
 Consequently, it seems that an unusually large number of Democrats now in
Congress may see themselves as lame ducks with nothing left to lose.
 Furthermore, Republicans who voted for the Crime Bill already know for
certain that they've lost all possible
support from constituents who take full responsibility for their own
self-defense, so they too have nothing left to lose by going the rest of the
way and voting to make guns financially inaccessible to the masses; but they
have everything to gain, because the financial support of the upper classes
may make it possible for them to get re-elected in spite of losing the
self-defense vote.

I suppose a combination of distorted media coverage with a now-or-never
nothing-left-to-lose attitude could allow these bills to be slammed thru this
Congress in its last days, especially if a precipitating gun-abuse tragedy
occurs; in that event, rapid public education about the true contents of the
bills will be essential, which was one of my motives for getting this FAQ out
right away.

However, it's much more likely that all the bills will just die in committee
this year.

5) Can Brady II become law in the next Congress?
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Probably not, because there will probably be too many Republicans.

6) Then what?
   ^^^^^^^^^^

More of the same, I guess.  Clinton could be re-elected in 1996 if his
opponent is an aggressively fundamentalist Christian, & if that happens, the
Democrats will probably gain seats in both houses, altho they probably won't
get back up to current strength.  If the Republicans nominate a more
libertarian candidate, they'll probably win, but the Christians will probably
take back the Republican party eventually, & when they do, the Republicans
will lose the government. It'll be gun freedom versus abortion freedom for as
far ahead as we can see, because the Supreme Court's abortion-freedom vote is
too frail to be trusted, & could be weakened by any future
Republican presidency.




--
"Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might
dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they
were bound to get you."
                                 -- George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

------------------------------------------------
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the
Radio Free Michigan site by the archive maintainer.

 Protection of
Individual Rights and Liberties. E-mail [e-mail])