The first major anti-gun bill of the new Pelosi-led Congress has already been introduced, and it could prove to be the most serious threat yet to Second Amendment Rights.Naw. We got nothin' to worry about.
On the first full day of the new Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced H.R. 297, the most massive expansion of the Brady law since it passed in 1993. This is a bill that was quashed last year but under the new Pelosi House leadership, the Bill has a higher likelihood of getting passed this time.
Conducting Talk Show interviews on this topic is Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, the nation’s second largest gun group.
Right?
Oh, and Larry? All that talk about the dangers of expanding NICS? I know you know about this.
Mr. Kopel, if you bellieve that the 2A survived the election relatively intact, I have a deed to the Golden Gate Bridge I'm selling cheap! You interested?
ReplyDeleteI still can't figure out why the NRA actually supports this abomination. I no longer have especially high expectations of the NRA, but this is sheer perfidy.
ReplyDeleteThis article got me to thinking about the Lautenburg Act and its Ex Post Facto reach. Does anyone know how this bill can be the law of the land when the Constitution expressly prohibits the same? Has it been challenged in the courts yet? Any information would be helpful.
ReplyDeleteI'm also curious as to why GOA hasn't embraced BIDS. I don't doubt that they believe that it would be preferrable to do away completely with a list of "prohibited persons" (I agree), but that's not going to happen--so let's fight for something that can be achieved.
ReplyDeleteGOA hasn't embraced BIDS because they're opposed to background checks:
ReplyDeleteFor years, GOA has stood virtually alone in opposing the Brady instant check. Because it is supported by many "pro-gun" politicians and other groups, it is helpful to revisit why GOA opposes this legislation, and why it is a threat to the very core of the Second Amendment. But first, a brief history.
...
But the federalization of crime is not the only problem that comes with a background check. It is blatantly unconstitutional to require citizens to first have to receive the government's permission before being "allowed" to exercise their Second Amendment rights. The instant check turns our "right" into a "privilege."
The Second Amendment states, in part, that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That means no waiting periods, no background checks (a prior restraint), and no taxes, fees or bans. Clearly, this amendment protects against any infringement on the rights of individual citizens -- a protection which is undoubtedly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they referred to "the people."
...
To be sure, honest gun owners should not have to request permission from, or prove their innocence to, the government before exercising a constitutionally guaranteed right -- any more than a preacher or journalist should have to prove his worthiness before exercising his First Amendment rights.
Any scheme that violates this principle is just plain wrong. The Brady Instant Check forces law-abiding gun owners to first get permission from government officials before exercising their rights. This kind of infringement would not be tolerated by defenders of the First Amendment. Neither should it be tolerated by Second Amendment advocates.
I can't disagree, Eric. Neither can Russ Howard or Brian Puckett, who devised BIDS. We have all said much the same thing, and decried any form of prior restraint.
ReplyDeleteBut background checks exist. And they include recording information on the buyer. And right now, you, I, GOA and everybody else is pretty much powerless to stop them. That's just a fact, and I don't like it any better than you.
But I don't think, since you weighed in, that it's unfair to ask what is GOA's plan for eliminating background checks? Majority rule democracy?
The thing about BIDS is it adds absolutely nothing to the existing gun control mix, and actually eliminates quite a lot, including the personalized information that WILL be exploited--count on it.
Do you deny that?
If you and GOA can give us a plan to follow that will do a better job of eliminating those dangers than BIDS, I'll be behind you 100%. If you don't have such a plan, then we who are trying to devise alternate escape routes deserve to know that, too.
Eric, again, I don't WANT BIDS. It's just in the absence of anything else, it can't be argued that it would not be an incremental improvement over our current lot, something my critics have all too frequently accused me of being unreceptive to.
And pragmatically, no, I don't believe there's the political will to even do this--implement BIDS, that is. My prediction is we will see an expansion of NICS to include a permanent automated registry.
I think the time to discuss BIDS as an alternative was years back when Russ and Brian first proposed it.
"And pragmatically, no, I don't believe there's the political will to even do this--implement BIDS, that is. My prediction is we will see an expansion of NICS to include a permanent automated registry.
ReplyDeleteI think the time to discuss BIDS as an alternative was years back when Russ and Brian first proposed it."
Sadly, I fear you are absolutely right in that grim assessment.
If BIDS stands for Bullets In Direct Support, I'm all for it.
ReplyDeleteMy elected representatives are Kucinich, Sherrod Brown, and George Voinovich. Is there any point in writing Commucinich or Brown?
ReplyDeleteI'll write Voinovich, but even that is barely worth the wear and tear on the synapses and my typing fingers.
Oldsmoblogger, I stopped writing my reps many years ago--Feinstein, Boxer, Harman--what's the point? I suspect they get off on such letters--it stokes their godhood to hear pleas, and if I told them what's really on my mind I'd expect a visit from their enforcers.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the delay in replying David.
ReplyDeleteOh, I agree with what you're saying. BIDS is definitely a better alternative to NICS, and GOA (and any other group for that matter) can use only the legislative process to get rid of background checks. What else could they do?
To be honest, I don't think reforming NICS will have a huge effect. As long as the Gun Control Act of 1968 sticks around, NICS is really just a supplement to it.
Guns have really been registered with the feds since '68:
The dealer must keep the Form 4473 for twenty years and is subject to inspection by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF or just ATF). The dealer also records all information from the form 4473 into his bound-book. A dealer must keep this log the entire time he is in business and is required to surrender the log to the ATF upon retirement from the firearms business.
So even if we do get rid of NICS, we still have the 4473s and bound books to deal with. And like the BIDS article says, the ATF already has hundreds of millions of microfilm images of those gun records. NICS to me just makes registration a little bit easier. Without NICS it's inconvenient, but they can still do it.
Two things worry me about BIDS. Let's say we do get BIDS implemented. NICS is a thing of the past. But you and me (and probably everyone else who reads this blog regularly) don't want any background checks. Just imagine the anti-gunners howling about this: gun rights extremists don't want any checks; they fought for a system that they said would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and not pose a risk to gun owners, with their paranoia about registering guns. And now they don't even want this common sense/reasonable/sane gun law!
I fear this will appeal to the fence sitters. Put yourself in their shoes. I'm guessing every one of them believes certain classes of people shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Violent felons for one. And here we have a system that gun owners told us it would prevent unqualified persons from buying guns, and the law-abiding gun owners can sleep easier at night knowing their info isn't registered with the government. And they want to get rid of this system? That's crazy!
My other concern was that even if we do get BIDS, it can easily pave the way for NICS to return. The infrastructure for it already exists. Granted, it's not perfect for NICS, but going from BIDS to NICS is easier than going from nothing to NICS.
Anti-gunners in legislatures come and go, but when they're present they could easily exploit BIDS to pursue their gun-hating agenda. They could introduce a bill saying, hey, we need to toughen our gun laws to fight gun crime, and I have a way. It won't even cost that much. We already have the system for it, all we need to do is make a few changes to it. All gun purchases will be registered now. Only criminals should be afraid. After all, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear!
Don't get me wrong—if I had to choose between NICS and BIDS, I'd go with BIDS. I'd have to be a fool not to. But I think we'd be better off if we persuade people to go straight from NICS to nothing, rather than to BIDS and then nothing.
Compromise is slowly killing us. Just imagine if those millions of NRA members were more like GOA's or JPFO's. If they were, this conversation might not even exist.
Again, Eric, no disagreement here with anything you've said, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your arguments.
ReplyDeleteI happen to believe it's all a moot point though, what you want and what I want, and the only way that will change is through events that will astonish us all.