Message: 2 Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:56:58 -0800 (PST) From: "Joe Waldron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Wash. Post: Brady Law procedure To: "Joe Sylvester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
> > If the Brady check doesn't stop people listed on the Violent Gang and > Terrorist Organizations File, who does it stop, and what good is it?
Convicted of? Indicted by? Being named on a watchlist, in and of itself, is not a disqualifier. Yet.
I fully understand that, but the law does allow for up to 3 days to conduct additional checks, if the "instant" part of the check turns up something. This would at least give them time to put a tail on these guys, again assuming any signifigent number were on the "terrorist" watch list, rather than the "gang" or loudmouthed Constitutionlist, lists.
However my main point was that the Brady check is pretty much useless except for it intended purpose of discouraging the law abiding. Convicted criminals know they are disqualified and so do not submit themselves to the check, and would be criminals aren't in the database so they can't be stopped either.
I'm sure this release from the FBI will be used by the anti-arms rights folks to try to tighten the rules some more, maybe institute a mandatory waiting period, as existed in during the interium, handgun only, part of the Brady law.
While I've got the attention of all the legal minds on this list. I have question about the permant, all firearms, provisions of the Brady Law. Is there any evidence that the bill was "advertised" or explained as applying to all firearms in the permant phase, or is that a result of the anti arms rights folks pulling one over on us, with the beneign appearing use of the term "firearm", rather than handgun in the second part. I was following it moderately closely at the time, and I remember being surprised about that. I had occassion to look up the original bill/public law yesterday. The transition is pretty seamless between the interium and prermant sections (102 and 130, IIRC) and it's easy to see how one could think the second section applied only to handguns as the first did. Has this been challenged at a level beyond the district court? If so in which circuit?
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
