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

bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu.

------------------------------------------------



Subject: Brady II (proposed U.S. anti-gun law) FAQ

From: Will Mengarini  <mengarini@delphi.com>



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 bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)



