Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!usenet
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: S414 (Brady bill) loopholes?
Message-ID: <1993Apr21.152824.854@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Keywords: brady handguns s414 hr1025 hr277 instant check waiting period
Lines: 74
Sender: usenet@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Usenet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: skndiv.dseg.ti.com
Reply-To: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com
Organization: TI/DSEG VAX Support
References:  <shepardC5p2y6.GC1@netcom.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 15:28:24 GMT


In article <shepardC5p2y6.GC1@netcom.com>, shepard@netcom.com (Mark Shepard) writes:
>Hi. I've just finished reading S414, and have several questions about
>the Brady bills (S414 and HR1025).

Good!
>
>1. _Are_ these the current versions of the Brady bill?
>     What is the status of these bills?  I've heard they're "in committee".
>     How close is that to being made law?

Not very.  Thanks to the filibuster in the Senate, things are backing up.  The
House judiciary  is going to start looking at our friends from the ATF, so that
bill will be held up a little, too.  NOTE: Things can change quickly.

>
>2. S414 and HR1025 seem fairly similar.  Are there any important
>   differences I missed?
>
>3. S414 seems to have some serious loopholes:
>  A. S414 doesn't specify an "appeals" process to wrongful denial during
>     the waiting period, other than a civil lawsuit(?)  (S414 has an appeals
>     process once the required instant background check system is established,
>     but not before).

I thought there was a correction process in both bills for both parts.

>  B. the police are explicitly NOT liable for mistakes in denying/approving
>     using existing records (so who would I sue in "A" above to have an
>     inaccurate record corrected?)

Very correct.

>  C. S414 includes an exception-to-waiting-period clause for if a person
>     can convince the local Chief Law-Enforcement Officer (CLEO) of an
>     immediate threat to his or her life, or life of a household member.
>     But S414 doesn't say exactly what is considered a "threat", nor does
>     it place a limit on how long the CLEO takes to issue an exception
>     statement.

Welcome to the world of "the privileged".

>True?  Have I misunderstood?  Any other 'holes?

How about no compulsion to allow purchase if there is no evidence against?

>
>4. With just S414, what's to stop a person with a "clean" record from
>   buying guns, grinding off the serial numbers, and selling them to crooks?
>   At minimum, what additional laws are needed to prevent this?

It is already illegal to do this.

>
>   'Seems at min. a "gun counting" scheme would be needed
>   (e.g., "John Doe owns N guns").  So, if S414 passes, I wouldn't be surprised
>   to see legislation for stricter, harder-to-forge I.D.'s plus national gun
>   registration, justified by a need to make the Brady bill work.

This is the "health" card.  Or so some "paranoids" claim.  I say that just
because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.   :-) 1/2

>
>Please comment.  I'm mainly interested in specific problems with the current
>legislation--I don't mean to start a general discussion of the merits
>of any/all waiting-period bills ever proposed.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |

