Brady Law Falsehoods
The Brady law has received much credit for the country's rapidly dropping crime rate. Yet with the Supreme Court striking down the laws background check requirements, it faces its ultimate test. If gun control advocates are correct, the court's decision will unleash a new crime wave.
The Justice Department continually releases "new" studies crediting the law with reducing crime. Actually, the downward crime trend started in 1991, well before the Brady law became effective in March 1994. My research shows that this decline is in great measure because of higher arrest rates and more states allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns.
Others estimate that the Brady bill had a much smaller effect on gun sales than the 100,000 rejections its proponents claim. Last year the General Accounting Office reported that initial rejections numbered about 60,000, and more than half were for purely technical reasons, mostly paperwork errors that eventually were corrected. A much smaller number of rejections, 3,000, were due to violent crime convictions--and presumably many of these people just proceeded to buy a gun on the street.
Brady law backers have focused almost exclusively on the value of background checks, the one part of the law that the Supreme Court specifically struck down. Yet there never was much controversy over this issue: When Congress debated the law, no one, not even the National Rifle Assn., opposed background checks. The dispute was over a five-day waiting period versus an "instant check." Ultimately, the success of background checks and waiting periods must be judged by their impact on crime. To seriously evaluate their impacts, however, one must recognize that other legal changes also occurred.
For example, during 1995 and 1996, 10 more states adopted nondiscretionary concealed handgun laws. In the belief that concealed handguns deter crime, 31 states now grant permits automatically to citizens who have no significant criminal records or histories of major mental illness. In all 31 states, more people now carry legally concealed handguns.
Considerable evidence supports the notion that permitted handguns deter criminals. Polls show that there are at least 760,000 and possibly as many as 3.6 million defensive uses of guns per year. In 98% of the cases, people simply brandish weapons to stop attacks. This is further reflected in the different rates of "hot burglaries," where a resident is at home when a criminal strikes. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun control laws, almost half of all burglaries are "hot.
The two filed separate claims challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act’s provision that used congressional action to compel state officers to execute Federal law. The NRA stood behind them, stating that this provision violated the 10th Amendment. However, instead of just arguing for the removal of the provision, the NRA argued that the whole law must be voided. This argument contradicted prior claims from the NRA that they did, in fact, support background checks. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled to remove the portion of the Brady Law that required local police to conduct background checks as it was an unconstitutional mandate. The rest of the law remained in place
Right now, the U.S. has a National Instant Background Check System; however, it contains many flaws. This system is meant to act as a filter to stop the wrong people from having guns. In 2007, the Bipartisan legislation was passed to strengthen this system. It relies on data supplied by the states, but the data is often incomplete and inadequate (Merino 104). Unlicensed gun sellers have also created a dangerous loophole. The law makes an exception for gun sellers who aren’t federally licensed gun dealers. These sellers sell guns informally through venues such as gun shows, and are not required to run background checks. This is a dangerous loophole where people who should not have guns can get them (“Gun”). Senator Frank R. Lautenberg once stated, commenting on the gun sh...
The creation of more legislation is not necessarily going to cause homicide crime to decline as our opponents would hope you to believe. The Brady act throughout all its intentions and safeguards is not flawless. The Brady act catches individuals convicted of felonies; however violent offenders who may not have officially been labeled felons are excluded during background checks due to their lack of conviction. For instance, a person may be formally charged and going through legal proceeding, but still potentially capable of passing a criminal background check. This is also the case for individuals released on bail awaiting trial unless specifically ordered by the judge to not posses firearms.
Violence and crimes are growing in number and affecting American society. By reinforcing background checks we could reduce crimes and limit easy gun access to mentally ill people. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is a database where the names of people that have committed a misdemeanor, are mentally ill or drug abusers is kept to prevent them from attaining guns. Most criminals buy guns from unlicensed sellers at gun shows that don’t do properly background checks through the NICS, making it easier from criminals to purchase firearms. Another problem is missing records or information that was not reported to the background check system. Better background checks could reduce crime and gun violence in America.
There have been many different gun control laws proposed in the past few years. One of the most recent and controversial ones has been the Brady Bill. The Brady Bill represented the first comprehensive, federal gun control in twenty-five years. The Brady Bill is an effective way of gun control with its background checks and five-day waiting period.
Although the Second Amendment prevents the federal government from completely banning guns in America, limited restrictions are allowed on the distribution and possession of firearms. Certain groups of people such as criminals, the mentally unstable, and soldiers dishonorably discharged from the military are prohibited from possessing or interacting with firearms (Flynn). These restrictions are enforced by background checks in some states on both a state and federal level. However, gun laws vary from state to state and are often not thorough enough; the background checks are flawed due to lack of information and misinformation, and guns can easily end up in the hands of criminals and malevolent individuals. The ease of obtaining a firearm in America fosters crime and a dangerous environment. Hence, the Second Amendment should be reinterpreted so that stricter gun laws can be implemented because modern citizens do not require guns, current background checks are flawed, gun...
Moorhouse, J.C. and Brent Wanner. “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?” Cato Journal, 26(1), (2006): 103-124. ProQuest. Web. 30 Nov. 2015.
In the United States of America, there is much debate about the effectiveness and practicality of concealed firearms. Many citizens today are trying to support their claim with old, outdated evidence and targeted research to attempt to prove a point, but can not escape the truth. Although Concealed firearms may sound appealing to reduce crime rates and stop violence, new evidence suggests otherwise. Recently there has been trends of certain lunatics who own guns that decide to shoot innocent people, justifying the need for more strict gun control laws. The purpose of this paper is to educate and inform about the immensely important topic of concealed firearms, with focus on what effect it has on society and crime rates. We will go over modern
Jacobs, James B., and Kimberly A. Potter. "Keeping Guns out of the ‘Wrong’ Hands: The Brady Law and the Limits of Regulation." The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 86.1 (1995): 93-120. Print.
Gun control activists claim that banning handgun purchases will reduce murder and other gun related crimes. However, cases where handguns were declared illegal were shown to be ineffective. During the years in which the Washington, D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law were in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower (Agresti and Smith). Not only in Washington, D.C. was this banning of guns unsuccessful, but also in Chicago. Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect (Agresti and Smith). Chicago has recently been named the nation’s murder capital by the FBI and had about as many murders in 2012 as the entire country of Japan, further demonstrating how these ordinances are ineffective. More than 8.5 million Americans legally carry concealed handguns, yet only at a rate of less of 1% do they commit fire...
Justin King once stated that “The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing”. The United Kingdom tried a 15 year ban of guns and all it did was increase the rate of crimes. From 1990 until the ban was put into work the homicide rate went from 10.9 to 13 per million. After the ban was there for a while the homicides reached to 18.0 in 2003. In the same year the UK flooded the country with over 20,00 cops so the homicide rates would decrease. John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, gun rights activist, once said that "The problem with such [gun control] laws is that they take away guns from law-abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them”. While the country takes its time to check and take away every gun that is legal and ignore the fact that just like there are legal guns there are illegal guns as well. Taking away the legal gun would be like unarming everyone to be useless when the time to defend themselves comes.
Guns, Crime, and Freedom states that, no gun law which restricts the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns has been proven to reduce crime or homicides, not even the Brady Law and the “Clinton Crime Bill.” These two laws st...
Crime and guns. The two seem to go hand in hand with one another. But are the two really associated? Do guns necessarily lead to crime? And if so do laws placing restrictions on firearm ownership and use stop the crime or protect the citizens? These are the questions many citizens and lawmakers are asking themselves when setting about to create gun control laws. The debate over gun control, however, is nothing new. In 1924, Presidential Candidate, Robert La Follete said, “our choice is not merely to support or oppose gun control but to decide who can own which guns under what conditions.” Clearly this debate still goes on today and is the very reason for the formation of gun control laws.
Moderate amount of gun regulation is necessary. Federal back ground checks go a long way in making it difficult for criminals, violent offenders, or mentally disabled individuals from obtaining guns. There are currently almost 310 million guns in possession of civilians in the United States (Krouse, William J. 2012. ‘How Many Guns Are in the United States?’). Restricting lawful gun ownership as a solution to reduce gun crime is highly counter-productive. Criminals will get a gun regardless of the law, and simply restricting g...
“Their best defense against injury is to put no defense and give them what they want” (Kates). Critics may argue that concealed handguns are not an effective form of self defense. To the contrary, robbery and assault victims who used a gun were less likely to be attacked or suffer injury, “Neither a martial art skills nor chemical sprays provide a real option for victims faced by attackers who are stronger or armed” (Kates). People feel safer when they carry a concealed weapon because they feel that criminals will avoid attacking them. Citizens want to conceal carry a handgun because every day there are dangerous individuals who prey on the weak. In addition to that, concealed handguns are an effective non-lethal form of self defense a majority of the time. Gary Kleck from the Federal Bureau of Investigation “estimated that, 2 million to 2.5 million victims annually use handguns to repel criminal attackers” (Kates). The surprise of being armed is the advantage for the victim, which the victim has the disadvantage of knowing the time and place of being attacked. Concealed carry actually provides protection to citizens that do not carry because the criminals are not sure who is able to defend themsel...