Enacted November 30th, 1993
P.L. 103-159, H.R. 103-1025, Stat. 107-1536
-Put up by Trey W. Period 2
Full text of the Bill
Senate Vote Summary
• http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00394
Stage 1
What sparked the bill?
• Starts with Reagan assasination attempt.
Tip from Mrs. Librarian--if you want to create a hotlink for a word rather than have the whole web address showing, type a bracket, then the website url, then one space, then the word that you want to be the link, then a second bracket.
Resources:
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)
-Major Acts of Congress (off Gale datatbase)
• Open for Debate: Gun Control
-Author: Susan Dudley Gold
• Gun checks begin today;
Last phase of Brady Act criticized
-Lexis Nexis
Stage 2
Stage 3
A report made by The Brady Center to Prevent gun Violence in September 2006:
Is ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) overzealous in its inspections and oversight of Federal gun dealers? Or, to tbe contrary, does ATF actually need stronger enforcement powers to crack down on gun dealers who violate the law? it's an Adobe File:
http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/trival0violations.pdf
-- Group 1, Period 7
Stage 4
THE SUPREME COURT:
Excerpts From High Court's Decision on the Brady Handgun-Control Law
-Lexis Nexis
Why the Brady Law Is Constitutional (By Kathleen M. Sullivan)
-Lexis Nexis
Maine Case Shows Both Sides of '94 Gun Law
-Lexis Nexis
Printz v. United States
The U.S. Supreme Court decrees that forcing state officers to conform to federal law is unconstitutional. Thus the criminal background checks were discontinued temporarily.
-Lexis Nexis
-Put up by Trey W. Period 2
-Good job Trey! Mrs Phelps
The Brady Law today
from
The five day waiting period for handgun purchases expired on November 30, 1998 and was replaced by a computerized criminal background check prior to any firearm purchase from a dealer holding a Federal Firearms License (FFL). All FFL holders must now verify the identity of a customer and receive authorization from the National Instant Check System (NICS) which usually takes only a matter of minutes instead of the previously required waiting period.
Unless an exception applies or the purchase is being made using an approved alternative method, Brady Law requires that background checks for individuals be conducted before a firearm may be purchased from a person holding an FFL. Unless there are additional state restrictions the firearm may be taken upon NICS approval. Purchases from a non-FFL seller are not subject to the Brady Law but may be covered under other federal, state (usually) and local (rarely) restrictions. This distinction prevails without regard to the locus of the sale. Thus FFL sales at gun shows are still subject to NICS approval while private sales are not. The so-called "Gun Show Loophole" would be more accurately called a "Private Sale Loophole."
The Brady Law does not apply to licensed Curios & Relics (C&R) collectors but only in respect to C&R firearms 1. The FFL Category 03 Curio & Relic license costs $30 and is valid for 3 years. Licensed C&R collectors may also purchase C&R firearms from private individuals or from federal firearms dealers, whether in their home state or in another state and ship C&R firearms in interstate commerce by common carrier. Curios or relics are defined in 27 CFR 478.11 as "Firearms which are of special interest to collectors by reason of some quality other than is associated with firearms intended for sporting use or as offensive or defensive weapons." The regulation further states "To be recognized as curios or relics, firearms must fall within one of the following categories:
(a) Firearms which were manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, but not including replicas thereof;
(b) Firearms which are certified by the curator of a municipal, State, or Federal museum which exhibits firearms to be curios or relics of museum interest; and
(c) Any other firearms which derive a substantial part of their monetary value from the fact that they are novel, rare, bizarre, or because of their association with some historical figure, period, or event. Proof of qualification of a particular firearm under this category may be established by evidence of present value and evidence that like firearms are not available except as collector's items, or that the value of like firearms available in ordinary commercial channels is substantially less."
Added by Allie
The bill was passed by the United States Congress, signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 30, 1993, and went into effect on February 28, 1994. The act was named after James Brady, who was shot by John Hinckley, Jr. during an attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981.
From Gun Control: The Pros and Cons by Tom Streissguth
Imposed a national five-day waiting period for a gun purchase. Law required "instant" background checks on gun purchasers to begin in Novermber 1998, when a national compeuterized database would be set up. Also increased license fees for gun dealers. The law states that a person with a felony conviction, with a mental illness, or a record of domestic violence may not buy a gun. After the passage of the Brady Bill, another gun-control bill was proposed called the Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994 (Brady II). This law has yet to be passed. It would require a license and fingerprinting to buy a handgun, would set up national registration of gun transfers, would require a special license to own more than one thousand rounds of ammunition, and would limit gun sales to one per month for any individual, ban more varieties of semiautomatic assault weapons and allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers and sellers. (pg. 39)
Added by: Callie, Chris, Andy, and Damon (5th period)
Stage Four
“The Brady Law does not require law enforcement agencies to acompile or maintain records on the aggregate number of applications or denials, but voluntary reporting gives some indications of the law’s effectiveness. On Feb. 28, 1995, Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police released the results of a survey of 115 law enforcement agencies that showed that during the first year of the Brady Law those 115 agencies conducted 572,224 background checks and denied 19,098 for a denial rate of 3.34%
A Follow-up telephone survey conducted by HCI collected the 1995 data for 22 law enforcement agencies in 15 states. The aggregate totals showed:
• 470,470 background checks conducted;
• 14,925 denials;
• 3.17% denial rate.
Clearly, thousands of ineligible purchasers are being prevented from buying handguns from gun dealers. The Colorado Department of Public Safety, for example, stopped 1324 persons charged with or convicted of a violent felony offense from purchasing handguns during 1995 and 1,657 persons charged with or convicted of non-violent felonies.”pg.155
“An examination on the effectiveness of the Brady Law (which instituted a national waiting period and the option of a police background check for handgun sales from licensed gun dealers) at its first year’s anniversary (Feb 28, 1995) has raised some questions about its usefulness as a crime-fighting measure.
As noted by the NRA, a report issued by Attorney General Janet Reno showed the five-day national waiting period has netted only four federal prosecutions of prohibited persons attempting to purchase a firearm. Under the Clinton Administration, federal prosecutions of armed criminals have plummeted 23%.” pg.158
from Gun Control: Opposing Points
It was a nasty wound for gun-control advocates--and an unexpected bull's-eye for handgun enthusiasts. A study published last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association found no evidence that the 1994 Brady law--which required a waiting period and background checks-- has helped reduce homicide rates. The study compared 18 states and the District of Columbia, which had Brady-style regulations already in place, with 32 states that implemented the new law. The survey found no difference in murder rates, although it did show a reduction in gun suicides by people 55 and older.
The authors fear the 1998 elimination of the five-day purchase hold, and its replacement by a nationwide instant-check system, will lead to more suicides.
-from U.S. News and World Report, Inc. as found on E-books under the title "Taking aim at the Brady law"
(Full Text :COPYRIGHT 2000 U.S. News and World Report, Inc.)
-Posted by Trey W. period 2
"The Legislation was named after James S. Brady, press secretary to President Ronald Reagan, who was severely wounded during an assassination attempt on the president in 1981."
From the book ENCYCLOPEDIA OF GUN CONTROL AND GUN RIGHTS
by Glenn H. Utter
you should check it out...
-posted by Kate Maxwell period 2
Stages 3 and 4
Problems with Conceptualization of the Act
"The major flaw with the act is that the law cannot do what it was intended to do. This is not to say that the act does not have merit, but rather that it was not conceptualized from an application perspective before it was drafted. Significant implications of the legislation do not seem to have been considered.
As written, the Brady Act restricts nine classifications of individuals from purchasing handguns: those who are under indictment for or are convicted of a felony; fugitives from justice; unlawful users of or those addicted to a controlled substance; and those adjudicated as mental defectives or committed to a mental institution; illegal aliens; those who have dishonorable discharges from the military; those who have renounced their United States citizenship; those who are subject to a restraining order or have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Most people would argue that substance abusers, persons that are the subject to domestic violence restraining orders, the mentally infirm and felons should not have ready access to over-the-counter handguns. The policy has face validity; however, its provisions are problematic. How does a free society identify the individuals who fall into the restricted classifications? To implement the law, law enforcement personnel must be able to identify these people when they do a background check. But how do they do this?
As an example of the problems involved in identifying individuals for the purposes of the law’s enforcement, I shall discuss in particular the category of those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. In Alaska, the Superior Court determines whether a person shall be involuntarily committed. One might think that all that would be needed is for the court system to create a data base on involuntarily-committed individuals which law enforcement agencies could then access. However, even if it were possible for the court system to create a new data base and enter and delete information on a regular basis, identifying individuals would still be problematic. First, state and federal statutes limit access to such information. For example,. 42 USC 9501(H) states that the mentally ill have “the right to confidentiality of such ... records.” This barrier to access also applies to law enforcement agencies. In addition, the Alaska Constitution (Art I, sec 22) guarantees a right to privacy, and the guarantee is supplemented more specific Alaska statutes pertaining to confidentiality of certain personal records.
A second issue which arises is that this classification only pertains to people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. In Alaska, if a person is involuntarily committed to a mental institution and, at any time thereafter, elects to change his institutional classification from involuntary to voluntary, he is legally eligible to do so. As soon as a person changes the commitment status from involuntary to voluntary, the involuntary commitment records are expunged. Such a person would not be subject to the Brady restrictions upon release because the status of commitment would be voluntary and not involuntary.
As complicated as the issue of tracking involuntary mental commitments is, it pales when compared to the problems presented by other restricted classifications.
To identify individuals in the nine restricted classifications on anything more than an occasional basis would require intrusive measures. Federal and state laws would have to be modified to allow for the capture and retention of information on individuals in the restricted groups. This could only be done at tremendous cost – both monetary and social – with the potential loss of freedoms and privacy."
Problems with Administration of the Policy
"The writers of the Brady Act and others at the federal level do not appear to have supported participatory management in drafting the act. There was little, if any, input from those at the state level who would implement it. The who, how, why, what and when seem to have been decided upon by those who would not have any hands-on responsibility. This shortcoming is where the Brady Act really appears to have broken down.
One major problem with the implementation of the Brady Act in Alaska has been a dearth of training. Exactly what each of the nine categories means and the exact criteria for disqualification were generally either not understood or misunderstood by individuals at the state level responsible for doing actual background checks. Some Alaska agencies have stated that the federal government left them to their own devices in interpreting the legislation. The failure to assure that everyone was properly trained at the outset of the program, as discussed in the accompanying article “The Brady Act in Alaska,” meant that everyone involved in the implementation of the policy began on a different footing.
"Planning, as a future-oriented management function, is perhaps the most cerebral aspect of management. If legislation such as Brady is to be effective and efficient in assisting us in dealing with issues such as interpersonal violence and homicides, it needs to be more thoroughly thought out prior to its codification, and everyone involved needs to be adequately trained in every aspect of its implementation."
Stage 3 and 4 (court case)
Stage 2 and 3 (Q&A)
All Stages
http://www.politicalscience.utoledo.edu/faculty/davis/gun.htm
POLICY CYCLE: Charles O. Jones (5-7) identifies four steps to policy approach: agenda building, policy formulation, implementation, and evaluation. This is similar to the "outrage-action-reaction" cycle presented by Robert Singh regarding gun control policy (293).
Agenda Building: The first stage of the Jones cycle resembles the "outrage" stage of the Singh cycle. Gun control is put on the agenda because of influence from the public and powerful interest groups, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA). Public support for gun control is strongest when there are large increases in crime, or when assassinations occur or are attempted (Singh 289). Evidence of this fact can be seen through the acts passed in the 1930s due to a crime increase and the 1968 law passed because of public concern with assassinations.
Another example is the Brady Bill, which was inspired by the attempted assassination on Ronald Reagan in 1981. The assassin also wounded his press secretary, James Brady, who never recovered from severe brain damage, and remains horribly afflicted. Finally, the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 spawned anxiety about so called militias and even caused some opponents of gun control to change their minds about a repeal of the Assault Weapons Ban. In that instance, the NRA had enough influence for the repeal to be passed. The NRA is a very powerful lobby and the primary interest group concerned with gun control. It is opposed to any form of gun control and endorses all bills that will minimize regulation. In the above cases, gun control was an agenda due to public "outrage" over gun problems, and the NRA's "outrage" over talk of restricting gun ownership.
Policy Formulation: This second stage of Jones' policy approach is what Singh would call the "action" stage. At this stage, Congress must decide on a policy towards the issue at hand. The legislators are highly influenced by constituent groups and see only two options for a course of action. The first is to support regulatory measures, thereby antagonizing the NRA who will alert voters who oppose gun control. The second option is to side with the NRA and face criticism from the White House and other elite groups, but lose few, if any votes (293). Unfortunately for advocates, most politicians choose the second option for reasons made obvious by the 1994 elections. Of the thirty-four Democrat House incumbents defeated in the election, twenty-nine had voted for the Assault Weapons Ban and lost their seats to NRA backed challengers. The challengers repealed the law. The NRA disproportionately supported Republicans due to the Democrats' support of the ban. One of the reasons gun control measures are so difficult to pass is because of the power of the NRA. The fault in the system is that policy proposals are created for political advantage rather than practicality.
Policy Implementation: According to Jones, the bureaucracy is responsible for policy implementation. Singh sees gun control policy implementation as being based on the reactions of the public and interest groups. According to William Vizzard, "Interest groups react to and are shaped by policy implementation which they use to advance their efforts toward organization and, ultimately, policy formulation (342)." There is a type of "iron triangle" formed by the ongoing conflict of advocate and opponent groups combined with both Congress and the bureaucracy avoiding the issue (346). Whoever has the most influence will prevail in implementing policy, and it is most often the NRA.
It is because of the NRA's influence that agencies, such as the ATF, now ignore gun control. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is one of the only bureaus actively involved in implementing gun control policy. The most recent move is the imposition of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System on November 30, 1998. This replaced the five-day waiting period of the unconstitutional Brady Bill and will be monitored by the FBI. A gun tax was proposed to finance the background checks and was backed by the FBI, but was defeated due to intense lobbying by the NRA. With the exception of the new legislation, the bureaucracy chooses to have an extremely limited role in the implementation of gun control policy.
Policy Evaluation: Singh does not include an evaluation stage, as Jones does, because in his opinion gun control policy rarely lasts long enough to be evaluated. Laws involving gun control are constantly being modified or repealed through court cases, primarily due to challenges by the NRA. Jones writes that Congressional Committees are responsible for policy evaluation. In the area of gun control, it has been nearly twenty years since any committee has given attention to a proposal (Vizzard 344). It is in this respect that gun control deviates from other policy areas.
PUBLICS AND GUN CONTROL: The theory of pluralism illuminates gun control. According to William Johnson (216-229), the government assumes the role of a regulator strongly influenced by interest groups through prominent legislators, and by the public through polls, petitions, and voting. An example of the former is a statement made by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich assuring the NRA that no gun control measure would pass under his speakership. Besides this direct influence in Congress, the NRA is able to mold public attitudes, language, and culture (Vizzard 344). With three million members, the NRA is more powerful than most other interest groups. According to opinion polls, most Americans see regulation as sensible, but despite the majority opinion, however, opponents have been able to restrict options and impact implementation strategy. By stressing the importance of property rights and individual liberty, the NRA has helped create, in Singh's words, a general passion for guns in America (290).
Although polling shows no majority has supported a complete ban of private gun ownership since 1959, decisive majorities favor strong measures of regulation through registration, licensing, and a waiting period (Singh 291). Advocates are gaining some ground. The NRA has been losing support from some legislators, police organizations, and other former allies due to its absolutist stance. These groups disapprove the NRA opposition to laws banning plastic guns incapable of detection by security machines, and armor-piercing bullets. Advocates of control are also gaining strength by an increase in membership and power of pro control interest groups, such as Handgun Control Inc. Finally, changes in electoral laws limiting the influence interest groups have on campaigns weakens the NRA's strategy and gives more hope to advocates (Singh 294-295).
posted by Allie Hausladen Prd. 3
STAGE 4
"Prior to its passage, 32 states had no system of background checks for gun purchasers easing the way for guns to be funneled into the illegal market. Before the law took effect, a felon could walk into a gun store, sign a form stating that he or she has never been convicted of a felony, and buy a gun. The criminal's felony record would not be discovered because the form would simply get filed away by the gun dealer.
Brady closed the "lie and buy" loophole and research has shown the law had an immediate, disruptive impact on interstate gun trafficking affecting the supply of guns available in the criminal market. Initially applying only to handgun purchases, today the background check is conducted as part of all retail gun purchases.
By analyzing crime data from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports for 1990 through 1998, the Center determined that the proportion of violent crimes committed with firearms rose steadily through 1993 suggesting that more crime victims were murdered than would have been predicted by changes in the crime rate. In 1994, however, coinciding with the implementation of Brady, the trend reversed and gun-related crime has been dropping faster than the violent crime rate ever since. The Center used this information to estimate the number of lives saved since Brady took effect – not because the crime rate was falling, but because the percentage of violent crimes committed with guns was falling.
The results of this analysis provide compelling evidence that the Brady Law is saving lives by taking guns out of crime: from 1994 through 1998, an estimated 9,368 fewer people died than expected because the percentage of robberies and assaults committed with firearms fell each year after reaching a peak of 42.4% of robberies and 25.1% of aggravated assaults in 1993. Furthermore, from 1991 through 1993, an estimated 3,105 more people lost their lives in gun-related crime than expected because the proportion of assaults and robberies that involved guns increased each year from 1990 through 1993.
At a news conference on March 2, 2000, President Bill Clinton said, "The Brady Bill is saving people's lives and keeping guns out of the wrong hands." Since the Brady Law was enacted, the U.S. Department of Justice periodically releases the number of prohibited purchasers who have been denied a gun thanks to background checks. In the five years of Brady covered by this study, that number was estimated to be 320,000 and has since grown to 500,000 denials. Clearly the Brady Law is keeping guns out of the wrong hands. This report presents for the first time powerful evidence that the Law is actually saving lives."
posted by Mai Damianov P3
(Mai, what is this source for this article???)
STAGE 4
Traffic Stop: How the Brady Act Disrupts Interstate Gun Trafficking
Executive Summary
"Interstate gun trafficking occurs, in part, because of the disparity in state laws governing the sale of firearms. As a result, the illegal market price of firearms in localities with restrictive laws is significantly greater than the retail price for the same guns purchased in states in which the laws are less stringent. A change in the relative disparity in laws can, therefore, have an impact on gun trafficking patterns. The notion here is that the lack of control over the retail sale of handguns in some states makes it possible for individuals, who are willing to engage in interstate gun trafficking, to profit from the price differences for guns across state lines.
Prior to implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (PL 103-159) ("Brady" or "Brady Act") in February 1994, there were 32 states - many of which had been identified as important source states for gun traffickers - that did not require, by statute, that a background check be conducted prior to the completion of the sale of a handgun to determine whether receipt or possession of a handgun by the purchaser would be in violation of law. Consequently, there was a disparity in state gun laws between the 32 states that did not require background checks and the 28 that did which could enable gun trafficking to occur.
The interim provisions of the Brady Act required that licensed gun dealers notify the designated Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) for the purchaser's residence of the proposed sale of a handgun, and that the CLEO make a "reasonable effort" to ascertain within five business days whether the buyer's receipt or possession of a handgun would be in violation of law. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that implementation of the Brady Act would have an impact on gun trafficking patterns. Specifically, that states which did not require background checks for handgun purchases prior to Brady (that is, Brady states) would become less important as sources of illegally trafficked firearms after the Act took effect.
Data utilized in the analysis come from the firearms trace database compiled by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). The focus on gun trafficking between four source states (Ohio, Kentucky, Mississippi and Georgia) - each of which was a Brady state - and seven recipient states (Michigan, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Maryland, and New Jersey) - all of which required background checks prior to implementation of the law except for Pennsylvania which had a two day waiting period in place. We analyzed the data to determine if the percentage of recovered crime guns recovered in each of the recipient states that were traced back to the four source states was smaller for the subset of guns purchased after Brady took effect than it was for guns purchased prior to implementation of the law.
In all cases, the finding was the same: the percentage of recovered crime guns that were traced to dealers in the four Brady states was greater for guns purchased before the Act took effect when compared to guns purchased after the Act took effect. In other words, implementation of the Brady Act disrupted established flow of guns across state lines, resulting in Brady states becoming less important as source states for gun traffickers.
On June 27, 1997, the United States Supreme Court invalidated the background check requirement of the interim provisions of Brady while leaving the waiting period intact. Conclusions drawn from this study suggest that policy makers should push for voluntary compliance with the background check requirement of Brady in every jurisdiction in the country as a way to help control illegal interstate gun trafficking."
posted by Mai Damianov P3
The Bill
Articles
Effect on the Industry
Time Magazine article
Stage Four
“The effectiveness of the Brady Act has been a matter of debate. Supporters, including Pres. Bill Clinton, have claimed that thousands of purchases have been prevented because of the background check requirement. However, others note that the act is a limited measure that requires enhancement through passage of additional provisions. Gun supporter doubt the effectiveness of the legislation, questioning the accuracy of claims about the prevention of purchases and noting that few prosecutions have occurred under the law. However, gun advocates have perhaps neglected the potential deterrent effect of the law. Most of those who are disqualified from purchasing firearms may not try to make a legal purchase. Gun rights advocates respond that such people receive weapons from alternative sources, thus nullifying any beneficial effect the legislation might achieve, while still inconveniencing law-abiding citizens.
"Some gun control organizations, such as the Violence Policy Center (VPC), as nearly as critical of the Brady Act as gun rights groups, claiming that the legislation is ineffective. They contend that the best way to limit gun violence is to institute a general ban on handguns. Such a proposal confirms the fears of pro-gun organizations, which claim that more moderate gun control measures must be resisted because the logic of gun control leads inevitably to more extreme proposals. Any compromise on gun control will lead inexorably to greater pressure to compromise further. Given that gun ownership is considered a basic constitutional right, compromise appears very ominous to gun advocates. Gun rights advocated express concern about the increase in federal firearms legislation, beginning especially in the 1940s…”
Encyclopedia of Gun Control and Gun Rights by Glenn H. Utter
Arizona says that the bill is unconstitutional..
According to Wikipedia..
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States was a United States Supreme Court ruling that established the unconstitutionality of certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
Majority Decision
The majority of five justices rule that the interim provisions of the Brady Bill are unconstitutional. In his opinion, Justice Scalia states that, although there is no constitutional text precisely responding to the challenge, an answer can be found “in historical understanding and practice, the structure of the Constitution, and in the jurisprudence of this Court.”
Lower Court Decisions
In each case, the District Court held that the provision requiring CLEOs to perform background checks was unconstitutional, but concluded that that provision was severable from the remainder of the Act, effectively leaving a voluntary background check system in place. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding none of the Brady Act's interim provisions to be unconstitutional.
Effects of the Decision
The immediate effects of the ruling on the Brady Bill were negligible. The vast majority of local and state law enforcement officials supported the interim provisions and were happy to comply with the background checks, unconstitutional or not. The issue ended with the completion of the federal background check database. However, Printz v. United States was an important ruling in support of limits on Federal power and States' Rights.
-posted by Ellen Minz, 3rd
Stages Two and Three
Stage Four
Comments (3)
Anonymous said
at 10:41 am on Dec 4, 2006
This page totally needs to be organized by stage. One of you later periods handle it. -Trey W. period 2
Anonymous said
at 1:21 pm on Dec 4, 2006
ill work on it. everyone PLEASE help out though!
-callie puett
Ashley C. said
at 11:10 pm on Dec 9, 2006
I made the stage names bigger, at least. Anybody know Mai Daimonov? Please get to source her one article under stage 4. I really want to use it, but don't know where it came from.
You don't have permission to comment on this page.