TBD.

DOES THE BRADY LAW CONTROL CRIME WHEN CRIMINALS ARE NOT IMPRISONED?

Table 2.5 from page 44 of the U.S. Government Accounting Office Report GGD-96-22 (Gun Control, 01/25/96), shows that there are only seven known prosecutions and three known imprisonments under the Brady Law, which cost 200 million dollars in its first three years. Ninety-three percent of criminals who misuse firearms obtain them through the underground market, and the remaining seven percent can easilly do the same, without any waiting period. Any criminal already knows how to buy in the underground market, and can do so in a few hours or less. The Brady Law shifts the balance of power to favor criminals over ordinary nonviolent people by forcing non-criminals to wait at least five days. No form of background check ever reduces crime. However, Virginia's instant background check, which was supported by the NRA and opposed by HCI, has resulted in hundreds of arrests and convictions in the same time that the Brady Law resulted in only seven prosecutions and three imprisonments nationwide.

If the Brady Law is supposedly stopping from 60,000 to 200,000 criminals as Clinton has claimed at various times, why would anybody be proud of releasing as many as 200,000 criminals to continue to prey on the public. Undoubtedly, many of these crimals are on parole and/or have outstanding arrest warrants, and should be arrested. Violation of the terms of parole or probation, including the separate felony crime of a felon purchasing a firearm, is cause for automatic imprisonment on the original conviction, usually without a trial. Trying to purchase a firearm is a major parole violation, compared to lesser parole violations such as drinking alcohol.

      The federal study, [Wright-Rossi Report - federal name and year], showed that waiting periods and background checks do not control reduce crime. However, the misuse of criminal justice resources to implement such schemes increases violent crime by wasting and misallocating limited criminal justice resources. The fact that the NRA was willing to go along with a program that it knew was ineffective against crime showed that the NRA is not an obstructionist group as firearms prohibitionists often claim. In contrast, the firearms prohibitionists repeatedly promote counter-productive policies that endanger the public and increase violent crime through at least TBD separate mechanisms.

      Philosophically, it is inappropriate to punish and harass ordinary nonviolent people to attempt to target criminals. This is somewhat like trying to stop driving by making more difficult and expensive for people to obtain driver licenses and register their cars. One can ask the question, how difficult must it become to obtain driver licenses and auto registrations in order to reduce drunk driving? There should be no punishment of law-abiding drivers because some people commit the crime of drunk driving. It is not part of American legal philosopy to punish law abiding citizens for the illegal misconduct of others.

      While it was well known before it was enacted that the Brady Law was counter-productive, it was also well-know that there are at least a dozen proven effective crime control measures which have been successful in the real world.

      TBD.

Effective public policy must be based upon, and not ignore or cover up, the historical factual record including the most complete and accurate scientific research. Gun control advocates always cover up the fact that often, gun control increases violent crime, as it has in Washington, D.C.; N.Y.; Chicago; California; England; Jamaica; and elsewhere (from government and academic studies). In no case has gun control ever reduced violent crime.

      Gun control advocates always use myths and false premises because their position cannot be supported with scientific facts. They falsely define the problem, and then propose irrational, counterproductive policies. For example, they fail to distinguish between violent criminals and ordinary nonviolent people, and define the problem as availability of firearms to ordinary people rather than the deficiencies of our catch-and-release criminal justice system.

      Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) would not have been successful, nor even taken seriously, if they had lobbied for laws to restrict sober drivers, or restrict ownership of vehicles because some are misused by drunk drivers. MADD was successful because they lobbied for rational laws that target criminals rather than ordinary citizens and inanimate objects.

      Jurisdictions with minimal gun control, and higher rates of firearms ownership, typically have lower violent crime rates than immediately adjacent jurisdictions with extensive restrictions. Virginia, with little gun control, has 8 murders per 100,000 population compared to 79 for adjacent Washington, D.C. which has a long-standing ban on handguns and "assault weapons".

      Most adults can verify, from memory, that 35 years ago there was much less crime. At that time there was almost no gun control restricting adults or minors. Crime skyrocketed after enactment of increasingly restrictive gun control, making it obvious that "easy availability" never was the problem.

      People must protect themselves and their families because no government police, entities, or officials may be held liable for failure to protect any individual (California Government Code Section 845 and others).

      Benefits of firearms availability far outweigh costs of criminal misuse. Gun control supporters always ignore the efficacy of firearms for self-defense against stronger or more numerous attackers. Independent scientific research shows that firearms are used more often in the U.S. for self-defense by ordinary people than in all crimes, suicides and accidents combined-and less than one percent of these defenses result in shooting the attacker, because mere possession and display of a firearm is almost always sufficient.

      Independent researchers reported 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms in the U.S. by civilians each year (1.9 million with handguns), usually without firing; defense with a firearm is safer and more effective than any other method, including non-resistance; and armed citizens contribute significantly to crime control, strengthening the criminal justice system both through armed resistance and multiple deterrent effects, benefiting all citizens including those who do not own firearms.

      Orlando, Florida reduced their rape rate by 88 percent within six months by training 2,500 women in basic firearm safety and widely publicizing that program.

      The California State Sheriffs Association opposes firearms registration, licensing, and prohibition, and instead supports the right of law-abiding citizens to purchase handguns, rifles, and shotguns of their choice, including affordable handguns and traditional semiautomatic firearms mislabeled as "assault weapons", for self-defense or sport. They also support the same type of real criminal justice system improvements that firearms owners support.

      Numerous polls of police chiefs and rank and file officers by organizations that actually poll their members, such as the National Association of Chiefs of Police, consistently show that law enforcement is overwhelmingly in agreement (by 90 percent) with this position. No police organization supporting gun control will poll their members because they already know they will lose.*

      If California were to suffer the same murder rate that Washington, D.C. suffered after banning handguns and "assault weapons" in 1976, California (4,096 murders) would have had 18,382 additional murders in 1993. Felon surveys determined that less than 15 percent of felons prefer or actually use affordable, less powerful handguns mislabeled as "Saturday Night Specials", and that 86 percent of predatory felons who carried handguns would substitute more powerful sawed-off shotguns or rifles if handguns were unavailable, substantially increasing the death rate.

      Ninety-three percent of criminals obtain their firearms illegally, without registration or license, and nothing prevents other criminals from doing the same. Even worse, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Haynes v. U.S. (1968), that a felon could not be convicted for failure to register firearms, because that would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

      The real use for registration is the ban and confiscation of firearms from the law-abiding public, as was done in N.Y.; Gary, Indiana; and Morton Grove, Illinois. Handgun Control, Inc. founder Nelson Shields admitted his organization's agenda in an interview in the July 26, 1976 New Yorker magazine: their three-step program would restrict production, sales, and ownership; develop universal registration lists; and then ban and confiscate items on the registration lists.

      Gun control increases violent crime because it shifts the balance of power to favor criminals over ordinary citizens; inhibits self-defense; reduces the deterrent effects of armed citizens; squanders criminal justice resources; and is used as a smokescreen by soft-on-crime public figures who exploit the tragedy of murdered children and police officers to advance their careers and divert attention away from their personal failure to support real criminal justice reforms.

Michael D. Robbins is an El Segundo City councilman who has researched firearms policy for many years.

      TBD.