Just a Little Reminder

Remember Brady II?

Dave Kopel does.

Brady II: The Objectives of the Gun Control Lobby

Dave starts with a little history;

In the early fall of 1994, the gun control movement achieved unprecedented success in Congress. The "Brady Bill" had been enacted in November 1993, and went into effect in February 1994. After a very tough political fight, President Clinton's omnibus crime bill was passed in August 1994. The bill included a 10-year ban on so-called "assault weapons," as well as other gun controls. Handgun Control, Inc. (which later changed its name to "The Brady Campaign" promptly began to push for legislation which it called "Brady II."

Although the bill was introduced, it did not receive a hearing in the final weeks of Congress before the election. The November 1994 elections resulted in a Republican landslide; in a December 1994 interview with the Cleveland Plain-Dealer, President Clinton stated that the NRA was the reason that the Republicans had won control of Congress.

Nevertheless, Brady II is worth remembering as a roadmap for the gun control lobby's hopes for "the next step" in federal gun control.

He then reminds us of the provisions of Brady II in some detail.

Remember Arsenal licensing? How about nationwide handgun licenses, or increased taxes on firearm and ammo sales? This bill attempted to expand the list of persons banned from firearm ownership and banned many pistols and all magazines with a capacity over 6 rounds. There were several other provisions of this bill that are worth noting. Brady II is what the anti's have planned for our future.

Well, actually it is just the next step.

If "Brady II" had become law, what would have been the key to "Brady III" or "Brady IV"? Mrs. Brady has already told us.

She wants a "needs-based licensing" system, under which no one could own any gun unless the local police chief decided that the person "needed" to have the gun. (Erik Eckhom, "A Little Gun Control, a Lot of Guns," New York Times, Aug. 15, 1993, p. B1).

Ownership of a gun for protection would not be considered a legitimate "need." Says Mrs. Brady "To me, the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes." (Tom Jackson, "Keeping the Battle Alive," Tampa Tribune, Oct. 21, 1993.)
The Brady Campaign's current rhetoric is much milder, and the group claims not to oppose defensive gun ownership.

Remember this each and every time an anti mentions "common sense gun laws".

Head on over to The Volokh Conspiracy and read the whole thing here. It is a powerful reminder of what is at stake.