MSI fighting G&S circa 1973.

[Biggfoot44]

1996.

 

[press1280]

Yeah, because shall issue has been such a disaster in every other state that's implemented it. What is wrong with these people that they keep talking like there exists no evidence that proves them wrongness of their fears about "rivers of blood in the streets"? Granted, correlation does not prove causation, but lack of correlation certainly eliminates their worst fears if they'd just pull their heads out of the sand.

I wish the Post and other MSM papers would re-publish their "Blood in the streets" predictions from right before a state goes shall-issue (or even Constitutional Carry) followed by the actual crime stats before and after. But I can only wish

 

[Mike]

Yeah, because shall issue has been such a disaster in every other state that's implemented it. What is wrong with these people that they keep talking like there exists no evidence that proves them wrongness of their fears about "rivers of blood in the streets"? Granted, correlation does not prove causation, but lack of correlation certainly eliminates their worst fears if they'd just pull their heads out of the sand.

GUNS Magazine in 1957 went.....

Wow. This should be republished at every opportunity. I see several passages which resonate with me. This seems like a good blueprint for promoting our Civil Rights.

GUNS MAGAZINE
September 1957

ANTI-GUN LAW PROPONENTS ARE NOT ALL DO-GOODERS.
LAWS THAT STRIKE AT CIVIL LIBERTIES THREATEN BUSINESS AS WELL AS OUR AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE.
IF WE MUST LEGISLATE, THEN . . . Why Not Have a PRO Gun Law?
By WILLIAM B. EDWARDS

THE ANTI-GUN LAWMAKERS are having a brisk season for 1957. With the practical nature of Andrew Volsteads and the subtlety of Carrie Nations they have attacked the root of all evil and the ills of mankind by the simple expedient of trying to take away all guns. Recently proposed Treasury regulations came close to this ideal; they could have destroyed the firearms industry and the shooting sport. Under the guise of protecting the people, these makers of rules who push anti-gun bills such as these are forging weapons, not into ploughshares, but into an iron collar of restraint, worthy of a fascist state. Year by year more anti-gun laws are proposed. Meanwhile, pro-gun collectors and shooters are mollified by the excuse "these laws are thought up by well-meaning, innocent do-gooders." Certainly a few anti-gun advocates may seem to be well-intentioned, but let's look at "well meaning" legislators in the forefront of anti-gun legislation.

Take a good look at genial, charming, personable "Big Tim" Sullivan, who disarmed the citizens of crime-ridden New York in 1911 with the grandaddy of anti-gun laws, then went mad the following year and was confined. Says the biographical dictionary, "Vice and crime were carefully organized in his territory and paid graft to his machine, as did many lines of legitimate business, including push-cart peddlers . . . When charged with grafting, or partnership with crime and vice, he could rise in the [New York state] Assembly or on a campaign rostrum and, by telling the story of his tenement boyhood and the sacrifices of his mother, reduce even hardened political opponents to tears . . ."

"Big Tim" was of the cloth of Adolph Hitler and the spellbinders of the ages. Election fights which stimulated the public pulse in those days hampered Big Tim's grasp on politics. So he pushed through a law requiring everyone in New York state to get a police permit to buy or possess a pistol or revolver. Sullivan knew he could control the police. This meant that when Sullivan's boys went on their ballot-box stuffing sprees, they could be reasonably sure of having no opposition. Big Tim was not a "well-meaning legislator" in his pistol law ideas. The Sullivan law weakened the opposition, sweetened the Tammany kitty. Anti-gun bills are a popular stepping stone to political fame, and many in the anti-gun ranks share "Big Tim's motives.

A most ironic instance of the do-good legislator at work occurred in Connecticut last spring. A brutal murder of two people incensed the public against guns and a fantastic spate of 24 anti-firearms bills was put into the mill, including the demand to register every pistol or revolver in the state. This is a common form of anti-gun bill, though just what it is supposed to accomplish is not clear.

According to Fred A. Roff, Jr., of the Colt's gun company, the criminal committed the murders with a registered revolver. And the criminal was already a convicted felon: Outlawing guns is impossible. The police themselves are often a source of pistols to people who do not bother with licenses and permits. I bought seven revolvers including a Colt DA M1878 .45 revolver and a small engraved Smith & Wesson .32 from one Chicago policeman, who did not want to insult me by asking for a permit. Though I bought them as "collector's items," they had been confiscated by the officer in the normal course of his work. He was logical in selling the guns to me, knowing me to be a gun collector; yet "Confiscated guns must be destroyed according to law," declares Chicago police commissioner T. J. O'Connor.

Another gun which came my way from a policeman violated state and federal law. It was a .38 Smith & Wesson with numbers ground off that once belonged to the famous kidnapper "Machine Gun" Kelly. The gun was taken from one of Kelly's gang by then-detective Charles Zimmerman, later Buffalo, New York, chief of police. When he retired to California, Zimmerman kept the gun in memory of a high point in his career. His widow sold it to me as a collector's item.

According to the Penal Law, section 1899, State of New York, "firearms and other enumerated dangerous weapons (confiscated in criminal proceedings) must be either be destroyed or retained by the Police Department..."

Evidently in New York, as in other places, there are two kinds of law -- one for police, and one for civilians. Federal law was also violated by Zimmerman by retaining a gun from which a number had been erased, and by transporting it across a state line.

While cops claim they can curb crime by taking away all guns, and the pro-gun guys come back with worn-out cliches such as "with what gun did Cain slay Abel," the realities are that not even law enforcement agencies agree on what should be done with confiscated guns.

"The Los Angeles Police Department complies with law by dumping these guns into the deep waters of the Pacific ocean each year on July 1st," says A. C. Hohmann of Los Angeles. But in Boston, the Commissioner of Public Safety "may sell or destroy the same, and in case of a sale . . . shall pay over the net proceeds to the Commonwealth."

In Washington, D. C., "Pistols, machine guns, etc., are either destroyed or transferred to the regular inventories of Federal or District government agencies," reports Inspector Earl Hartmen, property clerk. Yet by stealing from government sources alone, criminals get nearly half the guns used in crime.

Philadelphia police recently made a smart, money saving move, which implicated the city government, common carriers, several gun dealers, and numerous other people, in a violation of the Federal Firearms Act.

Procurement commissioner Michael Sura decided that some confiscated Philadelphia police guns were worth money. He "scooped up up 2,662 weapons which technically belonged as evidence from past trials and arranged. . . with the Courts to offer them at public sale," wrote David O. Moreton in the May issue of Law & Order, the police monthly magazine.

These guns were bid in by a New York gun dealer. Commissioner Sura thriftily saved Philadelphia nearly $10,000 in trade for new police equipment, yet demonstrated strikingly the logical inconsistency of the police attitude toward firearms. And he helped many people violate the federal law.

The 1938 Federal Firearms Act states:

"It shall be unlawful for any person to transport, ship, or knowingly receive in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm from which the manufacturer's serial number has been removed, obliterated, or altered, and the possession of any such firearm shall be presumptive evidence that such firearm was transported, shipped, or received, as the case may be, by the possessor in violation of this chapter."
In this lot of guns were many with numbers ground off, and everybody from Commissioner Sura, to the common carrier, to the New York dealer, to final owner may have violated federal law during their possession, transfer, shipment, or receipt of such firearms as the New Navy .38 Colt revolver illustrated, from which the serial numbers have been erased. Yet the sales and transfers in themselves were lawful transactions.

What, then, of the overall value of federal anti-firearms legislation? Has Congress any reason to make laws restricting the possession and use for lawful purposes of any kind of firearm? The answer is, no. But they are able to restrict guns by exercising a highly valued privilege of Congress, to raise and collect taxes. Congress has tried to "control" guns by excessive taxation.

Most of us agree that to provide for the common defense, to run our government, we must pay taxes. We should naturally expect to give the government considerably more in tax money than the costs of accounting and collecting this money, so there will be a little left over for housing, defense, public works, welfare and social security, veterans' compensation, and other needs. But Congress' anti-gun laws cost the people more to administer than they bring in.

The Treasury handles Congress' gun-taxing laws because Congress has prohibited itself from making gun-restricting laws by saying in the Constitution's second amendment that "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Contrary to what some of the more rabid pro-gun guys claim, this does not mean that everyone can go around carrying a gun. It does not mean that everyone cannot go around carrying a gun either. The application of its meaning is in the expression "well regulated militia."

The National Guard is not a (Constitutional) "well regulated militia;" it is part of our U. S. Army organized reserve forces.

The militia ideas of the framers of the Constitution opposed the existence of a standing army. Formal expression of the militia concept was set forth in "Plan for A Militia" published in London in 1745 by a Colonel Martin. The ideas in this little book had much to do with the phrasing of the 2nd amendment. The army cost too much, said the Colonel; militia would be cheaper. "No mercenary army [Martin's word for "professional" or "standing army"] which this nation can support without becoming bankrupt, is sufficient for its security against foreign invasion; yet a national militia is capable of defending it with great certainty, and little expense." The militia included "the military service of all men capable of bearing arms, from the age of 18 to that of 50 years; except such as may be exempted by law . . ."

Over a century later, the militia term held the same meaning. In Wilhelm's Military Dictionary (1881) under "Militia" is the explanation, "The laws of the United States require the enrollment into the militia of all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45 years, with certain exceptions according to law (such as judges, clergymen, doctors)." And at that time, "The organized militia of the United States numbers 125,906 men, the number of men available for military duty unorganized, is 6,598,105." Out of a population in 1881 of 50,000,000, the figure compares well today with our 18,000,000 licensed hunters with a national population of 170,000,000. Our shooters are our "militia;" our hunters, smallbore rifle shooters, target pistol marksmen, shotgunners, gun collectors, all are members of the militia of the United States.

But according to decree of the Courts, "militia" is said to mean only the "National Guard." And the pro-gun guys who smart under the edict that no anti-firearms laws have invaded the rights of citizens as embodied in the second amendment, flinch as the National Guard status is waved in their faces. They can flinch even more, for the term well-regulated, though not relating to the National Guard, did mean that guns were to be kept in an armory. The militia idea definitely regulated guns. When the militia companies were organized, "the government may send to every captain for each man so enrolled a good firelock (smoothbore flintlock musket) . . . and during every captain's possession of the arms, each is to be allowed an armorer to keep them clean . . . The captain, not the individual militiaman, was to keep the "firelock."

These two aspects of the much-mooted Second Amendment have caused conflict. The word "militia" does refer to everyone between 18 and 45 or 50 years of age. But secondly, the amendment does not say that "everybody ought to carry a gun." The first point, that the "militia" includes everyone, is a score for the pro-gun crowd; the second point favors the anti-gun lawmakers by proposing storage of arms in a government armory.

But there is one more point, the heart of the controversy, for the amendment does not really relate to the concept of the "militia," nor to the "security of a free state," but specifically to the "right of the citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Stress that word "right," for it applies to all citizens. It is not a limitation on the states, as many examiners of constitutional doctrine generally observe. If it were, it would have been written "the right of the states to raise citizen militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Bill of Rights refers to the citizens. Clearly, the Second Amendment means what it says. Court decisions which affirm that an anti-firearms law is "constitutional" because it doesn't prevent the National Guard from carrying pistols are clearly legalistic nonsense: the National Guard is not "militia."

TIMES CHANGE. The National Guard is indispensible to our pattern of national defense. The "militia" today consists of 20,000,000 gun owners. They face a very real problem, the present and future trend in anti-firearms legislation. Basic rights are infringed, and the national security has been placed in danger by anti-gun laws.

Instead of implementing the Second Amendment, making sure that every man of the "militia" knows how to shoot his, "firelock" -- or Krag, or Springfield, or M-1, or BAR, or full-auto M14 and M15 rifles -- government has used excessive taxation to prohibit using modern military rifles for lawful purposes, and has killed the domestic manufacture of machine guns for defense.

American soldiers are dead today because we did not have enough machine-firing weapons to give them on Bataan and Corregidor. The National Firearms Act (of 1934, amended 1954,) was to blame. Then-attorney general Homer Cummings, after one world war and a dozen minor wars in his lifetime, still believed in 1934 that we would have no more war (it was outlawed by the League of Nations) and there was no need for guns.

Then 1940 found us drilling recruits (who had never seen a gun) to fight a machinegun blitzkrieg, and the army didn't even have guns to give them for drill. The concept of "pre-induction training" in marksmanship was a flame nurtured by a tiny group of shooters in the National Rifle Association, men who knew the truth. Nobody would listen, though they preached the doctrine that rifle shooting is fun, as well as a duty of the citizen.

Even the army has fallen for the anti-gun line. After spending 13 years and great expense in developing a full-auto infantry rifle, the M14, Ordnance has come up with a dilly; the M14 as issued will be semi-automatic only, no advance over the M-1! By substituting a few parts the modem militiaman's "firelock" can be made full-auto -- but how do you convert an ordinary G.I. into a trained automatic rifleman? Will there be time?

There is a way to train 20,000,000 citizen militia. We must have, not anti-gun laws, but pro-gun laws. First step, repeal existing Federal firearms laws. They do not prevent crime. They do not curb crime. They do not give law enforcement officers any tools with which to catch or convict criminals, especially when law enforcement bodies from top to bottom ignore even federal laws regulating firearms. And the high percent of federally owned and registered (U .S. Army) firearms used in crime reveals how ineffective federal control of guns is. In two instances federal firearms laws have been damaging to the national defense. The machine gun act has proved its folly, and prevented the creation of even a sport-shooting program in line with the nation's needs.

In a second instance, the Federal Firearms Act has been so badly written by law cranks (not gun cranks) that petty men with grand visions have seized on it as a stepping stone to power, and the abuse of the public. This mumbo-jumbo of commerce-regulating law hinders the legitimate dealer and manufacturer in guns-would, if proposed regulations went into effect, put gunmakers and dealers out of business. A house of cards, the law regulates the business of firearms making and selling, but carefully avoids the main fact, that of making a criminal's use of a gun unprofitable.

These new regulations include, for example, the requirement that records be kept permanently by the dealer or gunmaker, for the life of the business, or the duration of his successors. Records, in brief, to be kept in perpetuity. Says R. E. Train, assistant to the secretary of the Treasury, in a June 10, 1957 letter to Senator Homer Capehart, "Section 177.51 requires each licensed manufacturer or dealer to maintain records reflecting the receipt and disposition of all firearms. These records are required to be preserved permanently until the licensee or its successor in interest discontinues business. The present regulations provide for the maintenance of such records, but only for six years. The statute itself (15 U.S.C. ff 903 (d) provides that 'dealers shall maintain such permanent records of importation, shipment, or other disposal of firearms and ammunition as the Secretary of the Treasuryshall provide.'

"This section of the proposed regulations which is being widely objected to as imposing a new and unreasonable burden would seem to be clearly required by the words of the statute itself," continues Mr. Train in his opinion to Senator Capehart. "Actually," says Train, "the main difference between the old regulations and the new would seem to be that at the present time these records need only be kept for six years rather than permanently."

Although there is no reasonable explanation offered as to the value of records of a gunmaker kept permanently, nor is it stated who will be able to afford the tremendous cost of searching these records, citizen Train is obviously at fault in his semantic logic.

"Permanent records" does not nor has it ever been intended to mean "keeping records permanently, in perpetuity." A permanent record is, if we take Webster for the meaning, one "not subject to fluctuation or alteration." In the statute quoted by Train, the word "permanent" modifies "records" as an adjective. The new regulations twist it into an adverb, "permanently," which modifies the verb of "keep." Now, does the Treasury want records kept in permanent-type ledgers, available for inspection as required for normal income-tax purposes, or does it want records kept on any old scrap of paper, or in the mind of the dealer, but retained by him for all time? One or the other, but not both, is the meaning of the statute. And once "permanent records" is allowed to mean "records kept permanently," every industry in the U. S. which keeps records, every businessman, every tax payer, every citizen, who should keep records in permanent form for, say, the statutory six or seven years, will have to keep records as long as they are in business, as long as they are taxpayers, as long as they are alive. Why?

This Firearms Department is an odd offspring of an abortive push to get rid of all crime, by getting rid of all guns. The pillars on which it is propped are the National Act of 1934 and the Federal Act of 1938. Both are ostensible revenue-raising acts. Under the National act in 1955-6, $11,000 was taken in from transfer and registration fees, penalties and fines. During the same period, the Alcohol & Tobacco Tax Unit of the Treasury (which contains the Firearms Department) spent an amount which the ATU director refused to reveal, though it must have run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In one instance, in downstate Illinois, ATU agents spent five years in "getting" one machine gun collector. When brought to trial, penalties could have totalled 18 years and $45,000. Charitably, the judge gave a token fine of $100, exacted no court costs, thereby apparently expressing his belief that the government's case was a waste of time.

In the Southern District court in California, a Culver City dealer, harassed by ATU agents on direct orders from Washington, spent over $1000 fighting an action brought by the government because he sold antique curio pistols known as "Chicago Protector Palm Pistols." Firing an unobtainable .32 Extra Short Rimfire cartridge, the gun was argued to be a violation of the National machine gun act by other one of those odd twists of meaning which the Treasury seems to enjoy. The court, however, tossed out the case.

Since the Alcohol & Tobacco Tax Unit is supposed to catch bootleggers, and ordered to apprehend criminals engaged in dope peddling, every minute spent on anti-gun foolishness is so much time taken away from their legitimate business. Distilling illegal alcohol is said to be the second largest illegal industry in the U. S. And in the time it takes one ATU man to "get the dope" on an otherwise honest gun-law violator (they don't prove many cases), a narcotics pusher can suborn your boy or your girl into a life-wrecking habit.

Today, right now, there exists crying need to enact constructive legislation in the field of firearms law. Repealing existing laws is a must. Reenacting some provisions of existing laws, together with a look at the "mandatory sentence," should come next.

Judges and juries are reluctant to convict when stiff mandatory sentences are in sight. But let the punishment fit the crime . . . say two to five years in addition to the specific charge, if the crime was committed while carrying a gun, would be workable. Don't exempt shotguns and rifles from penalties for criminal use, but don't aim "anti-gun" laws at any gun just because of its fancied "criminal-type" nature. Yesterday's terror weapon is tomorrow's collector's prize. There should not exist any legislation prohibiting any citizen from using any type of firearm, including machine gun, muffler or silencer, or Buck Rogers ray gun, for any lawful purpose. But if anyone steps out of line with a gun, throw the book at him!

Enact legislation to put some "teeth" into the militia concept, too. Work on that "militia" idea, and while we cut defense spending by the billions, let's up it a few millions in the direction of the citizen soldier. Instead of trying to cut out the Army Director of Civilian Marksmanship's puny appropriation of $300,000 in the false interests of economy, stick a couple of extra zeroes on it, and make military small arms and ammunition available in plenty for rifle club members on approved ranges. Drop some added cash into the federal school aid program, and build decent shooting ranges as elements in the overall sports program. Get the states interested in making the sport of shooting a part of every day of life in the towns, on campus.

The cadre of instructors available, free, from the membership of the National Rifle Association, the U. S. Revolver Association, the National Skeet Shooting Association, the Amateur Trapshooter's Association, the National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association, the National Single Shot Rifle Association, and many more clubs, shooters' and collectors' organizations all over the nation, can really implement that Second Amendment if we have positive firearms legislative thinking, instead of negative, false, destructive attitudes.

What you can do is twofold: first, write immediately to the Director, Alcohol & Tobacco Tax Unit, Bureau of Internal Revenue, Washington 25, D. C., and give him the benefit of your views of the proposed new regulations. Copies of these regulations can be found in any public library in the May 3, 1957 Federal Register. If you are against the rules, say so. Your letter must be in duplicate.

Second, write to your Senators and Congressmen, in Washington and in your State capital. Tell them what kind of gun laws you think are needed to prevent crime, and what kind of laws you want to see enacted to make your sport of guns and shooting one that will not be taken from you. And consider also your rights, as a citizen under this Constitution. Tell your Congressman about those rights, too. He knows about them, but it is always refreshing to a legislator to have matters called to his attention anew by the people who voted for him. Send a copy of your letter to Guns Magazine for reference. We'd like to know your ideas on constructive firearms legislation. Urge the formation of a Congressional committee to recommend good gun laws.

There are plenty of advocates of anti-gun legislation. The results have been many: national weakness and disarmament, increased crime, novel forms of corruption and graft, political hysteria controlled for selfish political purposes, and manifold invasions of the rights of citizens. After all, why not have a pro-gun law?

And here we see "the emperor has no clothes". Hillary, Obama, Bloomberg, and all the phony shill orgs, full of useful idiots, which they have doing their bidding for them

GUNS MAGAZINE
September 1957

ANTI-GUN LAW PROPONENTS ARE NOT ALL DO-GOODERS.
LAWS THAT STRIKE AT CIVIL LIBERTIES THREATEN BUSINESS AS WELL AS OUR AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE.
IF WE MUST LEGISLATE, THEN . . . Why Not Have a PRO Gun Law?
By WILLIAM B. EDWARDS

THE ANTI-GUN LAWMAKERS are having a brisk season for 1957. (snip)

"Big Tim" was of the cloth of Adolph Hitler and the spellbinders of the ages. Election fights which stimulated the public pulse in those days hampered Big Tim's grasp on politics. So he pushed through a law requiring everyone in New York state to get a police permit to buy or possess a pistol or revolver. Sullivan knew he could control the police. This meant that when Sullivan's boys went on their ballot-box stuffing sprees, they could be reasonably sure of having no opposition. Big Tim was not a "well-meaning legislator" in his pistol law ideas. The Sullivan law weakened the opposition, sweetened the Tammany kitty. Anti-gun bills are a popular stepping stone to political fame, and many in the anti-gun ranks share "Big Tim's motives.

A most ironic instance of the do-good legislator at work occurred in Connecticut last spring. A brutal murder of two people incensed the public against guns and a fantastic spate of 24 anti-firearms bills was put into the mill, including the demand to register every pistol or revolver in the state. This is a common form of anti-gun bill, though just what it is supposed to accomplish is not clear.

 

[Sthomas229]

October 1962 ads in GUNS:

I want those. All of them. Shipped to my house direct by RPO.

Could not find a crying emogy or it would be here too.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Just keep in mind that back then gas was less than .20 per gallon.

 

[SPQM]

Something from 1990.

What I didn't realize until now was that the Brady Bill was the result of a seven year effort to get something passed; and that it had been killed many times before it ended up passing.

Also, the underlined comment shows why local politics is so important.

Washington Post
Tuesday. June 26, 1990
Page A20

The Brady Bill: Decision Time (Editorial)

JIM BRADY, former White House press secretary, has as much reason as any American alive today to speak up for some sensible protections against the free-and-easy quickie sales of handguns to killers. He also has every reason to urge all those House committee members who are scheduled to vote on "the Brady bill"—a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases through dealers—to go on record in favor of it. "Those members of Congress who opppose a simple seven-day waiting period should try being in my shoes for just one day, Mr. Brady noted in testimony before a Senate subcommittee last year. "You should know what I go through every day. I am not here to complain. I am not here seeking sympathy. . .. There are some who opposed a simple seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases because it would inconvenience gun buyers. Well, I guess I am paying for their convenience."

Mr. Brady went on to tell it bluntly: "I understand that many of you are intimidated by the gun lobby. But you've got to look squarely at the facts. Law enforcement says the Brady bill will work. The polls tell us that 91 percent of your constituents support it. What other issue enjoys such public support?"

That was in November 1989. Ever since, with ugly regularity, murders have continued as a result of handgun purchases that could have been stopped if law enforcement officers had had the time to check out the buyers' legal eligibility to possess a handgun. But also ever since, more and more Americans have spoken out for this simple protection, this small screening that can be so effective. In Virginia, for example, a background check was put into effect last Nov. 1. Since then, more than 2,600 prospective buyers have been found ineligible to buy a firearm—including seven fugitives who were captured. Other states with various laws of this type have equally impressive statistics.

This year, candidates for state office are hearing from their state and local police, from friends and survivors of shooting victims and from gun owners who recognize the good sense of a simple waiting period. Congress should sense the opinion as well, and move the Brady bill into law before too many more lives have been lost.

The Washington Post
Jul 5, 1990
Page MD2

Maryland's Brady Bill (letter to editor)

The Post's suppositions as to the alleged effectiveness of a proposed national seven-day waiting period and police background check on the purchase of handguns ["The Brady Bill: Decision Time," editorial, June 26] are refuted by the 24-year history of a similar law in Maryland.

Since 1966 the concept behind the Brady Bill—denying the retail availability of handguns to criminals by a waiting period and background check, has been a fact of life in Maryland and has proven to be just another fallacious "gun control," This law is not restricting the availability of handguns to career criminals as evidenced by the steady increase in Maryland crime rates since 1966. And there is no record of any criminal having been detected, prosecuted and convicted as a result of this law.

On an average of 25,000 handgun purchases a year, less than 5 percent are disapproved as a result of the state police background check. Of the disapprovals appealed, 50 to 85 percent are subsequently reversed due to erroneous criminal justice records.

A report by the Maryland Criminal Justice Coordinating Council states: "In particular, the policy implications of further gun controls... are such that one becomes resigned to the fact that guns cannot be effectively regulated out of the hands of criminals."

What Maryland's law has achieved is the creation of a repugnant system that denies citizens the legal presumption of innocence, makes them the object of police investigation by virtue of their exercise of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and permits them to be victimized by an inept criminal justice records system.

Maryland should serve as the paramount example of why the Brady Bill should be defeated.

W.VERNON GRAY III
California, Md.

 

[SPQM]

And Smilin' Joe Biden shows up!

The Washington Post
Monday, November 2, 1992
Page A23

Mollie Dickenson
Bush's Assassination of the Brady Bill
(Op-Ed)

George Bush has hidden from the American people his responsibility for the recent defeat of the Brady Bill. Just last weekend, both George and Barbara Bush were on television announcing their strong support for a crime bill in the next Bush administration, the president declaring that Congress had allowed his crime bill to languish on Capitol Hill while murderers and rapists ran rampant. The truth is, however, that the long-negotiated, 200-page, Biden Crime Bill, which contained the Brady bill, was ready for a vote before Congress adjourned this fall. For Bush, the problem was the Brady bill.

Bush had said that he would veto the Brady bill if it were sent to him alone but would sign it if it were attached to a comprehensive crime bill. The Brady bill, after enormous effort by police and civic organizations, had already passed both the House and the Senate. Once it was attached to Congress's crime bill, however, Bush set out to make certain it would never reach his desk for action. He had no intention of either signing or vetoing any bill with the Brady measure in it. Neither did he wish to give the Democratic majority in Congress any credit in an election year for helping Americans cope with increasing crime. But the Brady bill was the important thing, according to numerous Hill watchers, because of its great popularity and the high visibility the bill had achieved by being named for Bush's fellow Republican, former White House press secretary Jim Brady, shot and disabled in the 1981 assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan.

The Biden/Brady crime bill was killed at 2:30 A.M. on Oct. 2 the final, all-night mediating session, by Bush operatives who refused to budge, as they had before, on a highly technical provision relating to the rights of death row inmates to appeal their convictions. Sen. Joseph Biden even offered to remove the death-row problem from the bill and committed himself to passing it later. The mediation had been going on for months, as had constant threats of Republican filibusters. Bush made sure that Biden would not have enough votes to stop a filibuster. In the end, only three Re-publicans, in effect, voted for the Brady bill, and it lost.

"I feel betrayed by the whole process after working for four years on this bill, with people suffering out there and police officers putting their lives on line," says Robert Scully, president of the 135,000-member National Association of Police Organizations, "I told the president in May, 'Please, don't kill the crime bill over people who are on death row and will never commit another crime against anybody. There are important things in the crime bill.' I lay the blame clearly with the Bush administration."

To police officers, the Brady bill symbolized that the country was at last going to stem the tide on handgun crimes. Taken in by Bush's tactics were Dewey Stokes, president of the 240,000-member Fraternal Order of Police, and Richard Darling. Chair-man of the National Troopers Coalition, both of whose organizations endorsed Bush in the expectation he would allow Brady to become law. So it is not surprising that most Americans are unaware that Bush took on and defeated Jim and Sarah Brady and their modest handgun measure, while quietly signaling to the gun lobby that he has stood fast against gun control. Bill Clinton has called for the Brady bill since he first entered the race.

In the seven years since Sarah Brady joined Handgun Control Inc., more than 13 million handguns have been produced in this country; more than 150,000 people have died by handguns—murders, suicides and accidents.

Under the Bush administration, murders have increased 25 per-cent—from 8,915 to 1988 to 12,090 in 1991. The Brady bill requires a five-working-day waiting period and a background check on the handgun purchaser. Ninety-five percent of Americans support the Brady bill and cannot understand why it does not become law. Why is their will continually being thwarted on this important issue? Ross Perot even calls it a "timid" bill.

But all along, Bush has had his eye: on that tiny minority of narrow-minded' and emotional Americans who are subject to manipulation by the National Rifle Association. Reagan and Bush have used them cynically and master- fully to win their elections. Put several of these single-issue constituencies together, and you have a 2, 3 or 4 percent margin of victory. It's that simple. In defeating the Brady bill, candidate Bush has probably sold out his principles and contributed to the deaths of innocent people. Tragically, that is how the game is being played.

Mollie Dickenson is author of "Thumbs Up: The Life and Courageous Comeback of White House Press Secretary Jim Brady."

 

[Silent Partner]

Some more background on Marvin Mandel's mental calculus for the 1970-1972 period that saw G&S Passed.

You can see the little gears turning in MM's head:



Sidenote: One of the stories on the front of Section C for that day was something about the increasing number of heroin overdoses in the area.

Thanks for posting these, it has been some interesting reading. This particular article (post 64) caught my attention as it seemed to influence passage of the gun control measures. In your research are you able to locate said poll or was this just made up in order to provide cover to Mandel ? I speculate the later but it could also provide a challenge to current law if they can not provide the poll and results. TIA

 

[SPQM]

In your research are you able to locate said poll or was this just made up in order to provide cover to Mandel ?

Finding an internal political poll 40~ years after it was taken? Not likely unless it was in whatever collection of Marvin Mandel's papers exist (if any).

 

[SPQM]

And this is why the NRA....is not really helpful at times.

They're too focused on "compromise" even after the supposed "hard core revolt" c. 1977:

The Washington Post
Saturday, April 27,1991
Page A18

Who's Afraid Of the Brady Bill? (Letter to Editor)

So now an instantaneous background check that is law in Virginia is considered "common sense" by the National Rifle Association ("NRA Puts Spotlight on Va. Gun Law; Instant Checks Cited to Fight 'Brady Bill,' " Metro, April 22]. It was only two short years ago that the NRA was vehemently opposed to the background check. Today, the NRA is fully behind Virginia, so much in Virginia's corner that it wants to make the Old Dominion's law national.

Twenty years ago, the NRA supported a national waiting period as prescribed in the Brady Bill. An NRA publication from the mid-1970s stated: "A waiting period could help in reducing crimes of passion and in preventing people with criminal records or dangerous mental illness from acquiring guns." The NRA has reversed its gears so much it has left its wheels spinning: It is supporting a proposal it once was against two years ago while opposing a theory it supported 20 years ago!

The instant background check introduced to counter the Brady Bill contains language that I am sure is well intended. However, the bill calls for a national criminal record system that is not even in place in the sponsor's own state. Additionally, this is a system that is supposed to be up and running six months after the bill's enactment.

Unrealistic? Of course, and the NRA is well familiar with that.

The Brady Bill is not an end-all to urban crime. We will not see handgun-related crime come to a screeching halt upon passage of the legislation. The Brady Bill was not intended to do that. The Brady Bill is designed simply to establish a national seven-day waiting period for individuals wishing to purchase a handgun. The NRA cannot argue that states with waiting-period laws have not been tremendously successful in stopping felons and other prohibited persons attempting to purchase handguns. According to Handgun Control Inc., in California, 1,763 proscribed purchasers were stopped from buying a handgun in 1989. In that same year, New Jersey prohibited 961 from buying a handgun. Last year, Maryland waiting-period laws stopped 1,300 illegal would-be handgun buyers.

The latest red herring from the NRA has confused even a large number of its members. It is clear that the NRA is off-base on this issue, and rather than fighting to defeat the Brady Bill it should be working on a compromise to mandate a background check within a seven-day period.

JOHN FALARDEAU
Arlington

The writer is a legislative assistant to Rep. Raymond McGrath (R-N.Y.), who is a cosponsor of the Brady Bill.

The Washington Post
Apr 22, 1991
Page D1

NRA Puts Spotlight, on Va. Gun Law
Instant Checks Cited To Fight 'Brady Bill'
By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer

RICHMOND—When Virginia lawmakers hammered out a compromise in 1989 over a bill requiring criminal background checks on gun buyers, the National Rifle Association "had to be dragged in kicking and screaming," remembers Del. C. Richard Cranwell (D-Vinton).

But in what Cranwell calls a "stark and startling conversion," an NRA magazine ad recently hailed the background checks as "a common-sense solution to a stormy social and political conflict that has kept America ill at ease for too many years."

Touting Virginia's system as a national model has become a major theme of the NRA's attack on the "Brady bill" now before Congress, which would require a seven-day wait for buying a handgun. Folks ranging from actor Charlton Heston to a deputy sheriff have become familiar faces on Washington area television in the gun group's commercials.

NRA lobbyist Charles Cunningham said that "if we're going to screen purchases," instant computer checks like Virginia's are the least intrusive means of doing it. There's no reason, he said, that the state's system couldn't be copied nationally, making waiting periods unnecessary, in the NRA's view.

"If I'm a law-abiding citizen with constitutional rights, why wait?" Cunningham asked. "We think a right delayed is a right denied."

Even backers of the Brady bill— named for former presidential press secretary James Brady, who was disabled during the attempted assassination of President Reagan— acknowledge that the Virginia law has helped soften the state's once-notorious reputation for selling guns that ended up in the hands of criminals because Virginia had no effective gun-control laws.

Studies done by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms showed that 35 percent of illegal guns seized in 1987 in the District came from Virginia—more than from any other state—and that Virginia was among the five states most often exporting illegal guns to New York City.

Bureau spokesman Bud Master-son said it is too early to have reliable statistics on the flow of guns out of Virginia since background checks began. But gun-control groups and the Virginia State Police said they believe such sales have diminished.

"Virginia has done a good job," said Susan Whitmore, a spokeswoman for Handgun Control Inc., the main group championing the Brady bill.

The Virginia law has blocked hundreds of gun purchases. Since the system went into effect in November 1989, State Police have run more than 88,000 computer checks. They have told gun dealers to turn down sales in more than 1,400 cases, or about 1.5 percent, because the checks turned up information indicating that the would-be buyers were not legally entitled to own a gun, Lt. R.L. Vass said.

Vass said the average of three sales a day being rejected is proof that the law is keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

"I'm amazed that we are still getting that many," he said. "This has been a heavily publicized program. There are a lot of people who surely know about it and are not trying to purchase guns."

The same law also requires out-of-state residents purchasing assault weapons to go through a background check by mail, which takes up to 10 days. Only three such requests have been processed in 16 months, state officials said.

"We have greatly decreased out-of-state sales," said the legislation's chief sponsor, Sen. Moody E. "Sonny" Stallings Jr. (D-Virginia Beach).

Whatever the Virginia law's success, supporters of the Brady bill strongly dispute the notion that the state's system could be effectively duplicated nationwide. Collecting criminal records from across the country, including many from states where they are not computerized, and compiling them in a central location would be a time-consuming and expensive process, Whitmore said.

"Virginia is the exception, not the rule," Whitmore said.

In any case, she said, a waiting period is valuable to counter "impulse purchases" of guns that might be used in crimes of passion.

Maryland passed a law requiring a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases and a background check on buyers in 1989. Last year, Maryland State Police said they blocked 919 handgun sales and approved about 24,000. Some of the blocked sales were approved after purchasers appealed.

Whitmore said the Maryland law provides an example of what the Brady bill would accomplish nationally. The NRA's Cunningham said Maryland's experience shows that the seven-day waiting period often stretches longer than a week and is unfair to gun buyers.

The District of Columbia has banned handgun sales.

Virginia's background checks, which typically take about 90 seconds, tap federal and state computer databases to identify people who are prohibited from purchasing guns, such as convicted felons, the criminally insane and illegal immigrants. There is no computer terminal in the gun store; a dealer telephones a special office at the State Police's Richmond headquarters, where three staff members answer calls on a toll-free line and process requests for background information on a central computer.

The background checks sometimes lead police to criminals who are on the run. Vass said a suspected accomplice in a 1987 killing in suburban Richmond was caught last year after she tried to buy a gun at a Henrico County gun shop and her name was run through the computer. That arrest led authorities to the accused killer in Delaware.

The background checks are required of people buying handguns with a barrel length of less than five inches and for guns legally classified as "assault weapons."

Under a change pushed by Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (D), background checks will be conducted on prospective purchasers of all firearms starting July 1. If the Brady bill becomes law, Virginia and other states with instant background checks—such as Delaware and Florida—would be exempt.

Ron Ball, owner of Dawson's gun shop in Fairfax County, said doing business under the Virginia law has not been a burden for him, although some customers "get pretty upset" when authorities temporarily hold up a sale when they believe they need to investigate a purchaser further.

A recent tragedy in Philadelphia revealed what some say is a flaw in the Virginia law. Medical student Jean-Claude Pierre Hill, a native of Elberon, Va., bought two Colt .45-caliber semiautomatic pistols at Guns Unlimited in Isle of Wight, Va. Not until 11 days later—after Hill was arrested for allegedly killing one man and wounding two others—did authorities learn that in a civil case he had been committed to a hospital for mental illness.

Only those who have been committed to a mental institution as part of a criminal arrest show up in Virginia's computer. And Hill never was subject to a background check because the pistols he purchased weren't covered under Virginia's law, although they will be when the expanded provisions take effect.

- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - -

VIRGINIA'S GUN PURCHASE GUIDELINES

The law establishing instant background checks for gun purchases has been in effect since November 1989 All buyers of handguns with a barrel length of less than five inches, as well as those seeking to buy certain semiautomatic "assault weapons," are subject to computerized background checks.

Beginning July 1, buyers of all varieties of guns will be subject to background checks.

□ A typical background chock takes about 90 seconds, according to Virginia State Police.

□ When a prospective buyer takes a gun to the cash register at a gun shop, the dealer uses a toll-free telephone number to call the Richmond headquarters of the State Police.

□ State Police workers type the would-be buyer's name and Social Security number into a computer that has information from several sources, including the Virginia Crime Information Network and the FBI's National Crime Information Center.

□ The police then tell the dealer if the sale meets their approval or should be rejected.

GROUNDS FOR PROHIBITING PURCHASES

□ Felony conviction,
□ Awaiting trial on felony charge.
□ Fugitive from justice.
□ Illegal Immigrant.
□ Has been committed by a court to a mental Institution.
□ Dishonorable discharge from the military.

 

[SPQM]

I mean, NICS may have made slight sense to the heavily fudd population of the NRA at the time; but in today's post-NSA revelations era?

No way in hell are they NOT keeping the raw NICS database checks -- e.g. at 3 PM on June 2, 2011 John Q Smith was used in NICS for a firearms purchase.

(20 years later, August 2031)

"Mr Smith, we're from the FBI and we'd like to talk to you about a gun you purchased in July 2011 and never turned in at the end of the amnesty period of the (Chelsea) Clinton Crime Control Bill in 2030."

 

[Mark75H]

Just keep in mind that back then gas was less than .20 per gallon.

Gas has been MORE than .20 per gallon in MD since at least WWII. My grandfather sold gas at his country store here in MD for 5/$1.00 from the time he opened in the 1930's until WWII. I recall prices in the late '60's in the mid and high .30 range at my father's busy garage business.

 

[Mike]

Gas has been MORE than .20 per gallon in MD since at least WWII. My grandfather sold gas at his country store here in MD for 5/$1.00 from the time he opened in the 1930's until WWII. I recall prices in the late '60's in the mid and high .30 range at my father's busy garage business.

What is a dollar worth?
$0.20 in 1957 = $ 1.70 in 2016

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/

 

[j_h_smith]

From the interweb:

Average Cost Gallon Of Gas.
1930 10 cents , 1940 11 cents , 1950 18 cents , 1960 25 cents , 1970 36 cents , 1980 $1.19 , 1990 $1.34 , 2009 $2.51 , 2013 $3.80

 

[Biggfoot44]

Ok, I missed the price of gas before my time . But the other post on inflation does point out to multiply the prices by 8.5 . That said some of the pieces would still be desirable even at inflation adjusted prices.

(Iirc, back when first driving, 29.9 was cheap for regular, and 37.9 was brand name premium. Beater S&W .38 spls were starting under $100, very nice ones up to $150.)

 

[DivingDriver]

Great thread. Thanks for the work on it!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[SPQM]

From THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS by Carl Baikal (c) 1966:

Purporting to speak for the nation's estimated 30 million gun owners, the 700,000-member organization has opposed and managed to scuttle virtually any legislation seeking to impose sensible controls on the availability, sale and use of firearms in the United States. In the NRA's view, almost all gun laws are bad laws. To promulgate this dogma, the NRA has for nearly four decades conducted one of the most intensive and imaginative lobbying operations witnessed in Washington. It has also been hard at work in state capitals and county and city legislatures. Encrusted with respectability and a self-applied patina of patriotism, the NRA has propagated the myth that any control of firearms by law would infringe on the so-called constitutional "right to bear arms."

Four Decades in 1966 = 1966 - 40 = 1926 (!)

So Mr Baikal is saying that the NRA has been fighting gun control since 1926?

But...wait, the Washington Post assures me the NRA was "okay" until a band of "extremists" took it over in 1977!

 

[Rack&Roll]

Great thread...need to read more when I get caught up on current goings-on. But thanks SPQM for this historical record!

 

[SPQM]

While looking for something else, I found something mentioning BRADY II.

Background from what I can discern:

November 1993: Brady Bill (Brady I) enacted into law.

March 1994: The first inklings of would become Brady II was first introduced before the US Congress as the "Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994" (H.R. 3932 / S.1882 ; 103d Congress).

LINK to 3932

This has some unique features that were not in the "ultimate" Brady II of 1995, mainly:

A.) It shall be unlawful for a person to possess more than 20 firearms or more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition unless the person is a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer; or has been issued an arsenal license pursuant to section 923(m).

B.) It makes it illegal to manufacture or import a firearm that doesn't have a a whole bunch of "child safety" devices:

1.) A built in device that prevents a child of less than 7 years of age from discharging the firearm by reason of the amount of strength, dexterity, cognitive skill, or other ability required to cause a discharge

2.) Magazine safety interlock to prevent firing when magazine is removed.

3.) Loaded chamber indicator.

This of course doesn't apply to any gun manufactured for the Feds or local LEO of course. ^_^

C.) Pittman Robertson tax on handguns is raised from 10% to 30%, and handgun ammunition is taxed at 50%. The Pittman-Robertson tax and the ammo tax are diverted from wildlife conservation to a "Health Care Trust Fund", which would exist for the purpose of making grants to assist hospitals, trauma centers or other health care providers that have incurred substantial uncompensated costs in providing medical care to gunshot victims.

D.) One handgun a month limit.

These were removed from the 1995 "Brady II", but many things such as mandatory HQLs nationwide, were carried forward.

-------------

24 March 1995: Representative Charles Schumer (D-NY), Senators Bill Bradley (D-NJ) and Charles Lautenburg (D-NJ) introduce the "Handgun Control and Violence Prevention Act of 1995" (H.R. 1321 / S. 631 ; 104th Congress) also known as "Brady II". It is substantively similar to the prior "Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994".

LINK to HR 1321

LINK to S 631

What it would have done was:

A.) STATE LICENSE REQUIRED TO RECEIVE A HANDGUN.

Makes "state handgun licenses" mandatory. This is done through amending US Code to prohibit the sale/transfer of a handgun to anyone who doesn't hold a FFL unless they:

1.) Have a State Handgun License (with photo on it)
and that they
2.) Contact the CLEO of the state to see if the license is still valid.

The licenses would be valid for just two years.

It also:

B.) Institutes mandatory handgun registration via a national Form 77R to that state's CLEO.

C.) Prohibits the sale/transfer of handgun ammo to an individual not possessing a FFL unless that person has a valid State Handgun License.

D.) Institutes a Two Handgun a Month Limit.

E.) Institutes Ballistic tracing of handgun barrels (aka the old MD System)

F.) Institutes a 7-day waiting period on handgun purchases.

G.) Makes reporting of lost/stolen/missing handguns mandatory within 24 hours of discovery. (eliminating the "boating accident loophole").

H.) The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms a National Firearms Tracing Center, which shall be operated for the purpose of tracing the chain of possession of firearms and ammunition used in crimes.

I.) Requires a federal license to sell ammunition.

J.) Redefines "Armor Piercing Ammunition."

 

[SPQM]

Volokh has a decent write up on both versions of BRADY II including some things I missed:

http://volokh.com/posts/1190402417.shtml

Any person who owns 20 or more firearms or more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition or primers (e.g. two "bricks" of rimfire ammo) would be required to get an "arsenal" license. To obtain a federal arsenal license, a person would need to be fingerprinted, obtain permission of local zoning authorities, and pay a $300 tax every three years. Her home would be subjected to unannounced, warrantless inspection by the government up to three times a year. "Arsenal" owners would also have to obtain a $100,000 dollar insurance policy.

"Brady II" redefines "firearm" to include magazines and "any part of the action" (such as pins, springs, or screws). Thus, if a person has two Colt pistols, three Remington rifles, and four magazines (of any size) for each gun, then he own an "arsenal." Or if he owned two guns, six magazines, and a box of disassembled gun parts that contained five springs, five pins, and five screws, then he would own 23 "firearms" and would have to obtain an "arsenal" license.

Possession of handguns or handgun ammunition by a person under the age of 21, or possession of any guns or ammunition by a person under the age of 16, would be illegal. Leetting one's 15 year old nephew borrow a single-shot .22 rifle to go target-shooting on one's own farm would be a federal crime

All magazines which hold more than 6 rounds would be outlawed. Possession of existing magazines with a larger capacity would be allowed under the same terms as currently applicable to possession of machine guns: a 10-point FBI fingerprint; an expensive federal tax; and possession only allowed if a letter of authorization from the local police chief is obtained.