DescentBB

Gun Law Update (Brady Plan)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Full contact info at end




New Brady Anti-Gun Strategy Revealed


\"Decommissioned\" Guns Nearly As Good As Confiscations


by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America


The Brady group and its congressional supporters are proceeding, and
making headway, with a below-radar effort to ban operating firearms from
the general public, without having to actually disarm America's 95
million gun owners.

The plan is now evolving around an innocent-sounding new legal term. It
was first tucked deep in a 400,000-word spending bill under president
Clinton (law # P.L. 105-277), and it is now spreading throughout federal
gun laws. Its latest use, the eighth, is in the frivolous-lawsuit ban
recently enacted (The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, law #
P.L. 109-92; S.397). Described at the end of this report, it accents a
liability all Americans -- not just gun owners -- are increasingly under,
a tightening legal noose few people realize is around their necks.

The phrase is \"secure gun storage or safety device.\" It includes almost
anything that will keep a gun from working. At its simplest, it's gun
locks.

This and closely related tactics are sometimes called \"decommissioning
schemes.\" Gun-control advocates -- the mainstream ones who seek to disarm
the public -- will essentially win their cause if they can require guns
to be disabled, disassembled, locked up or turned off by remote control.



OCCURRENCES of \"secure gun storage or safety device\" (SGSSD)

18 USC 921(34). The \"secure gun storage or safety device\" is defined.

18 USC 923(d). Dealers are required to carry SGSSDs, unless they are
unavailable due to supply-chain problems outside the dealer's control.

18 USC 923(e). Dealer's license can be revoked for failing to carry
SGSSDs, unless they were unavailable due to supply-chain problems.

42 USC 3760. The Byrne Grant law is amended to allow training the public
in use of SGSSDs, and use of firearms.

18 USC 922(z)(1). Dealers now required to provide SGSSDs with every
firearm sold.

18 USC 924(p)(1)(A). Stiff fines and license suspension added to
penalties for dealers who fail to provide SGSSDs.

18 USC 922(z)(2). Proper authorities at every level of federal, state and
local government are exempt from the SGSSD laws. Someone should write a
paper just on that.

18 USC 922(z)(3)(A). This was inserted by Brady-backed anti-gun-rights
legislators. It went into the gun-industry-protection, frivolous-lawsuit
ban (Oct. 2005): A person who uses an SGSSD on a gun has liability
protection if a criminal steals the gun and then uses it in criminal
activity.

Providing an \"incentive\" to decommission your firearms, as this law does,
is sinisterly clever. In the name of safety, you are threatened with
legal nightmares that are little more than corrupt abuses of the justice
system. These are the actions of a resolute and unprincipled enemy of the
human and civil right to keep and bear arms.

----------

This approach is already working in National Parks where possession of a
working gun subjects you to immediate federal arrest, confiscation of
your property, and endless aggravation. No criminal act of any kind is
required, just legal possession of personal property -- any firearm.
However, a gun in pieces so it cannot be fired, locked in your car trunk,
is allowed. Interestingly, no statutory authority for this denial of
civil rights can be found. And of course, statutory denial of civil
rights would be unconstitutional on its face.

Washington, D.C., is currently under a similar \"decommissioning model\"
too, though its registration system gets more attention. In addition to a
full ban on handgun registration since 1976, firearms that were owned
before that date cannot be assembled, or even carried -- at home. It's
almost as good as taking the guns away, from a gun-ban perspective. Any
gun use, including legitimate self defense, implies assembly and
carriage, and is banned.

Even the widely hailed federal \"Firearm Transportation Guarantee\" (law #
18 USC 926A) relies on decommissioned guns. It was enacted as part of the
Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986, to help counteract high levels of
federal abuse under the 1968 Gun Control Act. It guarantees a person the
right to transport a firearm from any legal place to any other, anywhere
in the country. However, the firearm must be unloaded and locked in the
trunk, rendering it useless. If you bear it in any manner while you
travel, the protection does not apply.

Under Brady-supported decommissioning schemes, you can keep your guns,
but if they're ever workable, or available, you become a criminal and
subject to arrest. It's pretty clever actually. And it has been working,
even though forced decommissioning is infringement of the right to keep
arms and the right to bear arms.

The Byrne Grant program (law # 42 USC 3760) provides federal money for
law-enforcement firearm training and other purposes. Changed under
president Clinton, it now authorizes federal funding to train the public
in the use of... gun locks. Under a gun-unfriendly administration
(anti-rights advocates believe they will have this one day), little
prevents this funding from going into large-scale campaigns to convince
people to only possess decommissioned guns, \"for safety.\"

While on one hand, who could rationally argue against making guns safe,
gun guru Col. Jeff Cooper has succinctly pointed out that, \"A gun that's
safe isn't worth anything.\"

And that turns out to be the very heart of this gun-ban plan -- a gun
that's safe isn't worth anything. But gun-rights advocates know guns are
dangerous, they are supposed to be dangerous, and they're not any good if
they're not dangerous. Anything requiring guns to be \"safe\" is the true
danger, and the secure storage device has now become \"incentivized\" (see
the list below).

The Republican party, in control for half a decade, hasn't used Byrne
Grants for their other authorized purpose: training the public in \"the
lawful and safe ownership, storage, carriage or use of firearms.\" Will
Republican failure to use this law (for gun-safety training) also deter
Democrats from using it (to promote gun locks)? Nah. And now, with gun
locks slipped into the gun-industry protection bill...

As the subtle tactic of decommissioned guns continues, the right to keep
and bear arms is at risk. The next time the anti-rights factions slip in
the phrase \"secure gun storage or safety device,\" you had better look
very closely. All it will take is one use, with the word \"required,\" to
wipe out our cherished Second Amendment rights. And they won't have to
take your guns away to do it.

----------

Note: When a criminal steals your property, and then uses it to harm
someone or violate the law, the criminal -- not you -- should be liable
to the victims. Because the court system is broken (I'm being nice), such
cases sometimes proceed, even if they have no legal footing to come after
you, or grounds to win. Their main purposes are the huge costs they
inflict, the aggravation factor and the chance for a settlement, all
shameful abuses of the court system. Protection from such abuse is the
very thing the gun industry just got under the lawsuit bill (the public
was not included in the protection). All Americans, not just gun owners,
are increasingly under this abominable legal corruption. A man sued Ford
because his daughter had a flat. He lost of course, but frivolous cases
used to get their attorneys disbarred. They no longer do.





Contact:
Alan Korwin
BLOOMFIELD PRESS
\"We publish the gun laws.\"
4718 E. Cactus #440
Phoenix, AZ 85032
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 FAX
1-800-707-4020 Orders
http://www.gunlaws.com
alan@gunlaws.com

Good article, but nothing new.
They're simply manipulating and have been since the late 60's. America is getting fed-up( at least the rational people)and there will come a time when they're no longer willing to put up with it.

Well, I'm not going to give my opinion, I think you all know it by now. But I ask the question, years ago when the NRA was approached with a compromise to about gun locks, they balked.

What is so bad about trigger locks? Do you guys with concealed weapons walk around with a round in the chamber? If you guys are so worried about crime, why not move somewhere else where you wouldn't have to care about that sort of thing.

I think Chris Rock was right, sell all the guns you want for next to nothing. But make bullets cost a thousand bucks a piece.

I’m not opposed to trigger locks per se, I would have them on all of my rifles if I had any ammunition in the house. But if you go through the trouble of getting a concealed weapons permit, and you use it, a trigger lock defeats the purpose doesn’t it?

I have never fully understood why so many people have such a visceral hatred towards firearms.

Dedman wrote:I have never fully understood why so many people have such a visceral hatred towards firearms.

Control freaks that feel intimidated by the idea a gun owner has the means to resist them ?

That could be Gren. I really don’t know.

My brother is an anti-gun nut. I use the word nut because he is almost completely irrational in his dislike of firearms. He says they kill people. I point out that a lot of other things kill more people than guns - alcohol and tobacco – (he uses both liberally) and they are just as if not more useless than guns in today’s society. I point out that pesky little piece of literature called the 2nd amendment. He says it has outlived it’s usefulness and we don’t maintain militias anymore.

We go round and round. When I push him, he finally admits that he hates them and doesn’t see a use or need for them. Irrational.

I can understand not liking guns. To each his own. What I can’t understand is the passion with witch the anti-gun crowd tries to get guns removed from our society.

Do you guys with concealed weapons walk around with a round in the chamber?

That had to be the MOST asinine question I've ever read.

What would be the point of carrying a firearm with no cartridge in the chamber? Not only is there a cartridge in the chamber, but the hammer on mine is cocked with an extra magazine on my other hip.

( wishing I could be a fly on the wall to watch the anti's squirm as they read that)

i'm much less worried about controlling the guns than the culture itself. I think most of the gun control efforts are well intentioned, but misplaced. Cycles of violence will continue in gangs as long as drugs are illegal, no matter what the gun laws are gangs will profit and flourish through illegal drug sales.

I think drugs being illegal is one of the biggest reasons we have so much violent gun crime. People don't stop to think of the causes of violence, they just think restricting guns will somehow reduce violence. Doesn't work.

I tend to agree with you Birdseye. We as a species have an annoying habbit of ignoring the root cause of problems.

C'mon Barry, that can't be the most asinine question I've ever asked you about guns. I would be worried about blowing a leg off though.

Grendel, I think the opposite is true. I have no desire to control you, I just feel that you aren't mature enough to handle life and death in your hands. Nobody here is...if you were...you'd be in Los Pepes Iraqis.

Zuruck wrote:I have no desire to control you, I just feel that you aren't mature enough to handle life and death in your hands. Nobody here is...if you were...you'd be in Los Pepes Iraqis.

Forget about carry permits for a second. Are you saying that as a general rule, we aren't mature enough to even own a gun for target shooting purposes?

I own three hunting rifles but I don't hunt. I occasionally go target shooting though. I am not mature enough for that? Is that what you are basing your objection to gun ownership on?

Zuruck wrote:Grendel, I think the opposite is true. I have no desire to control you, I just feel that you aren't mature enough to handle life and death in your hands. Nobody here is...if you were...you'd be in Los Pepes Iraqis.

To say that nobody here is mature enough to handle life and death in their own hands is quite the sweeping generalization, and nicely sums up the busybody attitude (although I don't intend to point fingers). I'm sure, or at least hope, that many people here have noticed that the base cause of all anti-tobacco, alcohol, firearms, etc. movements is the idea that no one, except the busybody-controlled state, is mature enough to make their own decisions. Something of an adult infantilization, if you will, which is exactly what control freaks want.

So Zuruck, who would you grant the power of life and death to when there is no one close by to protect you?
You would not trust yourself to defend yourself?

Only elitist would have the nerve to say we're not capable or responsible enough to take care of ourselves or make our own decisions. We're simply untrustworthy, huh?
Generally, people that don't trust others can't be trusted themselves. A person cannot realize morals they don't have they and assume everyone else act/reacts the same as they do.It's one of the reasons that people who trust others tend to get screwed. They trust everyone because they can be trusted and can't imagine NOT being able to be trusted.

What Zuruck is actually telling us is that *he* can't be trusted and is not mature enough to handle life and death. Don't project your own shortcomings onto me or anyone else, Zuruck. I truly believe that MOST people can be trusted and are mature enough to handle whatever it is that needs to be handled, including life and death.

If what you're saying is true, we'd have a lot more dead people than we do now. There are plenty of more effective weapons to take a life than a firearm.

Well, if you say people are mature enough then we would not have 99% of the killings that we do. I'd wager quite a bit to say the majority of gun related deaths were NOT due to self defense, but rather aggression for various reasons. It's clearly a fact that people carrying weapons cannot maintain the same sort of restraint that people who do not carry weapons do. If that was NOT true, then you would not see the stupid killings that dominate statistics. Easy access to guns means killings at schools, on roads, in stores, NOT just from criminals, but from ordinary people who feel holier than thou. The kids from Columbine were not crazy, they had easy access to guns meant for no other purpose than to kill other people. Blame the parents, if you want, for failing to be parents. I doubt they could have killed that many people if they attacked the school with knives and rocks. Would you get out of you car in traffic after being cut off if all you had was a lead pipe?

It's simple mathematics. Take the number of guns down, deaths will go down. I live in Chicago, had the most murders last year in the nation, I don't own a firearm, never been in a situation where I thought it was needed either.

You guys shouldn't bring up the 2nd Amendment either. The GOP has been pissing on that document for a very, very long time. You ever seen the movie \"Steal This Movie\" about Abbie Hoffman? Good flick, shows the lengths at which Republicans in this country have gone to take our \"freedoms\", if you can call them that anymore, away.

Funny, the stats for people leagally carrying firearms show a different result. The folks who carry legally go far out of their way to avoid conflict. All of my friends carry legally and the other 12 thousand in my city(of 70 thousand) must be excluded from those statistics. Since 1970 there have been exactly 1 person who carries legally use their weapon inappropriatly in my city and he simply has his permit revoked for brandishing, nobody was injured and no shots fired.

For the past few years I've been trying to get to think rationally about firearm ownership to no avail. I really don't think there's much more I can say/do that would provide you solid information to force a more realistic view of firearms.

as for the 2A- It can be downplayed all you and your other elitist friends want, but the fact remains that it is there and it says what it says, no matter how much you don't like it or try to manipulate the words.If you think it can be legislated away I've got some news for ya. It will only be legislated as much as we allow it to and the time is short before the people make THEIR will(not the elitist) known. I know far too many people willing to fight the good fight to secure the liberty of firearm ownership, because without that simple right no other right can be assured.

Just remember, if you don't like me owning firearms, there isn't much you can do about it. You'll certainly get no where by force.

Zuruck wrote:they had easy access to guns meant for no other purpose than to kill other people

Over-emotionalistic kneejerk statement. Guns are guns. I've had guns around the house, loaded, and unlocked, all my life. All my friends grew up with guns hanging on their walls, loaded. We never shot anybody. 40 years ago, kids would take their guns to school, put them in their lockers, and at the end of the day, go out shooting..whatever they shot...but nobody shot each other.

I can have a rifle in the house but that doesn't mean i'm going to go out and be the next clocktower sniper.

but anyways. i'm not worried about the guy who's walking around with a concealed weapon. what I am worried about is the crackhead who will rob a house to get a gun and use it against the next person.

Testiculese wrote:...40 years ago, kids would take their guns to school, put them in their lockers, and at the end of the day, go out shooting..whatever they shot...but nobody shot each other.

Exactly! Guns haven't changed but our culture has, so obviously the problem isn't the guns.
I have to question the motives and intelligence of anyone who chooses to blame the guns.

At best you could say we as a society have failed so miserably to maintain self responsibility and respect for authority that we have become completely, uncontrollably dangerous. Time to commit ourselves to a rubber room!

Yes if we have failed so miserably we can no longer expect our fellow humans to control themselves then we can't allow there to be sharp objects or guns or matches and gasoline or drugs or heavy equipment or baseball bats or even stones larger than a coin to be anywhere within reach of anyone lest they decide to use it to kill someone. If that's where we are then it makes sense to fear the inanimate gun!

The problem is we have decided it's too judgemental to demand people be responsible and respect authority. We don't chastize our neighbors for letting their kids run wild.
We don't let our teachers discpline the children, we ridicule anyone who mentions family values etc.
Instead we make excuses for dangerous parenting and try to find a way to blame Walmart or corporate greed or rap music or sugar in foods or religion for the way the way things have become.

That pretty much nails it.

VonVulcan wrote:That pretty much nails it.

x2

VonVulcan wrote:That pretty much nails it.

X3

Zuruck wrote:It's simple mathematics. Take the number of guns down, deaths will go down. I live in Chicago, had the most murders last year in the nation, I don't own a firearm, never been in a situation where I thought it was needed either.

I dont know where you are really going with this other than not to prove your point, because that is not the case. Chicago has a very high crime rate indeed, yet gun ownership in Chicago has been illegal since 1982. And the deaths just keep on rising.

You want a case study? Go here and go down to the part that says "Gun Control in Chicago: A Case Study". Read that carefully and take it under consideration.

Top- this discussion is based on emotion- please keep your facts to yourself.

LOL, word.

I have a rifle propped up against a shelf directly behind me as I type this up. I removed all the ammunition from it about an hour ago just because I feel more comfortable that way. However, the required 14 rounds to fill the gun and another 832 rounds are sitting on the very shelf the gun is propped against, I can load the gun and be ready to fire in seconds. I use this Marlin model 60 rifle quite regularly for target practice just for fun, and an attempt at pest control. (I know all to well what they meant by \"they breed like rabbits now\", shoot one rabbit, 50 more scatter away.)

\"A gun that's safe isn't worth anything.\" I agree 100%.

Guns don't kill people.



Bullets don't kill people.

HOLES kill people.

Duper wrote:HOLES kill people.

wrong again. Organ failure kills people.

How about \"anti-constitutional right\" idiots.

Shadowfury333 wrote:

Duper wrote:HOLES kill people.

wrong again. Organ failure kills people.

Doooooh!

PWND!

barry, move to a big city and your stats change. tell you what, come to chicago, we'll go to the southside, carry your firearms, see how well you do.

on a side note, might i inquire as to why guns are so important? if you are so worried about your security, move to the middle of nowhere in nevada and you won't see a bad person for 500 miles in each direction.

Zuruck,
Will's post in the other thread about you ignoring most everything not related to your cause waxes true here. Top already posted a study on Chicago, but you don't want to see facts..

Again you dont make any sense in proving your point. And you avoid in answering mine.

You know, I live in Chicago as well (and I dont make an effort to mention about it every other post I make). Are you denying the fact that homicide in Chicago has been increasing for at least the past decade? Are you denying the fact that gun control in Chicago has absolutely done NOTHING to curb crime in this city? You mention yourself the fact that Chicago last year was the highest for murders in the nation, yet we had this gun control system established for damn well over 15 years.

Why is it then that even though we have this gun control system established for so long, that we can't get a hold of reducing crime, and instead we are actually put on the map for the highest rate of crime in the nation? And we have gun control? It doesn't make sense. Or mayby it does in a sense that IT DOESN'T WORK and that a regular citezens's right to defend themselves of violent crime such as murder and rape have been taken away by a mayor whose interest in maintaining this law is strictly for political pandering only. And yet you ★■◆● about the Republican's for their political pandering.

First, I did read that study, but after three sentences it did not become a real study, and it became an article by gun nuts. Top, I see you work for Motorola, well living in Schaumburg or Rolling Meadows in not exactly Chicago, it's suburbia.

You think if more people had guns, crime would go down? Please, gun owners know no restraint. If they did, you wouldn't see roadside shootings on the 290 bottleneck. A man in Aurora shot another man because he cut in front of him at the gas pump a couple months ago.

oh, and as for not answering questions directly. Nobody has answered any of mine.

1. Why are guns so important?
2. If you do not feel safe in your city, why not move?
3. Why not just have guns for sport? Why carry around a tec 9 that is designed for just killing humans?
4. As said before, rights in the constitution are not guaranteed, so why do you think the right is yours?

I know skyalmian will quote the fact about the constitution <i.For</i> the united states, which i agree with, However i believe whether the constitution is reliable or usable vs these measures is irrelevant, gun rights have been a center for the over a hundred years and i do not believe it to be a special priviledge, i believe everyone has the <i>Right</i> to defend themselves or others within their power.

Regardless of big brothers big hand over everything in our life.

in my first post i tried to stay away from opinionating, i thought it might be a real discussion this time. obviously not, so i'm done with this one and no more gun topics for me.