Lies, Damned Lies, and the Brady Campaign

Kristin Brown, chief strategy officer of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, is a liar. But we’ve come to expect that of the Bradys. She also appears to be so completely ignorant of the law — she is a lawyer, and should know better — that she may also be an idiot.

The Chicago Tribune should embarrassed for running this garbage.

Commentary: Private banks serve the public by pushing gun industry toward consumer safety
Gun violence is one of the most dangerous public health epidemics facing Americans today. Every day, 96 Americans are killed by guns, with another 200 injured.

Cancer alone kills an average of 1,633 people per day; 595,930 per year.

Heart disease kills an average of 1,737 people per day; 633,842 per year.

Firearms deaths doesn’t even make the CDC’s top ten.

These dangerous weapons of war [“assault weapons”] have no business in places of peace, and private companies are increasingly recognizing this fact.

Semiautomatic rifles are not military “weapons of war.” Name the country that generally issues semiautomatic rifles to its regular troops. No one does, because they are not considered suitable for war operations in an age of battle rifles and assault rifles.

We know that laws preventing the sales of assault weapons work — the federal ban in place from 1994 to 2004 was proved to reduce shooting massacres in the United States.

Outright lie. Firearms meeting the definition of “assault weapon” in the 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, were rarely used in crime before, being just 2% of all crime guns. Or after. What decrease was seen was lost in the statistical noise, and the researchers admit that the use of other weapons increased anyway.

The Brady Campaign’s Gun Dealer Code of Conduct provides a blueprint for how gun sellers can take action on their own accord to make sure their firearms aren’t being sold to dangerous and prohibited people

Ah, the Gun Dealers Code of Conduct. Let’s look at that.

  • Prevent sales of guns to straw purchasers or gun traffickers.
    That’s already unlawful.
  • Prevent sales to persons prohibited from buying guns or too dangerous to possess guns.
    That one, too.
  • Prevent criminals from obtaining firearms through thefts.
    I’m fairly sure that no FFL wants his inventory stolen anyway. Aside from the monetary loss, there’s the paperwork involved in explaining to the ATF what happened to all those bound book entries.
  • Conduct pre-employment background checks on all potential employees, including contacting references and prior employers, as well as conducting a criminal history check that is the same as what gun buyers have to complete. (emphasis added-cb)
    That happens to be illegal. Using NICs for employment background checks is “a violation of federal law, sanctions for which may include criminal prosecution; a civil fine not to exceed $10,000, and/or cancellation of NICS inquiry privileges.”Besides, it would already be unlawful to allow a prohibited person to possess a firearm, employee or not. Sure employee background checks are a good idea, given existing law; but it can’t be the NICS check used for buyers.
  • Assist law enforcement to investigate and prevent criminal access to guns.
    Since that’s pretty much a condition of having an FFL, it seems as redundant as the other demands.
  • You’ll like this one: Immediately notify local and federal authorities of any suspected straw purchasers, prohibited purchasers or dangerous individuals who attempt to obtain guns.
    For all the good it will do. While the Bradys brag on millions of “criminals” being blocked from purchases by NICS checks, the sad fact is that 1) 96% of denials are false positives, 2) only 140 people have been prosecuted for attempting to purchase a firearm as a prohibited person, 3) only 12 were referred for prosecution in 2017, and the kicker: 4) real criminals pass NICS checks by changing their names, misspelling their names, or simply giving the wrong birthdate.
  • Maintain insurance for victims who are entitled to compensation.
    It’s called “liability insurance,” and most business have some sort of coverage for instance in which they are… you know: liable. If the FFL followed the law, and something happened with a firearm beyond his control, then he isn’t liable. Obeyed. Law. Beyond. His. Control.

Besides, if someone tried to offer liability insurance specifically for firearms-related incidents, California and New York would shut them down, while Bloomberg cheers.

And the Bradys.

“Shooting in self-defense is legal in most cases, so why would people need insurance for something that they are legally entitled to?” [Kristin Brown] says.

Wait. Who? Kristin Brown? Where have I seen that name before?

-scrolls up-

Oh. Funny that. I guess Brown was for it before she was against it.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)


One thought on “Lies, Damned Lies, and the Brady Campaign”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *