One of your readers has inferred, in a June 20 letter, that passage of the Brady Bill might have prevented the shooting of one basketball player by another. The Brady Bill, ostensibly, simply requires a five-day wait between purchase and taking delivery of a pistol or revolver. I don't remember reading that the shooter had rushed out and bought the pistol just before the incident.
The same letter writer repeated the old line about how "Every major police organization" supports the bill. The truth about that is that some do . . . and some don't.
Those pushing the Brady Bill, such as Sarah Brady and Handgun Control Incorporated, frequently make that claim . . . usually mentioning the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) as proof. It is noticeable that they never mention the National Association of Chiefs of Police (NACOP), which opposes the Brady Bill.
The passage of the Brady Bill would have no affect on criminal misuse of firearms. Most proponents of the bill no longer even pretend that it will.
Just before the passage of the bill in the house of representatives, proponents of the bill were selling it as an opportunity to screw the National Rifle Association. That's not a very good reason to make bad law.
Another reason for the bill, less openly discussed, was that it would serve as the camel's nose . . . the nose of the camel that was to bring down the Second Amendment tent.
The Brady Bill has been passed by the House of Representatives. A version of it was passed in the Senate last week (as part of an omnibus anti-crime bill). With any sort of luck Congress will come to its senses and it won't go any further.
- Delmar L. Olson, Seattle