Re: New Brady Bill Implications

[Tim May <tcmay@got.net>]

At 11:40 AM -0800 12/1/98, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>It does not affect sale of firearms by non-dealers (non-FFL holders). Look
>for the Clinton administration to try to change this; at a press conference
>today the DC reporter rat-pack was moaning about unregulated gun shows.
>
>It does affect non-sale transfers by FFLs. Per the DoJ rule: "NICS checks
>apply to transfers and are not limited to firearm sales."
>
>I have an article up at www.wired.com shortly about the privacy implications.
>
>-Declan

I'm staying out of this latest round of Brady Bill stuff...as this is very,
very old news. Anyone just now realizing that an "Instant Check" system is
being deployed has been asleep under a rock for the last few years.

And I'm staying away from Igor Chudov's rants about "gunnuts" [sic].

As for the privacy implications of the instant check system, I abandoned
the NRA a few years ago when it began pushing this instant check system
(and also when some of its leaders were lukewarm in their support of gun
rights). It was obvious that it would lead to a fully computerized gun
registration system, as indeed it has...duh! The NRA claimed it would not,
but now they are busy getting ready to sue the FBI and other law enforcment
agencies to force them not to retain the information they get from the
instant check system. Duh, again. (This was all foreseeable to anyone with
half a brain.)

The country now has the beginnings of a national gun registration system,
courtesy of such "useful idiots" as the National Rifle Association.

As for who buys guns and the core of the whole debate, there's a simple,
logical, compelling, and constitutional solution:

Either someone is in prison or jail or otherwise under incarceration, or he
is not. If he is in prison, his guns and lots of other things are not
available to him.

Once he is out of prison, and is no longer under incarceration, all of his
constitutional rights are restored to him. The First Amendment rights of
free speech and free practice of religion, the Third Amendment right not to
have troops quartered in his home. The Fourth Amendment right about lawful
searches. The Fifth Amendment right about compelled testimony. The Sixth
Amendment right about jury trials. And so on.

Oh, and of course the Second Amendment.

There is no constitutional support that I can find that says the government
can, for example, require ex-felons to get permission slips to speak out,
that can require them to renounce certain religions, etc.

And no support, constitutionally, for denying them Second Amendment rights.

Sure, there may be _pragmatic_ reasons...we don't want these evil felons
like Bill Clinton having guns, speaking freely, going to Baptist Bible
camps, etc.

But wanting something and getting it, constitutionally, are entirely
different things.

Seen this way, there is no need for any kind of instant check. Nor does the
Constitution support the notion that the Second, or First, or Third, etc.,
rights depend on applying for a permit, getting a license, producing a
valid ID and Social Security Number, or any of the modern baggage attached
to such things.

Gun sales should be as they once were: you plunk your money down and walk
out with a gun. You don't need no steenking badges, licenses, permission
slips, approvals from your psychiatrist, training classes, or evidence of
some special need.

Felons should either be in prison or restored to their full rights after
doing their time.

--Tim May

"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, just the way the President did."
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.