Dear wrynn-ga;
Thank you for allowing me an opportunity to answer your interesting
question.
H.R. 1025, which would eventually become known as “The Brady Bill”
after President Ronald Reagan’s Press Secretary James Brady who was
shot by Regan’s mentally ill, would-be assassin John Hinkley, Jr. in
1980, was initially Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary on
February 25, 1993 (103rd Congress’ first session opened on January 5,
1993), but the concept itself dates back as far as 1985 when the still
horribly and permanently injured James Brady himself, with the help of
his wife Sarah, encouraged the issue to be brought to legislation.
In 1993, when the concept came to fruition, the political climate
could be best described as “clear to partly cloudy” with emphasis on
“clear”. The economy was doing well, the computer industry was leading
world news as one of the fastest growing gold mines in memorable
market history and the US had in it’s coffers a growing surplus of
funds courtesy (or so many people believed) of their beloved,
charismatic, young 42nd President, Bill Clinton. In the first year of
his Presidency Clinton encountered a bit of a problem changing the
course of national priorities. Although the democrats were dominant,
this actually worked in his favor because it lent an air of
cooperation between the two parties. Political matters at hand were
Haitian refugees, homosexuals in the military, and comprehensive
health-care reform, not to mention our deepening interest in the
President’s personal affairs limited then only to an issued called the
“Whitewater affair”. Our primary focus in this post Gulf War I era was
on domestic issues and we had an unmistakably energetic attitude
towards a rare opportunity to "fix what was broke" in our own country
for a change.
Simmering in the background for some time however (and very ready to
come to a boil) was this Brady Bill issue. The most notable interest
groups involved in the issue were of course the proponents of free gun
ownership without government interference and those who outwardly
supported the second amendment of the Constitution. Most group efforts
pale in comparison to that of the number one player, the National
Rifle Association (NRA), who happens to be one such group. Leading the
opposition with their formidable clout the NRA was able to apply great
political pressure in order to cause serious alterations from the
original bill. The NRA had other notable organizations in their corner
such as the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) who espouted
it's allegiance with, and support for the law enforcement community as
a whole but it's actual representation of such a large group was
debatable according to some.
The AARP on the other hand, with almost ten times the membership of
the NRA, supported the bill because of it’s potential for reducing
violent crimes against the elderly. The AARP and it's senior members
had a great deal of pull and when they talked, people listened. Other
supporters of the bill included such notable interest groups as The
Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), National Association of Police
Organizations, Inc. (NAPO), and a multitude of public safety
organizations around the country.
Before all was settled, several challenges seeking to amend the bill
(the McCollum, Ramstad and Gekas amendments) would go before the House
on November 10, 1993:
-----------------------------------------------------------
MCCOLLUM AMENDMENT; ROLL CALL #560
H.AMDT.391 (A003)
Amends: H.R.1025
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HZ00391:
Sponsor: Rep McCollum, Bill [FL-8] (offered 11/10/1993)
AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION:
Amendment sought to provide that once a national system for background
checks is in place that process will preempt any State waiting period
laws.
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment to preempt local laws with the national "instant check"
system once the system is in place.
FAILED 11/10/1993 3:58pm
175 FOR – 257 OPPOSED
http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=1993&rollnumber=560
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAMSTAD AMENDMENT; ROLL CALL #561
H.AMDT.389 (A001)
Amends: H.R.1025
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HZ00389:
Sponsor: Rep Ramstad, Jim [MN-3] (offered 11/10/1993)
AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION:
Amendment provides that if a person is determined to be ineligible to
purchase a handgun during the bill's 5-day waiting period, that
individual may request and receive the reasons for this determination,
within 20 business days from local law enforcement.
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment to require local law enforcement officials to specify,
when requested, the reason for denying an application for a handgun
within twenty business days.
PASSED 11/10/1993 4:17pm
425 FOR – 4 OPPOSED
http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=1993&rollnumber=561
-----------------------------------------------------------
GEKAS AMENDMENT; ROLL CALL #562
H.AMDT.390 (A002)
Amends: H.R.1025
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HZ00390:
Sponsor: Rep Gekas, George W. [PA-17] (offered 11/10/1993)
AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION:
Amendment provides that a national system of instant background checks
on handgun purchasers shall automatically replace the bill's five-day
waiting period on handgun purchases five years after enactment of the
bill.
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment stipulating that the national system of instant
background checks on handgun purchasers shall automatically replace
the proposed five-day waiting period on handgun purchases within five
years after enactment.
PASSED 11/10/1993 4:25pm
238 FOR – 192 OPPOSED
http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=1993&rollnumber=562
-----------------------------------------------------------
On November 10, 1993, with the voting finished, the Brady Bill passed
the House of Representatives by a vote of 238 FOR, 189 OPPOSED.
ROLL CALL #564
http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=1993&rollnumber=564
-----------------------------------------------------------
It passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 07:09 PM by a vote of 63
FOR and 36 OPPOSED.
U.S. SENATE ROLL CALL VOTES 103RD CONGRESS - 1ST SESSION
SENATE ROLL CALL, VOTE #394
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00394
-----------------------------------------------------------
Here you will find all the action on the Brady Bill in great detail.
Each link provides an enormous amount of detailed data. This follows
the historical trail of the issue through the conceptual stage all the
way through to the time is was signed in to law by the President as
“Public Law No: 103-159” on November 30, 1993. The law went into
effect on February 28, 1994.
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ROLL CALL VOTES
103RD CONGRESS - 1ST SESSION (1993)
BILL SUMMARY & STATUS FOR THE 103RD CONGRESS
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:h.r.01025:
and
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR01025:@@@L&summ2=m&
-----------------------------------------------------------
Below you will find that I have carefully defined my search strategy
for you in the event that you need to search for more information. By
following the same type of searches that I did you may be able to
enhance the research I have provided even further. I hope you find
that that my research exceeds your expectations. If you have any
questions about my research please post a clarification request prior
to rating the answer. Otherwise, I welcome your rating and your final
comments and I look forward to working with you again in the near
future. Thank you for bringing your question to us.
Best regards;
Tutuzdad-ga
INFORMATION SOURCES
PENNSYLVANIANS AGAINST HANDGUN VIOLENCE
http://www.pahv.org/brady/index.htm
COMPLETE TEXT OF THE SO- CALLED BRADY BILL
http://www.totse.com/en/politics/right_to_keep_and_bear_arms/bradybil.html
THE BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE
http://www.bradycenter.com/ler/leg/leaa.asp
OTHERS DEFINED ABOVE
SEARCH STRATEGY
SEARCH ENGINE USED:
Google ://www.google.com
SEARCH TERMS USED:
Alternatively used the search terms “Brady Bill”, “Brady Law” and
“H.R. 1025” with each of the following where appropriate:
SUPPORTERS OF
OPPONENTS OF
VOTED FOR
VOTED AGAINST
HOUSE ROLL LCALL
SENATE ROLL CALL
LOBBIED FOR
LOBBIED AGAINST
CURRENT EVENTS 1993
KEY POLITICAL ISSUES 1993 |
Clarification of Answer by
tutuzdad-ga
on
12 Jul 2003 08:32 PDT
Absolutely, I’d be happy to elaborate on that issue. Not surprisingly,
the answer comes directly from the Bush Library in the published words
of President George H. W. Bush himself upon signing the final draft of
the Crime Control Act of 1990, which was the original legislative
precursor to the “Brady Bill”. What is surprising is reasoning behind
his disappointment.
You see, Bush had in mind a much different finished product. His
vision of the measure was much more comprehensive than what ended up
coming to fruition. While tighter gun control and restrictions were
certainly heavily lobbied issues at the time, they weren’t really
listed high on the political marquee for the purposes of this act (by
the President or anyone else for that matter), or at least not under
the auspices of waiting periods or background checks. Bush was much
more focused on passing legislation that would help police and
prosecutors do their jobs more efficiently, ridding the streets of
dangerous felons, creating laws that would implement the death penalty
for heinous Federal crimes (like mail bombing and terrorism),
reforming habeas corpus proceedings in death penalty cases to help
prevent endless delays in justice, reforming the exclusionary rule so
juries could consider all evidence obtained by the police in “good
faith”, and last but not least of course, enhanced penalties for the
criminal use of firearms. Fundamentally forced into a position where
he had to settle for half or nothing in order to insure that his
original concepts would survive into the future, he eventually felt he
had to embrace the grossly inadequate legislation (as it was written)
that he signed on November 29, 1990, though he didn’t by any stretch
of the imagination agree with the fact that it was incomplete and
noticeably absent these references and more.
In his somber statement Bush pulls no punches when he publicly
describes his reaction to the final draft as “disturbed” and
“disappointed”:
“I must note my deep disappointment over many provisions noticeably
absent from the legislation.”
“At the eleventh hour, these reforms were stripped from the crime bill
by the conference committee…”
“…this is not the crime bill I asked the Congress to pass…”.
True to his vision (and cleverly stubborn) however, Bush got the last
word thus leaving open the window of opportunity to future debate,
which eventually led to the creation of the Brady Bill. He ended his
statement with this promise upon signing the Crime Control Act of 1990
(S. 3266) into Public Law No. 101 – 647:
“Americans have the right to be free from fear in their homes, in
their streets, and in their neighborhoods. I call on the Congress to
implement the remainder of the comprehensive crime package, which fell
short of becoming law this session. The American people deserve tough,
new laws to help us prevail in the fight against drugs and crime.”
I would imagine that Bush walked away saying to himself, “Oh yeah,
like it or not we’re going to talk about this issue a lot more in the
days to come”, while some members of the House and Senate were
probably quietly saying to themselves. “Oh great, here we go again.”
In time of course, that’s exactly what happened and that’s how the
Brady Bill lived to fight another day.
I hope this sheds some light on this moment in time for you.
Regards;
Tutuzdad-ga
BUSH LIBRARY
“Statement on Signing the Crime Control Act of 1990 - November 29,
1990”
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/papers/1990/90112907.html
|
