From: shepard@netcom.com (Mark Shepard)
Subject: S414 (Brady bill) loopholes?
Keywords: brady handguns s414 hr1025 hr277 instant check waiting period
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na
Lines: 40

Hi. I've just finished reading S414, and have several questions about
the Brady bills (S414 and HR1025).

1. _Are_ these the current versions of the Brady bill?
     What is the status of these bills?  I've heard they're "in committee".
     How close is that to being made law?

2. S414 and HR1025 seem fairly similar.  Are there any important
   differences I missed?

3. S414 seems to have some serious loopholes:
  A. S414 doesn't specify an "appeals" process to wrongful denial during
     the waiting period, other than a civil lawsuit(?)  (S414 has an appeals
     process once the required instant background check system is established,
     but not before).
  B. the police are explicitly NOT liable for mistakes in denying/approving
     using existing records (so who would I sue in "A" above to have an
     inaccurate record corrected?)
  C. S414 includes an exception-to-waiting-period clause for if a person
     can convince the local Chief Law-Enforcement Officer (CLEO) of an
     immediate threat to his or her life, or life of a household member.
     But S414 doesn't say exactly what is considered a "threat", nor does
     it place a limit on how long the CLEO takes to issue an exception
     statement.
True?  Have I misunderstood?  Any other 'holes?

4. With just S414, what's to stop a person with a "clean" record from
   buying guns, grinding off the serial numbers, and selling them to crooks?
   At minimum, what additional laws are needed to prevent this?

   'Seems at min. a "gun counting" scheme would be needed
   (e.g., "John Doe owns N guns").  So, if S414 passes, I wouldn't be surprised
   to see legislation for stricter, harder-to-forge I.D.'s plus national gun
   registration, justified by a need to make the Brady bill work.

Please comment.  I'm mainly interested in specific problems with the current
legislation--I don't mean to start a general discussion of the merits
of any/all waiting-period bills ever proposed.

	MarkS || shepard@netcom.com
