Talk:Brady Campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Brady Act

There is already a separate section on the Brady Act. I think that it is redundant to have all that information in here, unless it is here for propaganda value. This article should only talk about the Brady Campaign itself, and nothing more. Maybe a link to the brady act, but that should be it. -- Dullfig 04:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed redundant information. Yaf 06:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, we should excise the middle 4 paragraphs, pretty much. Yaf, you're killing me with that 8,000 number :-). To suggest that the Brady Law permanently stopped only 8,000 people from buying a gun is laughable. Even if some of the over 1,000,000 refusals were eventually overturned (due to the very dubious claim of mistaken identy - come on!)the number is still probably much close to the 1 million mark. At least come up with a some verifiable data or source instead of just specualtion. Cramz32 15:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Have found a number in a GAO report for 199,720 denials over a 35 month period. Added this, along with the break-outs of why, and we now have verifiable numbers. Looks like the number of initial denials is somewhere around 65,000 to 67,000 per year. Approximately 22% are overturned on appeal, but it appears that most who are denied don't bother to appeal. Wading through the appeal paperwork is not likely to be a popular thing to do. Yaf 17:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Yaf, I'm glad you linked the GAO report, but I guess you misread the data about reasons for denial. I have repaired the info on the article. About 64% of the denials were for felony convictions, which you lumped into "other reasons like paperwork errors." In any case, I fixed that portion. Now, how do you come up with the 22% overturn rate? Nothing along those lines exists in the GAO report you cited.Cramz32 20:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
For the 22% rate, see page 3 of the following different reference: [1] Yaf 21:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I think it might be a semantics issue here, 22% overturn rate refers only to those that have been appealed. In fact, the GAO report I cited put that rate even higher perhaps because it includes state and FBI denials and appeals. But you have to admit that the vast majority, indeed almost 95% of denials are not overturned, right? Whether it be the fear of the paperwork, failed appeals, or simply the realization the appeal would fail, most denials hold up.Cramz32 21:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, yes. The later reference is more germane, I think, because the higher number in the later reference is likely more indicative of the current state of affairs. Of course, I personally suspect that the reason for the 95% number is that most denied individuals simply opt for a private sale purchase instead of messing with the paperwork, despite having approximately a 1 in 3 chance of getting a denial overturned on appeal. Yaf 21:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
You may be right, who knows, I'm fine with your lastest edits BTW and don't plan on making any myself for a while, though I DO feel better informed.Cramz32 22:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I found the denial data from the GAO and added it to the article. Seems that of the 916,000 denials between 1999 and 2004, 48,000 were reversed on appeal. That's just over 5.2%. So, in that time almost 95% or 868,000 of the denials held up. I appreciate the fact that the appeals process might be difficult for some, but facts are facts. Cramz32 21:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section on tactics

So exactly how am I mis-representing the facts? is it not a fact that a member of Brady Campaign has taken uppon itself to go modify articles pertaining to gun-control issues, to make them POV? -- Dullfig 19:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to have a section on the M.O. of the group, however, let's make it encyclopedic... It has much more impact that way... The Deviant 19:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, let's try to keep this a happy place! It's too much effort, otherwise :) Cramz32 19:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the operative in question has JUST NOW modified the article on the US constitution, YET AGAIN !! -- Dullfig 19:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Guess I'm not sure why a "Brady operative" can't make changes to articles if they think they are valid. Is it any different than you making changes? Or, is it their anonymity that bothers you? Cramz32 20:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Both; and the info in question is blatant POV; this will lead to an edit war. Dullfig

[edit] Confused with National Coalition to Ban Handguns

The Brady Campaign was founded as The National Council to Control Handguns in 1974. No matter how much you wish it were founded with the word "ban" in it's title, it's simply not true. If you insist on making up a history for an organization you clearly know nothing about, at least provide some historical proof of your spurious claim.

I guess that the Congress of the United States are a bunch of morons, and got the name wrong, huh? take a look a the congressional record. Seems that YOU are trying to change history.. Dullfig 19:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
My friend, I'm afraid you did not link me to a Congressional Record site as you had hoped but instead to a a site called www.guncite.com, a virulently pro-gun website. In any case, you're just confused. There was a group called the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. They are now known as the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence. The Brady Campaign is a completely different organization. Similar names though, so I can see how you slipped up. In any case, I hope this will clear up the confusion. Cramz32 20:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
hmmm. ok. Dullfig 20:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
If you have a source showing the original name as other than National Coalition to Ban Handguns, then please cite it, and we can mark the original name as disputed. Otherwise, I do not understand the issue. Wikipedia must have verifiable facts, not some revisionist history. Yaf

20:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Have revised the article. That is what I get for reading too much in a hurry. Those names are just too similar. Please accept my apologies. Yaf 20:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The organization's web site for one [2] There is not a dispute that the National Coailtion to Ban Handguns existed, it just never became Handgun Contol, Inc. or the Brady Campaign. That group became the Coailtion to Stop Gun Violence [3]. I can't understand why this would be disputed, they are two completely separate organizations. Cramz32 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The National Review claims that it had "Ban" in the title. Hmmm. Have put both claims in for now, as this is the most NPOV. Yaf 20:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The National Review article you linked specifically says "One such organization, The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, was originally named The National Coalition to Ban Handguns." In other words, not Handgun Control/Brady. Read the article again it should clear it up for you. Cramz32 20:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Have revised the article. That is what I get for reading too much in a hurry. Those names are just too similar. Please accept my apologies. Yaf 20:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


No worries Yaf, full disclousre is always best. All the name changing makes it really confusing. Seems kind of of silly to me.Cramz32 20:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I know their are out there people that wish they had never so blatantly let the cat out of the bag, and acutally put the purpose of the organization in the name itself; but you cannot re-write history by trying to change the name in an encyclopedia. Just because you don't like that it says ban handguns (which incidentally is the real purpose even today) you can't just change the name to something you like. PLEASE STOP CHANGING THE NAME. Dullfig 19:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


"National Committee to Control Handguns"?! Curious that such a name is unknown to Google. —Tamfang 23:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, it's Coalition not Committee. 37 Google hits with Control, seven hundred with Ban. —Tamfang 03:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What was enacted in 1993?

The relations between various pieces of legislation is unclear. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act says that act included the Federal assault weapons ban. This page, until I fiddled with it perhaps prematurely, said the AWB was part of the Brady Bill (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act). I hope someone can sort it out! —Tamfang 18:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

AWB passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Brady Bill passed in 1993.

[edit] Remove info on MMM?

Would anyone be opposed to removing the bullet points (har har) on the MMM from this article? It is not needed since that info should be available at the MMM article... No? The Deviant 23:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. No need for redundancy. Yaf 01:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. The Deviant 15:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Anti-gun rights?

Sorry to be nitpicky here but the way that the panel is phrased is rather loaded. I'm sure it would initiate the same reaction if the panel were split into Gun Control vs. Anti-Gun Control. Utilizing "anti" automatically connotes favorable opinion for the other side. I don't know how to edit tables specifically but I propose that we change the terminology to Gun Rights vs. Gun Control. puttypapyrus 03:10, 16 February 2006 (CST)

I agree. Problem fixed. Yaf 11:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Puttypapyrus was right, and whoever later made the "Anti-gun rights" Category should also reconsider for the same reason. There is no "Anti-gun control," nor "Pro-gun rights" Category, if you really need the seperate categories why not make them sub-cats of "Gun politics advocacy groups in the United States."

That brings me to my other point, Yaf, your edit says clarification, but I say redundancy, "...political advocacy organization that does take positions on many political issues." Well, what does "political advocacy" mean? I thought I had it covered. Later -MrFizyx 20:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Political advocacy could mean either nonpartisan advocacy of the political (i.e., voting) process itself (the LWV's original position, incidentally), taking no sides, or the advocacy of particular political positions in the races themselves, such as on referendums. The impreciseness of the English language is such that we should reserve ambiguity for when it is really needed, or else clarify the point in cases such as this when clarification is needed to avoid misleading a reader. Yaf 21:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Given that the first part of the sentence says that they were there to support the march, I don't see where there's room for ambiguity. -MrFizyx 21:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Perhaps some of the information can be moved to below the contents under the headings? Also, I don't think this is a stub anymore. BBGun06 00:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV cleanup

I took out the statement below as it is uncited and very POV. One can not damage a law. Nor by complying with it can one reduce it's efficacy.

The ban was damaged by gun manufacturers who either worked to circumvent the law by altering certain prohibited features and changing the name of their firearms, or, alternatively, who responded to the changes required in new gun laws by providing what was required by legislators, depending on one's point of view.

Just tacking on a counter claims seems more odious to me than just removing the unnecessary sentence. L0b0t 00:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on the above, but your last few edits crossed into adding your own POV. Hence my revert. We need to accept that this organization is what it says unless we have a NPOV source to the contrary. -MrFizyx 15:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Show me one thing in the AWB that wasn't cosmetic. Rate of fire, muzzle velocity, anything. All the classifiers were cosmetic, does it look scary, better try to ban it.L0b0t 15:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I need to show you anything. This is not the page to redefine assault weapon or debate the merits of the the Federal assault weapons ban. -MrFizyx 15:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
You are correct it is not the place to do those things. I was looking for a counter to my contention that all of the classifiers are cosmetic. They are, so why can't we say so?L0b0t 16:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
No such "contention" has any place in this article. -MrFizyx 16:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Also the cited source says nothing about the founder's violent past.L0b0t 15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I gather he was mugged at gunpoint in Chicago. I admit that the details seem a bit sketchy. If I encounter a decent source I'll add it, but the current source is enough to identify him as a "victim of gun violence," and I see no reason to remove this. -MrFizyx 15:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Where is the cite for this? The cited source makes no mention of a mugging. I would also posit that unless you have been shot, you are not a victim of GUN violence, you are just a victim of violence.L0b0t 16:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your claim that one is not a victim of gun violence unless one has bullet holes. That seems a bit extreem, but if we can find a neutral source that describes whatever happened, we can summarize the incident without needing to argue over such definitions. -MrFizyx 16:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
If one gets slapped is one a victim of hand violence? How about if one gets cut, knife violence? If you take a cream pie to the face is it cream violence or pie violence? Maybe it's clown violence if pied by a harlequin? I smell the sour taint of a weasle word in "gun violence".L0b0t 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) Hmmm... I think that if any of the above were forced at gun point many would say the victim is a victim of gun violence. Most legal systems make special cases for assault with a deadly weapon. Again, find an NPOV source for whatever happened. If it is more accurate to state that he is a victim of aggravated assault and battery, then that is what the article should read. We should be as factual as possible and cite the best sources possible. -MrFizyx 16:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This para needs to go it makes little sense as it trying to compare arrests with convictions.

  • According to the Government Accounting Office, "as of July 1995 a total of seven persons (nationally) had been successfully prosecuted for making false statements on the Brady handgun purchase form." For comparison, the same report reveals that in 30 randomly-selected jurisdictions over March 1994 through January 1995, a total of 441,545 applications were processed, of which 15,506 were initially denied, for a 3.5% denial rate. [4] Data from 2004 shows that an estimated 8,000 persons were arrested from 1999 to 2003 for an outstanding warrant or submission of false information on an application, according to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE, formerly BATF).[5]

End para.L0b0t 15:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the above is really information relavant to Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, and not very informative about the organization itself. I for one am OK with the removal. -MrFizyx 16:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brady act

I took out the info below as it has to do with the Brady act itself and not the group that the article is about.

  • Since 1994, the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports that the Brady Act has stopped more than 1,000,000 people from purchasing modern handguns on the grounds of a criminal record or other prohibited status.[6] In general, half of the denials were made by state and local agencies and half by the FBI. From 1999 through 2003, BJS reports that "58 percent of the denials by state and local agencies were for the applicant's felony conviction or indictment, 13 percent for a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction or restraining order, and the remainder for other reasons."

According to the Government Accounting Office, "as of July 1995 a total of seven persons (nationally) had been successfully prosecuted for making false statements on the Brady handgun purchase form." For comparison, the same report reveals that in 30 randomly-selected jurisdictions over March 1994 through January 1995, a total of 441,545 applications were processed, of which 15,506 were initially denied, for a 3.5% denial rate. [7] Newer data show that an estimated 8,000 persons were arrested from 1999 to 2003 for an outstanding warrant or submission of false information on an application, according to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE, formerly BATF).[8]

The immediate question is what changed this arrest/conviction rate, from an insignificant total of 7 over 17 months to over 8,000 individuals over four years, in just four years, from 1995 to 1999? Gun rights activists contend that the key factor that changed was the Lautenberg Amendment, passed September 30, 1996, that added those convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to the list of prohibited purchasers. The amendment also bars from handgun ownership those subject to a current restraining order "from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner". For example, if a soldier who slaps her husband, even if 10 years prior to the passage of the Lautenberg Amendment, was ever convicted, she can no longer legally own or handle guns, even as a soldier, nor can she legally buy a handgun. Similarly, by this same amendment, if she simply fills out a Brady form [9]to buy a handgun, and simply forgets about or intentionally lies about her prior misdemeanor conviction, she has automatically committed a felony. Some contend that it was this factor alone which changed the number of arrests and convictions over the span of just a few years. (See Firearm Owners Protection Act for details on the Lautenberg Amendment being declared unconstitutional in 1999, in one Federal court.[10] This one case was reversed; see U.S. v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001)). [11]

Gun-control advocates believe the Brady Law has lowered crime and saved lives by denying over 1,000,000 handgun purchases. However the number of permanently denied handgun purchases under the Brady Law is much smaller. Data from the Government Accounting Office indicate that over a 35 month period from November 30, 1998 through October 7, 2001, a total of 199,720 denials occurred, of which 63.6% were for Felony Convictions, 13.9% were for Domestic Violence Misdemeanors, 9.1% were for other criminal history, 5.0% were for drug abuse, 3.8% were for Domestic Restraining Orders, 2.8% were for Fugitive Warrants, 0.4% were for Mental Defective reasons, and the remaining 1.4% of the denials were for other reasons, such as state protection orders or illegal alien citizenship status.[12] The Government Accounting Office reports that from 1999 to 2004, "of the 916,000 denials by the FBI and State and local agencies in the first 6 years of the permanent Brady period (i.e. 1999-2004), 138,000 (15%) were appealed. Of the appealed denials, 49,000 (36%) were reversed." In other words, between 1999 and 2004, of the 916,000 denials, almost 95% or 868,000, stood up on appeal or were not appealed by the person attempting to purchase the gun. Of course, it is not possible to extrapolate the percentage of the 85% who, once denied, and who never bothered to appeal the denial, would likewise have had their denials reversed had they simply appealed. According to the GAO, "the vast majority of disputed denials are resolved at the administrative level." [13]

end deleted section.L0b0t 16:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone, Yaf I think, rv'd this info back into the article so I've removed it again. It is not about the group HCI or whatever they are calling themselves now, but is rather about the Brady bill itself and as such should be in the article about the bill not about the group.L0b0t 02:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What is missing is a criticism section about the Brady Campain. It is needed inorder to be balanced.

[edit] Dates

The dates sound suspicicious-- The brady campaign started before he was shot?. I don;t know the correct dates. 13:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] section removed

Criticism The Brady Campaign, as a partisan and visible presence in the highly polarized U.S. firearm rights debate, has frequently drawn criticism from those who feel it falls short or fails to be sufficiently aggressive in its efforts, and those who believe the organizations' very existence and goals are repugnant, including those who see the Campaign's gun-control efforts as entirely unconstitutional.

One of the Brady Campaign's major efforts, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, was severely derided. Gun control advocates felt the ten-year expiration would mitigate any benefits, and that the bill left too many loopholes to be effective. Critics also noted that the definition of "assault weapon" was based upon arbitrary features, such as "pistol grips", flash reduction devices, adjustable or foldable shoulder stocks, and the screw threads to attach a flash reduction device.

I've removed this as it lacks any citations. Please re-write it is a neutral tone with proper citations.--Docg 14:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And I've put it back. The section is tagged for sources, that is much more appropriate than a wholesale removal. Homefill 21:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger discussion

I do not favor merging the two articles (i.e., Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence with this one), as they are sister organizations with different stated purposes. Although the two organizations started as one umbrella organization, they have definitely gone in different directions over the years since the split. Yaf 01:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size of Million Mom March

Newbie here: there's a comment in the introductory paragraph about the million mom march, ie, that it was more like the "two dozen mom march". There's no way that I can see to edit this content, and it's just not a serious comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.37.49 (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed that. What would help though is if someone could add a source regarding any claims of the size of the march, OR just remove any such claims. -MrFizyx 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Look up the "Million Mom March" page, it has alot more info on the size of the march, its no where near 1 million. --125.239.160.44 03:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Members?

How many members does the Brady Campaign have? I found this: http://www.campaignadvantage.com/services/websites/archive/ags/resources.html , but I couldn't find any information on the Brady Campaign's homepage. --62.214.195.97 20:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

HCI, VPC, etc won't release how many dues-paying members they have. They can't because the number is, I believe, extremely small. So they claim some much bigger number to make themselves more important to the media and politicians.--Davidwiz (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)