From latzko@ns1.rutgers.edu Wed Feb 23 07:42:43 1994 Received: from demon.corp.portal.com (demon.corp.portal.com [156.151.1.10]) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.4/8.6.4) with ESMTP id HAA17602 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 1994 07:42:42 -0800 Received: from nova.unix.portal.com (nova.unix.portal.com [156.151.1.101]) by demon.corp.portal.com (8.6.4/8.6.4) with ESMTP id HAA08500 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 1994 07:43:12 -0800 Received: from ns1.rutgers.edu (ns1.rutgers.edu [128.6.21.6]) by nova.unix.portal.com (8.6.4/8.6.4) with SMTP id HAA26003 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 1994 07:42:40 -0800 Received: by ns1.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA21802; Wed, 23 Feb 94 10:38:18 EST Received: from rodan.UU.NET by ns1.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA21792; Wed, 23 Feb 94 10:38:10 EST Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AAwemw25742; Wed, 23 Feb 94 10:38:08 -0500 Received: from uucp5.uu.net by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwemw18198; Wed, 23 Feb 94 10:38:04 -0500 Received: from spsgate.UUCP by uucp5.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL ; Wed, 23 Feb 1994 10:38:05 -0500 Received: from mogate.sps.mot.com by spsgate.sps.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1/Email 2.1 10/25/93) id AA01002; Wed, 23 Feb 94 08:37:49 MST Received: from motsps.sps.mot.com (sps.mot.com) by mogate.sps.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1/Email-2.0) id AA18982; Wed, 23 Feb 94 08:37:46 MST Received: from newsgate.sps.mot.com by motsps.sps.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1/Email-2.1) id AA14192; Wed, 23 Feb 94 08:37:45 MST Received: by newsgate.sps.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA18982; Wed, 23 Feb 94 08:37:44 MST Newsgroups: info.firearms.politics Path: WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM!ACUS05 From: ACUS05@waccvm.sps.mot.com (Paul Anderson) Subject: Re: AZ/NRA Brady Court Challenge Message-Id: <1994Feb23.153740.18936@newsgate.sps.mot.com> Sender: news@newsgate.sps.mot.com Nntp-Posting-Host: waccvm.sps.mot.com Organization: Motorola Inc. Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 15:26:46 GMT Apparently-To: uunet!info-firearms-politics@nova.unix.portal.com Status: R chan@shell.portal.com (Jeff Chan) writes: >[I thought someone in TX was going to try this... -- Jeff C.] >----- >>Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 15:49:49 PST >>From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) >>To: ca-firearms@shell.portal.com >>Subject: Brady Court Challenge > >Heard on the news this morning: Some sheriff in Arizona is going to >court to challenge the Brady Act on constitutional grounds. The NRA is >helping him. His contention is he doesn't have the personnel or budget >to be running background checks and still handle the crime in his >jurisdiction. > >Hang on to your hats, folks. This could make or break us. The Sheriff of Graham County is the one fight the Brady Act. He has an NRA lawyer (provided by the NRA) on the legal team. The Sheriff says he took an oath to uphold the Constitution and that this Act violates that oath. He also says that the background checks would require 25% of his current resources. In an article in the Phoenix Gazette, a local gun shop owner was complaining that the Sheriff's actions will hurt the county. He was afraid that the Feds would start withholding money. Who needs HCI, when we have people like this on our 'side' :^(. In Maricopa County, Phoenix PD will be doing the background checks and charging $10 each. They are hiring 4 clerks to process the expected 100 a day background checks. When I use my math, Phoenix will be clearing approximately 50% profit on this law. From latzko@ns1.rutgers.edu Wed Feb 23 08:26:59 1994 Received: from demon.corp.portal.com (demon.corp.portal.com [156.151.1.10]) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.4/8.6.4) with ESMTP id IAA18592 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 1994 08:26:59 -0800 Received: from nova.unix.portal.com (nova.unix.portal.com [156.151.1.101]) by demon.corp.portal.com (8.6.4/8.6.4) with ESMTP id IAA08599 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 1994 08:27:29 -0800 Received: from ns1.rutgers.edu (ns1.rutgers.edu [128.6.21.6]) by nova.unix.portal.com (8.6.4/8.6.4) with SMTP id IAA02007 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 1994 08:26:56 -0800 Received: by ns1.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA23428; Wed, 23 Feb 94 11:22:24 EST Received: from cube.handheld.com by ns1.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA23405; Wed, 23 Feb 94 11:22:15 EST Received: from dale by cube.handheld.com (NX5.67d/NX3.0M) id AA07740; Wed, 23 Feb 94 11:22:11 -0500 From: Jim De Arras Message-Id: <9402231622.AA07740@cube.handheld.com> Received: by dale.handheld.com (NX5.67d/NX3.0X) id AA01807; Wed, 23 Feb 94 11:22:08 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 11:22:08 -0500 Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.100) Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.100) To: ACUS05@waccvm.sps.mot.com (Paul Anderson) Subject: AZ/NRA Brady Court Challenge Cc: firearms-politics@ns1.rutgers.edu Status: R > chan@shell.portal.com (Jeff Chan) writes: > > >[I thought someone in TX was going to try this... -- Jeff C.] > >----- > >>Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 15:49:49 PST > >>From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) > >>To: ca-firearms@shell.portal.com > >>Subject: Brady Court Challenge > > > >Heard on the news this morning: Some sheriff in Arizona is going to > >court to challenge the Brady Act on constitutional grounds. The NRA is > >helping him. His contention is he doesn't have the personnel or budget > >to be running background checks and still handle the crime in his > >jurisdiction. > > > >Hang on to your hats, folks. This could make or break us. > > The Sheriff of Graham County is the one fight the Brady Act. He has an > NRA lawyer (provided by the NRA) on the legal team. > > The Sheriff says he took an oath to uphold the Constitution and that this > Act violates that oath. He also says that the background checks would > require 25% of his current resources. > > In an article in the Phoenix Gazette, a local gun shop owner was > complaining that the Sheriff's actions will hurt the county. He was > afraid that the Feds would start withholding money. Who needs HCI, when > we have people like this on our 'side' :^(. > > In Maricopa County, Phoenix PD will be doing the background checks and > charging $10 each. They are hiring 4 clerks to process the expected > 100 a day background checks. When I use my math, Phoenix will be > clearing approximately 50% profit on this law. > > Virginia does it on an 800 number in realtime for $3. Jim From ba-firearms-request Thu Feb 24 14:31:48 1994 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.4/8.6.4) id OAA24639; Thu, 24 Feb 1994 14:31:40 -0800 Errors-to: ca-firearms-request@shell.portal.com Sender: ca-firearms-request@shell.portal.com Precedence: bulk Received: from nova.unix.portal.com (nova.unix.portal.com [156.151.1.101]) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.4/8.6.4) with ESMTP id OAA24635 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 1994 14:31:39 -0800 Received: from redwood.csl.sri.com (redwood.csl.sri.com [192.12.33.80]) by nova.unix.portal.com (8.6.4/8.6.4) with SMTP id OAA01620 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 1994 14:31:35 -0800 Received: by redwood.csl.sri.com id AA04320 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for ca-firearms@shell.portal.com); Thu, 24 Feb 94 14:30:31 -0800 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 14:30:31 -0800 From: "Peter K. Boucher" Message-Id: <9402242230.AA04320@redwood.csl.sri.com> To: ca-firearms@shell.portal.com Subject: Support the Brady Challenge Cc: firearms-politics@ns1.rutgers.edu Status: RO In TPG article <2kejpd$ah@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) writes: [ ... ] |> BRADY BILL TO BE OPPOSED: |> Graham County, Ariz., Sheriff Richard Mack plans a federal suit |> to stop implementation of the Brady Bill gun-control law. He says |> enforcement will take 25 percent of his budget. The bill, |> effective Monday, requires a five-day waiting period for a |> background check on the buyer. Sheriff Mack is accepting contributions to help with the legal expenses. Send your $$$ now to: Sheriff Richard Mack (Brady Challenge) 523 10th Ave. Safford, AZ 85546 -Peter From latzko@ns1.rutgers.edu Fri Feb 25 09:22:42 1994 Received: from demon.corp.portal.com (demon.corp.portal.com [156.151.1.10]) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.4/8.6.4) with ESMTP id JAA20662 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 1994 09:22:41 -0800 Received: from nova.unix.portal.com (nova.unix.portal.com [156.151.1.101]) by demon.corp.portal.com (8.6.4/8.6.4) with ESMTP id JAA22542 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 1994 09:23:32 -0800 Received: from ns1.rutgers.edu (ns1.rutgers.edu [128.6.21.6]) by nova.unix.portal.com (8.6.4/8.6.4) with SMTP id JAA19710 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 1994 09:22:39 -0800 Received: by ns1.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA07938; Fri, 25 Feb 94 12:16:09 EST Received: from rodan.UU.NET by ns1.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA07922; Fri, 25 Feb 94 12:16:00 EST Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AAweun05740; Fri, 25 Feb 94 12:15:58 -0500 Received: from uucp5.uu.net by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAweun23684; Fri, 25 Feb 94 12:15:26 -0500 Received: from spsgate.UUCP by uucp5.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL ; Fri, 25 Feb 1994 12:15:26 -0500 Received: from mogate.sps.mot.com by spsgate.sps.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1/Email 2.1 10/25/93) id AA14705; Fri, 25 Feb 94 10:14:57 MST Received: from motsps.sps.mot.com (sps.mot.com) by mogate.sps.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1/Email-2.0) id AA00168; Fri, 25 Feb 94 10:14:56 MST Received: from newsgate.sps.mot.com by motsps.sps.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1/Email-2.1) id AA05809; Fri, 25 Feb 94 10:14:55 MST Received: by newsgate.sps.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA25333; Fri, 25 Feb 94 10:14:54 MST Newsgroups: info.firearms.politics Path: WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM!ACUS05 From: ACUS05@waccvm.sps.mot.com (Paul Anderson) Subject: Re: Support the Brady Challenge Message-Id: <1994Feb25.171448.25282@newsgate.sps.mot.com> Sender: news@newsgate.sps.mot.com Nntp-Posting-Host: waccvm.sps.mot.com Organization: Motorola Inc. Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 17:02:03 GMT Apparently-To: uunet!info-firearms-politics@nova.unix.portal.com Status: RO jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes: > >> In TPG article <2kejpd$ah@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, >> vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) writes: >> [ ... ] >> |> BRADY BILL TO BE OPPOSED: >> |> Graham County, Ariz., Sheriff Richard Mack plans a federal suit >> |> to stop implementation of the Brady Bill gun-control law. He says >> |> enforcement will take 25 percent of his budget. The bill, >> |> effective Monday, requires a five-day waiting period for a >> |> background check on the buyer. >> >> Sheriff Mack is accepting contributions to help with the legal >> expenses. Send your $$$ now to: >> Sheriff Richard Mack (Brady Challenge) >> 523 10th Ave. >> Safford, AZ 85546 >> > >I would help, if I thought it would help. What is the legal basis for this >challange? Brady requires no police dept. action. The background check is >optional, they can simply circular file all requests, and just make the buyer >wait the full 5 days. The ATF has informed the City of Phoenix that they could be fined $1,000 and/or 1 year in jail per unperformed background check. This was confirmed in a call to the local ATF office's compliance officer. The Scottsdale PD has been informed that the penalty for failure was $100,000. This was given to the Department's representative in an ATF training session's material given in Washington DC during early January. The basis for the challenge is basicly the violation of the 10th Amendment on States' rights. Unfortunately, if the suit does establish that the CLEO is not required to perform background checks, the ATF will be able to force the 5 day waiting period via the FFL (a federal license). Their attempt would be to outrage people to force the background checks to allow the reduction in the wait period. However, if the CLEO simply returned the form as soon as they received it, the waiting period would be eliminated. Paul *=======================================================================* * "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and * * bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against * * tyranny in government." * * -- 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950). * *=======================================================================* From best-rkba@mainstream.com Fri Jul 1 17:20:40 1994 Received: from nova.unix.portal.com (nova.unix.portal.com [156.151.1.101]) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.4/8.6.5) with ESMTP id RAA05531 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 1994 17:20:39 -0700 Received: from n8ino.mainstream.com (n8ino.mainstream.com [192.231.143.2]) by nova.unix.portal.com (8.6.7/8.6.5) with ESMTP id RAA15702 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 1994 17:20:25 -0700 Received: from (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by n8ino.mainstream.com (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id UAA11929; Fri, 1 Jul 1994 20:01:28 -0400 Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 20:01:28 -0400 Message-Id: <199407020001.UAA11929@n8ino.mainstream.com> Errors-To: zaharee@Mainstream.com Reply-To: best-rkba@Mainstream.com Originator: best-rkba@mainstream.com Sender: best-rkba@Mainstream.com Precedence: bulk From: best-rkba@Mainstream.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: BEST-RKBA digest 87 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0b -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Right to Keep and Bear Arms "Best of" list Status: RO Contents: ANOTHER COURT DECLARES BRADY ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL (alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org (NRA Alerts)) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 21:10:44 -0400 From: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org (NRA Alerts) To: best-rkba@mainstream.com, press-release@gatekeeper.nra.org Subject: ANOTHER COURT DECLARES BRADY ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL Message-ID: <9407010110.AA17909@gatekeeper.nra.org> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For further information, June 29, 1994 call: Tom Wyld, NRA Public Affairs 703-267-3820 ANOTHER COURT DECLARES BRADY ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL Deciding in favor of Arizona sheriff, court declares Brady "void for vagueness" WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Siding with law enforcement officials and the National Rifle Association of America, U.S. District Judge John M. Roll of Arizona declared yesterday that so-called mandatory background checks under the Brady Act are unconstitutional. It was the third court victory for chief law enforcement officers in suits backed by NRA. "This is the first suit in which the Act was found void for vagueness,'" said Mrs. Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "The Court also rejected the government's claim that Brady imposes no criminal penalties on law enforcement. It is gratifying that federal judges concur in arguments NRA made against the Act when it was in bill form. "These same arguments apply to the so-called Brady II' -- a gun ban and restrictive licensing scheme modeled after New York City. Now these arguments cannot be ignored." Mrs. Metaksa noted that, while individual sheriffs were challenging Brady in court, the National Sheriffs' Association decided, by resolution June 15, to strongly oppose Brady II.'" Key issues resolved by the court: - Despite what the Justice Department argued, the Brady Act threatened law enforcement with criminal sanctions. The Court found that the U.S. Government's protestations to the contrary "fall on all fronts." - The states are not agencies of the federal government and chief law enforcement officers are not federal agents. The court held that the Brady Act violated the Tenth Amendment and found the U.S. Government's arguments "disingenuous" and "not merit[ing] further comment." - Criminal statutes must clearly define what is forbidden; Brady did not. The plaintiff, Sheriff Richard Mack of Graham County, Arizona, was obliged under the Act to perform a "reasonable effort" background check. The Court held that requirement void under the Fifth Amendment's due process clause. "The real tragedy continues -- namely, that the federal government continues to commandeer local law enforcement to implement a political agenda rather than empowering law enforcement to attack criminals directly," said Mrs. Metaksa. "Tonight, Sheriff Mack will patrol his vast jurisdiction, arrest criminals, crack tough cases and respond to calls for assistance. In short, he will heed the people he serves, not politicians and bureaucrats thousands of miles away." Mrs. Metaksa congratulated Sheriff Mack for having the courage to take on the federal leviathan and win. The phrasing of Judge Roll's decision suggests that an injunction against enforcement of the Act applies nationwide. Thus, it appears likely that government enforcement of the applicable portions of the Brady Act anywhere in the United States -- and certainly in the District of Arizona -- is forbidden. - nra - ------------------------------ End of BEST-RKBA Digest 87 **************************