I almost support the Brady Campaign

From ABC news:

…the families sought to hold the FBI accountable for its failed background check on Dylann Roof, which allowed Roof to legally buy the handgun used in the Emanuel shooting.

In Tuesday’s filing, the Brady Campaign says U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel incorrectly interpreted federal gun law when he dismissed the Emanuel families’ lawsuit in June 2018.

I’m firmly opposed to mandatory background checks so I am not in agreement with the basic premise of their position but I am fully in support of the Brady Campaign suing the FBI. This diverts both Brady and FBI resources from attacking gun owners.

If Brady wins it means the FBI will increase expenditures on NICS to decrease the likelihood of being successfully sued in the future. Increasing the costs of NICS checks means the value of these checks will be more likely to be examined. Does our society “get it’s money’s worth” from this expenditure or would those resources be better spent elsewhere. For example, should that money be spent on keeping violent criminals in prison rather than in a futile attempt to prevent them from acquiring guns in a free society? Or, should that money be spent in police efforts to put into finding and convicting criminals quickly before they can commit multiple crimes?

Thank you Brady Campaign.


5 thoughts on “I almost support the Brady Campaign

  1. Pingback: SayUncle » Get your popcorn

  2. At least the three day law will prevent them from using this as an excuse to turn the NICS checks into a waiting period or draw them out for weeks.

  3. Am I correct in the deduction that mandatory background checks are unavoidably based on the presumption of guilt?

    • If you asking from a legal standpoint, I think that the answer is no. There is no presumption because there is no finding of fact to be adjudicated. Instead, this falls under executive power and administrative law, and the question being determined is not whether or not you can legally own a gun, but whether or not the licensed dealer can sell you that gun.

      Since it is entirely administrative on the part of the licensee, then your guilt or innocence never comes into it. Since they have chosen to be licensed by the ATF, they have put themselves into the administrative law jurisdiction.

      If you were to be charged with illegally buying a gun, then you would be entitled to a presumption of innocence. I think this is one of the not-talked-about reasons why there are hardly any prosecutions for NICS rejects to be charged as a prohibited person attempting to buy a firearm.

      Also note that since this was a civil matter and not criminal, even if the question did center around you and you had a presumption, the burden of proof would only be the Preponderance of the Evidence, or more likely than not (51%) so it wouldn’t get you much anyways. Since NICS works on the records that the feds have, they are way above 51% before they reject someone, and I think they are well within Clear and Convincing Evidence. If any of us here saw that someone had a felony conviction on their record, we would consider that clear and convincing evidence that they are prohibited person. The only hesitation that I have about calling it Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is that there could be a record-keeping mistake.

Comments are closed.