The NRA Wouldn't Lie...Would They?

Laurel

Kitty Mama
Joined
Aug 27, 1999
Posts
20,692
The Gun Fight
Behind the NRA’s Numbers on Gun Purchase Prosecutions

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre pictured during an interview with ABCNEWS' Peter Jennings. (ABCNEWS.com)

By Linda Hirsch

Oct. 9 — Faced with a public outcry over gun violence in schools, the National Rifle Association went on the attack in March 1999 against the Clinton administration, accusing it of deliberately not enforcing gun laws.

“I’ve come to believe [Bill Clinton] needs a certain level of violence in this country. He’s willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda,” NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told ABCNEWS’ This Week earlier this year.

“This president has presided over a complete lack of enforcement,” he continued.

Those accusations rang true with the American public. A gallup poll taken this year found that more than 53 percent of Americans believe we need to enforce current gun laws more strictly and not pass new ones.

But an ABCNEWS investigation has found that many of the NRA’s claims are unfounded, and that in fact, numerous gun laws are being enforced.

LaPierre’s accusations became the centerpiece of the NRA campaign against President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. LaPierre said the federal government should enforce existing gun laws before passing new ones.

He used the argument in his efforts to oppose the Juvenile Justice Bill that was debated in Congress last summer, but ultimately failed. The most hotly contested piece of that legislation was an amendment requiring background checks on everyone buying a gun at a gun show.

A ‘Total Lack of Prosecution?’ In its effort to defeat the legislation, the NRA sent letters to its members in June of last year claiming that felons were being released back on the streets — without being prosecuted — after they failed to pass background checks.

An excerpt of that letter reads: “According to the Clinton/Gore Administration’s own numbers, the total lack of prosecution during the past five years of the Brady background checks has returned 250,000 predators to the streets, unscathed. Not one of them was federally prosecuted in three straight years. That’s both a disgrace and an outrage.”

On its Web site, the NRA asserts that “all violations under the Brady check, Instant Check Phase” were “0 in 1996, 0 in 1997, and 0 in 1998.”

But an ABCNEWS examination of that data found the claims either unsupported or misleading.

In the case of the Brady Law, there have been hundreds of federal prosecutions, according to statistics obtained by ABCNEWS.

The NRA based its claim of zero prosecutions on a Department of Justice letter sent to Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., it says proves its point.

However, the letter only cites statistics on the number of people federally prosecuted for firearm violations related to the Brady Law. The data represents prosecutions of people who illegally attempt to sell guns, not purchase them, and the statutes the NRA cites do not apply to gun buyers.

604 Prosecutions or Zero? At the request of ABCNEWS, the United States Sentencing Commission, an independent government agency, compiled data for violations of law by people who tried to buy guns illegally. The commission found at least 604 people were federally prosecuted and convicted for illegally attempting to buy a firearm in the period the NRA points to. After being presented with the data during an interview with ABCNEWS’ Peter Jennings, LaPierre admitted there had been only one prosecution.

But LaPierre went a step further, saying there has been a “complete lack of enforcement.” The Brady Law data the NRA cites ignores other federal gun prosecutions, as well as untold state and local cases.

It is important to note that not everyone who fails a Brady background check has committed a crime, as in cases where the applicant is mentally ill, or makes an honest mistake in filling the Brady check form.

According to the commission, the number of people prosecuted federally for illegally attempting to buy a gun is far higher than 604. It was unable, however, to put a specific number on those cases because the federal statutes covering illegal attempts to buy guns cover other crimes as well. No complete record is available of federal prosecutions of people attempting to buy guns illegally.

Further, the federal government does not handle most gun prosecutions. Many states prosecute people attempting to buy firearms under their own gun laws.

In fact, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that 90 percent of all weapons convictions occur in state courts. Because of varying laws in each state, and the vast number of state and local jurisdictions in the United States, there is no breakdown of state weapons convictions according to specific crimes.

“Criticism of federal prosecution statistics ignores the basic fact that both federal and state authorities prosecute gun cases,” the Justice Department said in a statement. “State and local authorities make the vast majority of arrests and undertake the vast majority of prosecutions.”

By focusing only on the Brady Law, which was designed as a way to better implement this patchwork of existing gun laws, including the original law that made it a crime for convicted felons and others to buy firearms — the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 — the NRA misses an awful lot of gun prosecutions.

More Firearms Convictions According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there has been a steady increase in total state and federal firearms convictions since 1992. In 1996 there were 22 percent more criminals sent to prison for state and federal weapons offenses than in 1992.

The NRA’s apparent narrow focus also seemingly ignores some of the reasons why there are relatively few Brady prosecutions. In order to convict someone under the law for attempting to buy a gun illegally, prosecutors must show the individual was a prohibited gun purchaser who knowingly gave false information on the federal purchase form. These are often difficult cases to prove in court.
 
Careful Laurel.

Chuck Heston will don his Moses garb and smite your cute little buttocks.
 
LMAO! I watched Soylent Green the other night. Ol Charlie was quite macho in that one...easy to forget what a man's man that frail ol guy once was. He made John Wayne look wimpy! Nowadays, watching him hold that rifle over his head with both hands, I expect him to teeter over sideways...
 
Things that make you go hmmmmmm

He and Rock Hudson went to the same highschool. Probably even shared the shower room.

Wonder if Rock ever gave him one of those "Chuckie,I know whats under those robes looks"
 
And what about?

That freakin' rat on his head? I mean, give it up and shrivel. Geese!
 
Soylent Green is PEOPLE......

:p
 
Laurel,

I say the ABC piece last night on the NRA. LaPierre is crooked.

Now a word about Charlton Heston. I disagree with his politics. Having said that I'd like to say that how he behaves politically ought not affect his standing in the annals of film history. I can't stand it when people can't separate one's work from one's personal life. I hate it when they do it to Clinton, and I don't like it when they do it to Heston. Keep in mind I'm not lecturing anyone on this thread. I'm talking about the list of the 50 Greatest acotrs of all time that came out last year and was presented on television.

There is no way that Ben Hur, Moses, El Cid, et al. is going to be left off of a list of the 50 greatest actors, but they did it, and there's little doubt why: they don't like his politics. That's sad that even liberals feel they need to discredit or diminish someone when they disagree with them.

A few more Heston films that secure him on the 50 greatest list: Touch of Evil, Planet of the Apes, The Greatest Show on Earth, The Big Country, Major Dundee, The Agony and the Ecstasy, 55 Days at Peking, Khartoum, Ruby Gentry.

I think the man made some good movies and should be credited for them.
 
The only thing I'm going to say on guns is...that making guns outlawed or no longer legal to own one is not going to get them off of the streets no more than the fact that drugs being outlawed has kept them off the streets. Lets see a criminal who already breaks the law is not going to care about one more broken law.
I found it laughable here when the police had the drives on bring your guns and turn them in and we'll give you $50.00. This was all over the news and they were so proud "look we're getting the guns off of the street!" No, they were getting guns from citizens who don't break the law anyway, don't go out and hold anybody up or do drive by gang violence.
My husband and I have guns and shotguns we're hunters none of our guns will ever be used on a fellow human being so why should we have to pay when we haven't ever been reckless. All of our guns are locked up in a heavy duty gun safe under combination and key. If anyone broke in our house they couldn't get them. The safe is also bolted to the floor from underneath the house they couldn't even carry the safe off. We are responsible gun owners. That being said I don't necessarily support the NRA although I support the rights to legally own guns but I think that person should be responsible in making sure that the guns they own cannot be accessible to underage children or any other person who does not belong in that household such as a robber or thief or neighbor.
Not only do I agree with background checks when purchasing I also think that you should have to take a course in properly handling a gun and get a license to own one...I know I wouldn't object to that neither would my husband.

OOPS! I guess I had more to say than I thought! ;)

Ahem...as I dismount my soapbox.
 
Of course the NRA lies, virtually every political action group/lobby/ and so on will lie. They will also juggle the statistics & in the case of the NRA, at least the local group here, they will harrass anyone who has the nerve to speak out against them. Because of what happened to my son, I have become involved in several advocacy groups & have become somewhat of a public figure in my city. At different events where I have been invited to speak, NRA members have harassed & in one case, actually threatened me. I am not about banning guns, but I do know that in many of the school shootings, the parents/grandparents swore that the kids couldn't get to the guns. I actually had one of our local NRA guys tell me that swords could have done the same damage as the guns used to kill my son & 6 others. I have seen some of the best swordsmen in the world & not one of them could kill 7 people in 10 minutes. Especially as the 7 were in 2 different areas of the building. The man who killed 7 people that night had no criminal record. MANY shootings in this country have been committed by people who had no criminal record. It is too easy for anyone, legal or not to buy a gun. I hate to dispel illusions, but most criminals don't look any different than you or I. If they did, it would be easier to spot the murderers, pedophiles, rapists, etc. Please don't send me the stats on Hitler, Stalin, etc & how they banned guns,I have seen & heard it all during the past year. JMO
 
I'm a member of the NRA. They teach valuable safety to people who want to learn. Yes, they lie. Anyone involved in politics will lie to support their cause.

They teach about drugs in school, they teach about sex in school. Why can't they teach a little gun safety as well? You know, the general don't touch guns get an adult treat all guns like they're loaded bit?
 
We are one of the largest gun dealers in this part of the state (arround 35 - 40 transactions weekly), and have been for the eleven years that I've been there. We have NEVER been inspected by ATF, or any one else. We think that we are keeping our records corectly, but we really don't know, becouse the only way to find out is to be inspected. If they are unable to preform this kind of basic enforcement, I doubt that they have much interest in the other enforcement issues. Much more effective to raid church compounds.
 
Ramlick said:
... That's sad that even liberals feel they need to discredit or diminish someone when they disagree with them. ...
They pioneered the trend and have elevated it to an art form. Look carefully and you'll find those with the more liberal leanings are the least tolerant of dissent. They are the authors and advocates of PC, at least for those who do not agree with them. So long as your view is consistent with theirs, your right to express it is sacred. It's only when your opinion is counter that your opinion is dangerous and society must be protected from it.

And for those who are thoroughly convinced that a disarmed nation is safer, read MORE GUNS LESS CRIME, Understanding Crime & Gun Control Laws, by John R. Lott Jr.
 
are you surprised?

Ramlick said:
Laurel,

I say the ABC piece last night on the NRA. LaPierre is crooked.

Now a word about Charlton Heston. I disagree with his politics. Having said that I'd like to say that how he behaves politically ought not affect his standing in the annals of film history. I can't stand it when people can't separate one's work from one's personal life. I hate it when they do it to Clinton, and I don't like it when they do it to Heston.

Actually, are you surprised in either case. As Uncklebill pointed out, you can't expect consistency when argueing with the left. It just ain't goona happen. The academy of motion pictures waited for Stephen Speilburg to make a polictally corect picture, Schlendler's List, before awrarding him with an emmy, and they have refused to honor any conservitve member of the motion picture industry with the Lifetime achievment award that, as you point out, Heston has earned.

On the other hand, when your work is President of the United States, is sound judgment not an realivent issue? How about expecting the chief law enforcement officer to tell the truth under oath to a Federal Judge? But then do honestly expect the man who ordered the bombing of a baby milk factory to devert attention from his personal scandels, and who can lose several hundred FBI files in his bedroom for months, to be able to seperate an objective truth from the facts as he wants them to be? I mean really, it may be asking to much.

[Edited by Samuari on 10-11-2000 at 04:15 AM]
 
Unconstitutional

Some years ago, I sat at a dinner table with a Federal Judge, an FBI agent (attorney), and two trial attorneys, and their wives.

Some one brought up "Parking meters and the tickets concerning them." It was agreed that no supreme court of any State would find them unconstitional because they are an unfair tax on the people that already own them; the citizens of that city.

The conversation turned to the gun laws of New York, DC,etc.
The Judge observed that the United States Supreme Court carefully sidesteped the issue of existing gun laws because if they were to review the matter, they would have no other choise then to void most of them due to the second amendment. He continued by observing that areas of restriction many accepted as normal would fall if challenged.

All agreed that So called waiting periods, such as "Brady" were contrary to the Second amendment.

[Edited by Softly on 10-11-2000 at 05:58 AM]
 
No I don't have a Gun...

But I believe in the stance of the NRA...

Taking the Gun away from the Law abiding citizen is not going to cut down on Gun violence...

Long live Ted Nugent the Bow Hunter!...
 
Back
Top