Carrying Out Grady Bill Could Be Troublesome
Dublin Core
Title
Carrying Out Grady Bill Could Be Troublesome
Subject
Gun control--United States
Description
Concerns arise about vagueness with gun control bill supposed to tighten background checks.
Creator
Pearce, Jeremy
Source
Valley News
Publisher
HIST 298, University of Mary Washington
Date
1993-12-23
Rights
The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source.
Format
300 dpi
2 JPGs
Language
English
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
What Congress now deems "reasonable" may soon prove impossible for state police.
Confusion within law enforcement and gun dealerships about the scope and implementation of the Brady law can be traced to language that may ultimately have to be defined by the federal courts.
With fewer than 70 days until the law goes into effect, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) have yet to issue a coherent policy for state police to make the mandated background checks on handgun purchasers.
At issue for police and gun dealers is a phrase that appears to only vaguely define the extent of authorities' responsibilities.
The Brady law requires that police "shall make a reasonable effort to ascertain within five business days" whether a potential handgun purchaser has a felony in his criminal history, is a fugitive from justice, is "an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance," is an illegal alien, has been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, has renounced U.S. citizenship, or has "been adjudicated a mental defective or been committed to a mental institution.
Although these restrictions have existed in federal law since 1968, police have never been called upon to verify them. Each is reason enough to prohibit the transfer of a handgun.
"Reasonableness" is a word that often finds its way into legislation and just as often signifies a compromise. "It allows all sides to claim political victory," said Michael Mello, a professor of criminal law and procedures at Vermont Law School in South Royalton.
"That's a loophole big enough to drive a truck through," said Mello.
Whatever victories and whatever party affiliation of the victors, some question remains about a law that might not have the legal teeth or procedural muscle to curb violent crime.
For instance, although most state police forces remain, or are in the process of constructing, computer files of criminal histories, how can they check for an "unlawful user" of controlled substances without a criminal conviction recording the abuse?
In order to satisfy the other background demands, will the police be given access to military and immigration records? No definitive answers have yet come from Washington.
"In some of the categories, there may be categories where nothing can be reasonably done. Drugs are not easy to check. The ATF will have to put out regulations on how to do that," said one congressional aide who is attached to the House Judiciary Committee. The aide declined to be identified, but said that he had been present at and involved in the process of drafting the law.
"The (Brady) law is a political compromise, and I imagine that the 'reasonable' Brady clause factored into that decision," said the aide.
He said it was his impression that framing legislators such as Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, and Rep. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., wanted to mandate a criminal records check and to encourage the checking of other conditions where possible.
But a legislative aide from Sen. Metzenbaum's office, speaking about the ambiguities of the bill's language, said he wasn't sure how the bill would be fulfilled.
"The ATF may or may not clear that up. If the ATF doesn't, the courts will," said the aide, who also spoke on the conditions of anonymity.
Officials at the U.S. Department of Justice have been equally reticent about announcing a federal plan that would help guide state law enforcement agencies through the law. They said that such a plan is currently under review. When pressed for a date of release, they said the plan would be presented "in the near future."
Traditional opponents of gun control have been quick to finger the source of the law's confusion.
"Since there's no standard definition of 'reasonable,' the Brady Bill has no effect. You'll have the waiting period in some cases, but there's no obligation for a records check. The law is unenforceable," said Joseph Phillips, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association (NRA) in Washington.
Phillips said the NRA was confident the law would be struck down - at least partially - once tested in court because there are no penalties for police departments that fail to make the background checks. He also said that Congress' efforts were misplaced, and that the system would be better served by a procedure for an instant background check.
Semantics aside, the debate has done little to make the law's application any clearer.
Col. Robert Horton, director of the Vermont State Police, the agency that will oversee the mandated check of criminal records, doesn't see how his force can fully comply with the law.
"It's an extreme amount of work, and we just don't have the personnel or resources. There is no database that combines all those files," said Horton.
The result in Vermont will probably be a passing of responsibility to municipal police forces. Horton said that local police will likely recognize potential purchasers and are therefore in a better position to judge who is fit to own handguns.
Horton acknowledges that casual information cannot satisfy the Brady law's background stipulations, but he said he is resigned to do what he can to make the law work.
"A lot of those things just got tacked onto the bill to please everybody. It's hard to put a value on it. It may not be cost-effective, but if (the law) saves one life, it's probably worth it," he said.
Confusion within law enforcement and gun dealerships about the scope and implementation of the Brady law can be traced to language that may ultimately have to be defined by the federal courts.
With fewer than 70 days until the law goes into effect, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) have yet to issue a coherent policy for state police to make the mandated background checks on handgun purchasers.
At issue for police and gun dealers is a phrase that appears to only vaguely define the extent of authorities' responsibilities.
The Brady law requires that police "shall make a reasonable effort to ascertain within five business days" whether a potential handgun purchaser has a felony in his criminal history, is a fugitive from justice, is "an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance," is an illegal alien, has been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, has renounced U.S. citizenship, or has "been adjudicated a mental defective or been committed to a mental institution.
Although these restrictions have existed in federal law since 1968, police have never been called upon to verify them. Each is reason enough to prohibit the transfer of a handgun.
"Reasonableness" is a word that often finds its way into legislation and just as often signifies a compromise. "It allows all sides to claim political victory," said Michael Mello, a professor of criminal law and procedures at Vermont Law School in South Royalton.
"That's a loophole big enough to drive a truck through," said Mello.
Whatever victories and whatever party affiliation of the victors, some question remains about a law that might not have the legal teeth or procedural muscle to curb violent crime.
For instance, although most state police forces remain, or are in the process of constructing, computer files of criminal histories, how can they check for an "unlawful user" of controlled substances without a criminal conviction recording the abuse?
In order to satisfy the other background demands, will the police be given access to military and immigration records? No definitive answers have yet come from Washington.
"In some of the categories, there may be categories where nothing can be reasonably done. Drugs are not easy to check. The ATF will have to put out regulations on how to do that," said one congressional aide who is attached to the House Judiciary Committee. The aide declined to be identified, but said that he had been present at and involved in the process of drafting the law.
"The (Brady) law is a political compromise, and I imagine that the 'reasonable' Brady clause factored into that decision," said the aide.
He said it was his impression that framing legislators such as Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, and Rep. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., wanted to mandate a criminal records check and to encourage the checking of other conditions where possible.
But a legislative aide from Sen. Metzenbaum's office, speaking about the ambiguities of the bill's language, said he wasn't sure how the bill would be fulfilled.
"The ATF may or may not clear that up. If the ATF doesn't, the courts will," said the aide, who also spoke on the conditions of anonymity.
Officials at the U.S. Department of Justice have been equally reticent about announcing a federal plan that would help guide state law enforcement agencies through the law. They said that such a plan is currently under review. When pressed for a date of release, they said the plan would be presented "in the near future."
Traditional opponents of gun control have been quick to finger the source of the law's confusion.
"Since there's no standard definition of 'reasonable,' the Brady Bill has no effect. You'll have the waiting period in some cases, but there's no obligation for a records check. The law is unenforceable," said Joseph Phillips, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association (NRA) in Washington.
Phillips said the NRA was confident the law would be struck down - at least partially - once tested in court because there are no penalties for police departments that fail to make the background checks. He also said that Congress' efforts were misplaced, and that the system would be better served by a procedure for an instant background check.
Semantics aside, the debate has done little to make the law's application any clearer.
Col. Robert Horton, director of the Vermont State Police, the agency that will oversee the mandated check of criminal records, doesn't see how his force can fully comply with the law.
"It's an extreme amount of work, and we just don't have the personnel or resources. There is no database that combines all those files," said Horton.
The result in Vermont will probably be a passing of responsibility to municipal police forces. Horton said that local police will likely recognize potential purchasers and are therefore in a better position to judge who is fit to own handguns.
Horton acknowledges that casual information cannot satisfy the Brady law's background stipulations, but he said he is resigned to do what he can to make the law work.
"A lot of those things just got tacked onto the bill to please everybody. It's hard to put a value on it. It may not be cost-effective, but if (the law) saves one life, it's probably worth it," he said.
Original Format
Newspaper
Vol. No./Issue No.
Volume 42: Number 185
Contributor of the Digital Item
Fanning, Neal
Student Editor of the Digital Item
Williams, Megan
Files
Citation
Pearce, Jeremy, “Carrying Out Grady Bill Could Be Troublesome,” HIST299, accessed March 12, 2026, https://hist299.umwhistory.org/items/show/149.