[Chicago
Tribune, March 30, 1991, Saturday, p. 12]
Gun foes
should tell the whole story
Ten years ago, on March 30, 1981,
John Hinckley shot President Ronald Reagan with a Saturday Night Special.
Although Reagan recovered, Press Secretary Jim Brady was crippled for life by
Hinckley's bullet. If there had been a law requiring a background check and a
waiting period before handgun purchases, Hinckley would have been stopped. But
because of the National Rifle Association's might in Washington, there is no
waiting period.
It's a compelling story, and it's all true, except the most important part -
that a waiting period would have thwarted Hinckley.
Handgun Control Inc. chair Sarah Brady, wife of Hinckley's victim, has
campaigned coast to coast for a national waiting period. "This shooting could
have been prevented if legislation such as that proposed here (the waiting
period) had been in force in 1981," she insists.
Handgun Control raises millions of dollars through direct-mail solicitations
complaining that Hinckley bought his handguns without a criminal or mental
records check. But the fundraisers don't mention that Hinckley had no felony
record and no public record of mental illness.
Despite the misleading implications about criminal and mental record checks in
the fundraising, Mrs. Brady doesn't formally claim that such checks would have
affected Hinckley. Rather, she often argues: "He lied about his address and used
an old Texas driver's license to purchase that revolver. He was not a Texas
resident. A police check would have stopped him from buying a handgun in Texas."
(Persons can only buy handguns in the state where they reside.)
The trouble is, the evidence indicates that Hinckley was a lawful Texas
resident. He bought the guns in Lubbock in October 1980, six months before the
assassination attempt. That summer he had attended both sessions at Texas Tech
in Lubbock. According to federal rules, a university student is considered a
resident of the jurisdiction in which he attends school and may purchase
firearms there. Hinckley was also listed in the Lubbock phone book.
Significantly, after the assassination attempt, Hinckley was subjected to an
intensive federal investigation. The Department of Justice used every resource
possible to ensure his conviction. Notably, Hinckley was not charged with
illegally purchasing the handguns in Texas. Had the prosecutors believed that he
was guilty of an illegal gun purchase, felony charges would probably have been
brought. After all, Hinckley would then have had to convince a jury that he was
insane, not just on the day of the assassination but six months before, when he
bought his two handguns.
If the full resources of the Department of Justice did not find enough evidence
to charge Hinckley with an unlawful gun purchase, it is not realistic to claim
that a seven-day background check would have found the exact same transaction
illegal. Besides, Handgun Control promises Congress that the waiting period is
just a simple criminal and mental records check, not a detailed residency
verification.
Finally, it is true that when Hinckley was asked to provide identification at
the time he bought the guns, he offered a Texas driver's license with an old
address. But there's nothing illegal about that. It's no crime to offer outdated
information on a federal gun purchase form, unless the information relates to
eligibility to purchase. A person's address within a particular state doesn't
affect his eligibility. (Nor does his age, as long as he's over 21.)
The proposal for a waiting period and background check is called the Brady Bill.
Its most effective advocate is Sarah Brady. Her story about how a waiting period
would have stopped John Hinckley from shooting her husband is heart-rending -
and false.
Sad to say, many of the words put in Mrs. Brady's mouth by the copywriters from
Handgun Control aren't true. For example, one Handgun Control advertisement
depicts Mrs. Brady saying, "A $29 handgun shattered my family's life." Actually,
Hinckley's gun cost $47. The difference doesn't really matter, so why didn't
Handgun Control tell the truth and use the right number?
Mrs. Brady depicts herself as someone who first became involved in the gun
control battle in 1985, when she became "enraged" at an NRA effort to weaken
federal gun laws. In fact, she's been a gun control worker most of her adult
life, starting in 1973. This difference is important. If Handgun Control used
the earlier date, it would decrease Mrs. Brady's credibility.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans have given their money, and hundreds of
politicians have given their votes, to Sarah Brady and her story about how a
national gun law would have saved her husband. At the urging of Handgun Control,
newspaper editorials around the country are repeating the story this week. The
story is a lie. Before Congress votes on the Brady bill, it should impose a
cooling-off period and background check on itself and investigate the facts
behind Mrs. Brady's claims.
|
