New Brady Bill Implications

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'm watching Headline News, and they are reporting
that "now", under new provisions in the Brady Bill,
and 'instant' background check is being made. This
even is for simple rifles and shotguns.

Just think, soon there might be 'instant' background
checks, even just to use simple 56 bit DES. Or somewhere
lurking around in your browser code, a teeny tiny program
that sends a cookie to the NSA, FBI, etc every time you
use crypto. Who knows, it's probably there already.

Or a realtime NCIS check to buy a copy of PGP! Wild!

cab8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0
Comment: PGP 6.0 is the "The Living End".

iQA/AwUBNmOomDiM2656VXArEQLQRQCgg3l0PO8DOzkj/7McAUI8gQSC03cAnRhk
AybC39FkOKoV7ZQUvJcuFTT8
=9sxR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Member Internet Society  - Certified Mining Co. Guide  -  Webmistress
***********************************************************************
Carol Anne Braddock (cab8)  carolann@censored.org   206.165.50.96
http://www.primenet.com/~carolab
http://www.ozones.com/~drozone - The Cyberdoc
***********************************************************************
Will lobby Congress for Food & Expenses!!!

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>I'm watching Headline News, and they are reporting
>that "now", under new provisions in the Brady Bill,
>and 'instant' background check is being made. This
>even is for simple rifles and shotguns.

How does this affect private, that is non-dealer, gun sales (like at swap
meets)?

--Steve

At 11:40 AM -0800 12/1/98, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>It does not affect sale of firearms by non-dealers (non-FFL holders). Look
>for the Clinton administration to try to change this; at a press conference
>today the DC reporter rat-pack was moaning about unregulated gun shows.
>
>It does affect non-sale transfers by FFLs. Per the DoJ rule: "NICS checks
>apply to transfers and are not limited to firearm sales."
>
>I have an article up at www.wired.com shortly about the privacy implications.
>
>-Declan

I'm staying out of this latest round of Brady Bill stuff...as this is very,
very old news. Anyone just now realizing that an "Instant Check" system is
being deployed has been asleep under a rock for the last few years.

And I'm staying away from Igor Chudov's rants about "gunnuts" [sic].

As for the privacy implications of the instant check system, I abandoned
the NRA a few years ago when it began pushing this instant check system
(and also when some of its leaders were lukewarm in their support of gun
rights). It was obvious that it would lead to a fully computerized gun
registration system, as indeed it has...duh! The NRA claimed it would not,
but now they are busy getting ready to sue the FBI and other law enforcment
agencies to force them not to retain the information they get from the
instant check system. Duh, again. (This was all foreseeable to anyone with
half a brain.)

The country now has the beginnings of a national gun registration system,
courtesy of such "useful idiots" as the National Rifle Association.

As for who buys guns and the core of the whole debate, there's a simple,
logical, compelling, and constitutional solution:

Either someone is in prison or jail or otherwise under incarceration, or he
is not. If he is in prison, his guns and lots of other things are not
available to him.

Once he is out of prison, and is no longer under incarceration, all of his
constitutional rights are restored to him. The First Amendment rights of
free speech and free practice of religion, the Third Amendment right not to
have troops quartered in his home. The Fourth Amendment right about lawful
searches. The Fifth Amendment right about compelled testimony. The Sixth
Amendment right about jury trials. And so on.

Oh, and of course the Second Amendment.

There is no constitutional support that I can find that says the government
can, for example, require ex-felons to get permission slips to speak out,
that can require them to renounce certain religions, etc.

And no support, constitutionally, for denying them Second Amendment rights.

Sure, there may be _pragmatic_ reasons...we don't want these evil felons
like Bill Clinton having guns, speaking freely, going to Baptist Bible
camps, etc.

But wanting something and getting it, constitutionally, are entirely
different things.

Seen this way, there is no need for any kind of instant check. Nor does the
Constitution support the notion that the Second, or First, or Third, etc.,
rights depend on applying for a permit, getting a license, producing a
valid ID and Social Security Number, or any of the modern baggage attached
to such things.

Gun sales should be as they once were: you plunk your money down and walk
out with a gun. You don't need no steenking badges, licenses, permission
slips, approvals from your psychiatrist, training classes, or evidence of
some special need.

Felons should either be in prison or restored to their full rights after
doing their time.

--Tim May

"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, just the way the President did."
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.

Tim May wrote:

>  As for the privacy implications of the instant check system, I abandoned
> the NRA a few years ago when it began pushing this instant check system
> (and also when some of its leaders were lukewarm in their support of gun
> rights). It was obvious that it would lead to a fully computerized gun
> registration system, as indeed it has...duh! The NRA claimed it would not,
> but now they are busy getting ready to sue the FBI and other law enforcment
> agencies to force them not to retain the information they get from the
> instant check system. Duh, again. (This was all foreseeable to anyone with
> half a brain.)

The NRA is claiming that the database of citizens who purchase guns legally is
prohibited by the Brady Bill. FBI claims it will be used for statistical purposes
only. What will the statistics be used for? In the near future, we might expect
anyone with more than 0.5 brain (among other handicaps) to fail the instant check.
Ahh, now I see why they call it the Brady Bill (sincere apologies to Mr. Brady).

Well,actually the FBI is claiming it will be used for audits, including
appeals from denials, not just statistical purposes.

Also interesting in this is the lack of outrage from self-proclaimed
"privacy advocates" -- really leftists who think it's OK to restrict guns.
Though some are better than others.

-Declan



At 06:04 PM 12-1-98 -0500, Frederick Burroughs wrote:
>
>
>Tim May wrote:
>
>>  As for the privacy implications of the instant check system, I abandoned
>> the NRA a few years ago when it began pushing this instant check system
>> (and also when some of its leaders were lukewarm in their support of gun
>> rights). It was obvious that it would lead to a fully computerized gun
>> registration system, as indeed it has...duh! The NRA claimed it would not,
>> but now they are busy getting ready to sue the FBI and other law enforcment
>> agencies to force them not to retain the information they get from the
>> instant check system. Duh, again. (This was all foreseeable to anyone with
>> half a brain.)
>
>The NRA is claiming that the database of citizens who purchase guns
legally is
>prohibited by the Brady Bill. FBI claims it will be used for statistical
purposes
>only. What will the statistics be used for? In the near future, we might
expect
>anyone with more than 0.5 brain (among other handicaps) to fail the
instant check.
>Ahh, now I see why they call it the Brady Bill (sincere apologies to Mr.
Brady).
>

At 3:04 PM -0800 12/1/98, Frederick Burroughs wrote:
>Tim May wrote:
>
>>  As for the privacy implications of the instant check system, I abandoned
>> the NRA a few years ago when it began pushing this instant check system
>> (and also when some of its leaders were lukewarm in their support of gun
>> rights). It was obvious that it would lead to a fully computerized gun
>> registration system, as indeed it has...duh! The NRA claimed it would not,
>> but now they are busy getting ready to sue the FBI and other law enforcment
>> agencies to force them not to retain the information they get from the
>> instant check system. Duh, again. (This was all foreseeable to anyone with
>> half a brain.)
>
>The NRA is claiming that the database of citizens who purchase guns legally is
>prohibited by the Brady Bill. FBI claims it will be used for statistical
>purposes
>only. What will the statistics be used for? In the near future, we might
>expect
>anyone with more than 0.5 brain (among other handicaps) to fail the
>instant check.
>Ahh, now I see why they call it the Brady Bill (sincere apologies to Mr.
>Brady).


Yes, statistical purposes only. Like the way the Census data are used for
statistical purposes only...except when used to round up those with
Japanese-sounding names.

(Pity in 1940 they weren't demanding that "race" be specified, as they now
do. Would've made finding all the Matsuis and Toyotas a bit easier.)

Here in California we have had computerized checks for many years, and now
the Dealer's Record of Sale (DROS) is almost always transmitted
electronically to the state capital. (One dealer said California will soon
"phase out" paper-based forms, and even small dealers will have to get
computerized.)

The effect is that a data base of gun owners is growing. "Guns: Negative"
and "Guns: Positive" are heard over police scanners (an illegal act, to
listen) as units roll up to residences. They check with the central data
base. Eric Blair is spinning.

--Tim May


"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, just the way the President did."
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.

It does not affect sale of firearms by non-dealers (non-FFL holders). Look
for the Clinton administration to try to change this; at a press conference
today the DC reporter rat-pack was moaning about unregulated gun shows.

It does affect non-sale transfers by FFLs. Per the DoJ rule: "NICS checks
apply to transfers and are not limited to firearm sales."

I have an article up at www.wired.com shortly about the privacy implications.

-Declan




At 09:40 AM 12-1-98 -0800, Steve Schear wrote:
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>I'm watching Headline News, and they are reporting
>>that "now", under new provisions in the Brady Bill,
>>and 'instant' background check is being made. This
>>even is for simple rifles and shotguns.
>
>How does this affect private, that is non-dealer, gun sales (like at swap
>meets)?
>
>--Steve
>

At 01:14 PM 12-1-98 -0800, Tim May wrote:
>As for the privacy implications of the instant check system, I abandoned
>the NRA a few years ago when it began pushing this instant check system
>(and also when some of its leaders were lukewarm in their support of gun
>rights). It was obvious that it would lead to a fully computerized gun
>registration system, as indeed it has...duh! The NRA claimed it would not,
>but now they are busy getting ready to sue the FBI and other law enforcment
>agencies to force them not to retain the information they get from the
>instant check system. Duh, again. (This was all foreseeable to anyone with
>half a brain.)
>
>The country now has the beginnings of a national gun registration system,
>courtesy of such "useful idiots" as the National Rifle Association.


I was chatting for a while this afternoon with Larry Pratt of GOA
(http://www.gunowners.org/). He pointed out that the NRA's compromising
stance is not new. They've supported many, many pieces of gun control
legislation since around the 1930s. Today at their press conference, a
phlanx of NRA reps stressed that they really want this instant check.
Necessary for law enforcement, whatever.

The NRA is the CDT of the gun world.

Remember when CDT's staff (before they left EFF) cut a deal on the Digital
Telephony/CALEA bill and endorsed it? Now, years later when some of the
provisions kick in, they're upset that the Justice Department wants more
power than the law allows.

Same thing's happening here with the NRA. What a surprise.

-Declan

GOA is good. So is JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership).
The boundaries between NRA and HCI are blurry. I am thinking about leaving
the NRA, but since I am a Life Member, I can at least vote for the NRA
board...

--Lucky, JPFO member and proud of it.

On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> 
> At 01:14 PM 12-1-98 -0800, Tim May wrote:
> >As for the privacy implications of the instant check system, I abandoned
> >the NRA a few years ago when it began pushing this instant check system
> >(and also when some of its leaders were lukewarm in their support of gun
> >rights). It was obvious that it would lead to a fully computerized gun
> >registration system, as indeed it has...duh! The NRA claimed it would not,
> >but now they are busy getting ready to sue the FBI and other law enforcment
> >agencies to force them not to retain the information they get from the
> >instant check system. Duh, again. (This was all foreseeable to anyone with
> >half a brain.)
> >
> >The country now has the beginnings of a national gun registration system,
> >courtesy of such "useful idiots" as the National Rifle Association.
> 
> 
> I was chatting for a while this afternoon with Larry Pratt of GOA
> (http://www.gunowners.org/). He pointed out that the NRA's compromising
> stance is not new. They've supported many, many pieces of gun control
> legislation since around the 1930s. Today at their press conference, a
> phlanx of NRA reps stressed that they really want this instant check.
> Necessary for law enforcement, whatever.
> 
> The NRA is the CDT of the gun world.
> 
> Remember when CDT's staff (before they left EFF) cut a deal on the Digital
> Telephony/CALEA bill and endorsed it? Now, years later when some of the
> provisions kick in, they're upset that the Justice Department wants more
> power than the law allows.
> 
> Same thing's happening here with the NRA. What a surprise.
> 
> -Declan
> 
> 
> 


-- Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to> PGP v5 encrypted email preferred.