Maybe you’ve heard this: On March 30, 1981, White House press secretary James Brady was wounded in an assassination attempt against President Reagan. Brady was shot in the head, losing about 20 percent of his frontal brain tissue, according to a New York Times report of the incident. The injury was so bad, in fact, that speaking in the White House Situation Room the day of Reagan’s assassination attempt, Richard Allen, then national security adviser to the president, pronounced Brady dead.
He didn’t die that day though. He died today: Monday, Aug. 14, 2014. And in the intervening three-plus decades he changed the way we talk about gun control forever.
James and his wife, Sarah Brady — sometimes described as the “first family” of gun control — became passionate evangelists for the gun-control movement, lobbying for stricter laws and eventually forming the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Their efforts culminated 12 years after the shooting with the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, known as the Brady Bill. Signed into law by President Clinton, the new law ushered in the era of mandated federal background checks and waiting periods for many gun buyers.
When the law passed, the Reagan assassination attempt was still relatively fresh in America’s collective conscious, and Brady served as a powerful reminder of the need for such regulations. “What I was, I am not now,” Brady said at the time. “What I was, I will never be again.”
It wasn’t the last gun-reform bill Congress would pass, but even today, it’s the floor any subsequent legislation will stand on.
A year later the gun-control movement would gain more steam when Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act into law. This law banned 19 different types of assault weapons, including AK-47s, as well as the manufacture and distribution of magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
But the progress on magazines proved temporary. In 2004, 10 years after it became law, the provision banning possession of high-capacity magazines expired through a sunset provision.
In 2007, in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting, Congress would call again on reforms first enacted under the Brady Bill. The NICS Improvement Amendments Act, signed into law by President Bush in January 2008, required states to provide data on mentally unsound individuals to National Instant Criminal Background Check System, a database first mandated under Brady’s landmark law in 1993.
Since then, however, congressional reforms have stalled.
Gun-control reform efforts following the Newtown, Conn., shooting failed loudly (see, for instance, the demise of an expanded background-check bill in April 2013 or the failure of a renewal of the Undetectable Firearms Act the previous winter). And in the wake of it, President Obama has set to work introducing his own executive actions on gun control. His dozens of orders include guidelines for preparing local law enforcement and schools for potential shootings, as well as rules for responding to shootings and keeping guns out of the hands of felons. But they don’t approach what might be accomplished by comprehensive legislation passed through Congress.
Much of the problem, according to Sarah Brady, has to do with the increasingly partisan politics of the issue. “When we passed the Brady Law, we had support of Republicans and Democrats and President Reagan,” she told me on the 30th anniversary of the Reagan assassination attempt. “But the Republican Party has become a lot more conservative and more rural than it was 20 years ago, 15 years ago, and as a result it’s kind of hard to read how some of these newer members are going to be, which is why you need to get to them and get their feelings on it and what’s holding them back.”
More than 2.8 million people have been killed or injured with guns in the United States in the 30-plus years since Brady was shot, according to the Brady Campaign’s estimates.
There’s no estimate of how many lives the passage of the Brady Bill has saved. But according to the group’s website, more than 2 million attempts by “prohibited buyers” to purchase firearms have been thwarted. And even if a tiny percentage of those attempts would have resulted in crimes, recall that the unit we’re measuring in is human lives.
What We're Following See More »
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
Speaking at the funeral of former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, President Obama "compared Peres to 'other giants of the 20th century' such as Nelson Mandela and Queen Elizabeth who 'find no need to posture or traffic in what's popular in the moment.'" Among the 6,000 mourners at the service was Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Obama called Abbas's presence a sign of the "unfinished business of peace" in the region.
Three million—a number that lays "bare the significant gap between Donald Trump’s bare-bones operation and the field program that Clinton and her hundreds of aides have been building for some 17 months."
In a somewhat shocking move, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president, saying a vote for him is one that voters "can be proud of." The editorial barely touches on Donald Trump, who the paper has time and again called "unfit to be president," before offering a variety of reasons for why it can't endorse Hillary Clinton. Johnson has been in the news this week for being unable to name a single world leader who he admires, after earlier this month being unable to identify "Aleppo," a major Syrian city in the middle of the country's ongoing war.
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."