Talk:Brady Campaign/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Brady Act

There is already a separate section on the Brady Act. I think that it is redundant to have all that information in here, unless it is here for propaganda value. This article should only talk about the Brady Campaign itself, and nothing more. Maybe a link to the brady act, but that should be it. -- Dullfig 04:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed redundant information. Yaf 06:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, we should excise the middle 4 paragraphs, pretty much. Yaf, you're killing me with that 8,000 number :-). To suggest that the Brady Law permanently stopped only 8,000 people from buying a gun is laughable. Even if some of the over 1,000,000 refusals were eventually overturned (due to the very dubious claim of mistaken identy - come on!)the number is still probably much close to the 1 million mark. At least come up with a some verifiable data or source instead of just specualtion. Cramz32 15:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Have found a number in a GAO report for 199,720 denials over a 35 month period. Added this, along with the break-outs of why, and we now have verifiable numbers. Looks like the number of initial denials is somewhere around 65,000 to 67,000 per year. Approximately 22% are overturned on appeal, but it appears that most who are denied don't bother to appeal. Wading through the appeal paperwork is not likely to be a popular thing to do. Yaf 17:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Yaf, I'm glad you linked the GAO report, but I guess you misread the data about reasons for denial. I have repaired the info on the article. About 64% of the denials were for felony convictions, which you lumped into "other reasons like paperwork errors." In any case, I fixed that portion. Now, how do you come up with the 22% overturn rate? Nothing along those lines exists in the GAO report you cited.Cramz32 20:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
For the 22% rate, see page 3 of the following different reference: [1] Yaf 21:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I think it might be a semantics issue here, 22% overturn rate refers only to those that have been appealed. In fact, the GAO report I cited put that rate even higher perhaps because it includes state and FBI denials and appeals. But you have to admit that the vast majority, indeed almost 95% of denials are not overturned, right? Whether it be the fear of the paperwork, failed appeals, or simply the realization the appeal would fail, most denials hold up.Cramz32 21:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, yes. The later reference is more germane, I think, because the higher number in the later reference is likely more indicative of the current state of affairs. Of course, I personally suspect that the reason for the 95% number is that most denied individuals simply opt for a private sale purchase instead of messing with the paperwork, despite having approximately a 1 in 3 chance of getting a denial overturned on appeal. Yaf 21:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
You may be right, who knows, I'm fine with your lastest edits BTW and don't plan on making any myself for a while, though I DO feel better informed.Cramz32 22:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I found the denial data from the GAO and added it to the article. Seems that of the 916,000 denials between 1999 and 2004, 48,000 were reversed on appeal. That's just over 5.2%. So, in that time almost 95% or 868,000 of the denials held up. I appreciate the fact that the appeals process might be difficult for some, but facts are facts. Cramz32 21:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Section on tactics

So exactly how am I mis-representing the facts? is it not a fact that a member of Brady Campaign has taken uppon itself to go modify articles pertaining to gun-control issues, to make them POV? -- Dullfig 19:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to have a section on the M.O. of the group, however, let's make it encyclopedic... It has much more impact that way... The Deviant 19:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, let's try to keep this a happy place! It's too much effort, otherwise :) Cramz32 19:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the operative in question has JUST NOW modified the article on the US constitution, YET AGAIN !! -- Dullfig 19:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Guess I'm not sure why a "Brady operative" can't make changes to articles if they think they are valid. Is it any different than you making changes? Or, is it their anonymity that bothers you? Cramz32 20:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Both; and the info in question is blatant POV; this will lead to an edit war. Dullfig

Confused with National Coalition to Ban Handguns

The Brady Campaign was founded as The National Council to Control Handguns in 1974. No matter how much you wish it were founded with the word "ban" in it's title, it's simply not true. If you insist on making up a history for an organization you clearly know nothing about, at least provide some historical proof of your spurious claim.

I guess that the Congress of the United States are a bunch of morons, and got the name wrong, huh? take a look a the congressional record. Seems that YOU are trying to change history.. Dullfig 19:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
My friend, I'm afraid you did not link me to a Congressional Record site as you had hoped but instead to a a site called, a virulently pro-gun website. In any case, you're just confused. There was a group called the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. They are now known as the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence. The Brady Campaign is a completely different organization. Similar names though, so I can see how you slipped up. In any case, I hope this will clear up the confusion. Cramz32 20:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
hmmm. ok. Dullfig 20:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
If you have a source showing the original name as other than National Coalition to Ban Handguns, then please cite it, and we can mark the original name as disputed. Otherwise, I do not understand the issue. Wikipedia must have verifiable facts, not some revisionist history. Yaf

20:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Have revised the article. That is what I get for reading too much in a hurry. Those names are just too similar. Please accept my apologies. Yaf 20:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The organization's web site for one [2] There is not a dispute that the National Coailtion to Ban Handguns existed, it just never became Handgun Contol, Inc. or the Brady Campaign. That group became the Coailtion to Stop Gun Violence [3]. I can't understand why this would be disputed, they are two completely separate organizations. Cramz32 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The National Review claims that it had "Ban" in the title. Hmmm. Have put both claims in for now, as this is the most NPOV. Yaf 20:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The National Review article you linked specifically says "One such organization, The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, was originally named The National Coalition to Ban Handguns." In other words, not Handgun Control/Brady. Read the article again it should clear it up for you. Cramz32 20:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Have revised the article. That is what I get for reading too much in a hurry. Those names are just too similar. Please accept my apologies. Yaf 20:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No worries Yaf, full disclousre is always best. All the name changing makes it really confusing. Seems kind of of silly to me.Cramz32 20:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I know their are out there people that wish they had never so blatantly let the cat out of the bag, and acutally put the purpose of the organization in the name itself; but you cannot re-write history by trying to change the name in an encyclopedia. Just because you don't like that it says ban handguns (which incidentally is the real purpose even today) you can't just change the name to something you like. PLEASE STOP CHANGING THE NAME. Dullfig 19:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"National Committee to Control Handguns"?! Curious that such a name is unknown to Google. —Tamfang 23:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, it's Coalition not Committee. 37 Google hits with Control, seven hundred with Ban. —Tamfang 03:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What was enacted in 1993?

The relations between various pieces of legislation is unclear. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act says that act included the Federal assault weapons ban. This page, until I fiddled with it perhaps prematurely, said the AWB was part of the Brady Bill (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act). I hope someone can sort it out! —Tamfang 18:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

AWB passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Brady Bill passed in 1993.

Remove info on MMM?

Would anyone be opposed to removing the bullet points (har har) on the MMM from this article? It is not needed since that info should be available at the MMM article... No? The Deviant 23:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. No need for redundancy. Yaf 01:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. The Deviant 15:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps some of the information can be moved to below the contents under the headings? Also, I don't think this is a stub anymore. BBGun06 00:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

POV cleanup

I took out the statement below as it is uncited and very POV. One can not damage a law. Nor by complying with it can one reduce it's efficacy.

The ban was damaged by gun manufacturers who either worked to circumvent the law by altering certain prohibited features and changing the name of their firearms, or, alternatively, who responded to the changes required in new gun laws by providing what was required by legislators, depending on one's point of view.

Just tacking on a counter claims seems more odious to me than just removing the unnecessary sentence. L0b0t 00:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on the above, but your last few edits crossed into adding your own POV. Hence my revert. We need to accept that this organization is what it says unless we have a NPOV source to the contrary. -MrFizyx 15:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Show me one thing in the AWB that wasn't cosmetic. Rate of fire, muzzle velocity, anything. All the classifiers were cosmetic, does it look scary, better try to ban it.L0b0t 15:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I need to show you anything. This is not the page to redefine assault weapon or debate the merits of the the Federal assault weapons ban. -MrFizyx 15:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
You are correct it is not the place to do those things. I was looking for a counter to my contention that all of the classifiers are cosmetic. They are, so why can't we say so?L0b0t 16:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
No such "contention" has any place in this article. -MrFizyx 16:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Also the cited source says nothing about the founder's violent past.L0b0t 15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I gather he was mugged at gunpoint in Chicago. I admit that the details seem a bit sketchy. If I encounter a decent source I'll add it, but the current source is enough to identify him as a "victim of gun violence," and I see no reason to remove this. -MrFizyx 15:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Where is the cite for this? The cited source makes no mention of a mugging. I would also posit that unless you have been shot, you are not a victim of GUN violence, you are just a victim of violence.L0b0t 16:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your claim that one is not a victim of gun violence unless one has bullet holes. That seems a bit extreem, but if we can find a neutral source that describes whatever happened, we can summarize the incident without needing to argue over such definitions. -MrFizyx 16:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
If one gets slapped is one a victim of hand violence? How about if one gets cut, knife violence? If you take a cream pie to the face is it cream violence or pie violence? Maybe it's clown violence if pied by a harlequin? I smell the sour taint of a weasle word in "gun violence".L0b0t 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) Hmmm... I think that if any of the above were forced at gun point many would say the victim is a victim of gun violence. Most legal systems make special cases for assault with a deadly weapon. Again, find an NPOV source for whatever happened. If it is more accurate to state that he is a victim of aggravated assault and battery, then that is what the article should read. We should be as factual as possible and cite the best sources possible. -MrFizyx 16:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This para needs to go it makes little sense as it trying to compare arrests with convictions.

  • According to the Government Accounting Office, "as of July 1995 a total of seven persons (nationally) had been successfully prosecuted for making false statements on the Brady handgun purchase form." For comparison, the same report reveals that in 30 randomly-selected jurisdictions over March 1994 through January 1995, a total of 441,545 applications were processed, of which 15,506 were initially denied, for a 3.5% denial rate. [4] Data from 2004 shows that an estimated 8,000 persons were arrested from 1999 to 2003 for an outstanding warrant or submission of false information on an application, according to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE, formerly BATF).[5]

End para.L0b0t 15:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the above is really information relavant to Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, and not very informative about the organization itself. I for one am OK with the removal. -MrFizyx 16:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Brady act

I took out the info below as it has to do with the Brady act itself and not the group that the article is about.

  • Since 1994, the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports that the Brady Act has stopped more than 1,000,000 people from purchasing modern handguns on the grounds of a criminal record or other prohibited status.[6] In general, half of the denials were made by state and local agencies and half by the FBI. From 1999 through 2003, BJS reports that "58 percent of the denials by state and local agencies were for the applicant's felony conviction or indictment, 13 percent for a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction or restraining order, and the remainder for other reasons."

According to the Government Accounting Office, "as of July 1995 a total of seven persons (nationally) had been successfully prosecuted for making false statements on the Brady handgun purchase form." For comparison, the same report reveals that in 30 randomly-selected jurisdictions over March 1994 through January 1995, a total of 441,545 applications were processed, of which 15,506 were initially denied, for a 3.5% denial rate. [7] Newer data show that an estimated 8,000 persons were arrested from 1999 to 2003 for an outstanding warrant or submission of false information on an application, according to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE, formerly BATF).[8]

The immediate question is what changed this arrest/conviction rate, from an insignificant total of 7 over 17 months to over 8,000 individuals over four years, in just four years, from 1995 to 1999? Gun rights activists contend that the key factor that changed was the Lautenberg Amendment, passed September 30, 1996, that added those convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to the list of prohibited purchasers. The amendment also bars from handgun ownership those subject to a current restraining order "from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner". For example, if a soldier who slaps her husband, even if 10 years prior to the passage of the Lautenberg Amendment, was ever convicted, she can no longer legally own or handle guns, even as a soldier, nor can she legally buy a handgun. Similarly, by this same amendment, if she simply fills out a Brady form [9]to buy a handgun, and simply forgets about or intentionally lies about her prior misdemeanor conviction, she has automatically committed a felony. Some contend that it was this factor alone which changed the number of arrests and convictions over the span of just a few years. (See Firearm Owners Protection Act for details on the Lautenberg Amendment being declared unconstitutional in 1999, in one Federal court.[10] This one case was reversed; see U.S. v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001)). [11]

Gun-control advocates believe the Brady Law has lowered crime and saved lives by denying over 1,000,000 handgun purchases. However the number of permanently denied handgun purchases under the Brady Law is much smaller. Data from the Government Accounting Office indicate that over a 35 month period from November 30, 1998 through October 7, 2001, a total of 199,720 denials occurred, of which 63.6% were for Felony Convictions, 13.9% were for Domestic Violence Misdemeanors, 9.1% were for other criminal history, 5.0% were for drug abuse, 3.8% were for Domestic Restraining Orders, 2.8% were for Fugitive Warrants, 0.4% were for Mental Defective reasons, and the remaining 1.4% of the denials were for other reasons, such as state protection orders or illegal alien citizenship status.[12] The Government Accounting Office reports that from 1999 to 2004, "of the 916,000 denials by the FBI and State and local agencies in the first 6 years of the permanent Brady period (i.e. 1999-2004), 138,000 (15%) were appealed. Of the appealed denials, 49,000 (36%) were reversed." In other words, between 1999 and 2004, of the 916,000 denials, almost 95% or 868,000, stood up on appeal or were not appealed by the person attempting to purchase the gun. Of course, it is not possible to extrapolate the percentage of the 85% who, once denied, and who never bothered to appeal the denial, would likewise have had their denials reversed had they simply appealed. According to the GAO, "the vast majority of disputed denials are resolved at the administrative level." [13]

end deleted section.L0b0t 16:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone, Yaf I think, rv'd this info back into the article so I've removed it again. It is not about the group HCI or whatever they are calling themselves now, but is rather about the Brady bill itself and as such should be in the article about the bill not about the group.L0b0t 02:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What is missing is a criticism section about the Brady Campain. It is needed inorder to be balanced.


The dates sound suspicicious-- The brady campaign started before he was shot?. I don;t know the correct dates. 13:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  • "Brady Campaign" is a re-branding of NCCH and HCI. To be cynical about it, HCI head Nelson Pete Shields openly advocated banning guns to all but police, licensed security guards and permitted members of elite gun clubs, so the Bradys were brought on board as figureheads advocating "reasonable controls" when the original near-prohibitory policies advocated by Shields did not come to pass. Whether it was a true policy change or not is open to debate.Naaman Brown (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

section removed

Criticism The Brady Campaign, as a partisan and visible presence in the highly polarized U.S. firearm rights debate, has frequently drawn criticism from those who feel it falls short or fails to be sufficiently aggressive in its efforts, and those who believe the organizations' very existence and goals are repugnant, including those who see the Campaign's gun-control efforts as entirely unconstitutional.

One of the Brady Campaign's major efforts, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, was severely derided. Gun control advocates felt the ten-year expiration would mitigate any benefits, and that the bill left too many loopholes to be effective. Critics also noted that the definition of "assault weapon" was based upon arbitrary features, such as "pistol grips", flash reduction devices, adjustable or foldable shoulder stocks, and the screw threads to attach a flash reduction device.

I've removed this as it lacks any citations. Please re-write it is a neutral tone with proper citations.--Docg 14:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And I've put it back. The section is tagged for sources, that is much more appropriate than a wholesale removal. Homefill 21:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger discussion

I do not favor merging the two articles (i.e., Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence with this one), as they are sister organizations with different stated purposes. Although the two organizations started as one umbrella organization, they have definitely gone in different directions over the years since the split. Yaf 01:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Size of Million Mom March

Newbie here: there's a comment in the introductory paragraph about the million mom march, ie, that it was more like the "two dozen mom march". There's no way that I can see to edit this content, and it's just not a serious comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed that. What would help though is if someone could add a source regarding any claims of the size of the march, OR just remove any such claims. -MrFizyx 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Look up the "Million Mom March" page, it has alot more info on the size of the march, its no where near 1 million. -- 03:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

IANSA linkage

The article on IANSA includes this:

United States of America

Main article: Gun politics in the United States

IANSA membership in the United States includes gun control organizations such as the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence, Legal Community Against Violence and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence[15].

[15] ^ a b "IANSA: Members: North America". IANSA (2007-06-14).

If this is a true statement, shouldn't this information be included in the Brady Campaign article?Naaman Brown (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

POV Trim

I've trimmed what I believe to be the worst of the POV, but I still think there is some subtle supportive bias inherent in the way the intro to the article is written. I would welcome comments about continuing this effort. Mintrick (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I had stepped away for a few weeks. Apparently that was a mistake. I spent a couple hours writing up a good intro section and somebody cut it into something that, frankly, read like an advertisement. You cut that so it looked less POV, which put it back how it was before I ever worked on it. I have reverted the intro section to my version. Please have a look. --aciel (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. Mintrick (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


The first paragraph of the introduction contains statements that appear to be biased ("closely affiliated" and "highly restrict" (what does that mean?) and are not referenced or sourced. I will edit the text to bring it in line with Wiki's NPOV standard. --PFS (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Anti-gun rights?

Sorry to be nitpicky here but the way that the panel is phrased is rather loaded. I'm sure it would initiate the same reaction if the panel were split into Gun Control vs. Anti-Gun Control. Utilizing "anti" automatically connotes favorable opinion for the other side. I don't know how to edit tables specifically but I propose that we change the terminology to Gun Rights vs. Gun Control. puttypapyrus 03:10, 16 February 2006 (CST)

I agree. Problem fixed. Yaf 11:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Puttypapyrus was right, and whoever later made the "Anti-gun rights" Category should also reconsider for the same reason. There is no "Anti-gun control," nor "Pro-gun rights" Category, if you really need the seperate categories why not make them sub-cats of "Gun politics advocacy groups in the United States."

That brings me to my other point, Yaf, your edit says clarification, but I say redundancy, "...political advocacy organization that does take positions on many political issues." Well, what does "political advocacy" mean? I thought I had it covered. Later -MrFizyx 20:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Political advocacy could mean either nonpartisan advocacy of the political (i.e., voting) process itself (the LWV's original position, incidentally), taking no sides, or the advocacy of particular political positions in the races themselves, such as on referendums. The impreciseness of the English language is such that we should reserve ambiguity for when it is really needed, or else clarify the point in cases such as this when clarification is needed to avoid misleading a reader. Yaf 21:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Given that the first part of the sentence says that they were there to support the march, I don't see where there's room for ambiguity. -MrFizyx 21:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We now have 2 US Supreme Court Decisions establishing gun ownership as a fundamental right, so why not use the term Anti-Gun RIGHTS when describing the bradys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Small Arms Collector (talkcontribs) 07:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


How many members does the Brady Campaign have? I found this: , but I couldn't find any information on the Brady Campaign's homepage. -- 20:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

HCI, VPC, etc won't release how many dues-paying members they have. They can't because the number is, I believe, extremely small. So they claim some much bigger number to make themselves more important to the media and politicians.--Davidwiz (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Per the Mailing List Finder source, there is less than 28,000 members/donors in the last 24 months, not the 50,500 (which is the total size of their mailing list including non-members/non-donors or those who were over 24 months ago). I submitted the change reflecting the correct numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you buy the numbers from them or what happens as I didn't see any numbers there? Any idea how they managed to collect them? I'm surprised they seem to say they can split it up by Jewish or Christian contributors and say how many are male or female. Dmcq (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
It says Catholic, not Christian. Even more surprising. Dmcq (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

slippery slope argument

I am concerned that the 1976 quote from Pete Shields in the "Stated Mission" section gives the wrong impression that the defunct organization Handgun Control Inc. somehow is the same as the subject of this article. Further, the sourcing seems to be draw from selective quotations from 'slippery slope argument' discussions found on the gun blogs[14], and not the actual source. Can anyone post a full quote from the magazine to allow checking per WP:V. At the least this passage needs NPOV rewriting to reflect the 'slippery slope' advocacy positions. Perhaps the best thing here is to put the quote in a new article about the defunct HCI organization? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Brady Campaign was simply a renaming of Handgun Control Inc, not even a reorganization, but a name change and a new figurehead. Nelson T. "Pete" Shields, chairman of Handgun Control Inc. explained his goal to The New Yorker in 1976:

"The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition -- except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal." --Richard Harris, "A Reporter at Large: Handguns," New Yorker, July 26, 1976, p. 58.

Thus the source of the 'slippery slope argument' was the chairman of HCI, long before the Internet or "gun blogs" even existed. There are research tools beyond Google, such as a public library with bound magazines and Readers Guide to Periodical Literature. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  • That looks like a solid source to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Naaman Brown, you write "thus the source of the slippery slope argument was the chairman of HCI", yet the New Yorker article doesn't say this. My point is that the "slippery slope" argument surrounding gun politics should not be forced into this article as political framing tactics mirroring the gun blogs. Indeed, the "slippery slope" character of the political argument dates well back into the Antebellum of the 19th Century, see the Singletary book ISBN 9780313245732 which describes some of this history. Note that the opposing racial militias, parade clubs, rifle clubs, have a direct lineage to present day rifle associations and modern militia groups. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Racial militias have direct lineage to present groups? Please explain that one. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at a the history of Antebellum and Reconstruction era militia groups. The Singletary book mentioned above is a great source. The most important 2nd Amendment court case Cruikshank is a racial militia case. The negro militia were pitted against White League "rifle clubs". These rifle clubs have greatly evolved over time but their roots are a matter of fact. The NRA originated as a Reconstruction era rifle club/militia group. (See Kaufman pgs 177-178[15]). SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  • That didn't answer my question. The NRA is of course a reconstruction era rifle club, but it was not a militia group (nor does Kaufman say they were) and you keep making it look like they were. What modern militia has direct lineage to those groups from the antebellum and reconstruction era groups? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Interjection the NRA was founded by Union officers to promote marksmanship because the Confederacy had better marksman and that the north did not have many skilled riflemen. --Conor Fallon (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know the point of this conversation. In any case, the NRA at the time of its creation was a paramilitary group very much consistent with the American militia tradition during that postwar period, and page 178 of the Kaufman book makes this clear. The modern militia movement, especially the Constitutional wing, has a striking similarity to the Anti-federalist mindset during the antebellum period. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • What is the point? You keep making it sound like the NRA is (or was) a militia and was somehow related to racists. You might not be intending that, but the way you keep phrasing it gives that impression and I'm trying to give you the opportunity to make it clear so that I (or anyone else) am not misunderstanding you. Would you prefer in the future that I just make assumptions? I read the Kaufman reference and I don't see where they'd be classified as a militia. You seem to believe that the words militia and paramilitary are interchangeable. They're not. You also made a statement about the direct lineage and I asked for an example. What is the problem with asking you to explain or provide examples? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Far afield have we wandered. The heading is slippery slope argument and the disputed statement was In 1976, HCI's chairman Nelson Shields stated that the long-term goal of the organization was a ban on handgun ownership,[8]. [8] Richard Harris, "A Reporter at Large: Handguns," New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 53, 58 Disputed was whether the group Brady Campaign is/was Handgun Control Inc. and was the statement sourced to the cited source or to "slippery slope" arguments on "gun blogs". I think it has been established that NCCH, HCI and Brady were and are the same organization.

A slippery slope argument is that (a) leads to (b) leads to (c). Nelson stated his goal ((a) to slow down production and sales of handguns then (b) to get handguns registered and (c) to make possession of handguns and ammunition with very narrow exceptions "totally illegal"). Even though the "gun blogs" have mirrored Nelson's stated goals as a slippery slope argument (accepting any gun control leads to prohibition), the disputed statement relects Nelson's goals as stated in the New Yorker in a friendly interview. Surely Nelson "Pete" Shields should be considered a reliable source of his goals for HCI, no matter who has picked it up for whatever purpose.

I will point out it was Union officers who formed the NRA of America at Long Island New York in 1871 (as a response to the US rifle team losing a match to a team supported by the NRA of UK). The two NRAs (America and UK) promoted rifle practice among citizens eligible for military service, which is a militia goal, but scarcely racial, and does not make NRA rifle clubs racial militias. The founders of the NRA, like the Negro freedmen killed in the 1873 Colfax Massacre (1875 Cruikshank case), were pro-Union. A slippery slope linking NRA to "racial militias" is irrelevant to the statement of HCI Shield's slippery slope goals. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I see no evidence that the 1875 NRA was a racist militia. (It is very reasonable to guess that being located in a Union State that they were sympathetic to Union politics at the time.) My point is that this "ban handgun ownership" sentence in this article serves to frame this article within a "slippery slope" political argument mirroring that is seen on the gun blogs. The present day Brady Campaign is not opposed to taking away handguns from law abiding people. To insert the 1976 "long-term goal of the organization was a ban on handgun ownership" statement is a Red Herring and violates WP:NPOV. Consistently, for a very long time now, the Brady position has been "defer to the judgments of elected officials who enact reasonable regulations on gun ownership, short of a broad gun ban, to protect the public from gun violence."[16]. To be NPOV, we should not mirror the gun blog disinformation trying to implicate that Brady has some secret goal of a total ban on handgun ownership. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Brady still proposes and campaigns for stricter and stricter regulations over the ownership of handguns. And that's what it's about, banning gns, not "gun violence" (a marketing ploy). Niteshift36 (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"Vigilante" line

Opinions? I don't think leaving it in there is neutral, but SeanNovack says it's neutral to put in in there - after all, it's true (at least to the best of my knowledge). Edit: I'd at least like to see the "this" in "To date, there have been no documented cases of this occuring" being clarified. Are we talking about being shot for being rude? Because that's a pretty narrow set of circumstances. Or are we talking about "vigilante justice"? Because that's a lot more broad. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see the issue, but to the best of my knowledge Florida has had no confirmed cases of "vigilante justice" prepetrated by a permit holder either. If we are going to include predictions made by the Brady Campaign without any kind of historical reference or factual challange, then we are doing nothing more than including advocacy statements in violation of WP:SOAP. I have no problem with including the statements by the group, after all, it is an article on said group. However, it is important not to leave those statements floating in a vaccuum and thereby give them undue weight by allowing them to stand unfounded. Rapier (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem here is not neutrality, but rather original research. And you certainly can source a negative. If you can find a reliable source, for example the NRA, that says that there have been no instances of vigilantism since the law was passed, then this statement would be fine. But what we seem to have here is that you, Sean Novak say there have been no instances, and that is not fine, since you are not a reliable source. The fact that, to the best of your knowledge, there have been no instances, does not matter. what counts is reliable sources. — JPMcGrath (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that about sums up what I wanted to say. Keep or remove? Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Leave as is for now. Personally, I think his claim is pedantic, but that isn't the point. There is no obvious consensus and the statement is true. It isn't "original research" to state a fact. If I'm wrong, that's fine. Remove the comment because of an instance that shows the Brady Campaign was correct. Barring that, the statement is true. The Brady Campaign made a claim, and they (so far) have been proven wrong. Allowing the claim to stand unchallanged gives it legitimacy in that the casual reader could assume it to be correct. Rapier (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Status as a "hate group"

Arbitrary break

Edit request from Chalee76, 29 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The brady campaign has yet to issue a repsponse to the recent SCOTUS decision involving McDonald v. Chicago.

Chalee76 (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes they have; it's linked on this page. Anyone think we should add it in? I don't know that there's much to say about it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no request for a change here. If you want to change something on the article please explain what you want changed. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 09:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hate Group