it may well have originated with an internal gun-control lobby memo (whether intended as an actual set of proposals, or a "shoot for the moon" wishlist) that got embellished by an adversarial party in order to hype it. The ending and most of the editorializing is definitely a fraud, but many of the actual proposals were in fact proposed by Handgun Control, Incorporated (now the Brady Campaign) and were introduced in Congress as the awful "Brady II" bills, S.1878/H.R.3932. That extremist proposal was introduced in early 1994, but was foiled when many of the would-be gun banners got their asses handed to them the following month over the far milder Feinstein non-ban, and it never received its scheduled hearing.
Among other things, Brady II would have banned all magazines holding over 6 (yes, six) rounds; required you to pay $300 every 3 years and subject yourself to BATFE inspections of your home 3 times/yr in order to possess two bricks of .22LR ammunition; outlawed all hunting handguns over .45 caliber; outlawed the .50 BMG cartridge; outlawed all .22, .25, and .32 handguns weighing less than 18 ounces; outlawed all handguns less than 6 inches long and 4 inches high; and too much other bullshit to list. Banned 7-round magazines, small .22's, etc. already in private hands would have been placed under the same restrictions as machineguns and 105mm howitzers, e.g. the draconian Title 2/Class III restrictions of the National Firearms Act, as I read it.
Even today, ten years later, thinking about the
insane provisions of Brady II, and knowing that this shit was actually introduced in Congress by people who actually considered it a reasonable proposal, makes me furious. The ramifications of that law were abominable, and while most of the November 1994 debacle can be ascribed to the backlash against the 1994 Feinstein non-ban, I'm sure S.1878/H.R.3932 only added fuel to the fire.
Dave Kopel hit some of the high points a while back here:
Provisions of S.1878/H.R.3932Kopel quotes some leading figures from the gun-control lobby, and their comments pretty much line up with the "5 year plan" memo. Don't forget that Pete Shields was the head of what is now the Brady Campaign before the Bradys took over.
"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--expect for the police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors--totally illegal." --Pete Shields (then head of what is now the Brady Campaign), quoted in Richard Harris, "A Reporter at Large: Handguns," New Yorker, July 26, 1976, p. 58.
(Sarah Brady) wants a "needs-based licensing" system, under which no one could own any gun unless the local police chief decided that the person "needed" to have the gun. Quoted in Erik Eckhom, "A Little Gun Control, a Lot of Guns," New York Times, Aug. 15, 1993, p. B1).
Ownership of a gun for protection would not be considered a legitimate "need." Says Mrs. Brady "To me, the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes." --Sarah Brady, quoted in Tom Jackson, "Keeping the Battle Alive," Tampa Tribune, Oct. 21, 1993.)
So, yes,
most of the memo rings true to me, though the editorializing is pretty obviously a fabrication. The "memo" says that "D-Day" was January 1994; S.1878 was introduced 28 February 1994 and H.R.3932 on March 1, 1994 respectively. Just enough time for the Bradyites to get the proposed text of the law drafted into legislators' hands. Coincidence?
BTW, here's the full text of H.R.3932. And as bad as this is, keep in mind that the "replace this word with this other word" provisions would have made a lot more changes to Federal gun law than are even apparent from a first reading of the bill.
H.R.3932, "Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994" (103d Congress, 2nd Session)The Democratic party was BETRAYED by those who introduced this crap and the Feinstein law, IMHO. What the hell did they
think the outcome would be??