Twenty-seven years ago, yesterday, on March 30, 1981, a mentally disturbed gunman attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. In the process the shooter wounded a Secret Serviceman, a Washington, DC police officer, and the President’s press secretary, James S. Brady.As we remember that horrific day – and Jim and Sarah Brady – we should also resolve to do what we can to prevent gun violence in America.President Reagan believed we could do something, and he wrote about it when he recalled that fateful day:

“[F]our lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special — a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol — purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance. This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now — the Brady bill — had been law back in 1981.�

The Brady Law has prevented at least 1.5 million prohibited gun purchases so far, but we have a long way to go to keep thousands of other American families from having to mark their own solemn anniversaries every year as victims of preventable gun violence.(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

The U.S. Department of Justice just released Brady background check figures for 2006, and they show continued success for this life-saving law:

• Almost 1.5 million prohibited purchasers have been denied at the point of sale since 1994.

• Between 1999 and 2006, 11,058 denied purchasers were arrested by the authorities after they attempted to purchase a gun, with 1,314 arrests in 2006 alone.

• Nearly 40% of the denials in 2006 involved individuals with felony records attempting to purchase firearms. (In fact, 6 out of every 1,000 applications in 2006 were made by felons.)

• From 1999-2006, 183,714 NICS denials were appealed, or 15.5% of total denials during that period (almost 1.2 million), and of those appeals, only 65,695, or about 5.5% of total denials, were reversed.

Even in 2006 - 12 years after enactment of the Brady Law - over 125,000 people prohibited under Federal law from buying guns tried to buy weapons from licensed gun dealers. That includes felons, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill and others.Despite arguments from the NRA that gun control laws only affect “law-abiding Americans,” the statistics above show that criminals and other dangerous people often do try to buy guns from licensed gun dealers, and background checks instituted as part of the Brady “Gun Control” Law do stop these sales and do lead to arrests.

At present, however, the Brady Law requires only Federally licensed firearms dealers (FFL’s) to run background checks for the firearms they sell. Unlicensed sellers don’t have to run any checks at all, and gun shows, with their built-in customer base and changing venues, provide some of the best opportunities for prohibited purchasers to buy guns. (Watch this investigative news video to see how it works.)

One issue that comes up when I discuss our efforts to extend background checks to all sales - including at gun shows - is who should have access to the NICS database, and exactly how unlicensed sellers should be expected to run background checks on gun buyers.

As the state of California has shown, the process is simple. In that state, a background check is required for every sale, with no exceptions. For every unlicensed sale, buyers and sellers find an FFL to run the background check for them. At gun shows, usually there’s one at a nearby booth. Sometimes the FFL charges a nominal fee for running the check. After the background check comes back as approved, the sale can be completed.

Have gun shows been harmed by this law? The answer is clearly “no.” In fact, one recent study shows “that gun shows can be regulated … without greatly diminishing attendance or commercial activity.” In fact, when compared to shows in nearby states, “the number of attendees per gun vendor was higher in California,” even though comparison states had larger shows.

The same process, by the way, would work for any unlicensed sale. If somebody wants to sell one of their guns to a neighbor, all they both would have to do is find the nearest FFL - usually a gun store - to get the background check run and finish their transaction. Obviously, Federal law enforcement authorities do not want just anyone accessing and possibly corrupting the Federal database.

We go through required governmental filings and approvals when we buy a house or a car - even with private sales. All gun sales have important public safety implications which should justify the minimal intrusion of a background check.

This should not be controversial. Nobody wants dangerous people to get their hands on dangerous weapons, and one of the ways we prevent this is to require background checks for all gun purchases.As Senator John McCain said in 2000 in endorsing efforts to close this loophole: “Convicted felons have been able to buy and sell thousands of guns at gun shows because of a loophole in the law. Many were later used in crimes. That’s wrong.”

The real question our lawmakers should be asking is, with about 40% of all guns sold in America coming from unlicensed sellers, how many more prohibited purchasers would a stronger Brady Law be catching?A little “red tape” at the time of a gun sale should help us see less police “yellow tape” at crime scenes in the future.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

In the three days since oral arguments were held in District of Columbia v. Heller, I’ve had the chance to reflect on the day’s events and develop some perspective.

I was in the courtroom on Tuesday, and counted myself fortunate to have had a ringside seat to history. It was probably the most extensive discussion ever by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the nature and scope of the Second Amendment, and whether and to what extent elected representatives have the power to pass the reasonable gun control laws they believe are necessary to keep their communities safe.

In the cold morning air outside before the white marble steps of the Court building, Brady activists were respectfully carrying signs and speaking to the media. They were joined and cheered on by passers-by – school children, government workers, and tourists – and encountered little opposition from the National Rifle Association or other gun groups.

Meanwhile, inside the courtroom, I watched the lawyers present their cases and I was constantly aware of how critically and immediately the Justices’ decision will affect the gun laws that protect you and your family every day, including the Brady Law, the federal machine gun ban, plus many strong state gun laws in California, New York, Illinois, and others.

What I saw on Tuesday were nine Justices struggling to come to terms with opposing approaches to the Second Amendment.

While we believe that legal precedent, historical records, and a contextual reading of all the words in the Second Amendment make it clear that the “right� of the people to “keep and bear arms� must be related to service in a “well regulated militia� (see our amicus brief), a majority of the Justices seemed to be leaning against this view. At the very least, they were interested in exploring the idea that the Amendment protects some private, individual right to own guns unrelated to service in a well regulated militia.

What still stands out to me three days after the argument, however, is that there was broad support from all sides for all current and proposed regulations concerning guns, short of a near-total ban on all guns. It was intriguing to watch the Justices search for an “individual rights� interpretation of the Second Amendment that would also allow most existing gun control laws.

For example, Justice Breyer wanted to know what sorts of gun control laws would survive under a “reasonableness” standard vis-à-vis some new interpretation of the Second Amendment. Questions from Justices Breyer, Stevens and Ginsburg managed to extract concessions from Mr. Heller’s attorney, Alan Gura, toward the end of his argument.

Machine gun bans? Reasonable, Gura conceded. Plastic gun bans? Reasonable. Licensing? “We don’t have a problem with the concept of licensing,” Gura said. Requirements to demonstrate competency with a gun? Reasonable. Background checks? Reasonable “of course,” Gura said. Gun bans by college campuses? Mr. Gura said that “Might be doable.”

In a matter of about 10 minutes, Mr. Heller’s own attorney ended up endorsing (or at least not opposing) key portions of the Brady Campaign’s legislative and policy agenda.

After looking over the oral argument transcript, we have good reason to be hopeful that the Justices’ ruling will uphold action by elected officials at all levels to enact sensible gun laws they feel are needed to protect their communities.

Regardless of whether the District wins or loses, and regardless of how the Justices rule on the individual’s “right” to bear arms, their questioning clearly acknowledged the importance of and the need for reasonable regulations on guns. Their ruling this summer will determine what happens next as we work to reduce and prevent gun violence in this country.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)