Assault Rifle ban expiration...the reality

R

RedCountry

New member
Interesting art that assesses whether or not the ban was even worth a flick in the first place...

END OF THE ASSAULT RIFLE BUNK

On September 13, the 10-year-long Assault Weapons Ban, signed into law by Bill Clinton, quietly expired… a ban that really didn’t ban much of anything. Semi-automatic firearms, by definition assault weapons, were never outlawed under the “ban”. Only some features were removed that were deemed to be of interest mostly to criminals, such as flash suppressors, pistol grips, high-capacity magazines and… bayonet attachments. Since we haven’t heard of many crimes that involved a bayonet, it’s probably safe to say that banning those inconvenienced collectors more than criminals.

Furthermore, old, pre-ban assault weapons have been freely available on the market for the past ten years, so anyone who wanted a gun equipped to use a silencer, for example, would have had little trouble finding one.

Considering these facts, it would hardly be surprising to see that the crime rate in the last ten years hadn’t been affected much. But interpreting the numbers is a problem in itself. “The effectiveness [of the ban] is fiercely disputed and statistically hard to determine,” stated the New York Times in a recent article. “There are different definitions of semi-automatic assault weapons, and there is no good national database to measure crimes committed by type of gun.”

The studies that do exist have often been conducted by special interest groups, which makes them easily dismissible as biased. One study found a 66% drop in the criminal use of assault weapons after the ban was enacted. It originates from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which also deducted that, had the law not been passed, about 66,000 more assault weapons could have been traced to crimes since 1994… a bold conclusion since it is based on a fictional “what if” situation.

In contrast, a Department of Justice study detected only a small decrease in assault weapons crimes—and even that, said the DOJ, was nullified by an increase in crimes committed with other, similar guns.

“The nation’s crime rate last year held steady at the lowest levels since the government began surveying crime victims in 1973,” trumpeted the Washington Post last week, wisely avoiding to claim a direct connection with the Assault Rifle Ban. Instead, the article subtly hinted at the “decade-long trend in which violent crime… has fallen by 55 percent.”

This reminds us of humorist Evan Esar who described a statistician as “a man who believes figures don't lie, but admits that under analysis some of them won't stand up either.”

There is in fact no concrete proof one way or another. According to the Washington Post, James Lynch, professor with the Dept. of Justice, Law and Society at American University admits that the reasons for the decline are “difficult to pinpoint”. He and other experts name various potential factors, such as less violent drug trade, more mature police tactics, an aging population, a record 2.1 million prison population, or a dampening effect on ordinary crime by the fight against terrorism.

In a nutshell, we will never know. But before our politicians sign another lip-service ban of this kind, they might as well save the ink.

 
Finally I can legally go out and get that fully loaded AK-47 I've always wanted to make my hunting rifle collection complete!!! You never know when you will need a trusty bayonet.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IMO all of the talk about letting the ban expire being bad is unfounded. I mean honestly, what did the ban actually accomplish? All it did was make it illegal to own SCARY LOOKING guns. The only thing that actually made a little sense was the part banning collapsable stocks. And that's only because it makes it easier to concele rifles, shotguns, etc.

So basically all I'm saying is...Who gives a sh#t?!?!

:wtf

 
I'm guessing not to many people really give a sh#t, I don't. Strange but I haven't heard hardly anything about it on the news. I guess the mass media is chousing other issues this week.

 
The assault ban was a farce. The original bill was strong - it was watered down with amendments. The reality is that the actual law had little effect.

What's sad about it, to me, is that law enforcement was crying out for the original bill - police wanted it, and wanted it badly. Who can blame them? How would you like to go out on patrol, armed with a .9 millimeter or, even worse, a .38, only to face an assault weapon?

And the hell of it is, except for collecting, the only purpose of these are to kill large numbers of people quickly. I'd support an actual ban - I have no desire to see my local police force having to try and stop gangs and crime while facing these beasts.

 
Is the bill that bad???

I guess what I'm asking is, "wouldn't some bill be better than nothing??" Our was this that bad that it had no effect?

 
So now here's my question, is banning weapons good or bad? If good then where do you draw the line; handguns, bow and arrow, knives, sling shot???

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a 2nd amendment junky or anything, just posing the question.

 
I think, at the very least, bans should encompas weapons that serve no "legitimate" purpose. Assault rifles - you don't hunt with them, and as opposed to, say, a shotgun, don't provide real home protection.

Handguns are a tougher issue. Most don't really serve any purpose except the ability to kill and be easily concealed. Some are used in hunting, and some in target shooting. It would be difficult to enforce, but I can see a ban that would be "general" in nature, with exceptions for licensed hunters, licensed collectors, and those that compete in target shooting contests.

There was a study a few years back in which the researchers querried men in prision. The general thrust was, "What kind of weapon would keep you from robbing or entering a home". The unanimous answer was a shotgun - just the sound of the shell being chambered would be enough. Most of the convicts laughed at handguns - their rationale was that in the dark, most folks didn't stand a chance of hitting them.

As for other weapons - I think the same kind of rationale could apply. What legitimate use does it have? How easily can it be concealed? A bow and arrow has legitimate uses, is not easily concealed, and doesn't have the multiple kill ability of a gun - makes banning less sensible. Swords - same thing.

It get's tricky with knives - they obviously serve a legitimate purpose. But they are easily concealed and it is too easy - in a moment of anger - to pull one and inflict harm. However, you could attempt a ban based on locale - anything bigger than X length blade is illegal except in hunting situations. That would be the toughest, and probably the one that is needed the least.

 
I think the tricky thing is putting what to and not to ban in the hands of our elected officials. My concern would be, not that assault weapons could be banned or even handguns, rather the precedent banning them would create. If they ban one kind of weapon then what is there keeping them from banning others. What if banning assault rifles started a domino effect of banning other weapons; rifles, handguns, swords, knives, spears, clubs, bats, oh no there goes baseball. Who's decides what has a "legitimate" purpose?

Assault rifles do have a practical purpose to collectors, that is to be the biggest badest gun in their collection...

 
Personally, I think that any sort of ban on arms is wrong. It goes against what our fore-fathers set into the costitution/bill of rights. We should not be trying to "interperut" the constitution/bill of rights. They said what they meant, and they meant exactly what they said.

Also, if the "Bad Guys" want and assault weapon....guess what...they'll get one. It doesn't matter if you make it illegal or not. i.e. killing people is illegal, but that doesn't stop them does it?

 
Hmmm…the “right to bear arms” may not be quite a clear cut as you think. I’m a member of another board, and frequently get asked legal questions. One I was asked was:

This brings me to the crux of my post: Is the “right of the people to keep and bear arms”’ applicable only in the context of a “‘well regulated militia”? In 1791, when this Amendment was authored, I believe there was not an official US military outfit or a domestic police force. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) Perhaps the existence of our current military obviates the need for a militia since our current military and police force are supposed to protect the "security of [our] free state." If this is true, could the Second Amendment be archaic and functionally unnecessary?

I provided the following information:

Interesting questions. Forgive me the lengthy response – the issue is so complex that it cannot be succinctly addressed.

 

To be honest, the U.S. Supreme Court has never fully, squarely addressed the issue. In fact, there have only been five cases to reach the Court on the issue – however tangentially. Probably the most instructive is U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In it, the Court stated:

 

”The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

 

On the other hand, the Court also stated, in that same opinion, the following:

 

”The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”

 

Both sides of the gun control argument point to Miller as conclusive proof of their respective positions. But in actuality, Miller never directly addressed the issue. The Miller case involved a man in possession of a shotgun that had a barrel that was less then the required minimum of eighteen inches. The Court held that the government could regulate possession of such a weapon insofar as “the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” In other words, the Miller case decided a very narrow point – not whether individuals could possess guns, but whether the government could ban certain kinds of guns.

 

Most of the Circuit Courts have held that the Second Amendment is designed to prohibit the federal government from infringing on the states’ ability to maintain a militia. See, for example, United States v. Nelson, 859 F.2d 1318 (1988), in which the Eighth Circuit stated that the courts:

 

"…have analyzed the Second Amendment purely in terms of protecting state militias, rather than individual rights."

 

However, the Nelson decision, as with the Miller decision, rested on specific facts. In Nelson, the defendant was in possession of a machine gun. Again, the decision was narrow; the Eighth Circuit went on to state:

 

”Applying these principles to the present case, we conclude that Hale's possession of the weapons in question was not reasonably related to the preservation of a well regulated militia. The allegation by Hale that these weapons are susceptible to military use is insufficient to establish such a relationship. Hale introduced no evidence and made no claim of even the most tenuous relationship between his possession of the weapons and the preservation of a well regulated militia.

 

In fact, the Eighth Circuit then went on to state:

 

”Citing dicta from United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1060, 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990), Hale argues that the Second Amendment protections apply to individuals and not to states or collective entities like militias.

 

This argument is inapplicable to this case. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the federal government from regulating the possession of arms where such regulation would interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia.”

 

A number of people point to statements by the Founding Fathers in support of the argument that the Second Amendment is applicable to individuals, and not simply “the militia”. As just one example, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following:

 

” "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." – Thomas Jefferson, proposed Virginia constitution, June 1776. Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

 

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." – Thomas Jefferson, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764

 

When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny – Thomas Jefferson

 

"And what country can preserve it's liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take up arms. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William S. Smith, 1787

 

"The Constitution of most of our states, and the United States, assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves: that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." - Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

 

However, despite these – and similar quotes from other Founding Fathers – it is still not a settled issue.

 

Certainly, one consideration is that at the time of the drafting and ratification of the Second Amendment there was no national army – but that the Constitution granted the federal government the right and ability to create an army. One fear of some of the Founding Fathers – and in fact it can be argued that this was what Jefferson meant in his writings – was that without a strong militia, the federal government could exert tyranny over the individual states through that national army. Preserving the militia was a very real concern of the Founding Fathers.

 

Again, at this time most of the states had standing, organized militias. In every case, insofar as the states could not afford to arm their militia, the members of the militia were required to provide their own arms and their own shot. It was a requirement and a duty imposed with citizenship.

 

Given this historical context, then, the following seems likely:

  • When the Jefferson wrote that the “Constitution of most of our states, and the United States, assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves: that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed” he did so with the intent that the “strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”.
     
  • The inability of the states to afford to arm their militia – something well known to the Founding Fathers – instilled in them the desire to ensure that each and every able-bodied man be armed…for the purpose of preserving the various militias.

 

The Supreme Court made clear in Miller that the “right to bear arms” is not absolute, and the government may restrict it when there is no evidence that the arms being borne are “not reasonably related to the preservation of a well regulated militia”.

 

With the morphing of the state militias into the National Guard – a fact specifically stated by the Supreme Court (see, e.g., Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41 (1965) and Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)) – the most reasonable interpretation is that the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is now superfluous and archaic.

 

Again, I can’t stress strongly enough that this point has never been decided. But from all the historical information, this is the only reasonable conclusion I can draw.

 

It would be interesting to see the issue addressed by the Court…although, given the history of this country, it would be political suicide for the Court to rule that the phrase is no longer valid.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top