Posted on 08/01/2004 7:27:36 AM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
WASHINGTON - A ban on assault weapons passed by Congress in 1994 following a spate of shooting sprees looks as if it will slip away with scarcely a whimper next month.
Gun advocates are eager to bid good riddance to what they say is flawed, ineffective legislation, and Utah's congressional delegation is just as willing to let it slide into oblivion.
“We've lived with it now for almost 10 years, and the data shows it hasn't affected crime, so we're talking about limiting rights of law-abiding citizens,” said Rep. Jim Matheson, the delegation's only Democrat and a member of the National Rifle Association.
Republican House leaders are unlikely to allow a vote on extending the ban before it expires Sept. 13, although gun control groups backed by police organizations are unwilling to let the Clinton-era ban go without a fight.
Marla Kennedy, executive director of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, says the lack of congressional support “means they don't stand behind their president and they don't support taking cop-killer weapons off the market."
“The police are the first line of defense to protect the public and I know I'm not willing to put them in that line of fire. If our congressional delegation is, that's just too bad."
The 1994 Crime Bill specifically banned 19 types of guns as well as clips holding more than 10 rounds. It was passed after a series of multiple-victim shootings with the weapons in the preceding years and signed into law by President Clinton.
President Bush supports extending the ban, but has not pressured House leaders to act. Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign has chastised Bush for not making renewal of the weapon ban a higher priority.
In March, Kerry and 51 other senators voted for an amendment to extend the ban for 10 years. Both Sen. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett voted against the extension. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, was so disgusted with the amendments that he helped the Senate defeat his bill, which had sought to give gun makers immunity from lawsuits.
The ban "doesn't make a hill of beans worth of sense. What makes a difference is to really get tough on people who use weapons in the use of crimes,” Hatch said in an interview. “That's the way to do it. It isn't to have some glossy bill that says this is going to solve all problems when there are all kinds of rifles or weapons that are better than those that are banned.”
One of the prohibited weapons is the Action Arms Israeli Military Industries Galil, a menacing looking weapon, with a thin, black steel barrel, a collapsible stock, a flash suppressor and curved bullet clips that can hold up to 100 rounds.
It was a favorite of the Israeli army and was one of the weapons covered in the ban.
Walk into Doug's Shoot 'n Sport on Redwood Road and it can be yours for $3,500 and a background check.
That is because the law grandfathered in banned weapons manufactured before Clinton signed the law. They cost a little more than before the ban, says store manager Dave Larsen, but they're still available and perhaps even in more demand.
“If they banned red Volkswagen Beetles, everyone would want a red Volkswagen Beetle,” he explains.
Other companies simply renamed or slightly retooled their weapons to escape the prohibition. For example, the Bushmaster XM-15 that John Allen Mohammad and Lee Boyd Malvo used in sniper attacks on the Washington, D.C., area in 2002 was a modified version of the banned Colt AR-15.
“Calling it an assault gun ban is a misnomer,” said Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah. Both he and his Republican colleague, Rep. Rob Bishop, who lobbied for gun interests in Utah, say the ban should just expire. “Guns aren't the problem,” Cannon said.
Banning a hodgepodge of weapons is the wrong approach to fighting crime, agrees Larsen, saying criminals will find a way to get the guns.
“If you're going to stop people from digging holes you don't ban the shovels," he says. “We shouldn't be spending money on something that doesn't have any benefit. The crime bill has no benefit. Spend the money somewhere else, on interdiction programs or to build another jail.”
There is, not surprisingly, disagreement over whether the ban has worked. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence cites Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms data showing a dramatic drop in the number of weapons subject to ATF traces, in which the bureau tracks the source of a weapon used in a crime or illegally possessed.
The NRA counters that the figures are unreliable and distort the data. They cite studies asserting that assault weapons were used in a small fraction of crimes.
A Centers for Disease Control review of studies on the effectiveness of gun laws, including gun bans, found the evidence to be inconclusive.
This is the kind of irrational emotional hype that got the ban passed in the first place. Police do not protect the public, they react and prosecute after the fact. The anti-gun activists are bent on the "we're all safer if we're helpless" myth because it fits their Marxist agenda. If they really gave a crap about your personal safety, they would be promoting defensive driving, bicycle safety, and studies to help prevent medical errors.
hanoi john, I'm for the death penalty for terrorist, before I impose a moratorium on it.
Ping!!
I just want to know what I am supposed to do with all those 9 round clips.
Surprisingly, Jim Matheson is a Democrat. On the same basis, we could, and should, repeal about 10,000 laws and regulations.
I think I saw an mp3 player that fits in a clip.
making list and checking twice
Surprisingly, Jim Matheson is a Democrat. On the same basis, we could, and should, repeal about 10,000 laws and regulations.
Amen
What a bunch of crap! First of all none of my rifles have left my home and ever committed murder let alone a police officer. (They do enjoy Bin Laden paper targets with gusto) And let me add one more thing Marla Kennedy.....the police are "not" the first line of defense in my home. I am!!! And I am looking forward to seeing Diane Feinstein go down in flames on her "AWB". Cheer up hon......kleenex is cheap.
Remember, it ain't over til the fat lady sings. In the past, there have frequently been conveniently timed mass-murders using guns just when anti-gun legislation needed a push.
One of the prohibited weapons is the Action Arms Israeli Military Industries Galil, a menacing looking weapon, with a thin, black steel barrel, a collapsible stock, a flash suppressor and curved bullet clips that can hold up to 100 rounds.
100 rounds! Oh my, got to get one for my Mauser.
Does anyone really think some thug is going to plunk down
$3500 and submit to a check for one of these? Of course not.
(I like your screen name!)
Bears repeating.
One might add, not only do they admit no obligation to prevent a killing, but simultaneously argue that we as individuals are criminals if we insist on the means of preventing our family and ourselves from being killed. I don't buy that.
Amen. The one thing I like about the French is their penal system. Non of this "time off for good behaviour" crap - in their view, a day of good behaviour counts towards your sentence, a bad day does not. A 10-year sentence means AT LEAST 10 years. I'd rather see a slightly shorter sentence under those terms than what we have now.
IDIOT!! It's a magazine you moron. A "clip" holds the rounds so you can feed them all at once into a guns1 magazine.
Then the jackass use the term 'clips' further down... grrrr
1 - See "Stripper Clips". Mainly used for Riles, but the old Mauser 'Broomhandle' also employed stripper clips for loading the magazine.
The police don't stop someone from robbing or killing you . If that was the case no one would be robbed or killed . They TRY to find out WHO robbed or killed you.
The irony is that there are far more semiautomatic rifles (which was the target of the AWB) in the hands of Americans than there would have been if the AWB had never been passed.
And once the ban expires, people will buy even more.
I have several firearms that are by definition assault weapons. My .30-06 hunting rifle fires a round that can penetrate a bullet-proof vest and my tube-fed .22 rifle is semi-auto and holds 17 rounds. I've committed zero crimes with my firearms yet I'm a psycho that just hasn't acted out yet in the eyes of Feinstein and her ilk.
Criminals are misunderstood but legal gun owners are potential psychos who have to be stopped at all costs. The anti-gunners are the fruitcakes, not us.
Yeah, it is pretty ironic. There have been many unsuccessful attempts to sue the cops for negligence in failing to stop crimes from being enacted on people. The courts always rule that the police do not have an inherent duty to protect you. It's understandable, since it would open the floodgates of frivoulous lawsuits. I could sue the cops for not protecting me if I get hit by a thrown rock or get jumped in a parking lot. I understand that the cops can't be everywhere at once, nor would I want them to be. What drives me nuts is that I'm subject to prosecution for taking my self-defense into my own hands. I'm a potential criminal if I don't surrender to a criminal and take my beating without resistance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.