Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An ineffective 'assault weapons' ban deserves to expire
San Diego Union-Tribune ^ | 1 June 2003 | Robert J. Caldwell

Posted on 06/03/2003 11:54:25 AM PDT by 45Auto

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last
Another editorial on the AW Ban sunset.
1 posted on 06/03/2003 11:54:25 AM PDT by 45Auto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 45Auto; Vic3O3; cavtrooper21
Actually I think that there are two classes of weapons that have been found in even less crimes than "assault weapons".

Black powder firearms and 50 caliber rifles! You've never heard of a drive by "black powdering" have you?

For what it's worth, it looks like the 94 ban is going to die a relatively quiet death.

Semper Fi

2 posted on 06/03/2003 12:03:17 PM PDT by dd5339 (Lookout Texas, here we come!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
The silly assault weapons ban is about over. The Rats are not going to commit political suicide over this or anything else like 1994. Maintaining public office means more to them than anthing else.
3 posted on 06/03/2003 12:13:20 PM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
anthing = anything
4 posted on 06/03/2003 12:13:56 PM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list; AAABEST; wku man; SLB; Travis McGee; Squantos; harpseal; Shooter 2.5; ...

5 posted on 06/03/2003 12:20:39 PM PDT by Joe Brower ("The world is weary of statesmen whom democracy has degraded into politicians." -- Ben Desraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Even if Feinstein's ban expires, the BATF's import restrictions would still be in place.

What is the basis for this? Anyone?

6 posted on 06/03/2003 12:30:53 PM PDT by LTCJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
"Banning ... semi-automatic rifles and pistols because they have two or more military-style features – like a bayonet lug, pistol grip or flash suppressor – is irrelevant to crime."

Very important point. Those features that some (wrongly) describe as superficial and unimportant are indeed of little use to criminals. However, they are of significant use to citizens who need the right to bear arms in order to secure freedom. (All those features are very useful for combat with armed foes.)
7 posted on 06/03/2003 12:31:47 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Actually, the ban was quite effective - at banning weapons, which was all it was designed to do.

I think there's still a possibility that the ban could be reauthorized. The sunset is not a foregone conclusion by any means. We thought Campaign Finance Reform would never get to the President's desk, either, but it did and was signed, and this could too. I wish the President had taken a principled stand in this matter, rather than an expedient one.

8 posted on 06/03/2003 12:34:18 PM PDT by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Only reflexive gun banners and the uninformed can have been disconcerted.

I guess this includes CNN and its ilk.

9 posted on 06/03/2003 12:43:48 PM PDT by freedomlover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dd5339
For what it's worth, it looks like the 94 ban is going to die a relatively quiet death.

Rememeber, it was said Brady would not be passed either. But it got the midnight vote when no one was watching and we got the shaft.

My biggest fear is some real idiot shooting up a school/post office/mall/workplace with an AW and then the cry to ban them, PERMANANTLY, will be too loud to overcome.

I hope I am wrong.

10 posted on 06/03/2003 12:57:10 PM PDT by Pistolshot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dd5339
For what it's worth, it looks like the 94 ban is going to die a relatively quiet death.

..unless you live in the People's Republic of Kalifornia, where an even more restrictive assault weapon ban is in place. I have my defanged Bushmaster XR-15 already, but I can't even legally give it to my son as a inheritance. (No problem; my 15 yr. old son says he will eventually leave California ... he's already made that clear). I paid a 40% premium to get the gun "legally" 2 days before the ban went into effect a few years back.

Hmmm...35 states including Minnisota now have "right-to-carry" laws; Maybe it's time to start a CA referrendum to force the state to issue CCW permits. It'd fail, but watching the liberals scream and shout would be fun worth all the work.

FReegards, SFS

11 posted on 06/03/2003 1:06:31 PM PDT by Steel and Fire and Stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
That is a real concern. All it takes is one idiot out there, as witness gun bans that followed such acts in Australia and Great Britain.
12 posted on 06/03/2003 1:12:04 PM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
fortunately this isn't something 41 Dems can get together and filibuster. Bump for freedom.
13 posted on 06/03/2003 1:15:02 PM PDT by votelife (FREE MIGUEL ESTRADA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dd5339
Black powder firearms and 50 caliber rifles! You've never heard of a drive by "black powdering" have you?

Black powder firearms are used occasionally for criminal purposes. Usually the cheaper revolver kind. I don't know of any 50 cal being used to commit a crime. However, there was a case in Denver a couple of years ago where a grocery store manager was murdered at work by a jealous estranged husband who had a barret (I think) and some other " assault" type firearms with him in his van. He chose to use a hand gun to do the killing. Killed the wrong guy too, the manager wasn't the one involved in an affair with his wife. I blame that killing mostly on the end result of a divorce in progress and infidelity though, not on guns.

14 posted on 06/03/2003 2:01:33 PM PDT by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
My biggest fear is some real idiot shooting up a school/post office/mall/workplace with an AW and then the cry to ban them, PERMANANTLY, will be too loud to overcome.

Instead of a real idiot, they will need to arrange for it to be done by AQ or other Islamic fanatics using assault guns purchased without a background check at a gun show. They'll kill several birds with one stone that way. You gotta remember: The Republicans are in charge now and pubbies are smarter than rats; they can co-ordinate more efficiently.

15 posted on 06/03/2003 2:07:24 PM PDT by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LTCJ
What is the basis for this? Anyone?

I think it goes back to the original bans put in place by Reagan (or maybe it was Bush Sr.). The ones that banned importing genuine military configuration fireams as long as they were in semi auto configuration (no pistol grips, flash hiders, bayonet lugs, etc. But it was only on imports, I think, not domestic manufacture. so d*mn many different laws now, it gets hard to remember exactly which is responsible for what). The ones that resulted in those clunky MAK 90 thumbhole stocks to comply for legal import status.

16 posted on 06/03/2003 2:15:21 PM PDT by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: templar
Black powder firearms are used occasionally for criminal purposes. Usually the cheaper revolver kind.

Interestingly, I've heard of cap and ball revolvers being used by the law abiding in NYC, because at least at one time they were not covered under the obcene licensing laws in NYC. That may have changed.

17 posted on 06/03/2003 2:29:42 PM PDT by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
And yet President Bush still wants to send you to jail for 5 years for having an 11 round magazine or bayonet lug manufactured after September 14, 1994.
18 posted on 06/03/2003 2:54:01 PM PDT by conservativefromGa (www.awbansunset.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: templar
I think it was Daddy Bush. He was a big WIMP.
19 posted on 06/03/2003 2:56:10 PM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: templar; LTCJ
What is the basis for this? Anyone?
This was done by Bush SR in 89. It basically prohibited the continued import of firearms such as the FN-FAL, H&K 91, H&K 93, AKM, etc. Domestic firearms were not affected.
20 posted on 06/03/2003 3:05:07 PM PDT by wjcsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson