Heartened by Senate Vote, Anti-Gun Groups Demand 'Stronger' Ban

CNSNews.com ^ | March 04, 2004 | By Susan Jones

[beaureguard]

(CNSNews.com) - Gun control groups not only want Congress to pass an extension of the 1994 "assault weapons" ban -- they also want the ban to be "strengthened."

They said they are heartened by this week's gun control votes in the U.S. Senate.

The Washington-based Violence Policy Center accuses the gun industry of "willfully circumventing federal law" by modifying a new generation of weapons and renaming them 'post-ban' or 'after-ban' assault weapons.

Such weapons are perfectly legal under the so-called "assault weapons" ban. But the Violence Policy Center accuses the gun industry of evading the intent of Congress by "making minor cosmetic changes and producing 'clones' and 'knock-off' versions to continue to sell for profit at the expense of public safety."

The group singled out six Illinois gunmakers that manufacture "post-ban assault weapons." It said a new study shows that Illinois has more "post-ban" assault weapon manufacturers than any other state.

Even if the U.S. Senate had passed an extension of the semi-automatic weapons ban, "the extension would do nothing to curtail Illinois unique distinction of being number one in manufacturing these deadly assault weapons," said Thom Mannard, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says renewing the assault weapons ban will be its highest priority for the coming months.

In a press release, the group praised John Kerry for speaking "loud and clear on what America should be doing to reduce gun violence." On Tuesday, Kerry voted in favor of an amendment that would have extended the Clinton-era ban on "military-style assault weapons."

That amendment contributed to the defeat of a larger bill that would have protected gun makers from politically-motivated lawsuits intended to drive them out of business.

Brady Campaign President Michael Barnes praised "police leaders, crime victims and elected leaders of both parties" for "standing up and rejecting the extremist agenda of the National Rifle Association's leadership."

The fact that the Senate passed an amendment extending the assault weapons ban shows that "common-sense gun safety laws are back on the national agenda," Barnes said.

"As of today, these military-style weapons of destruction are only outlawed in this country for 195 more days," he warned. "Our priority in those 195 days is to work with police, Congress and the American public to make sure this ban remains in effect. To let it expire would be an outrage."

In the weeks ahead, gun violence advocates will be preparing for a second Million Mom March on May 9 in Washington, D.C. They're calling it "the Mother's Day March to Halt the Assault." Activists will call on Congress to reauthorize and strengthen the assault weapons ban, the Brady Campaign said.

'Fraud'

The Clinton-era "assault weapons" ban is a total fraud and should be allowed to lapse, Second Amendment groups say.

"Even before the Clinton ban was enacted, federal surveys showed that violent criminals carried a 'military-type gun' only in about one percent of the crimes nationwide," Erich Pratt, Gun Owners of America's director of communications, said in a recent press release.

Gun owners object to the ban because it arbitrarily outlaws a certain group of guns based on how they look -- characteristics that give them a "military-style" appearance.

Equally offensive to some gun owners is the fact that the government is deciding which guns have "legitimate" uses -- the argument that "you don't need an assault weapon to go hunting."

One Second Amendment group recently rejected that "guns-for-hunting" argument.

"The Second Amendment is not, and never has been, about shooting ducks, deer, clay targets or tin cans," said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), in a recent press release.

"It's about personal defense, homeland security, and resisting tyranny."

Another argument holds that by rallying Americans against "assault" weapons first -- gun control groups will find it that much easier to achieve their ultimate goal of eventually outlawing all guns.

[NRA2BFree]

The anti gun nuts are at it again!

[kildak]

Molon Labe!

[xsrdx]

Maybe have a websote of our own where we can exchange alerts and information.

The High Road

SUNSET THE AW BAN

The Bang List

[NRA2BFree]

BTTT

[TC Rider]

Gun control groups not only want Congress to pass an extension of the 1994 "assault weapons" ban -- they also want the ban to be "strengthened."

Good luck nannies. It will die in the house, unless Tom DeLay dies first, then Bush would be off the hook anyway, since he promised to sign an extension of the existing law, not a new, all encompassing ban.

[ZULU]

"I'm fed up with this crap!"

You speak for a lot of us.

The Repubs have got to be made to understand this is CORE issue with many of their constituents. Its what got me involved in politics on the Republican side.

The Dems are lost - forget them. They are all Bolsheviks today (Even John Kennedy belonged to the NRA!)

[ZULU]

Thanks.

I'll bookmark them.

[hattend]

bump

[ForOurFuture]

"The Second Amendment is not, and never has been, about shooting ducks, deer, clay targets or tin cans," said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), in a recent press release.

"It's about personal defense, homeland security, and resisting tyranny."

Well said.

[Euro-American Scum]

The anti gun nuts are at it again!

Which anti gun nuts are you referring to?

The radical liberal anti gun nuts in Congress who would abolish the Second Amendment outright?

Or perhaps Dianne ("Mr. and Mrs. America, turn then all in") Feinstein, the international socialist senator from California?

Or maybe, just maybe, you're alluding to the anti gun nut in the White House who stated plainly that he would sign the Assault Weapons Ban if it ever got to his desk?

I tend to lose track of them these days, there are so many.

[El Gato]

"As of today, these military-style weapons of destruction are only outlawed in this country for 195 more days,"

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. We are in for a rough ride.

[NRA2BFree]

Which anti gun nuts are you referring to?

The radical liberal anti gun nuts in Congress who would abolish the Second Amendment outright?

Or perhaps Dianne ("Mr. and Mrs. America, turn then all in") Feinstein, the international socialist senator from California?

Or maybe, just maybe, you're alluding to the anti gun nut in the White House who stated plainly that he would sign the Assault Weapons Ban if it ever got to his desk?

I tend to lose track of them these days, there are so many.

I guess I'd be talking about all of the above. Anti gun nuts are our enemies, and I don't care what their party affiliations is.

[El Gato]

So, based on this decision, the assault weapon ban is unconstitutional because such arms are of military utility,

So are short barrelled shotguns, but since no one, certainly not the NRA, spoke for Miller at the Supreme Court, that fact was never brought out. They are very useful in jungle and urban warfare. Lots of shotguns deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, I've seen the pictures.

[William Tell]

tahiti said: "Mr. Miller's conviction was upheld. "

Not quite.

The case was remanded to a lower court because the Supreme Court was not able to take judicial notice of whether or not such a shotgun could be useful to a militia.

I have never figured out which lower court was authorized to act on the Miller decision. Perhaps someone reading this thread knows. Since the ruling involves the introduction of new evidence, I would think that it would be the original trial court. Basically, this would then be an order for a trial with new rules. That lower court, I believe, had dismissed the case on Second Amendment grounds.

It is my understanding that the Supreme Court remand was the last official action on the Miller case.

[Sender]

If the Supreme Court is going to rule against us, I'd rather have it happen while we've still got our guns.

Everything that will ever happen to me in my entire time on this Earth, however long that may be, will happen while I've still got my guns.

[reloader]

(Even John Kennedy belonged to the NRA!)
I bought my first centerfire Rifle from the DCM (now CMP) during his adminstration. It was a 03-A3 .30-06 Springfield, Mine was a Remington 4 groove, brand new in a block of cosmoline. I learned to hunt and handload with that rifle. It cost $14.75, paid for with my paper route money. My Old Man ordered it, I was 15 years old. Good Days long gone.

[NRA2BFree]

Everything that will ever happen to me in my entire time on this Earth, however long that may be, will happen while I've still got my guns.

That's definitely good to hear. I know I won't because my survival is dependent on my being armed. I guess the thing that concerns me most is that D.C. and CA have been able to ban some weapons and they got away with it, so we know it can be done.

The ones who got rid of those guns were other gun owners that I never thought the government could disarm either. The reason they gave them up is because they're all law abiding citizens and they didn't want to get in trouble with the law.

So, what happens when they ban the 9 mm and other pistols with mags, pistol grip shotguns, etc.? Will the law abiding citizens in America surrender those guns too? I think they will, because they are law abiding citizens and given the successful bans in existence.

[DMZFrank]

The AWB is directly about the RKBA.

Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but many liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was '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."

To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.

However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

"The significance 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.

It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.

Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms. Miltary pattern weapons are precisly the weapons that should be MOST constitutionally protected. Even defenders of the right often neglect the constitutional aspect of it, and concentrate on their near non-existent use in crime.

PostScript: In the vernacular of the founders well-regulated meant well drilled and organized.

[El Gato]

P.S. You are correct. On one hand they point to the Miller case for the justification for all their people control laws and outlawing guns not deemed suitable for use in the militia and on the other hand they want to outlaw all guns that ARE suitable for use in the militia.

Interestingly, the only part of the NFA that has been tested at the Supreme Court level is the short barrelled shotgun tax scheme.

It surely would have been sweet if Mille and Layton had a BAR or a Thompson SMG instead of crappy old sawed off Stevens break action shotgun. No judge with even a smidgen of self respect could have argued that those do not have military/militia usefullness. Of course there were fewer such Justices around in 1934 than there are today. Today, my tagline applies in spades!

[Smokin' Joe]

IMHO, the court screwed the pooch, even then. Shotguns had been used in WWI in the trenches, and continued in use through Vietnam and beyond. An M-79 round was developed for infighting rendering the grenade launcher an oversized shotgun. (with a short barrel, no less!)