Posted on 08/03/2004 4:34:53 PM PDT by neverdem
The other day, Tom McMahon, a Nonpareil staff writer, called me and wanted to talk about the assault weapons ban. An organization had surveyed several Iowa police chiefs in reference to their opinions on the law and if it should be continued. I didn't get back to him for a day or so; and when I did, we traded voice mail for another day. When I finally did talk to him, I'm afraid my answers weren't very concise. This is one topic about which I have real conflicting feelings.
The assault weapons ban was enacted in 1994 with a sunset clause 10 years later. That sunset is coming up in September of this year. While I won't get into the details of the law, in a nutshell it outlaws certain types of weapons - mostly those weapons that look similar to military rifles such as the Colt AR-15 or the AK-47.
The test of a rifle's legality deals with whether the weapon has such things as a foldable stock, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, flash suppressors and a few other cosmetic things. It also deals with magazine capacity, outlawing detachable magazines that you can load with more than 10 rounds. The law deals with semi-automatic weapons - rifles that fire only one shot for each pull of the trigger - not fully automatic guns, which have been illegal to own without special licensing in this country since 1934.
Gun control is one of those political issues that has its share of extreme people on both sides. Some people think you should be able to own anything including small nuclear devices; some people think you shouldn't be allowed to own anything, including wrist rockets. Most reasonable people fall somewhere between the two positions.
My conflict on this issue stems from two issues. Let me try and explain. First and foremost, I believe strongly in responsible gun ownership. I guess you could say that I am a big Second Amendment guy. I firmly believe in the right in this country to own and possess firearms. I guess most of that is my background. I have been using guns since I can remember. I started out with a BB gun, shooting sparrows and pigeons around the farmyard. Then, when my dad thought I was responsible enough, I moved to a .22 rifle and small game, and then on to a 12 gauge shotgun for upland game. I come from a family on my dad's side known for their shooting ability. Unfortunately, I think it passed me over and went to my brother, who is a natural shot.
If you notice I said responsible gun ownership. You always hear from the pro gun side that we have enough gun laws on the books now; let's enforce them. For the most part, I agree with that thinking. That's why I have involved the Police Department heavily in the Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative. That program is designed to go after the criminal use and possession of firearms, mostly felons in possession of weapons and people with drugs and guns, and lock them up in federal prison. We have had some success with that program in targeting the illegal use of firearms.
I look at the assault weapons ban kind of like the teacher you had in grade school who, after getting hit in the back of the head with a spit ball, made the entire class stay after school. Everyone was punished for the actions of one. While it's true that there have been some horrific, terrible crimes against people committed with these weapons in this country, do we punish everyone for the actions of a few?
Let's take a neighbor of mine as an illustration. Jim is probably a perfect example of what I believe is a fairly typical gun owner, at least here in the Midwest. A hunter, conservationist and competitive rifle shooter, he is also one of the nicest guys that I know. He would do anything for you if he could and is a great neighbor. Jim would never even dream of breaking a law. Now, I don't know if he would like to own one of the rifles banned by this law; but I do know he would enjoy plinking with it, or maybe even competing with it. Should this guy and the thousands like him be punished because of the criminal actions of a few?
There are, of course, other weapons just as lethal as the banned ones that are still legal. I have two rifles hanging on my wall here at work, a 30-30 Winchester Nebraska Centennial Saddle gun and a 30-30 Winchester Teddy Roosevelt Commemorative. While certainly not as efficient as a .223 or .308 semi-auto with detachable magazines, they could still be quite deadly in the wrong hands. A Ruger Mini-14 is certainly just as efficient as most of the banned weapons - and still legal under the ban.
By now you're probably saying, "What conflicts does this guy have with this law? Does he want it to die?" The only conflict I really have is that I don't want my guys to go up against one of these weapons. Of course, I don't want them to face any weapon, but these semi-auto .22- or .30-caliber rifles are dangerous in the hands of someone who knows how to use them and is willing to use them.
A few hours after talking with Mr. McMahon, I ran across a story on the Internet while researching a workshop I am going to give this fall. It was the news story of a young police officer killed in the line of duty by a 16-year-old boy with one of these types of weapons. After shooting the officer, the suspect killed himself. That is what got me to thinking more about this weapons ban.
There are no clear-cut solutions to this debate. This is why we have elected legislators, to determine and carry out the will of the people. When it comes down to it, I guess I fall on the side of the responsible gun owners, and in the meantime I will do my best to lock up the gun-carrying criminals.
- Keith Mehlin is chief of the Council Bluffs Police Department.
The AWB isn't about punishing the "entire class"; rather, it's an attempt to incrementally make ALL firearms illegal (but it probably won't work out the way Feinstein and her gang had planned; hopefully, it will sunset). Banning a weapon based on it's looks is just plain stoopid.
Fair enough.
Also, take a look at the story about the 16 year old who killed a cop and himself with an "assault weapon". If this makes the Chief in favor of the ban, I would ask him why. The kid used this during the time the ban was in effect. Extending the already in place ban wouldn't have kept the gun from that kid. Some criminals use machnie guns, or are felons who cannot possess a gun yet do so. Those bans don't seem to phase them, just law abiding folks like his neighbor.
I disagree! Our legislators have proved that they can't be trusted.
This kind of mealy mouthed statist pap is much more dangerous than the overtly gun grabbing fascists.
Sounds like this guy is in training to be a politician. 4 paragraphs without ever managing to make a concise statement.
He wants to not support it, but freedom be damned, what if one of his officers gets hurt by one? Maybe he'll be in favor of banning cars next, or at least a study to see if it will save lives.
Dang, will someone please bring back the men in this world?
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.