Assault weapons ban was largely cosmetic

The Daily Sentinel ^ | September 15, 2004 | Editorial

[neverdem]

Despite the hyperbole of some anti-gun forces, don’t expect our streets to suddenly fill with new and dangerous weapons now that Congress has refused to re-enact a ban on so-called assault weapons.

That’s because the decade-old ban was always more about symbolism than eliminating dangerous weapons.

For instance, a news report out of Denver Tuesday told of people eagerly lining up to purchase AR-15 rifles at a local gun store once the ban was lifted.

But the AR-15 — a semiautomatic, small-caliber rifle — was never prohibited under the ban enacted during the first Clinton term. However, certain configurations were prohibited. One couldn’t purchase an AR-15 with a bayonet mount, a flash protector on the muzzle or a collapsible stock. Additionally, ammunition clips that held more than 10 rounds were banned, but were legal if they had been purchased prior to 1994.

What people were lining up in Denver to purchase were simply different versions of a semiautomatic rifle that had always remained legally available.

Furthermore, there has never been a clear definition of “assault weapons.” Fully automatic weapons — commonly called machine guns — have always been illegal without a special federal license. They will remain so.

Don’t expect a major increase in crime as a result of the ban lapsing. A National Institute of Justice study found that even before the ban, so-called assault weapons were used in fewer than 8 percent of gun crimes.

This corner supported the ban when it was enacted because prohibiting the sales of semiautomatic rifles in certain configurations did not inordinately trample on Second Amendment rights.

But neither will the end of the ban decrease safety for the general populace by making new, more dangerous weapons widely available. The end of this largely symbolic prohibition is, itself, largely symbolic.

[Anti-Bubba182]

A pro-gun newspaper editorial. I need to sit down.

[Jet Jaguar]

Wow, an editorial on guns that is accurate?

Good find.

[ampat]

"This corner supported the ban when it was enacted because prohibiting the sales of semiautomatic rifles in certain configurations did not inordinately trample on Second Amendment rights. '

Only trampled a little bit on 2nd Amendment rights. Kinda like a little pregnant?

[Vince Ferrer]

I kept looking for the "gotcha," but it looks like there isn't one. It looks like a factual news article.

Is anybody keep track of the death toll due to the expiration of the assault weapons ban? The press implied corpses would be stacked up like firewood by now.

[phelanw]

Fully automatic weapons — commonly called machine guns — have always been illegal without a special federal license. They will remain so.

I'm not so sure that is accurate. I saw on the History Channel an hour or so ago that in 1925 any person could order a machine gun - I think they said a Thompson - or buy one at the hardware store for $25.00

[neverdem]

It looks like a factual news article.

I believe the URL implies it's an editorial by the "edit.html" within it.

http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/content/epaper/editions/wednesday/9_15_ban_edit.html;COXnetJSessionID=BLHDCwc1QechvvkOpYFKGUJXTg1jgDVy4WzEu3TtfXWFtSHSQO2H!-1007287634?urac=n&urvf=10954853150490.09188147507928313

[Hugin]

Additionally, ammunition clips that held more than 10 rounds were banned, but were legal if they had been purchased prior to 1994.

They are magazines, not clips, and they have been legal if they were manufactured or imported prior to the ban, not purchased. There have been plenty of pre-ban magazines for most popular models available all along.

[Hugin]

The law requiring a federal license was passed a few years after that. You can still get one and buy a full auto gun in states where it is legal. Most states have laws banning them though.

[phelanw]

Those Bushmaster .223 pistols look real fine. One of these days, when I grow up, I might have an extra $800 lying around.

[Shellback Chuck]

The Ebay for all you gun buyers.

http://www.gunbroker.com

[paul51]

That’s because the decade-old ban was always more about symbolism than eliminating dangerous weapons

Wrong. It was more about eliminating all weapons

[monkapotamus]

A pro-gun newspaper editorial. I need to sit down.

Hehe. I live in this "idyllic village" of Grand Junction. We even have a Ten Commandments monument posted outside of City Hall.

[Oztrich Boy]

The British drive towards total civil disarmament began with banning the "Incredibly Deadly" revolver

I'm not familar with that brand, but cool name nonetheless.

[NRA1995]

We all know that a folding stock on a rifle increases muzzle velocity dramatically

[Rome2000]

The daily routine of a working PR man, Hubbard wrote, consisted of

[b]ribing newspapermen and "free lance writers" to write horrible lies about a competitor, bribing or lying to Congressmen or ministers or members of Parliament to get a law passed to enable a fast buck to be made and countering the ploys of the other firm's PR ...

PR could properly be described as a partially workable technique that was capable of changing "states of mind in different types of audiences or publics." In this regard, it could sometime be misused. To prevent this sort of misuse, Hubbard wrote that he had done further study on the subject in order to "find out what was wrong with it."

His findings were that PR was dangerous, was prone to failure and could be turned against one by the competition.