As usual, tyranny is always more organized than freedom. Time to get crackin'.
Posted on 11/18/2002 4:29:37 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc., is already lobbying Members of Congress to extend the so-called "assault weapons ban" set to expire in September 2004.
Adding to the gun control effort, say Second Amendment advocates, is the fact that even though Republicans control the Senate, there's no guarantee lawmakers will not attempt to renew the gun control measure.
"We do not have the luxury of waiting until 2004 to talk about renewing the law," said Michael Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign at a September event promoting anti-gun candidates in the Nov. 5 elections.
"All Americans must start thinking about it now because the decisions that they make at the polls this November will decide the fate of the ban," said Barnes. Calls for further information were not returned.
But Congress will be hearing from more than just the gun control lobby. Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt said there is a slight chance the ban could be renewed just prior to the 2004 elections, and the group is preparing for such an eventuality.
Pratt said his organization and other Second Amendment rights groups will definitely be reminding lawmakers of the electoral fate of their former colleagues who voted for the original ban.
"We're going to send them lots of 'love letters' saying things like 'We sure hope you don't want to go through what happened in 1994,'" Pratt said.
But Pratt said fighting the ban would not be a simple or easy matter. "I'm concerned that the Senate would reenact the measure even as it's constituted [under Republican control]," he cautioned. "It is Republican, but it's not a pro-gun majority."
He is more optimistic, however, about the House of Representatives, which also gained Republican seats in the Nov. 5 elections.
"I think we have enough votes [in the House] that we can probably stop it," Pratt explained. "You've got [Representatives] Ron Paul (R-Texas), you've got John Hostettler (R-Ind.) and Virgil Goode (R-Va.). You've got newcomers like Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) and Steve King (R-Iowa)."
"The best of both worlds would be that the Senate votes on it win, lose or draw. We kill it in the House," Pratt concluded, "and then we go and clobber a bunch of senators in the next election."
As CNSNews.compreviously reported, 21 of the 24 Senate candidates endorsed by pro-gun organizations in the 2002 elections were victorious. In the House of Representatives, 230 of the 246 candidates who stated their support for the Second Amendment were elected.
By contrast, only one candidate each in the House and Senate or the eight opposed by the Brady Campaign was defeated.
Ban On Cosmetics Blamed For Electoral Losses
The ban became law on September 13, 1994 as part of the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994."
The new law mentioned nothing about true assault weapons, which are select-fire guns capable of being fired in semi-automatic or fully-automatic "machine gun" mode.
The legislation prohibited the domestic manufacture of hundreds of semi-automatic firearms with two or more military-style cosmetic features, such as a bayonet lug or a pistol grip, if such a gun is capable of accepting an ammunition magazine holding more than 10 rounds. Manufacturing new shotguns capable of holding six or more rounds of ammunition was also banned.
"The law outlawed a number of firearms by brand and cosmetic description," explained Pratt.
President Clinton later blamed the passage of the law by a Democrat-controlled Congress as part of the reason for the Republican takeover of the federal legislature in 1994.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), claimed at the time that the law would restrict only 19 types of firearms. But the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms admitted in a Dec. 20, 1993 letter to Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) that the law proposed to ban at least 45 types of guns.
Pratt recalled the lack of statistical support for the ban. "At the time of the ban, these guns were used in fewer murders than hands and feet," he said, citing nationwide statistics from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports.
Those same reports also show that more law enforcement officers are murdered with their own service weapons each year than with all types of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns combined.
Less than four percent of all guns used by criminals during the commission of a crime could be covered by even liberal interpretations of the definitions, according to a U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics report issued in Nov. 2001.
Second Amendment supporters feared when the Feinstein legislation was introduced that the list of banned weapons and accessories would continue to grow as gun control advocates expanded their reach.
Many shotguns, for example, only hold five rounds of standard two-and-three-quarter-inch or three-inch shells.
However, if two-inch British "short shells" are loaded, the shotguns can hold six rounds and are illegal to manufacture in the U.S. under the Feinstein ban.
While gun control advocates dismissed the possibility of such "stretches" of the law, some have already occurred at the state level.
In New Jersey, for example, state law bans any gun holding more than 15 rounds, meaning the tube-fed Remington 552 target rifle, which holds 15 .22-caliber "Long Rifle" rounds is an "assault weapon," banned under the state law.
The justification for that ban is that the tube can accept a total of 20 rounds of .22-caliber "Short" ammunition, typically used only in handguns.
I guess this means my pre-ban Glock 17 (17 rounds of 9mm) pistol is a New Jersey assault weapon?
Cool!
What's worse is that renewing these laws with the GOP in power will define them as an anti-gun party. They will lose every election for a generation because gunowners will sit at home.
The question is whether the GOP is more afraid of the New York Times editorial board or their own voters.
As usual, tyranny is always more organized than freedom. Time to get crackin'.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
It is possible to take a copy of American Rifleman and fold it into a box which can hold more than ten rounds of .22lr ammunition. Under a literal reading of the AWB, such a magazine would be illegal.
Likewise there is nothing to indicate that the term "drum" excludes things like bass drums or snare drums, or that "belt" excludes things like bandoliers.
Since nothing in the act requires that a "large capacity ammunition feeding device" actually be able to feed ammunition in any useful fashion, nearly any type of ammo-feeding device could be outlawed under a literal reading of the text, since almost all of them could easily be adapted hold more than ten rounds of .22lr ammunition. While dumping a few hundred rounds of .22lr into the mag tube on a shotgun wouldn't be exactly useful for anything, I don't think one can deny that such a tube could hold that much ammo easily.
What Republicans should do is introduce a version of the Assault Weapons ban which exempts any firearm which is only capable of firing one shot per trigger pull, and magazines and other accoutrements primarily therefor.
The reason the public supported the AWB was that CNN et al. played endless video of people firing machineguns. So the Republicans should make the case that the original AWB also outlawed guns which LOOKED like machine guns, but actually had hunting-rifle 'guts'. The new ban would thus only forbid semiautomatic weapons that by design fire multiple shots per trigger pull or can readily be adapted to do so. Of course, the fact that there are no semi-automatic weapons meeting that criteria is something we here would all recognize, but those in the media don't want the public to understand.
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.