The Assault Weapons Ban: How Silly Was It? (Part O

The Assault Weapons Ban: How Silly Was It? (Part One)

With the Obama admin and a Washington Post editorial calling for its reinstatement — amidst a tie-in to the Gunwalker scandal — it's worth revisiting the boneheaded law.


U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, February 26, 2009:

As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.

The fabled “assault weapons ban.”

Few laws ever passed have been as idolized — and misunderstood — as Title XI of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Subtitle A (the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act).

To listen to the Obama administration, the media, or the nominated head of the ATF spin it, the ban made it illegal to purchase machine guns, and outlawed the ownership or use of high-capacity magazines, saving billions, perhaps trillions, of lives.

That mischaracterization is as wrong as it is laughable. The law had nothing to do with machine guns and real military-issue assault rifles, and did nothing to measurably impact violent crime.

The purpose of the law was to ban the sale and importation of certain semi-automatic (one bullet fired per trigger pull) firearms by name, and a wider group of firearms that had an arbitrarily selected list of largely cosmetic features. These features did not affect the rate of fire, accuracy, or range of the firearms impacted. Firearms were determined to be “assault weapons” — a term that was created by the law itself — if it had two or more of the following features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

1. Folding or telescoping stock
2. Pistol grip
3. Bayonet mount
4. Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
5. Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

1. Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
2. Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
3. Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
4. Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
5. A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

1. Folding or telescoping stock
2. Pistol grip
3. Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
4. Detachable magazine

It was a law passed by lawmakers who desired to “do something,” but who didn’t have the expertise or intelligence to pass a law with any real meaning or measurable impact. It resulted in a 10-year timeframe where this …

see article for pics ....




Instead of having having an impact on the reduction of gun crime, the “assault weapon ban” instead became a near-comical example of the law of unintended consequences. Prior to the introduction of the legislation, demand for the firearms that became the subject of the ban was relatively light. The public’s interest was piqued, and sales skyrocketed, directly as a result of the law. These firearms had almost no statistical representation in crimes (which the National Institute of Justice admitted two years later), and interest in them grew both before the ban and after it was enacted. One of the unintended consequences of the law was that these firearms that had had a small role at the fringes of the marketplace were suddenly desired by millions.

The assault weapons ban didn’t reduce the number of military-style semi-automatic firearms. It greatly increased their numbers, their public acceptance, and had the effect of mainstreaming them, “pre-ban” rifles and cosmetically de-enhanced “post-ban” rifles alike. Thanks to the “ban,” AR-15 pattern rifles are now among the most popular rifles in America, and have been mainstreamed even among the change-resistant hunting fraternity as “modern sporting rifles.”

[glhs837]

Heres a good piece.
One of the co-sponsors, Rep Mcarthy, was being interviewed about this and was asked what a "barrel shroud". After tow evasions, she was pinned down into saying she didnt know what one was, and made something up "its athing on the shoulder, goes up" is what I think she said:)


Video: Carolyn McCarthy doesn’t understand her own gun-control legislation « Hot Air

another point to make is her assertion that the guns in the original ban were chosen "because these are the weapons the gangs are using to kill our police officers" From a little digging, seems the crafters of the original ban looked through the Gun Owners Digest and picked weapons they thought looked mean and scary. Stilll looking for unbiased confirmation of that, but seems likely.

referred to as Ugly Black Weapons



IIRC in the last 20 yrs only one police office in MD was killed with an

"Assault Weapon"

and that was an SKS ..... not even a UBW

[Mongo53]

Originally Posted by EmptyTimCup

The assault weapons ban didn’t reduce the number of military-style semi-automatic firearms. It greatly increased their numbers, their public acceptance, and had the effect of mainstreaming them, “pre-ban” rifles and cosmetically de-enhanced “post-ban” rifles alike. Thanks to the “ban,” AR-15 pattern rifles are now among the most popular rifles in America, and have been mainstreamed even among the change-resistant hunting fraternity as “modern sporting rifles.”

The law showed how intellectually dishonest the authors of the bill were, because we sooned learned it was impossible to ban a weapon just on its "looks" and thus, it became appearant the only motivation to ban the weapons were it looks.

The fact they termed it a ban on Assualt Weapons and NOT a single weapon on the list could be catagorized or meet the definition of an "Assualt Weapon" was another huge intellectually dishonest argument from the anti-2nd amendment crowd in passing this law.

The Federalist Papers made it clear, the Founding Fathers intent of the 2nd Amendment was that every American had a right to bear the standard issue firearm that was used by the militia. i.e. you didn't have the right to a bear Cannon or F-15E Strike Eagle, but you did have a right to bear the same weapon that was issued a foot soldier in the militia (which at the time was the meaning of the word "Firearm") Thus, already banned assualt weapons arguably is unconstitutional, but banning semi-automatic weapons based on the military design or even the appearance is beyond the pale as being unconstitutional.

But, Clinton argued we had nothing to worry about, no one was talking about taking away our hunting rifles and banning people from hunting.

The Democrats that recieved a trouncing in the mid-term elections after the failed Socialization of Health Care that enraged many voters, claimed it was the backlash of the AWB that caused them to loose the Congress. Yet, the law stood unchallenged until it sun-set 10 years later and the Republican Majority decided NOT to renew it. That far right wing of his Party, George W. Bush told the Congress if they passed a new AWB he would sign it, and that radical republican congress, practicing the most conservative principals of their history was drafting and considering passing a new AWB.

Some other facts;

The Patents for the design of the AR-15 and M-16 had expired and became public domain, meaning anyone could repoduce the weapons without paying licensing fees, that dropped the price and produced a lot of competition for a rifle uniquely designed to take advantage of modular design and modern machining. So, the AR-15 being controlled by a single company that top priority was government contracts and pleasing their government customer, was NO longer in control of the design. That arguably was the biggest reason sales took off on the AR-15, NOT that unintented consequences of the AWB didn't help some.

Because of the unique design of the AR-15/M-16, when you build a semi-automatic version, it is actually more difficult to modify it to fire full automatic than it is to modify most other standard semi-automatic rifles to do the same. And almost all, if NOT all, manufacturers design in extra provisions (actually its omitted or they do NOT go to through the extra machining steps) that make it even harder to convert to full automatic.

Whats different about the AR-15/M-16, in short, most semi-automatic weapons naturally fire full automatic, extra equipment is added to stop the cycle after one shot, until its reset by releasing the trigger. The AR-15/M-16 unique design results in it only wanting to fire one shot per trigger pull, extra equipment is added to control the hammer precisely to make it fire full automatic. So, most semi-automatic weapons, require some modification of the existing parts to fire full-auto. AR-15/M-16 require the procurement of additional parts and then precisely fitting those parts in the rifle to get it to fire full auto. Like anything, there are exceptions, but they are rare.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

Exhibit 7 displays the steps in that analysis. Overall, 1995 gun murder rates were 9 percent lower than the projection.19 Gun murders declined 10.3 percent in States without preexisting assault weapons bans, but they remained unchanged in States with their own bans. After adjusting the projection for possible effects of State bans on juvenile handgun possession and a similar Federal ban that took effect simultaneously with the assault weapons ban, the study found that 1995 gun murder rates were 10.9 percent below the projected level. Finally, statistical controls were added for postban drops in California and New York to avoid confounding possible effects of the assault weapons ban, California’s “three strikes” law, and New York City’s “quality of life” policing. Still, 1995 murder rates in the 15 remaining States with juvenile handgun possession bans but no assault weapons ban were 6.7 percent below the projection—a difference that could not be explained in terms of murder trends, demographic and economic changes, the Federal juvenile handgun possession ban, or the California and New York initiatives. Random, year-to-year fluctuations could not be ruled out as an explanation of the 6.7-percent drop. With only 1 year of postban data available and only 15 States meeting the screening criteria for the final estimate, the model lacks the statistical power to detect a preventive effect of even 20 percent under conventional standards of statistical reliability.20 Although it is highly improbable that the assault weapons ban produced an effect this large, the ban could have reduced murders by an amount that would escape statistical detection. However, other analysis using a variety of national and local data sources found no clear ban effects on certain types of murders that were thought to be more closely associated with the rapid-fire features of assault weapons and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines. The ban did not produce declines in the average number of victims per incident of gun murder or gun murder victims with multiple wounds.


Murders of police by offenders armed with assault weapons declined from an estimated 16 percent of gun murders of police in 1994 and early 1995 to 0 percent in the latter half of 1995 and early 1996. However, such incidents are sufficiently rare that the available data do not permit a reliable assessment of whether this contributed to a general reduction in gun murders of police.

Originally Posted by Mongo53

So, most semi-automatic weapons, require some modification of the existing parts to fire full-auto. AR-15/M-16 require the procurement of additional parts and then precisely fitting those parts in the rifle to get it to fire full auto. Like anything, there are exceptions, but they are rare.

in the 90's probably before 94 you could purchase the parts, trigger group and auto sear for aprox 25 bucks for the AK style weapons from and Class III dealer no questions asked .....


I understand from recent articles, the AFT will convict you of owning an automatic weapon ( cannot remember the legal term ) for owning a weapon and the parts to make in Full Auto even if you do not install them


which IMHO is bull #### .....

[Mongo53]

Originally Posted by glhs837

Heres a good piece.
One of the co-sponsors, Rep Mcarthy, was being interviewed about this and was asked what a "barrel shroud". After tow evasions, she was pinned down into saying she didnt know what one was, and made something up "its athing on the shoulder, goes up" is what I think she said:)


Video: Carolyn McCarthy doesn’t understand her own gun-control legislation « Hot Air

another point to make is her assertion that the guns in the original ban were chosen "because these are the weapons the gangs are using to kill our police officers" From a little digging, seems the crafters of the original ban looked through the Gun Owners Digest and picked weapons they thought looked mean and scary. Stilll looking for unbiased confirmation of that, but seems likely.

Exactly, this is what you get when you ban a weapon based on its looks, the manufacturer just has to make a few cosmetic changes and rename the rifle and he can continue to sell it 100% legally, by the law, it is a totally different weapon he is selling, then the version that was specified as being illegal.

The first draft of the law to ban "cop killer" bullets, was laughably incompentent. The morons in congress actually thought the teflon coating was what allowed the bullets to pierce cop's body armour, and that is all they banned. The NRA helped the Congress rewrite the law, so that they banned bullets made of the hardened metal materials that resulted in a true ban on cop killer bullets. You know, the NRA that just wants cops to die.

BTW, the teflon is only there to reduce the wear on the barrel, hardened armour piecing rounds will wear out the barrel after only 5 or 6 shots, coating them with teflong lets the barrel last a couple hundred shots. So, the fact that using non-teflon coated armour piercing bullets is going to wear out the barrell on a firearm the criminal is going to throw away, anyway, was going to be the deterrent from them using those rounds against cops?

[Mongo53]

Originally Posted by EmptyTimCup

I understand from recent articles, the AFT will convict you of owning an automatic weapon ( cannot remember the legal term ) for owning a weapon and the parts to make in Full Auto even if you do not install them


which IMHO is bull #### .....

Yea, from my understanding, that is the ATF's interpretation of the law, and most people abide by it, because they don't have the resources to fight the federal government over it.

I think they call it "contructive intent", the idea being, if you have the parts then you have a weapon and you've violated the law. Personally, I would NOT want to risk a jury making the distinction either, the ATF arguing owning a dissasembled full auto weapon is still violating the law that bans you from having a full auto weapon. Obviously, anyone can assemble and disassemble a full auto weapon in a few minutes, just because you get caught while its dissasembled, doesn't mean you didn't violate the law.

The machine gun ban was done under reagan, after the assignation attempt, which he was never shot by a machine gun, he was shot by a mail order .22. But, liberals never let a good crisis go to waste when it comes to pushing their agenda. It made it illegal to sell any new manufactured machine guns to the public, only existing machine guns could be re-sold and they had to be serialized and registered.

The parts that make the machine gun full auto are considered the "machine gun" itself.

That is why $6 worth of parts to make a full auto M-16, easily sell for $30k , because the few original, still useable parts, that were serialized and registered that can be legally bought and owned, has created such a gap in supply vs demand, it has created a 500,000% inflation of the actual value of those worn out parts.

I have a tough time believing anyone can get away with selling the full auto parts for any weapon and it being legal in the 90's, there must have been some sort of loop hole, and maybe that is what the "contructive intent" interpretation came around to stop.

Originally Posted by Mongo53

Yea, from my understanding, that is the ATF's interpretation of the law, and most people abide by it, because they don't have the resources to fight the federal government over it.

I think they call it "constructive intent", the idea being,

yeah Interpratation ....... not an actual written LAW


well if no holes are drilled in the receiver .... no intent


hard to have an automatic weapon if you cannot install the parts

and no serial numbers on the parts .... I looked (back in 1992) the kit over ... and could not believe how cheap they were ....

so would I also be guilty of owning a "Hand Grenade" if I owned an old M67 Practice grenade and reloading supplies (or being a shooter of Black Powder Weapons)



I could conceivably assemble an explosive device out of the can of powder ... and some model rocket fuse