The Assault Weapons Ban: How Silly Was It? (Part Two)
The Washington Post, May 23, 2011:
On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control: “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.
“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
In every practical respect, the firearms-related provisions of the “assault weapons ban” were an objective failure. But absurd restrictions on firearms weren’t the only part of that legislation that passed only to succumb to an outcome quite different than it’s anti-gun progenitors had in mind.
Along with creating the term “assault weapon,” this Clinton-era law also created the similarly arbitrary term “high-capacity magazine.”
A detachable magazine is a container that holds cartridges for a given firearm, and the number of cartridges typically varied with the size and the purpose of the weapon at hand and the size of the cartridge it fired. Small turn-of-the-century handguns typically carried magazines of just 6-7 cartridges. The standard magazine capacity of many pistols that became popular in the 1980s was 15 rounds or more. The standard capacity of military grade rifles and carbines was 20-30 rounds. As time progressed, firearm designers were finding ways to put a larger number of cartridges in the magazines of their weapons.
When legislators decided that the “assault weapons ban” should also include a restriction on the number of cartridges that any given magazine could hold, they declared that any magazine that held a greater amount of cartridges was a “high capacity” magazine. It didn’t matter to them that many of the firearms in question had as their standard capacity magazines with round counts from 13-30 rounds or more, or that some of these firearms had had such a capacity since before the congressmen and congresswomen writing the law were born.
Congress arbitrarily decided that 10 rounds was “enough” for American citizens, and included provisions that once the law went into effect, any magazine manufactured after the date the law went into effect that had more than ten rounds would be illegal for anything other than law enforcement use.
Like the firearms provisions of the bill, these magazine provisions also had unintended consequences.
As it turns out, firearms magazines are both typically very robust and reliable in design, and incredibly easy to mass manufacture. Once made, they last indefinitely.
Between the time Congress started signaling that they would create a magazine capacity restriction and the implementation of the law, factories worked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week churning out millions of nothing but high-capacity magazines, which were stockpiled by manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers in massive warehouses.
As a result, “high capacity magazines” for most common firearms were freely available throughout the life of the ban. As e-commerce came into early maturity during this time period, many high-capacity magazines were more available than they had been before the ban was signed into law.
How?
Congress had neglected to make the possession or sale of high-capacity magazines illegal, and only outlawed the manufacture of new magazines.
“It would almost take a massive covert operation delivering thousands of weapons to violent felons to make this even potentially viable.”
In “Terrorism and global warming alarmism”, Howard Nemerov makes an excellent comparison in the tattler between terrorists and bureaucrats of the U.N.. In the ‘Gurnrunner’ operation that you allude to, which clearly on its face is an attempt to create an atmosphere more accepting of anti-gun propaganda, the comparison is not so metaphorical. Obama and his appointees executed a plan which had as its foreseeable outcome the murder of civilians and law enforcement officers. Indeed that was its goal. It is impossible for me to see this as anything but terrorism. I cannot see the difference between operation Gunrunner and the actions of Anders Behring Brievik.
Allow me a slight segue. Without diminishing the import of your message or those below, has anyone else noticed that only PJM is still talking about Gunrunner? It isn’t even on the Tea Party’s radar these days.
Hmmmm. You suppose there may be a connection to the Debt Limit bill aitch reneged on with the Repubs and the fact no one is discussing (Read, investigating!) the multiple and horrendous violations of the law by this administration?
That only leaves us with a “chicken or the egg” question to clean up. It aitch dragging out the debt limit thing to cover his tracks, keep Congress from having time to launch hearings and “busy up” the conservative media – along with the Tea Party and R candidates – OR is the debt limit “misdirection” to cover aitch’s admitted agenda to reverse the 2nd Amendment by executive fiat? OR, is it both?!
Look, I know this thread is primarily about protecting our right to bear arms. But at a minimum, PJM can’t afford to let up on aitch over gunrunner and the legal rammifications. Gang! You KNOW the American people; you know well how short is their memory span. You also know that once an issue is “off the table” it’s hard to resurrect and easy for the offender to spin as “old news.”
I renew my plea for each of you to write, call or “tweet” your R congressman or senator and demand hearings on “gunrunnergate!” And if they balk because they are “tied up with the debt limit, simply remind them – as have I – that the reason they have a Congressional majority now is because aitch couldn’t do HIS job. Ask them if they are telling you they can’t do THEIRS!
This thing must-not-die! Nor must it be put off. Friends, not only can we afford “4 more years” we can’t afford to wait until January 2013 to swear in a new POTUS. Look at your calendar! That’s EIGHTEEN more months of damage this man can do!
Boring, back to the 2nd Amendment in the BILL OF RIGHTS of the USA Constitution. That document public for everyone to read if they choose. Laws enacted to amend without proper lawful procedure for amendment. Procedure detailed in that FUNDAMENTAL LAW in the USA, a “country of Law, THE Law of the Land on which ALL other laws must be based. Procedure the bedrock of the LAW. The words, which even Ezra Klein and his brothers could understand, of the 2nd amendment: note specifically that there are no qualifying words such as “for the good of the nation”, or the “good of the people”: (my shout) the RIGHT of the people to Keep AND Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The qualifier is “well regulated militia” without who and how regulated. The USA is SELF-governing citizenry. The onus is on the individual citizen. There are no rights either in the gift or right of withdrawal by the government. Any such must receive CONSENT of the governed, NOT de haut en bas control by the government in whatever guise..
The other words that are the basis of the USA: life, liberty and pursuit of happiness inscribed in the Declaration of Independence for everyone to read Combine specifically with the Bill of Rights 9th and 10 amendments to the Constitution, and you have the full description of the governments’ rights as against those of the citizens of this exceptional USA.
The U.S. isn’t the only country to indulge in genuinely silly gun laws, to wit;
From 1969 to 1971, France permitted the sale of “reproduction”Old West style revolvers (think- Colt Peacemaker types) under the same generally sensible measures as original “relic” guns made before 1900 (i.e., a background check). After 1971, they changed the law to prohibit the sale of such reproductions except under the same provisions as modern weapons chambering military-issue cartridges, which French law defines as “war material”. Why? Because they were “too young”- never mind that they were in every other way identical to the originals, including calibers. BTW, French records show no use of such repros- or originals, for that matter- in crimes during the period of the original law.
Between the World Wars, Czechoslovakia had a law prohibiting handguns with barrels shorter than 10 centimeters (about 4 inches). This was intended to prohibit compact pocket automatics, mostly in 6.35mm (.25 ACP), most of which were barely 5 inches overall, with 2.5 inch or so barrels.
Since most such pistols were built on the Browning pattern, with an easily-detachable barrel for field-stripping and cleaning purposes, the gun makers quickly began making special “Czech law” models, identical to the regular ones sold everywhere else except with barrels 4.5 inches long that protruded beyond the end of the slide much like some long-barreled target version of the Colt 1911 type auto use today.
One exception was the Austrian-made Steyr .25, which had its barrel machined integrally with the frame. The Steyr factory’s solution was a tubular extension machined into the slide, which extended far enough ahead of the frame and muzzle to make the minimum length requirement. The fact that it also provided the pistol with a highly efficient flash hider was a detail they neglected to mention to the authorities in Prague.
After World War Two, when Czechoslovakia became part of the Soviet bloc, even the commissars couldn’t figure out a good reason for the “ten-centimeter” law, and dropped it. But every now and then, you will still run across a .25 auto with a weirdly long barrel at a gun show, with most people scratching their heads over the reason for its existence.
As Jeff Cooper once said, “Silly laws promote transparent evasions”.
clear ether
eon
Eon,come to Canada and you can find lots of these “Czech barrels”. We have the same stupid laws here today, no barrels less than 105mm.
If the communist in the White House isn’t removed next year, we will have no more Constitutional rights to protect. He will stack the Supreme Court with more communists and that, as they say, will be that.
That is probably the greatest danger we face from Obama. His “czars” and unconfirmed cabinet appointments will be gone with a new administration. A few more “wise Latinas” and the Supreme Court will make legislating from the bench a progressive’s dream.
A few more “wise Latinas” and the Supreme Court will make legislating from the bench a progressive’s dream.
Which leaves them with the little problem of enforcement. That’s when it gets… interesting.
For better or worse guns cannot be effectively banned in the US. There are just too many out there and ownership is too widespread. It would take the imposition of a police state to do it. The only result of an attempt to ban guns would be the disarmament of the law abiding citizen while the criminal population remains armed. This is exactly what you see in jurisdictions that have restricted Second Amendment rights.
Isn’t that what they really want? To disarm the law abiding people and arm the criminals so they can use this excuse to hack away at the constitution and establish tyranny in the name of law and order?
“….establish tyranny in the name of law and order?”
Perfect. With full credit to you Vindico Libertas, I wish to revise my last sentence in my last comment to read;
The bloody chaos that would result would create an environment where they can establish tyranny in the name of law and order.
Team Obama has already demonstrated in so many ways that they are not restrained by any law, reason or ethical consideration. Gangs of armed criminals running amok amongst a disarmed and helpless citizenry is fine with them, even desirable. A police state is the statist’s wet-dream, thats fine with them also. Practicality is also not a consideration. Remember the ‘skyrocketing’ energy comment and the ‘fairness issue’ about capital gains taxes?
In fact tdiinva, your rational argument against disarming the public they would see as the very reason to try it. The bloody chaos that would result would create an environment where they could instantly have everything they want.
Police state?
You mean Likd this? http://ohioccw.org/201107214955/cantonpd.html
Mexico, Argentina, any number of other 3rd world countries, “prohibit” firearms, but people can get those firearms easily enough, if they pay a bribe to the police. Unfortunatly, they also need to bribe the police if they have to shoot someone, or even fire the gun when/where the police can find out about it.
Boils down to: an honest citizen, unless very wealthy, cannot /use/ the gun in self defense.
That encourages crime, and that helps the tyrants retain power.
Then there are the 922(r) issues which require a certain number of US made parts in a foreign rifle to make it legal to own… unless you are a collector and keep the rifle in all-original condition. So if you have to replace one of the integral parts in a rifle due to wear and can only get a US made part then you have to swap out a number of other parts with US made ones, as well. If you don’t do that and don’t have the requisite number of parts then you are in violation of the law. Trying to read through the list of what is and isn’t ‘allowable’ is a major headache…
So if a sear breaks in your trigger group and can’t scrounge a foreign made one up, then you can start looking at the cost of converting the entire rifle over to make it 922(r) compliant. Which, for low cost rifles, can be more than the original cost you paid for it. All done to dissuade you, the American citizen, from modifying foreign made rifles to your preferred utility (like home defense, sport shooting, hunting) because some fine critters Upon the Hill wanted to make you jump through legalese to possess a perfectly legal and functional weapon.
This isn’t ‘protecting US industry’ but harassing US citizens who are interested in foreign made designs, yet want to use them for other purposes.
You’ve got it backwards. The limit in 922(r) is on the imported parts. Not the US made ones.
Most Americans, on both sides of the political spectrum, vote out of purely selfish interests. Something has to affect them personally before they give a damn. The is why the 1994 “Assault Gun” ban was a “good” law. It made millions of voters finally realize what were the consequences, the selfish effects, of voting Democratic. And in November 1994, millions of voters put Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, the House itself for the first time since the year I was born, 1952.
Even the present hassling over the deficit and the debt and the debt ceiling is something which the average voter isn’t entirely certain affects them personally. That is why the Democrats need to lie about the consequence of missing “X” day, August 2. There is more than enough continuous revenue to pay (1) all the interest on the existing debt, (2) all Social Security, (3) all Medicare and Medicaid”, (4) all active duty military pay, (5) all veterans affairs and (6) about half of unemployment payouts. Everyone in the Congress and the White House knows that. But to play the selfish card, on the Social Security recipients, the White House needs to lie.
Everyone in Congress knew the FBI UCS stats on crimes committed using “assault guns” as defined by the 1994 law. Everyone in Congress knew the effect on crime, even if the bill resulted in the sudden disappearance of all “assault guns”, would be infinitessimal. But they had to play the selfish card, and lie. In that case, it blew up in their face.
of voting Democratic.
That word bothers me no end. I should read ‘of voting democRAT.’
Nothing ‘democratic’ about the ‘rat party, the party of educating their voters just enough for an easily malleable mob mentality.
“We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar,” President Obama said to Brady. Now we know what he was talking about, it’s an old trick used many times to get rid of political opposition or even countries to cause a “Casus Belli,” a reason for war. You cannot have a takeover of government in this country with the People armed as they are, you can’t have a dictatorship with the People able to resist. The framers of our Constitution had finally won a war of Independence and well knew that sometime in the future there would be the oppressors attempted takeover, they made sure that that it wouldn’t be easy with Czar’s and oppressive regulations from bureaucracy. The attempt of the Obama Regime to set up such a casus belli leading to the deaths of over 150 Mexican and United States Police Officers lets you know that this man is serious and is capable of anything. Any grab for the guns is a wake up call, it tells you the canary died and there are political dangers ahead.
Spam Comment Deleted — Ed.
This is not the forum for your advertisements. Please get back to playing XBox and leave serious minded people to this blog.
Thanks for pointing that out Vindico as per the rules of the comments namely rule 5 as seen below!
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
This comment should have never been approved in the first place, possibly the moderator was tired!
“Congress had neglected to make the possession or sale of high-capacity magazines illegal, and only outlawed the manufacture of new magazines.”
I think it closer to accurate that Congress could not make possession of existing magazines illegal, without losing the vote on the entire bill. Congress pretended to enact a magazine ban, the Brady Group pretended it had some effect, and normal folk had to pay more for a spare magazine. Everyone involved, except the average citizen, was satisfied by this foolishness.
It is akin to the “Cash for Clunkers” in the unintended consequences that perfectly good salvageable parts for many vehicles that are still being used on the roads are now crushed as per the law. I have two perfectly good vehicles one is 21 years old and one will be twenty in two years and both run just fine but finding parts for them is a real hardship and they both get over 22 miles per gallon and can carry more than one sack of groceries and two people!
You could look at operation gun runner and its off shoots to see that obozo was trying to ban weapons underhandedly as he told the brady people.
The people involved with it are hillary clinton holder I am sure obozo was, no one gets the go ahead of something this big without him knowing about it. There are more I am sure but Issa would have to get a special prosecutor on it.
Everything obozo does is around the constitution he and his ilk could care less about it. That is also the one thing standing in the way of this one world government.
Another unintended consequence was the significant increase in women firearms bearers. The smaller weapons resulting from the magazine size limit nicely coincided with a movement for female self defense.
So now the gun grabbers have to take them away from Grandma and Mom.
I went to a Gun Show yesterday for the first time. I was very disappointed.
I did not see ONE Drug Dealer buying ANY machine guns.
It was just a bunch of standard, nice Americans enjoying their chosen hobby.
I bet golfers are really annoyed that their pass-time is not protected by the Constitution.
Apparently, the government is very concerned that mere citizens are allowed to be armed. In fact, many citizens also are alarmed that their fellow citizens can carry guns now. We call those alarmed citizens “criminals”. I don’t know what to call the government.
There was another unintended consequence. When people could not buy full-capacity 9 mm pistols and were limited to 10 shots, they moved up in caliber. They bought .40 or .45′s instead. The .44 and .50 cal Desert Eagles caught on then – as well as the .454 Casull revolvers.
If there is another ban, people will make damn sure the shots they get will really count. They shotgun pistols are big right now – look for more in bigger calibers.
You missed what happened. The National Rifle Association, those dumb redneck yahoos, completely snookered everybody concerned wioth this fiasco.
We couldn’t stop it, but we loaded it up with assorted poison pills so that it had to fail and had to sunset.
As you recognize, it really didn’t accomplish anything, iasmuch as runctionally identiocal guns remained available during the so-called “ban.”
I was, and still am deeply into the gun culture I had been a Hi-power rifle competitor for the last 45 years. I know the sport. Military pattern semi-sutomatic rifles are what most of us use. While the “ban” was in effect, such rifles continued to be made, only without flash suppressors and without bayonet lugs, which nobody cared about anyway. The gun-grabbers thought they were getting an anti-gun revolution and they got buptkis.
The law did nothing, because it was written to do nothing. The only things it did do were to transform American politics in a way not necessarily to the Democrats’ advantage, and to discredit and scatter the gun-grabbing movement, probably forever. It was one of the slickest, gutsiest things which ever happened in American political history, and the gun culture pulled it off. I am so damn proud!
As noted above that bill did nothing than drain money from our pockets. Weapons, magazine, and parts prices skyrocketed, but were otherwise available. Same goes now. Under this President, everyone is so ready for the next grab, that it has forced prices up, and ammunition scarce. While home on leave in June, I couldnt find 12 gauge 00 buck anywhere. Likewise, .45ACP and other “common” calibers were scarce. Now I live near a major US city, and that may be why, but I definitely see stocking up in preparation of the next shoe to drop.
Tangential to the above postings, the ATF prohibits weapons imported into the US that are not suitable for “sporting purposes”. It may just be me, but I can’t seem to find the words “sporting purposes” in the Second Amendment.
The firearms referred to in the Second Amendment, are weapons suitable for war, not “sporting purposes”. Any import prohibitions of those weapons by the ATF, are unconstitutional.