| |
1. Who invented the issue, and why?
2. What is an “assault weapon,” exactly?”
3. What role have the media played?
4. What did the ban do?
5. Where are Americans’ 5-6 million “assault weapons?” “On the streets?”
6. How useful are guns for defense?
7. How useful are the guns for sports and hunting?
8. How often are “assault weapons” used in crime?
9. Has violent crime increased, like “assault weapon” ban supporters predicted?
10. What was the effect of the ban on violent crime?
11. How much has violent crime gone down? Why has it?
12. Why are BATFE firearm commerce traces useless on this issue?
13. “Who needs an assault weapon?”
14. What’s the harm in extending the ban?
15. Why should a private citizen be allowed to have a military-style firearm?
16. Why should the ban expire?
17. Won’t expiration of the Clinton Gun Ban mean AK-47s and Uzis be legal again?
18. Would H.R. 2038/S.1431 merely “re-authorize” or “extend” the Clinton Gun Ban?
1. Who invented the issue, and why?
In 1988 gun prohibition activist Josh Sugarmann circulated a paper among anti-gun groups, telling them that they needed a “new issue” to “strengthen the handgun restriction lobby,” because their efforts to ban handguns had failed. Assault weapons, Sugarmann wrote, “will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an ‘old’ debate,” cynically noting that: “The public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is presumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” The media reinforced the misconception.
2. What is an “assault weapon,” exactly?”
“The term ‘assault weapon,’ has no precise definition in firearms reference works [and] seems to be an invention of gun control advocates dating back no farther than 1985.” (Criminologist Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns, 1997)
Before its appearance in legislation, “assault weapon” was an entirely slang term, originated by gun control supporters to refer to certain semi-automatic firearms that look like, but do not operate like, fully-automatic machineguns (which have been restricted since 1934 under the National Firearms Act).
Legislation followed Sugarmann’s strategy of deceiving the public by focusing on guns that looked like machineguns. That approach backfired, however, when a bill by Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) proposed to ban the “Auto Rifle,” a firearm that existed only as a gun catalog misprint accompanying a photograph of a rifle that had the look Metzenbaum was after. During floor debate Metzenbaum admitted: “I do not know much about those specific weapons. . . .They look quite ominous. We have pictures of them.” (Congressional Record, Nov. 9, 1993)
3. What role have the media played?
“It was commonplace for news sources in the late 1980s and 1990s to refer to either ‘assault weapons’ or ‘assault rifles’ as the ‘favored’ weapon of criminals, or, more narrowly, of drug dealers and youth gangs. This claim was not true, either for criminals in general or for these specific types of criminals.” (Criminologist Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns, 1997) State and local law enforcement agency reports and Department of Justice felon surveys (Firearm Use by Offenders, Nov. 2001 and Guns Used in Crime, July 1995), have always shown that “assault weapons” are used in only a small percentage of crime.
The “favored weapon of criminals” myth was created in the 1980s by the Cox News Service’s misrepresentation of BATFE firearm commerce traces. Anti-gun groups have perpetuated the falsehood ever since.
In truth, a trace is nothing more than a process by which BATFE contacts a manufacturer or importer, wholesaler, and retailer to track the path of a particular firearm in the chain of commerce, usually to try to identify a person who may be selling guns illegally, but sometimes, as BATFE has noted, “to determine the rightful owner [of a firearm] after it is found by a law enforcement agency.”
During the debate over “assault weapons” in the early 1990s, CBS News, NBC News, and many local network affiliates repeatedly ran footage of machineguns being fired during reports on semi-automatic firearms, misleading the public about the types of guns at the center of the debate. The error was pointed out many times, but to no avail.
Another video segment, carried by TV stations nationwide, showed Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies exploding melons with an AK-47. That video was a fraud. When the rifle’s bullets passed through the melons without visual effect, deputies exploded them for the camera by shooting them with handguns loaded with bullets that expand upon impact. The video was deceptively edited to show the AK-47 being fired, followed by the melons exploding.
In May 2003, CNN reporter John Zarella and Broward County, Fla., Sheriff Ken Jenne manufactured another machinegun deception. In footage shown nationwide, a gun Jenne claimed was an “assault weapon” was shown being rapid-fired through cinderblocks and a bullet-resistant vest. In fact, the gun used was a machinegun. And to show how “powerful” the “assault weapon” was, compared to other semi-automatics, the video also purported to show a non-banned semi-automatic fired at cinderblocks and a vest without effect. It was later discovered that while the camera was focused on the blocks and vest, the gun was deliberately fired into the ground.
4. What did the ban do?
“The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.” (“Hyping the Crime Bill,” Washington Post, Sept. 15, 1994) As of Sept. 13, 1994, the law prohibited assembling various semi-automatic firearms with two or more of their originally-standard external attachments, such as a variable-position stock or flash suppressor. For example, Springfield M1As, previously made with two attachments, are now made with only a flash suppressor.
The attachment limitation affects only U.S.-made semi-automatics, and foreign-made conventional semi-automatic shotguns, because foreign-made guns like AK-47s and Uzis were prohibited from importation in 1989 and, more restrictively, 1998, under BATFE’s revised interpretations of a different law (18 USC 925[d][3]). When the “assault weapon” law expires, 925(d)(3) will still be on the books and the foreign-made guns will remain prohibited.
Additionally, the ban prohibited a private citizen from possessing an ammunition magazine, manufactured after Sept. 13, 1994, that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 10-round limit is arbitrary and pointless. The study Congress required of the “assault weapon” law found that magazines holding more than 10 rounds “were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.” A recent follow-up study found that “gunshot injury incidents involving pistols [a type of handgun that uses magazines] were less likely to produce a death than were those involving revolvers [a type of handgun that does not use magazines].”
5. Where are Americans’ 5-6 million “assault weapons?” “On the streets?”
They’re in the same place that Americans’ other 200 million plus firearms are, in their homes, other than when they are taken to the range or to hunting fields. Not very many were ever “on the streets.” That catchy verbiage has useful propaganda purposes, but it is not defensible. The Department of Justice (Firearm Use by Offenders, Nov. 2001 and Guns Used in Crime, July 1995) says that about 1% of felons have guns of this type during offenses for which they are imprisoned.
6. How useful are guns for defense?
“The only reason for guns in civilian hands is sporting purposes.” (Sarah Brady, Tampa Tribune, Oct. 21, 1993)
Award-winning criminologist Gary Kleck’s and Marc Gertz’ landmark survey of defensive gun use in the 1990s found that guns were used for defense more than two million times a year. Analyzing national survey data, Kleck also found that “robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self protection or those who did not resist at all.” (Kleck, Targeting Guns, 1997.) Kleck and Gertz found that in about two-thirds of all self-defense gun uses, the guns used for protection are handguns, many of which are designed to use ammunition magazines that are prohibited by the “assault weapon” law.
Shotguns with six-shot magazines, pistol grips and folding stocks were used for home protection guns for decades before being branded as “assault weapons.” Carbine versions of rifles such as the AR-15 have become increasingly popular for home defense as well. Among their attributes, their variable-position stock facilitates maneuverability in the close confines of a home.
7. How useful are the guns for sports and hunting?
The right to arms is not only about sports and hunting, of course. It is primarily about defense. However, many guns affected by the “assault weapon” law are used for sports and hunting.
The Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A are the two center-fire rifles most commonly used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. Those rifles and similar rifles are used for hunting, since they use common hunting-caliber ammunition.
Semi-automatic shotguns like Remingtons, Berettas and Benellis are very widely used for hunting and the popular shotgun sports of skeet, trap and sporting clays.
Handguns that use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are widely used in action-type marksmanship competitions, such as NRA Action Pistol and matches held under the rules of the International Practical Shooting Confederation and International Defensive Pistol Association.
8. How often are “assault weapons” used in crime?
“Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime.” (“Hyping the Crime Bill,” Washington Post, Sept. 15, 1994)
Guns are used in one-fourth of violent crimes, according to the FBI. But even when guns are used, violent crimes rarely involve an “assault weapon.” A study for Congress found that semi-autos affected by the Clinton Gun Ban “were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders,” and that the ban’s 10-round limit on new ammunition magazines isn’t a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes. A follow-up study found “gunshot injury incidents involving pistols [which use magazines] were less likely to produce a death than were those involving revolvers” and “the average number of wounds for pistol victims was actually lower than that for revolver victims.” Police reports and felon surveys Firearm Use by Offenders
and Guns Used In Crime: Firearms, Crime, and Criminal Justice have always shown that “assault weapons” are used in only 1%-2% of violent crimes. Crime victim surveys indicate the figure is only 0.25%. (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns) Murders with knives, clubs and hands outnumber those with AWs by more than 20-to-1.
This didn’t deter assault weapon ban sponsor Sen. Feinstein (D-Calif.), however. In fact, she would have preferred that the ban go much further than it did. In Feb. 1995, on CBS’ 60 Minutes, she said she would have preferred that guns be confiscated. “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it,” she said.
9. Has violent crime increased, like “assault weapon” ban supporters predicted?
“I have no doubt that in the next 10 years it [violent crime] is going to climb.” (Sen. Dianne Feinstein, San Diego Union-Tribune, Jan. 20, 1994)
Sen. Feinstein was wrong. The numbers of guns, “assault weapons,” and virtually identical guns have increased and are now at all-time highs. Meantime, the nation’s violent crime rate has decreased every year since 1991 and is now at a 27-year low, based upon crimes reported to the police and FBI, and National Crime Vicitimization Surveys .
“Assault weapons” were used in only a small percentage of violent crime before 1991, and the same has been true ever since. The myth of their widespread use in crime was spread to help build support for the ban.
10. What was the effect of the ban on violent crime?
Violent crime started decreasing three years before the ban was imposed. Moreover, “assault weapons” are involved in only a tiny percentage of violent crimes—too small to noticeably effect the total violent crime rate. Furthermore, the law did not reduce the number of “assault weapons,” it caused the number to increase. There are more “assault weapons” and virtually identical guns than ever before. Along with the increase in guns, the nation’s violent crime rate has decreased every year since 1991.
Obviously, the decrease had nothing to do with gun control, especially the “assault weapon” law. At the front of its annual crime reports, the FBI lists the factors that are known to affect crime rates. Gun laws do not appear in the FBI’s list.
11. How much has violent crime gone down? Why has it?
The nation’s violent crime rate has decreased every year between 1991-2002, and by one-third overall. The rate of murder, one of the four violent crimes under the Uniform Crime Reporting system, decreased every year except 1993 during the same period, and by about 44% overall.
Supporters of gun control claim that the “assault weapon” ban deserves the credit for the decrease, but for several reasons that is preposterous.
- “Assault weapons” have never been used in more than a tiny fraction of violent crimes, too small a number to be significant in terms of total violent crime trends. It may help put “assault weapons” in perspective to remember than guns of all descriptions are used in only one-quarter of violent crimes, most violent crimes being committed with knives, bludgeons, and “personal weapons” (hands and feet).
- Total violent crime and, in particular, murder rates rose in California after it imposed the nation’s first “assault weapons” ban in 1989. Thereafter, California’s total violent crime rate rose every year through 1992 (20% overall), and its murder rate increased every year through 1993 (26% overall).
- As noted by both the FBI and the Library of Congress, gun control does not reduce crime. In its annual crime reports for the nation, the FBI lists a variety of “factors that are known to affect the volume and type of crime.” Gun control is not on the FBI’s list. Similarly, a Library of Congress study (“Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries,” May 1998) concluded, “From available statistics, among [the 27] countries surveyed, it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes.”
- The nation’s violent crime rate has decreased as the imprisonment rate for violent criminals has more than doubled, as reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Contrary to the view repeatedly expressed by the New York Times (which supports “gun control”), the violent crime rate has decreased because we have gotten tougher with criminals, not in spite of the fact that we have done so.
12. Why are BATFE firearm commerce traces useless on this issue?
A BATFE firearm commerce trace is merely a process by which the path of a gun in commerce is identified. Basically, it tries to find out “Who sold a particular gun to whom?” Traces do not determine how frequently types of guns are used to commit violent crimes. Most traces are conducted on guns that have not been used to commit violent crimes, and most guns that have been used to commit violent crimes are never traced. For these and other reasons, the Congressional Research Service (“Assault Weapons”: Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues, 1992) says:
- “The ATF tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics.”
- “Firearms selected for tracing do not constitute a random sample.”
- “Data from the tracing system may not be appropriate for drawing inferences such as which makes or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes.”
- “Trace requests are not accurate indicators of specified crimes.”
- “No crime need be involved. No screening policy ensures or requires that only guns known or suspected to have been used in crimes are traced.”
- Even BATFE has said that it “does not always know if a firearm being traced has been used in a crime. For instance, sometimes a firearm is traced simply to determine the rightful owner after it is found.”
Why do gun control supporters talk so much about traces? Simple. When “assault weapons” were the subject of intense political debate during the late 1980s and early 1990s, they were disproportionately selected for tracing. Some jurisdictions requested traces on no guns other than “assault weapons.” Since the federal “assault weapon” law was imposed, however, interest in the issue decreased. Also, BATFE has been encouraging jurisdictions to request traces on all guns they encounter. So, today, “assault weapons” are involved in a much smaller percentage of total gun traces.
13. “Who needs an assault weapon?”
In asking that question, gun-prohibitionists demonstrate that they misunderstand more than just the right to arms. The question is illegitimate. Asked in the context of any other right—religion, political expression and assembly, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, protection against double jeopardy and forced confessions, and trial by a jury—its absurdity is apparent.
In America, the burden of proof is not upon those who wish to exercise rights, but upon those who wish to restrict them. It is well-established that only a small percentage of criminals ever used these guns in crimes. And gun prohibitionists have not presented any evidence that any criminals are affected by a law that dictates the shape of gun grips, prohibits variable-position stocks, bayonet lugs and flash suppressors, and limits the size of ammunition magazines.
More appropriate questions are:
- “Why should we prohibit guns that operate the same as millions of other guns, provide no advantage to criminals, are rarely used by criminals, but are widely used for legitimate purposes, including legitimate self-defense?”
Or, more importantly:
- “Are the rights and liberities of millions of law-abiding citizens to be dictated by the acts of a small criminal element?”
14. What’s the harm in extending the ban?
A law should be on the books only if it is justifiable, does what it is supposed to do, and does not infringe people’s rights. If the best that can be said about a law is that it isn’t particularly harmful, that’s not reason enough for it to stand.
Two days after the “assault weapon” law took effect, the Washington Post editorialized, “no one should have any illusions about what was accomplished. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic.” In doing so, the paper provided one of the reasons the law should never have been imposed.
15. Why should a private citizen be allowed to have a military-style firearm?
Private ownership of “military” firearms—those that are particularly useful for defensive purposes—is at the heart of the centuries-old militia concept recognized by the Constitution’s Militia Clauses and Second Amendment, and by federal law since 1792 [10 USC 311][]. And in U.S. v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court observed that the militia consists of people “bearing arms supplied by themselves.” (Emphasis added.)
For the last century, Congress has supported programs to train private citizens in marksmanship in the interest of national defense and has equipped local shooting clubs for that purpose. Countless thousands of private citizens currently participate in modern versions of these programs, culminating in the annual National Rifle and Pistol Matches conducted by the NRA at Camp Perry, Ohio. Because of these programs, many of our troops learn marksmanship before they enter military service.
Many firearms used by the military were first widely used by civilians, including, among others, Remington and Mossberg shotguns, Winchester and Remington bolt-action rifles, and the Beretta M9 pistol. Additionally, many improvements to military firearms—most recently, the M16A2 service rifle and several .50 caliber rifles—have been developed by civilian gunsmiths and engineers.
16. Why should the ban expire?
The Clinton gun ban should never have been imposed in the first place.
- “Gun control” has never reduced crime in the U.S. or abroad. Since 1991, the nation’s violent crime rate has decreased every year to a near-three decade low as, the number of guns in circulation has greatly increased. Meanwhile, the number of Right-to-Carry states has risen to 37, and waiting periods and other gun sale delays were eliminated in favor of the National Instant Check System.
- The guns and magazines in question were rarely used in crime, and anti-gun groups’ misrepresentations of firearm commerce traces do not change that fact.
- Criminals do not benefit from the shape of a gun grip, or from attachments like a variable-position rifle stock, bayonet lug or flash suppressor.
- The ban interferes with the ability of people to protect themselves against criminals. Police officers don’t use reduced-capacity ammunition magazines, because it would limit their ability to protect themselves against criminals. Why should private citizens be forced to use them?
17. Won’t expiration of the Clinton Gun Ban mean AK-47s and Uzis be legal again?
“Unless the federal [assault weapon] law is reauthorized, it will expire and assault weapons will once again flood our streets. . . . If the law is not reauthorized, the manufacture and sale of AK-47s, UZIs and other assault weapons along with rapid-fire ammunition magazines will become legal again.” (Brady Campaign)
“AK-47" and “Uzi” have wide name recognition and, thus, are useful to gun prohibitionists for propaganda purposes, as is the absurdly exaggerated verbiage about a “flood.”
Notwithstanding anti-gun rhetoric, when the “assault weapon” law expires, foreign-made guns such as the AK-47 and Uzi will remain prohibited from importation under the BATFE’s 1989 reinterpretation of firearm importation law, reinterpreted even more restrictively in 1998. Similarly-designed “assault pistols” will remain prohibited from importation under BATFE’s 1993 reinterpretation of the same law. Street Sweepers and other revolving cylinder shotguns will remain prohibited under the National Firearms Act, to which they have been subject since 1994.
After the “assault weapon” law expires, here’s what will happen. American-made rifles such as the AR-15 will once again be made in their original configurations. Private citizens will also once again be able to buy standard-capacity ammunition magazines (usually of between 13-17 rounds capacity), instead of the arbitrarily reduced-capacity 10-round magazines the law imposed, a change that will positively affect their ability to defend themselves against criminals.
18. Would H.R. 2038/S.1431 merely “re-authorize” or “extend” the Clinton Gun Ban?
No. The bill proposes to drastically change the federal definition of “assault weapon,” in order to ban millions more guns than the 1994 law did, and to implement a back-door gun registration scheme.
|
