RIP, "assault weapons" ban
You will not be missed.
Not here, anyway. Liberals in the 90's had a woody for this "feel-good" legislation, but it was ultimately ineffective, as weapons with identical capabilities and lethality could still be sold after undergoing a few minor, mostly cosmetic, changes.
Many readers have asked, if the ban was so ineffective, why oppose it? I shouldn't really have to explain it, but it's something called the Second Amendment. Granted, no rights are absolute, but when you pass legislation infringing on a constitutionally guaranteed right, you need to have a damn good reason. "They look scary!" does not cut it.
Comments
Well, I guess you are more an authority on the second amendment than the United States Supreme Court, because the current Supreme Court refused last year to consider a challenge to California's Assault Weapons Ban, a ban that is much tougher than the ban you cite as being in violation of the second amendment.
Personally, I have listened to numerous debates over recent days and, in each case, different police chiefs gave very detailed, practical arguments why the ban was effective and should be continued. In each of these debates, the head of the NRA did not question the points the police chief made and, when the chief challenged the NRA's contention that the ban only concerned "cosmetic" differences, the NRA President changed the subject.
(If there was an interview or debate where a police chief said these guns should be banned because "they look scary", I missed it. Maybe you can post a link.)
Posted by: PE | September 14, 2004 10:27 AM
Look, here is the definition, under the current ban, of what constitutes an "assault rifle":
- pistol grip (cosmetic)
- folding or telescoping stock (cosmetic)
- flash suppressor (no effect on capacity or lethality)
- threaded barrel (who cares?)
- grenade launcher (!)
- or bayonet lug (Please.)
Now bear in mind that it's not an assault rifle until it has at least two of these features. Which combination scares you the most? The pistol grips and the bayonet mount? Or the folding stock and the threaded barrel?I believe the Second Amendment protects gun rights very broadly, and as a consequence, I think you need good, solid reasons for infringing thereon. I don't think this bill cuts it.
Now perhaps you could provide a link showing a real benefit to the ban? You know, something like gun deaths from these specific types of weapons prior to the ban and after? It's been in place for 10 years. That's plenty of time for its effect to have been made manifest.
Posted by: Barry N. Johnson | September 14, 2004 10:41 AM