Without congressional act, assault weapon ban inactive after ten years

Up For Debate

On Tuesday, the manufacturing of 19 previously banned assault-type weapons legally resumed. These weapons had been illegal to produce since 1994 when the Feinstein Bill was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton. The bill banned all weapons with certain features that made the weapons more potent and has been cited by law enforcement as lessening violent crime. Critics say that the ban infringed on the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

The ban was written to expire after 10 years unless renewed by an act of Congress. President George W. Bush said he would sign such an extension into law if it were presented to him, but no bill was introduced to Congress. Senator John Kerry has criticized Bush for allowing the ban to expire.

Sophomore Katie Austen, sophomore Brian Goodman and junior Jonathan Kelly discuss the expiration of the ban in the first of our "Up for Debate" features.

Katie Austen, staff writer

AK-47s and Uzis — coming soon to a neighborhood near you, courtesy of President George W. Bush. Statisticians get ready — the violence level has potential to rise again.

Because President Bush did not resign the Feinstein Law banning the sale of assault weapons, today these ridiculously excessive rifles once again are accessible to the public. AK-47s and Uzis now will be free to use for everyday things — like sniping innocent bystanders, killing wives and looking decorative over a mantle.

Gun control is vital to our nation. During his 2000 campaign, President Bush pledged to resign the legislation and several Bush spokesmen supported his claims, but nothing has been done. Conservatives — known for their high religious and moral values — do not strike me as people who should be gun supporters.

The Feinstein Law has proved to help reduce violence. It decreased assault weapon violence by 65 percent, according to CNN. Granted, that is not 100 percent, but at least it was aiding the reduction. With the restrictions now gone, it opens up many doors to people who were not able to purchase these weapons. Having minimal regulations on handguns is upsetting enough — it would be reassuring to know that there was some sort of protection against more damaging and destructive artillery.

One of the government’s responsibilities is to protect its citizens. How can one feel safe knowing that somewhere out there an angry John Doe is carrying a rifle that can inflict the maximum amount of human damage and pain?

Brian Goodman, staff writer

With a level of predictability matched only by Yellowstone geysers, Senator John Kerry lambasted the Bush administration for not strongly urging Congress to extend the federal assault weapons ban.

Sounding like he borrowed one of President Bush’s more simplistic speech writers for the afternoon, Kerry stated that the president’s laxity has "made the jobs of terrorists easier and made the job of America’s law enforcement officers harder, and that’s just plain wrong."

Senator Kerry may be the only one who foresees all of America’s terrorists rushing to their local gun stores and legally purchasing assault weapons instead of getting them off the black market, where they still are available without those pesky background checks.

Due to a proliferation of loopholes that always seem to show up when Congress attempts to understand technical aspects of things they can’t possibly grasp from their leather-backed chairs, manufacturers were able to keep many weapons on the market by making slight aesthetic alterations, sometimes as simple as a name change.

As long as your M-16 is called a Colt AR-15, you still could have bought it from your friendly local gun shop last week. Yet Senator Kerry still must mourn the passing of a ban that didn’t effectively ban much of anything, and make reference to the war on terror to do it. And that’s just plain wrong.

Jonathan Kelly, contributing writer

The reality is that the 1994 assault weapons ban law has not played a role in declining murder rates and merely has created barriers to ordinary Americans’ legitimate right to own firearms under the Second Amendment.

The statute does not have true law enforcement value because semiautomatic rifles, the type of guns banned under the statute, are not commonly used among criminals. Prior to the ban, less than one in eight of all gun crimes were committed with semiautomatic weapons, according to the National Institute of Justice. Criminals are far more likely to use smaller, simpler guns — ones not banned under the 1994 law.

There is essentially no such thing as an "assault weapon," as semiautomatics are referred to in the ban statute. Semiautomatic rifles are no deadlier than simpler handguns — the difference between the two groups of firearms is that semiautomatics possess various special accessories which include folding/telescoping stocks, protruding pistol grips and detachable magazine capability, among others.

None of these cosmetic accessories increase the lethality of semiautomatic rifles over simple handguns; they merely give the shooter more options in how to handle the weapon and give the gun a more elaborate appearance. Thus, the 1994 ban intrinsically is useless as a law enforcement tool and is an unconstitutional obstacle to civilians’ ability to own rifles for hunting, target shooting and self-defense.

It is not possible to constitutionally ban all types of firearms from civilian ownership. Instead, gun crime offenders should face the most severe penalties possible for their actions.