Common Sense Wins out over Assault Weapons

[hrdwareguy]

Well, it looks like the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 will sunset in September of this year and we can all get back to buying high capacity mags for less than an arm and a leg.

Linky

Senate shoots down gun liability bill

By SAM BISHOP News-Miner Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON--Alaska's senators and 88 others killed a bill that would have made it harder to sue gun dealers and manufacturers after a narrow majority added amendments that also would have extended an assault weapons ban and required background checks for buyers at gun shows.

The Senate voted down the bill 90-8 after Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, said the amendments were too much to accept. Craig was the underlying bill's lead sponsor and said after its rejection that he would continue his efforts to stop lawsuits against gun dealers and manufacturers who had no part in crimes committed with their weapons.

"It deserves to be voted up or down by the Senate," he said.

Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, said the bill would have been doomed in the House of Representatives even if the Senate had passed it. With the assault weapons ban extension and the gun show checks, the House Republican leadership would never have scheduled it for a floor vote.

"To have them accept those amendments shows a lack of leadership on the Senate side. I think the bill is absolutely right the way it is," Young said in a meeting with Alaska media Tuesday.

The House passed a gun liability bill last year 285-140 without the assault gun ban or gun show checks.

The Senate had been expected to pass Craig's version easily this week, as it had been endorsed by several Democrats, including Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. That was before the minority was able to attract enough Republican votes to add the assault weapons and background check amendments.

Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens, both R-Alaska, voted against both amendments. After the amendments passed, though, they took Craig's advice and voted against the final bill.

The assault weapon ban, imposed a decade ago on 19 weapons, expires in September unless Congress renews it. The Senate amendment to extend the ban, introduced by California's Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, passed 52-47 on Tuesday.

Last week, Murkowski said that she wasn't sure how she would vote on the assault weapon ban because she didn't know if the amendment would just extend the ban or if it had other provisions.

The amendment passed Tuesday would have simply extended the ban, according to a Feinstein spokesman.

In debate leading up to the vote, Craig said statistics show the assault weapon ban has not affected the weapons used by criminals.

"It has simply set up a trip wire for law-abiding citizens," he said.

Stolen guns traded on a black market fuel most of what little assault weapon crime there is, he said.

Feinstein disagreed, saying Monday at a news conference that the legislation "has reduced the proportion of banned assault weapons traced to crime by two-thirds."

Feinstein said the public wants the ban.

"Seventy-seven percent of the American people support it. Sixty-six percent of gun owners support it. And yet, it is an uphill battle to get it reauthorized. You would think it would be a no-brainer," she said.

"Why is it so hard?" she asked. "It is hard because the NRA opposes any regulations on any weapons anywhere in the country--no matter how sensible. In my book, that is just plain wrong. It is time to stand up to the NRA."

The National Rifle Association, in its material on the issue, says the number of crimes in which assault weapons are used is so small that banning them is useless. Murders by clubs, knives and hands outnumber assault weapon murders by 20-1, the group states.

"The ban never worked to begin with," Young said. "It was all a charade put on by Bill Clinton. Anybody who looked at the facts and figures, they would understand what really is occurring here. This is a political gambit."

Murkowski and Stevens also voted against an amendment that would require sellers at gun shows to conduct background checks like those required of dealers.

Craig again argued that the background checks were an unnecessary burden upon law-abiding citizens. Less than 2 percent of the guns used in crimes come from gun shows, Craig said.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., listed several terrorists who had been charged with buying weapons at gun shows. One operative for the Irish Republican Army bought more than $100,000 worth of weapons at Florida gun shows to ship overseas, he said.

"They were arrested. How many were not arrested?" McCain said of his list. "The loophole exists and if we're interested in the security of this nation, we'll close it."

The gun show background check amendment, which McCain sponsored, passed 53-46.

With the assault weapon ban and the gun show background checks, the gun makers' liability bill lost most of its Republican support. At the same time, most Democrats voted against it because they believe the liability provisions could prevent legitimate lawsuits against dealers that close their eyes to the bad intentions of people who buy their guns.

Last week, President George Bush said he opposed adding the assault weapon ban extension to the bill. Critics accused him of reneging on his campaign promise to support an extension. His spokesmen said the president just didn't want the amendment added because it would endanger the underlying gun liability bill.

Washington, D.C., reporter Sam Bishop can be reached at sbishop@newsminer.com or (202) 662-8721.

Looks like it would have passed if they wouldn't have tacked it on to the liability bill along with the gunshow loophole. Whoever thought it was a good idea to ban guns because of the manufacturer or the cosmetic appearances was just plain stupid.

[Kadath]

Either you don't understand this article or I don't. It looks to me like it was a bill protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits, and they tacked on amendments regarding an extension of the ban and background checks at gun shows. You can put an amendment saying the ban should be extended on every bill from here to September. They killed the gun liability bill by making it unattractive to both sides. Anybody else see what I'm saying?

[hrdwareguy]

Originally the AWB extension and the gun show background check passed. After they passed, they decided to tack these amendments on to the liability bill. When they did this, the bill failed, along with the amendments.

[Kadath]

The only thing this bill was initially intended to cover was protection for gun makers. Both amendments were voted onto the bill. They didn't "pass", they were accepted as amendments to the original bill. At that point, neither side wanted the bill. It ceased to be palatable for either side. But that doesn't keep them from putting the ban extension on any other bill they want. Just because it failed as an amendment on this bill doesn't mean it will fail on another bill. Do you see what I am saying?

And before this gets out of hand, I have no wish to debate the merits or failings of the bill. I'm actually, if you want to know the truth, starting to move away from my fierce anti-gun stance. This is simply a discussion of legistlative process.

[Lebell]

Feinstein managed to "poison-pill" the bill, which was what she was trying to do.

I know some Republicans who are VERY unhappy with their congresspersons right now.

[j8ear]

I think Kadath might be right. That's how the Senate does business. Smoke and Mirrors, ammendment here, vote for ammendment to the ammendment their...all usually laden with pork. It might come up again. This was a rather huge orchestrated event by those gun nuts. Notice the Columbine video release, a week earlier, all the shill mouthpieces out and about for the 'violence policy center, ' the freshly manufactured polls, talking points, and statistics for this particular amendment.

Got to give it to Schumer, Kennedy, and Feinstein I guess. Clinton's still too much of a freshmen puppet to get into the down and dirty trench warfare of the senate. Those old wind bag Liberals sure are good at 'Senateering.' Those wind bag Cons should be ashamed (Lott, Chamblis, Chaffee, Hatch).

Lifer's

Also have to give it to Sen Landrieu. She stood against the ammendment and for the orginal bill. Against her own party Don's

How crazy that the anti gun crowd can use racketeering methods to try and bankrupt a perfectly legitimate industry. Every single one of their efforts to date have failed.

Originally posted by Lebell
Feinstein managed to "poison-pill" the bill, which was what she was trying to do.

Lebell, what's a 'poison pill?' What did Feinstein do? I missed any of the details.

-bear

[Lebell]

Originally posted by j8ear

Lebell, what's a 'poison pill?' What did Feinstein do? I missed any of the details.

-bear

A "poison pill" is an ammendment to a bill that makes it so unpalpable to those who in support of the original bill that they vote to kill it.

In this case, Feinstein managed to attach an AWB extension to the Gun Manufacturer's Immunity Bill, which caused those supporting the original bill to vote against it. (90-8)

[Sparhawk]

It's nice to know there are still 8 moderate Republicans in the Senate, who aren't shills for the NRA. And didn't Bush campaign in 2000 to extend the assault weapons ban? It doesn't expire until September, but it looks like just one more broken promise...

[Kadath]

Man, Lebell agreed with me! Why didn't I get a "Thanks for bringing a new perspective to the argument" kudos? No, I just get a restatement of my point!

Just kidding, Lebell. You're a sweetheart.

[losthellhound]

Gotta love those riders

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Kadath
Man, Lebell agreed with me! Why didn't I get a "Thanks for bringing a new perspective to the argument" kudos? No, I just get a restatement of my point!

Just kidding, Lebell. You're a sweetheart.

Ok, that made me laugh

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Sparhawk
It's nice to know there are still 8 moderate Republicans in the Senate, who aren't shills for the NRA...

Don't worry, we'll get 'em (insert evil laugh)...

[Strange Famous]

The gun lobby say they need hand guns for home defence, rifles to hunt... for what possible purpose does any law abiding person require an "assault weapon"?

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by Lebell
Don't worry, we'll get 'em (insert evil laugh)...

[CrazySaturn]

Gee, for fun?
For what purpose does any person need a sports car?
For what purpose does any person need a sword?
For what purpose does any person in a civilized are need a private airplane?

[Kllr Wolf]

I own one of those "evil assault weapons". It is the best target shooter I have. It would also be the most awkward weapon to carry if I was to commit a crime. Many more of my collection would be better suited to crime and they are not even close to be considered evil like my assault rifle. I have never understood the purpose behind the ban except to find a way to make it harder for honest citizens to own guns.

[hrdwareguy]

Originally posted by Strange Famous
The gun lobby say they need hand guns for home defence, rifles to hunt... for what possible purpose does any law abiding person require an "assault weapon"?

Take a look at this thread to see what has been defined as an assault weapon. A lot of these weapons are based on cosmetic appearances. There are more powerful weapons that didn't make the list.

Case in point, a Colt AR-15 is on the list, a Ruger Mini 14 is not on the list. Both guns function in the same manner, one trigger pull yields in bullet fired. The are both the same caliber. The biggest difference, aside from cosmetic, is the size of the magazine each can take.

Since these two guns are for the most part identical, it doesn't make sense for one to be on the list because of who made it or for the way it looks.

Four years after the assault weapons ban was inacted, a study found that weapons on the assault weapon ban list were used only about 2 - 4% of the time. This from people who were convicted of the crimes. The number may be a little off as I can't find the article any more, but it was an exreamly small amount. People convicted didn't want to carry a large rifle around with them it would be to easy to spot.

[Strange Famous]

Originally posted by CrazySaturn
Gee, for fun?
For what purpose does any person need a sports car?
For what purpose does any person need a sword?
For what purpose does any person in a civilized are need a private airplane?

The ownership of swords should certainly be illegal, I would also be happy to see sports cars and SUV's banned.

[jazzwyld]

Originally posted by Kadath
Either you don't understand this article or I don't. It looks to me like it was a bill protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits, and they tacked on amendments regarding an extension of the ban and background checks at gun shows. You can put an amendment saying the ban should be extended on every bill from here to September. They killed the gun liability bill by making it unattractive to both sides. Anybody else see what I'm saying?

Yes.
The bill didn't really do anything. It neither protected nor prohibited, because logically the guys holding those types of weapons for the most part are criminals. And it also made honest men criminals just by the nature of the bill. Always have to reach a balance when it comes to the 2nd, and we rarely do

[Dostoevsky]

I will be really excited if the AWB of 1994 sunsets. That would be such an awesome victory for the American people. I will stockpile a lot of different stuff just in case big brother loses its mind and violates the 2nd amendment again somewhere down the road.

[Sparhawk]

Yeah, a real failure of a bill...

The data obtained from the Department of Justice shows a steady decline of criminal firearm traces in which the 19 banned assault weapons were used. Assault weapons were nearly three times as likely to be recovered in a crime in 1995 than last year.

Year Percentage
1995 3.57%
1996 2.53%
1997 2.02%
1998 1.80%
1999 1.91%
2000 1.59%
2001 1.30%
2002 1.22%
(Source: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives)

“We are definitely seeing a reduction of firepower in the hands of street criminals,” said Harold L. Hurtt, the police chief for Phoenix, Arizona and president of the Major Cities Chiefs of Police, one of several law enforcement organizations endorsing the Feinstein-Schumer bill. “We support renewing the ban because police should never be outgunned by criminals.”

[The_Dunedan]

Sparhawk,
This is because of two factors.
1: The word "traces" is the key in the first. What they mean here is that ammunition which -could have been fired- by an AW was found. This includes almost all light-medium calibre pistol ammo, as well as several types of medium rifle ammunition, including .308, 7.62x39mm, 5.56mm NATO, and 30-06. All such ammunition is commonly available, and used in many types of weapons, both "assault" and not. This is especially true of pistol ammunition, since the AWB covers several types of weapon which fire pistol-calibre ammunition.
2: This seques nicely into the second part of the equation; the drop in overall firearms-related violent crime. As more states have become Concealed-carry states, violent crime as a whole, and particularly crimes in which a firearm was used, have dropped, in some cases by nearly 60% ( Florida, for instance ). This has resulted in smaller numbers of "assault weapon" calibre projectiles being recovered ( see above ) as fewer guns are being used. Since the rate of drop in gun-use crimes ( A ) is greater than the rate of drop in violent crime overall ( B ) by a slight margin, we get the drop you indicate.

[timalkin]

I honestly don't understand why the assault weapons ban is in place. You can buy a post-ban AR15 in almost any state in the nation that functions the exact same way as a pre-ban AR15. Sure, the post-ban doesn't have a flash supressor or bayonet lug, but the rounds still possess the same muzzle velocity and energy, i.e. lethality.

Banning anything, from toys to cars to firearms because of the way it looks is simply insane.

Face facts, liberals want to disarm the American people because anyone with a firearm has the power to be independent of their wishes. Law-abiding firearm owners are the only thing that stands between freedom and domination by a one-world government.

And to those of you who question my "need" for an "assault weapon":

I WILL NOT have some slimy, city-dwelling elitist tell me what I can and cannot own! As long as I am not hurting myself or others, you WILL NOT have the right to dictate my "needs."

God bless the Constitution and God Bless America.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Sparhawk
Yeah, a real failure of a bill...

To add to what The Dunedan said, crime statistics are also not kept strictly for "Assault Weapons". The Violence Policy Center for example, in assembling their "statistics", counted all crimes committed with long guns as "Assault Weapon" crimes, because there is no information that says they're not. Of course, there is no information that says they are.

The other thing to consider about the "success" of the AWB: Since the ban is only on cosmetic features, military style rifles have continued to be available since 1994. So if there is a reduction in crime, since these weapons are still available, ergo it must be for some other reason.

For the same reason, that cop you quoted is simply ignorant or is politically pandering.

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by timalkin
Face facts, liberals want to disarm the American people because anyone with a firearm has the power to be independent of their wishes. Law-abiding firearm owners are the only thing that stands between freedom and domination by a one-world government.

People this deluded do not need to be carrying firearms of any kind...