Gun Ban Legislation Explained

[FC]

Patriot Post

 

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE

A Valentine’s Day Massacre (of the Constitution)

In some ways I’m surprised it took them this long. On Valentine’s Day, 14 February, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) began a campaign to grab just about everything but Cupid’s arrows with the introduction of her bill, HR 1022, “to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.” This is the same Carolyn McCarthy who introduced HR 297 on the first day of the new Congress, attempting the most massive expansion of the Brady Law since its 1993 passage. McCarthy’s murky definition of “assault weapons” notwithstanding, the legislation’s intent is to re-enact the 1994 Clinton gun grab, while adding a few million more firearms to the haul.

 

All this leads me to wonder whether the anti-gun crowd simply skips over that pesky constitutional amendment stuck right there between the First and the Third.

 

Under the Clinton Gun Ban, which expired in 2004 under the Republican-controlled Congress, 19 so-called “assault weapons” —in reality semi-automatic hunting and sporting rifles—were banned for having characteristics that liberals found scary: certain stocks, grips, magazines and so forth. Under that 1994 law, manufacturers could still sell these weapons if they made them look less scary to liberals; HR 1022, however, would ban them entirely.

 

In addition to eliminating completely the weapons covered under the Clinton law, McCarthy’s bill adds more than a few firearms to the list, including the following:

 

All semi-automatic shotguns; all detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles; the most popular competition sporting rifles—including the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and even today’s version of the American infantryman’s rifle of World War II, the M1 Garand; any shotgun or semi-automatic rifle having “any characteristic that can function as a grip”; any automatic fixed-magazine pistol exceeding a ten-round capacity; and any parts needed to repair or refurbish guns in circulation that are covered under the ban.

 

In addition, the legislation would give the Attorney General the prerogative to add any other shotgun or rifle to the list that the government ever deems not to be a “sporting” weapon. Not content with simply banning these weapons, HR 1022 also takes steps toward national firearm registration by mandating new rules for weapons and parts sales. Finally, as if all this weren’t enough, McCarthy’s bill would be a permanent ban, unlike the Clinton Ban, which expired after a ten-year trial period.

 

Legislation of this sort is becoming an obsession with Democrats. When the Clinton Ban was set to expire on 13 September 2004, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer introduced legislation to extend and expand it. At the time, President Bush took the calculated move to commit to signing the bill if it made it through Congress—since he knew it wouldn’t. Now, with Democrats in control of both Houses, anxiously aided by anti-gun Republicans aplenty, what will the President do if HR 1022 makes it to his desk? The Patriot said at the time that the Bush administration’s 2004 strategy was arrogance and folly—and now that folly may be coming home to roost.

 

Perhaps this administration should focus more on the long-term effects of its action on the Constitution and less on the short-term gains to be had from “playing to the crowd.” It is the Constitution, after all—and not men—that defines the rule of law.

 

The Constitution’s Second Amendment prohibition against government interference in the “right to keep and bear arms” is the singular right that ensures all others. As noted by Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

 

Indeed, Madison himself wrote in Federalist No. 46, “The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any.” This is no less true today than it was in 1787.

 

When Feinstein-Schumer was coming around the bend in 2004, much hay was made of the Bureau of Justice Statistics data that firearms-related crime had declined 54 percent in the last decade (that is, the period covered by the Clinton Gun Ban). The number of violent crimes reported in 2002 was 980,000 fewer than in 2000, but a National Institute of Justice report (headed by Christopher Koper at the University of Pennsylvania) concluded, “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

 

Feinstein’s own California Assistant Attorney General Patrick Kenady noted in an internal memo, “Information on [these guns] would not be sought from forensics laboratories as it was unlikely to support the theses on which the [Feinstein-Schumer] legislation would be based,” and even the Washington Post admitted that the banned guns “play[ed] a part in only a small percentage of crime.”

 

Like HR 1022 today, Feinstein-Schumer claimed to be aimed at the protection of law-abiding citizens from the “gun problem.” Of course, only law-abiding citizens comply with such restrictions—and at their own peril. Criminals don’t care whether the weapon they’re using comports with the 23,000 federal, state and local gun restrictions already on the books, but they do care whether their intended victim has a firearm. Indeed, extensive interviews with violent felons make it clear that they’d much rather prey on those who are least likely to possess a gun for self-defense.

 

In Commonplace Book, Thomas Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Again, no less true today than it has been throughout history.

 

Clearly, our Founding Fathers had it right. “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them,” warned George Mason. “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty,” implored Patrick Henry. “Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

 

[ken98k]

What really scares me is all the extra powers (patriot bill etc) that were established by the Republicans will be 100% cotrolled by the Dems once Bush is gone.

Those of you that said "it couldn't happen here" or "that's only for terrorist" are going to be in for a real treat in the next few years.

[FC]

I frequently wrestle with the idea of what would I do if they banned my semi-auto shotgun, sks, etc.? I don't think my conscience could allow me to cave, but you never know until it happens. The only answer would be for mass civil disobedience.

[ken98k]

I frequently wrestle with the idea of what would I do if they banned my semi-auto shotgun, sks, etc.? I don't think my conscience could allow me to cave, but you never know until it happens. The only answer would be for mass civil disobedience.

 

I also have given this much thought in the 15 years or so.

The popular saying used to be "They'll take my gun from my cold dead hand".

Well, the truth is our government has a proven track record of doing just that. And they'll spare no expence to do it. "Ruby Ridge" and "Waco" are two of the most famous examples but not the only ones. We now have highly trained and experienced National Guard that has spent the last few years kicking in doors to confiscate weapons in Iraq. Some even in New Orleans.

I'm sure many would resist at first but when FBI snipers start to work that wont last long.

Kenny

[usmc0332]

The way I see it, they have added many guns at their own peril. Hunters that cared little about importation or high capacity magazines have been included. Their semi-auto duck hunting gun was added. Also their BAR deer rifle. In their short-sightedness many cared little about other people losing their freedom, in the past. To me, shooting pop cans in a gravel pit with Ak-47s or handguns, competing with military rifles at rifle ranges, hunting, or just having the ability to defend your own home, are all equally important. Many did not view all gun owners as a group. Ask Mr Czonka about that one. I would dream that this may change that. Unfortunately, most of this country is urban born and raised. Their view is that guns are bad. It would be a shame for many good citizens to become criminals over foolishness. Imagine a solid American, and Grandfather being thrown in prison or killed over this. I can think of many good men I grew up around being this type of person. That would be shameful of any government.

[fritz]

"Well, the truth is our government has a proven track record of doing just that. And they'll spare no expence to do it. "Ruby Ridge" and "Waco" are two of the most famous examples but not the only ones."

 

 

You would think that after Ruby Ridge (where the Feds were sued and lost the suit) that Waco wouldn't have happened. But it did, and it could happen again. After the dead were cleared from the compound near Waco, the Feds went after the survivors in court, and won this time. While the jury argued for a lesser punishment, the judge gave them the maximum. After the trial, some of the jurors, who would talk, said "That is not what we wanted".

 

But it was what the Government wanted, to send a strong "jackboot" signal to the world.

 

BTW, while the Government was ruled to be negligent at Ruby Ridge, Randy Weaver got only a settlement of 3.3 million dollars. People who drank hot coffee at McDonald's get more than that!

 

3 million dollars for the loss of his wife and son (at the hands of FBI snipers). He should have gotten that much for the dog that was shot and killed when it started.

 

Maybe the fact that a judge ruled harder on the Davidians than the Weavers, is because Janet Reno was not in office at Ruby Ridge. She damned sure was at Waco!

 

The Witch of Waco. She was ugly too!

 

fritz

[karlunity]

There is such a thing as "jury nullification" in our history.

 

If I believed that the actions of the accused were morally correct, I would vote not guilty.

 

That vote is between me and God.

 

"Sorry your honor, I am not convinced of this person's guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt"

 

 

Karl

[ken98k]

The Witch of Waco. She was ugly too!

 

fritz

 

 

Not as ugly as the future "Witch of the White House"

[fritz]

Karl,

 

I believe that if you put that same jury back in the courtroom, with another chance to rule guilt or innocense, they would rule not guilty this time.

 

At the time, they believed the defendants had some guilt in the case, and so they ruled guilty (with a request to the judge to assess a lesser punishment than the federal prosecutor wanted). It didn't happen, they never should have used the word "guilty" unless they believed the defendants were guilty of what the government pushed before them.

 

I believe they learned a lesson that day, a lesson that said to never leave up to a federal judge what you yourself can do.

 

The next Ruby Ridge or Waco will more than likely be prosecuted as a "terrorist" action. The government seems to have all the power they need right now to prosecute anyone with that theme.

 

There are some bad things associated with the Patriot Act, just as there are some good reasons for it. Let's pray to God that our government will not go back to the "rules of engagement" as they were defined by Janet Reno.

 

But seeing how President Bush is using Executive Orders scares the schitt out of me.

 

 

fritz