How To Get The Assault Weapons Ban Through Congress
BY Herschel Smith
11 years, 3 months ago
From The NYT, Adam Eisgrau, the same lawyer who crafted the first assault weapons ban is giving advice on how to do it again.
The bill had three main components. The first was a list of well-known, deeply feared guns that were banned by name (like Uzis). The second banned the future manufacture and sale of any new semiautomatic weapon with a detachable magazine and more than two of several assault-style features (like a forward handgrip). The third and most critical section was Appendix A, which listed every single hunting rifle and shotgun in use at the time — there were hundreds — that didn’t run afoul of the features test in the second component. Those firearms were unequivocally exempted from the bill.
At the time, gun-control advocates resisted the incorporation of Appendix A. But the idea behind it was and remains crucial to making any meaningful changes in America’s gun laws. They must gain the support of gun owners, most of whom are heartsick over senseless carnage.
By explicitly protecting hundreds of popular sporting guns, the bill enabled senators and representatives to push back against the tide of protests — many of them generated by the National Rifle Association — at town hall-style meetings in their states and districts. They could show their constituents that their ordinary hunting rifles and shotguns were protected in Appendix A or that their guns could be added to it, if need be. Proponents of the legislation distributed blue booklets describing all three parts of the bill, including pictures of the assault weapons banned by name and the full list of guns protected by Appendix A.
By which he means he’ll leave bolt action rifles and revolvers alone, and specifically outlaw all of those millions of modern sporting rifles that have been purchased over the last several years, by a lot of people who committed a lot of resources and paid a lot of money in a very troubled economy.
That’s a winner, alright. I like it. The largest gun store in my area, Hyatt Gun Shop, did one million dollars of business in a single day before Christmas, mostly selling these rifles. The idiot lawyer who initially assisted Senator Feinstein wants to enter a time machine and do it all over again in 2013, as if this year is the same as a quarter century ago.
Even then it wasn’t popular, and coming out in favor of legality of only the traditional hunting weapons got David Petzal drummed out of the business (just like that same attitude recently got Jerry Tsai drummed out of the business). So I agree with counsel. I like Eisgrau’s approach. Ban just about everything out there, and see how far you get with that. I think you might meet some resistance.
On January 3, 2013 at 11:14 pm, Tabby said:
1776 is making a return real soon.
On January 4, 2013 at 2:36 am, TeeJaw said:
These people are so ignorant of the rifles they want to ban. Those of us who own these rifles love them and derive much pure and harmless joy from shooting them at shooting ranges, modifying and customizing them ourselves, and the pride of owning them. An AR-15 with the right ammo is also a perfect home defense gun. A 30-round magazine can be vital to a home defender in a rural area if attacked by multiple assailants now that meth has made rural areas more dangerous than they used to be.
I have a Sig .556 rifle and have attended the .556 rifle operators course in Epping, New Hampshire. It was one of the best weekends ever, the course was expertly taught by the swat commander from the Manchester PD. The man loved the rifle like we did. He was a scholar and a gentlemen. That’s typical of the sort of person who loves these rifles. America used to be a nation of rifleman. Now it’s a nation of scumbag politicians and frumpy old women in Washington that want to take our beloved rifles away from us for no purpose other than to satisfy their sick, perverted egos.
On January 4, 2013 at 8:52 am, Bill said:
I’ve been following the states attempts too.
While I hope it’s a last ditch effort so the blue partisans can tell their people “Hey, we tried.” There’s a bit of a creeping dread that the left feels so confidently untouchable that they’d even attempt something like this.
The New York ban attempt is just as bad as the Illinois attempt. It’s a full on “modern weapons are illegal” ban. Pump action shotguns too.
They’re trying at every level on this. Is it a blitzkrieg hoping to wear everyone out? A cynical posturing attempt that if passes will be a happy coincidence for those trying?
On January 4, 2013 at 10:14 am, Chris said:
This ban will do NOTHING to prevent crime. Millions of lawful gun owners should not be punished for the crazy actions of a few… I hope the politicians remember what happened in 94′ when they voted on a weapons ban. They lost their jobs and that law did nothing.
On January 4, 2013 at 4:13 pm, DogAlpha said:
This Ban will cause the more spilling of blood for which this country has never seen. A Bill which is to protect people is going to cause more bloodshed than it is supposed to suppress.
On January 6, 2013 at 6:14 pm, MarineOfficer said:
There are competing issues here.
First, assault weapons are the flavor of the month. They are what is used in “mass shootings,” which make the news. Therefore you ban what’s making the news. However, if we take the TOTAL of gun crime in America, it is handguns that are the real culprit.
This leads us to the second problem. If you wanted to significantly impact shooting deaths in America, you would need to go after handguns. Unfortunately, we already know that Chicago both leads the nation in handgun violence this year resulting in shooting deaths, and also has some of of the worst/most restrictive gun laws. That’s not really a good ground to stand on if you want to debate reasons for “gun control,” now is it?
So then we come full-circle back to banning assault weapons. As I’ve said before, as America urbanizes, there will be more people in cities that see no reason for owning rifles. Therefore they buy into the nonsensical argument about hunting, etc.
I believe in an expansive interpretation of the Bill of Rights (all of it), including the 2nd Amendment, and full incorporation of all those rights to the states. This would include a much broader right to own firearms as exists today in the federal legislative scheme. But I know that I am in the ever shrinking minority. Our legacy to our children should be finding a way to enshrine these rights in a way that will be difficult to overturn in the future. This will require a.) legislation that makes it so, b.) a supreme court that hands down precedent and case law bolstering those laws, and c.) an executive that first signs those laws, and then lives them in its enforcement efforts.
I see issues with all three of those right now. And that’s the problem.
On January 6, 2013 at 7:10 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Or a re-invigoration of the nation’s understanding and incorporation of the tenth amendment … by whatever means necessary. So if Illinois wants to be a fascist state, let them. While South Carolina, for instance, will choose to be free.