Last week, Bullet Counter Points commented on a controversial amendment to the Senate version of the D.C. voting rights bill (“A Dangerous Gambit”). Now, the legislation has been put on temporary hold as D.C. officials contemplate the price they are willing to pay for a vote in the House of Representatives.
On February 26, the Senate approved a version of the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” with an amendment drafted by the National Rifle Association (NRA). The Ensign Amendment, sponsored by Senator John Ensign (R-NV), would repeal the District of Columbia’s new gun laws entirely and prohibit the D.C. Council from enacting any law in the future that would “unduly burden the ability of persons” to obtain and possess firearms. None of these changes to District’s gun laws were called for in the recent District of Columbia v. Heller ruling by the Supreme Court. Commenting on the Senate’s passage of the amendment, Dennis Hennigan, Legal Director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said, “It was a craven political decision to put at risk…this community in order to curry favor with the gun lobby. That’s all that was.”
After the Senate vote, there was a tremendous outcry in the District over the Ensign Amendment. One D.C. resident who published a letter in the Washington Post summed up the fears of many of her fellow Washingtonians: “If this amendment becomes law, it would make me frightened to work and live in a city that has been my home for thirteen years.” Meanwhile, there was a great deal of uncertainty as to how the Democratic Leadership in the House would produce a clean version of the bill free of any gun amendments. 
Concerned that there was no clear strategy to overcome the gun lobby’s anti-democratic campaign, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence sprang into action. We alerted D.C. residents to the danger posed to public safety by the Ensign Amendment and urged them to contact D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton. On March 3, we conducted a press conference along with the D.C. Council and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence on the steps of the District Government Building. At the event, D.C. Council Chairman Vincent Gray announced a unanimously-approved council resolution that reads: "The United States Congress must not adopt any amendment to the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act that restricts the District Government’s ability to legislate the regulation of firearms." The Chairman of the Council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, Phil Mendelson, spoke and said, “To deny us a vote on an issue as fundamental as guns is wrong and it is reckless. It is reckless because not only would we not be able to respond to incidents of gun violence or suggestions on how to deal with gun violence, but what the Senate has done would significantly—significantly—weaken the laws regarding guns in the District.” Council Member Mary Cheh questioned whether D.C. officials should continue to support the voting rights bill if it meant the city would have to loosen its firearms regulations, saying, "To make us swallow this without objection…we're just lying down, just like always. What have we won?"
Within an hour of the press conference’s conclusion, the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” was pulled from consideration in the House. House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) explained that he did not have enough votes to bring the bill to the floor without the possibility of amendments. The rumor had spread on Capitol Hill that the NRA would be grading procedural votes on the legislation and House Democrats from conservative and rural districts took notice. Delegate Norton accused them of “reacting in a knee-jerk fashion to the NRA,” and stated that they were “doing something to kill a basic civil rights bill.”
D.C. voting rights advocates are now scrambling to lobby a group of 60+ “Blue Dog” Democrats in the House to “size up who [is] genuinely at risk” of repercussions from the NRA and to find out why these Representatives object to the District’s current gun laws. House Democratic Leaders believe they can pass a clean bill in that chamber if they secure 28 more votes in favor of blocking all amendments.
“This is hard, man,” said Delegate Norton, commenting on the lobbying effort. Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Executive Director Josh Horwitz put it a different way: "There are no easy answers here ... I don't think it's...done in the House yet, but it will take a lot of creative thinking." Even if a voting rights bill does clear the House free of gun amendments, a final version of the legislation would have to be approved in a House-Senate Conference, and there is no guarantee the Ensign Amendment would be stripped out during such negotiations.
There’s no doubt that legislation to grant voting representation to the District is long overdue. Washingtonians should not be forced to choose democracy over their own safety, however. As D.C. Council Chairman Gray recently noted, the Ensign Amendment is “extremely offensive” to the very principle upon which the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” rests: self-determination. Hopefully, Democrats at both the federal and local level will take Gray’s assertion to heart in the crucial days ahead.
Bullet Counter Points provides commentary on gun violence in America. You'll find interesting facts that contradict the conventional wisdom on firearms in America, news stories that missed the front page, and inspiring tales of efforts to prevent gun violence in communities across the country.
the democrats better watch out. if the nra/gop pulls this strategy off...and kills well-meaning legislation....then the democrats will find the same trick used over and over again.
ReplyDeletecertainly the citizens' cry for "change" in november was a call for the end of such shenanigans.
-b
Washington D. C. politicians have only themselves to blame for the amendment to the voting law.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m3d9-Federal-law-suit-filed-after-DC-refuses-to-register-handgun-because-its-the-wrong-color
After 32 years of denying citizens the right to defend themselves, even a Supreme Court ruling wasn't enough to get them to respect their citizens' second amendment rights. They still have a system so restrictive that they can (and do) deny firearms permits based on the color of the gun, the date it was manufactured, and whether or not the manufacturer is still in business.
Clearly, the Washington D. C. government has proven incapable of respecting their citizens second amendment rights. As such, they really don't have much room to complain when the federal government steps in to do it for them. Rightly or wrongly, it was Washington D. C.'s defiance of the Heller case that caused the federal government to act.
Thanks for your comment thestaplegunkid9. The District of Columbia is currently employing a list of approved handguns utilized by the state of California that have been tested by a certified testing laboratory and determined to be safe firearms. The California statute (CA Penal Code 12125-12133) that created this roster stands to this day and has never been determined to be unconstitutional in any court of law.
ReplyDeleteThe lawsuit you mention has been filed by the same attorney who challenged D.C.'s gun laws in the Heller case, Alan Gura, and it involves one of the original plaintiffs in that case (Gillian St. Lawrence) and her husband. There is no evidence that there has been widespread dissatisfaction with D.C.'s registration system, and if there is merit in this particular lawsuit, than that is something for the courts to settle and remedy.
In any case, we don't believe that a single questionable experience with handgun registration legitimizes an NRA effort to totally gut D.C.'s new gun laws across the board and prohibit the D.C. Council from ever regulating firearms in the future. Moreover, the NRA's effort in Congress is strongly opposed by D.C. residents themselves, who value public safety and law enforcement oversight over the gun lobby's concept of "Second Amendment rights." - CSGV
Wow, thank you California for putting together such an important list of safely made firearms.
ReplyDeleteLeave it to them to correct the grievous error of exempting gun manufacturers from Consumer Product Safety Commission regulation and oversight at the federal level.
The CPSC exemption is a clear example of how the NRA, as the representative of the interests of both gunowners and gun manufacturers, serves one of its constituents at the expense of the other.
-b
"The California statute (CA Penal Code 12125-12133) that created this roster stands to this day and has never been determined to be unconstitutional in any court of law."
ReplyDeleteNot yet, but given that is bans gun that "are in common use," it appears ripe for constitutional challenge. Further, and more interestingly, it doesn't prohibit the ownership of these "unsafe" guns, but simply the sale of them. Read the complaint in the lawsuit and you'll find that California's list is not much more than an attempt to charge gun manufacturers a yearly fee in order to be able to sell their guns in California. The fact that you can buy a Springfield XD Tactical 45 in "black" or "green" but not "two-tone" is patently ridiculous.
"In any case, we don't believe that a single questionable experience with handgun registration legitimizes an NRA effort to totally gut D.C.'s new gun laws across the board and prohibit the D.C. Council from ever regulating firearms in the future."
You first assume this is the only questionable experience. Further, you assume that laws that are likely still unconstitutional should not be changed by our legislators at the national level. And that makes perfect sense -- allow home-rule to trump constitutional rights.
Thanks for your comment, J-man. As we stated before, if there is merit in any of the lawsuits mentioned in this thread, than that is something for the courts to settle and remedy.
ReplyDeleteYour claim that D.C.'s permanent new gun laws are "likely still unconstitutional," however, is dubious at best.
Justice Scalia called on D.C. residents to make only two changes to their gun laws in the Heller case ("The District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home”). The District promptly revised its laws through emergency legislation one month after the decision and made both required changes.
None of D.C.'s permanent new gun laws were implicated in the Heller decision. In fact, the Parker v. District of Columbia decision that was reviewed by the Supreme Court in the Heller case read as follows:
"Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a 'well regulated Militia.' The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up. Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would both promote public safety and produce better candidates for military service. Personal characteristics, such as insanity or felonious conduct, that make gun ownership dangerous to society also make someone unsuitable for service in the militia."
Justice Scalia did not challenge this analysis in any way, and further stated:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
There is absolutely nothing in the Heller opinion to suggest that a few problems with a brand new handgun registration system would call for a complete and total repeal of all of the District's gun laws (or even the registration system itself), which were enacted by D.C.'s democratically elected officials with the strong approval of city residents. - CSGV
"Justice Scalia called on D.C. residents to make only two changes to their gun laws in the Heller case ("The District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home”). "
ReplyDeleteThis does not mean that other changes to the District's laws were required as a result of the Heller decision. The Court is constrained by the issue presented before it - in this case whether handguns are allowed to be completely banned from civilian use. And it ruled on that issue. However, in holding that people have a right to own handguns, it necessarily becomes the law of the land that guns can't be denied for arbitrary or capricious reasons (like the color of a gun).
To say that just because the District's new laws were not implicated in the Heller decision doesn't mean they don't run afoul of the Constitution. Indeed, following your logic, when Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court, only the Texas law would have to be changed as a result of the decision. We know this not to be the case. A law in Texas is the same as a law in California. Therefore, if the District passes a new law prohibiting a "two-tone" weapon but allowing a "black" one, when they are in both common use and there is no basis for the distinction, they likely are unconstitutional. I am not, in this particular case, challenging registration as a whole -- however arbitrary registration is a different animal.
"gun laws (or even the registration system itself), which were enacted by D.C.'s democratically elected officials with the strong approval of city residents."
The people of Colorado at one time passed a Constitutional amendment to the CO Constitution banning any and all protection for homosexuals. (Romer v. Evans) The people did it, democratically. Regardless, it ran afoul of the 14th Amendments Equal Protection Clause, and was thus unconstitutional. The court held that, even if the majority democratically enacted the amendment, if it was unconstitutional it was void.
The constitution was intended to protect the minority from the will of a majority. And it does so in DC as well. The current registration scheme prohibits people from owning weapons that are "in common use" and therefore is unconstitutional.
Thanks for your comment, Jman. A single case of a person having a problem registering a handgun in the District does not in our mind mean that "the current [D.C. handgun] registration scheme prohibits people from owning weapons that are 'in common use.'" In fact, D.C. residents continue to register revolvers and semiautomatic handguns on a weekly basis in the city. And as we stated before, any determination on whether the system is "arbitrary" should be made by a court of law and not the National Rifle Association.
ReplyDeleteWe also don't see any similarity between laws denying a group of Americans protection under the law based on their sexuality and laws that provide for public safety in a major urban area that has been flooded with thousands of illegal crime guns from outside jurisdictions. - CSGV
"And as we stated before, any determination on whether the system is "arbitrary" should be made by a court of law and not the National Rifle Association."
ReplyDeleteWhen did the NRA come into this conversation? The NRA didn't file the lawsuit in this case, nor in the previous case. And just because legislators realize that their vote on gun rights may affect their ability to get elected doesn't mean the NRA is forcing them to do anything. They are people - our representatives - they REPRESENT our views. Obviously gun rights are central to our views or they would disregard the NRA as an organization with a front but no back. The NRA isn't forcing them to do anything -- how could they?. They are voting how they want.
"e also don't see any similarity between laws denying a group of Americans protection under the law based on their sexuality and laws that provide for public safety in a major urban area that has been flooded with thousands of illegal crime guns from outside jurisdictions."
That's interesting, because strangely they both implicate constitutional rights. Perhaps you'd like to ignore the constitutional rights of gun owners while maintaining those of homosexuals, but that is a view that leads to having no constitution at all. All the rights granted or guaranteed by the constitution should be upheld, no matter how much you dislike the the result of having those rights.
Thanks for your comment, Jman. The NRA came into this conversation many years ago (pre-Heller) when it first drafted the basic language found in the Ensign Amendment to repeal the District of Columbia's gun laws. Originally known as the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act," then later the "Second Amendment Enforcement Act" and "National Capital Security and Safety Act," the NRA has been lobbying Members of Congress for years to pass this legislation.
ReplyDeleteThe NRA interjected themselves directly into the recent Congressional debate on the Ensign Amendment by suggesting that they might grade lawmakers on all votes surrounding the amendment, including procedural votes in the House ("We will not rule out any of our options," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox). Lawmakers were also undoubtedly aware that the NRA Political Victory Fund spent $40 million in the fall 2008 election cycle.
In truth, the NRA has been part of every national conversation about the Ensign amendment, and rightfully so. It should also be noted that the disproportional influence that special interest groups have on Capitol Hill was one of the chief issues of the November 2008 elections. President Barack Obama was elected to office on a platform that promised change from the bottom up, and candidates across the country echoed that theme.
Regarding your proposition that it is everyday Americans (i.e., constituents) who are behind the effort to abolish D.C.'s gun laws, that argument is simply not credible. There has never been a popular movement in any of the 50 states to eradicate D.C.'s gun laws. That makes perfect sense, as most Americans would find the notion of Congress overruling their elected officials and dictating their local laws to be appalling.
Nor is there any polling data to suggest Americans want D.C.'s new gun laws overturned. Just the opposite in fact, as six in 10 Americans support D.C.'s right to self determination and believe the "D.C. House Voting Rights Act" should be passed. It should be noted here that Senator Ensign was one of 37 Senators to vote against the bill in the House.
Finally, we will restate that no handgun registration law in America has ever been declared unconstitutional by a court of law. Senator Ensign would be familiar with this fact. Clark County in his own home state of Nevada has had a handgun registration law on the books for 43 years now. - CSGV
". That makes perfect sense, as most Americans would find the notion of Congress overruling their elected officials and dictating their local laws to be appalling. "
ReplyDeleteI wonder if you've heard of the commerce clause of the Constitution. Or the Supremacy Clause? This is where Congress passes legislation that is binding upon the whole country, and when they intend it to, it SUPERSEDES ALL LOCAL LAWS. Amazingly, most Americans are not appalled at this idea as it happens all the time. Interestingly, CSGV advocates for a National "Assault weapons" ban, which would do exactly what you say citizens of our country would classify as "appalling" - that is trump state law with regard to certain weapons via a federal statute. Overturning the Districts laws because our federal legislators believe it is either (a) unconstitutional or (b) ineffective is a way for "our" elected representatives to ensure the gun-rights of the people in the District are not trampled on just because they live in the District.
"Finally, we will restate that no handgun registration law in America has ever been declared unconstitutional by a court of law"
Perhaps you missed Heller, but what was at issue there was the inability to register a handgun within the District. Enough said.
Finally, if the NRA really doesn't represent the views of voters, then our representatives should feel free to disregard them (and their scoring of votes and the like). If they are paying attention to the NRA, but their constituents don't agree with the NRA, then they are just, for lack of a better word, stupid. Doing the simple math here, despite any polling data you can come up with, is that representatives don't want to go against the NRA because the vast majority of people in their districts in rural America want their gun rights in tact.
Thanks for your comment, Jman. The Ensign Amendment would make no changes to federal law. The only laws the Ensign Amendment would change are local laws recently enacted by the D.C. Council with the overwhelming support of D.C. residents. Senator Ensign never would have attempted to overturn state or local laws in Utah, New York, Florida, etc.—and constituents in those states would be rightfully outraged by any such attempt. Senator Ensign is able to treat the District’s elected officials and residents in this manner precisely because the District lacks voting representation in Congress, a problem the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” is seeking to address.
ReplyDeleteAs for legislation that addresses federal statutes, there is no evidence that laws like the Assault Weapons Ban overruled the popular will of Americans. In fact, when the Assault Weapons Ban expired in September 2004, 71% of Americans supported renewing it. Similarly, 83% of Americans support Brady background checks on all gun sales.
Your inference that the Heller decision declared handgun registration unconstitutional is factually wrong. The Heller decision did not call into question the constitutionality of any handgun registration system. Justice Scalia actually wrote in the majority opinion that “the District must permit Heller to register his handgun”(which D.C. did within one month) and did not address the requirement beyond that. The federal appellate court decision that was being reviewed in theHeller case, Parker v. District of Columbia, did address the question of firearms registration specifically, however, stating:
“Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a ‘well regulated Militia.’ The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up.”
As for Members of Congress representing the views of their constituents, as we stated earlier, there is no evidence to suggest that constituents in outside states have strong views on the District of Columbia’s local laws one way or the other (which is natural, they don’t live there and most likely have little familiarity with the city statutes to begin with). The absence of constituent opinion makes the presence of a powerful lobby on one side of the issue a much more decisive factor. The NRA’s PAC contributions, combined with their willingness to paint a Member of Congress as an enemy of the Second Amendment because of a vote in favor of D.C. self determination, makes them a force to be reckoned with. - CSGV
"The Ensign Amendment would make no changes to federal law."
ReplyDeleteNo, it would create a federal law that repeals local regulations in DC, similar to what occurs when Congress acts to occupy an area of law under the commerce clause. In other words, federal statutory intervention prevents local regulation -- this is directly an issue of Supremacy (perhaps not in the traditional federal/state sense, but that system is very similar under the current DC "home rule" scheme).
"As for legislation that addresses federal statutes, there is no evidence that laws like the Assault Weapons Ban overruled the popular will of Americans."
You missed my point, which was the Congress uses federal law to trump state law all the time. An idea you called "appalling" while still advocating for an assault weapons ban which would do the same thing. Sounds hypocritical to me.
"Your inference that the Heller decision declared handgun registration unconstitutional is factually wrong."
You seem to think that just because they allowed the registration scheme to stand, that is means that it wasn't unconstitutional when it was challenged. Heller tried to register a handgun, was denied because it was not allowed to be registered, and the Supreme Court ordered the gun to be registered. Just because they allowed the framework of the registration scheme to stand doesn't mean that the registration requirements weren't invalid. They, in fact, were. Therefore it was an unconstitutional registration scheme (not allowing Heller to register a handgun) that was overturned. There was no law in the city that said "you cannot have any handgun", only one that said "you can't register a handgun after 1976 and can't possess a non-registered handgun."
" The absence of constituent opinion makes the presence of a powerful lobby on one side of the issue a much more decisive factor. "
The operative word there is "powerful." Why do you think the NRA is powerful? Because they don't represent the views of the people? Lobbies are powerful because there is popular support behind them. I'm sure you can come up with some interesting polls that say they aren't popular and don't represent the views of the people, but the stall of the DC Voting Rights bill shows that Democrats are scared to go against the NRA, and it's not because people don't support the NRA.
By the way, if you actually educated half the people in this country as to what an "assault weapon" actual is (as compared to the often associated image of a fully-auto ak-47, regulated since 1934), you might come up with some different poll results. "No child left behind" sounds great too, until you get down into what it actually does.
An interesting video for you to watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0
Thanks for your comment, Jman. Regarding whether semiautomatic assault rifles are dangerous weapons, we think Americans can once again make their own judgment after the recent horrific and tragic shooting rampage in Alabama. - CSGV
ReplyDeleteAmericans considering so-called "assault weapons" in response to the Alabama shooting spree should arm themselves with the facts.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, how many of them know that one and possible both rifles used by the killer were legal under the 1994 AWB? One rifle was an SKS, which was not covered by the 1994 AWB at all. The other was a Bushmaster AR-15, which may or may not have been legal under the AWB depending on when it was made (the media didn't say). If it was made before 1994, it would still be legal. If it was one of the "post ban" models made by Bushmaster that simply complied with the law by altering a few non-essential cosmetic features, then it would be legal under the AWB too.
Finally, Americans should know that all rifles and shotguns combined are used in less than 5% of all murders, meaning the number of "assault weapons" used in murders is even lower.
Mass shooting like in Alabama may generate a lot of attention, but if Americans knew that "assault rifles" were used less often in murder then cutting tools and physical beatings, their opinion of them might be very different then what you are hoping.
Thanks for your comment, thestaplegunkid9. The Assault Weapons Ban law was authored in 1994. It would obviously not be comprehensive in cataloging the wide array of assault weapons that are now available on the U.S. market 15 years later. In truth, the 1994 law was not even comprehensive at the time it was enacted. It named only 19 specific models of firearms, and banned other assault weapons that had a detachable magazine and two or more specified features. Gun manufacturers effectively evaded the intent of the law by mass-producing weapons with a single specified feature, but which were otherwise identical in design to the weapons that were banned. Certainly, a “copycat” rifle like the Bushmaster XM-15, which the D.C. snipers used to murder 14 (and possibly more) people across the United States, was an incredibly lethal weapon like the 19 models that were named in the law.
ReplyDeleteAny renewal of the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban law should be updated to reflect the contemporary market in assault weapons and strengthened to prevent the gun industry from manufacturing copycat rifles.
Could you refer us to the primary source for your contention that fewer than 5% of murders in the United States involve assault weapons? The most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists the following data for 2005:
18,124 total homicides
209 homicides involving physical beatings (1% of all homicides)
2,097 homicides involving stabbings (11.5% of all homicides)
12,352 homicides involving firearms (68% of all homicides)
The gun homicides statistics do not include breakdowns by firearm type. It would be logical that most of these gun homicides would involve handguns (given their concealability—and the fact that semiautomatic handguns are still very lethal), but that doesn’t mean that violence involving assault weapons is not a problem in this country.
In the wake of the recent shootings in Alabama and Oakland, where SWAT officers Sgt. Ervin Romans and Sgt. Daniel Sakai were killed with an AK-47 assault rifle (prompting the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund to comment, “Saturday’s incidents demonstrate that even with safety measures in place, officers face tremendous risks from criminals armed with high-powered weapons”), we think any suggestion that assault weapons are not dangerous is both ridiculous and disrespectful to the survivors in those tragedies who are still grieving for their lost loved ones. - CSGV
I've posted this source here before so I was hoping I would not have to do it again. I hope you remember it next time:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
As you can see, ALL rifles and shotguns combined account for about 5% of all murders, meaning the number of rifles and shotguns you define as "assault weapons" are used in an even lesser percentage.
In 2006, the entire state of Alabama (where the recent rampage took place) had no murders identified as being committed with ANY rifle! That shows you how rare "assault rifle" killings really are, despite the disproportionate media attention they get when the occur. I wonder what Americans would think about "assault weapons" if they knew that.
Also, the data shows physical beatings and cutting tools are responsible for more deaths.
As for the incident in Oakland, that clearly shows the futility of "assault weapon bans". The subject, Lovelle Mixon, was a convicted felon who was prohibited by law from owning any firearm. Yet he was still able to obtain them in California, a state that not only ranked #1 on the Brady Center's gun control "scorecard", but also already has an "assault weapons ban" even more strict then the 1994 federal one.
Finally, it is false to call weapons like the Ak-47, AR-15, and SKS, "high powered", because they use ammunition that is actually less powerful (in terms of ballistics) then many "traditional" bolt action hunting rifles (such as the .308 and .30-06).
Once again, these are the facts many Americans are not aware of when they are polled on their opinion of "assault weapons". This should change.
No one is suggesting that any rifle, regardless of whether or not it is considered an "assault rifle", is "not dangerous". But clearly they are not as big of a crime problem as you want us to believe, and certainly not bad enough to warrant a blanket prohibition that would effect millions of lawful gun owners.
Thanks for your comment, thestaplegunkid9. We reviewed the 2006 FBI Uniform Crime Report table you cited and are uncertain how you are drawing your conclusions from that data.
ReplyDeleteThe table in question looks at 2006 murders for which supplemental homicide data was received by the FBI. Here are the breakdowns:
14, 990 total murders
10,177 murders involving firearms (68% of total)
7,795 murders involving handguns (52% of total)
2,382 murders involving rifles, shotguns and firearms of unknown type (16% of total)
1,822 murders involving knives or cutting instruments (12% of total)
833 murders involving physical beatings (5% of total)
None of the firearm murders are broken down by specific firearm model, so it is impossible to tell which murders specifically involve assault weapons. Assault weapons could be involved not only in the murders involving rifles, shotguns, and firearms of unknown type; but also in murders involving handguns (i.e., assault pistols like the TEC-9).
Regarding the shootings in Oakland, no information has been released yet on where the AK-47 assault rifle used in the shootings came from. We are eager to find out who originally sold the rifle and how it was subsequently trafficked to Mixon.
Assault weapons are firearms originally designed for use on the battlefield. We think you will have little success in convincing anyone that these weapons are not effective killing machines. With their ability to accept high-capacity magazines and the velocity and penetrating power of the rounds they fire, they are well-tailored to their purpose of killing human beings quickly and efficiently. That’s why they are a weapon of choice not only in mass shootings in the United States, but also in the drug cartel wars currently raging in Mexico.
Your continued assertion that these weapons are not “high-powered” or lethal is in direct contradiction to the views of law enforcements groups like the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (which has collected and cataloged information on more than 18,200 law enforcement fatalities) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which has stated that, “Assault weapons were designed for rapid fire, close quarter shooting at human beings. That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guns in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are mass produced mayhem” (ATF, Assault Weapons Profile, supra note 7, at 19). - CSGV
Perhaps the police organization you refer to considers assault rifles "high powered" when compared with handguns. That is certainly true. However, the fact remains that the .223 and 7.62 rounds used by the AR-15, SKS, and AK-47 are not particularly powerful when compared to other common rounds fired by rifles, such as the .308 and .30-06. No quote you provide will change that. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of ballistics.
ReplyDeleteThe ATF quote you provided is totally off topic. The issue here isn't about whether or not the guns we are talking about are in "A duck blind or the Olympics", but whether or not they are effective for self defense (which they are), or used commonly in gun crimes (which they are not).
In addition to the FBI UCR data table, the government's own study commissioned to investigate the effects of the 1994 AWB also discovered the use of "Assault weapons" in crime was rare both before and during the ban
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf
"Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban."
It's also interesting to note that rifles like the AR-15 are commonly used by law enforcement. Why is that? Is it because the police want to create "mass produced mayhem?" I think not.
Again, no one is suggesting that the guns we are talking about are not "effective killing machines". In the hands of an "effective killer", all firearms are. The key point is the fact that these weapons are rarely used in crime and lawfully owned by millions of Americans, which strongly undermines the case for banning them.
The most important thing is for Americans considering whether or not "Assault Weapons" should be banned is to know the facts. The guns we are talking about are not "designed for use on the battlefield". They are semi-automatic weapons designed specifically for civilians. The U. S. military does not use them, nor am I aware of any other military that does. Their ownership by lawful Americans is common and their use in crime is rare. If more Americans knew this, I think their opinion about these guns may change.
The press release from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund that we cited did not compare handguns to assault weapons. In referring to the terrible shootings in Oakland, the release stated, “Saturday’s incidents demonstrate that even with safety measures in place, officers face tremendous risks from criminals armed with high-powered weapons.”
ReplyDeleteHere are a few other quotes from law enforcement officers on the threat posed by assault weapons. These quotes explain why police departments are now carrying these weapons themselves:
“The Gainesville [Florida] Police Department could be joining the list of law enforcement agencies around the country allowing more officers to carry semiautomatic rifles as police say they're increasingly being outgunned by criminals. The proposal comes as law enforcement agencies encounter more cases in which weapons such as AK-47s are being used. ‘When we get into a situation where the bad guys are carrying heavy weaponry, then we start to worry that we don't have enough firepower. We would need something to at least equal or surpass their weapon capabilities,’ said Gainesville Police Lt. Brian Helmerson, commander of the agency's Operational Skills Unit and Advanced Law Enforcement Rifle Team ... ‘They have greater firepower than we do,’ he said ... Helmerson said [Gainesville Police Chief Norman Botsford] will be considering one option for that agency that would include training and arming all patrol officers to carry semiautomatic rifles such as an AR-15 or a Mini-14.”
“The D.C. police department's decision to arm patrol officers with semiautomatic rifles is promoted by commanders as a way to stay ahead of criminals ... Hundreds of officers will be issued AR-15 rifles starting this summer, and police say the guns will be a better match for criminals … ‘We want to be prepared,’ [D.C. Police Chief Cathy] Lanier said. ‘I want officers to have what they need to be safe.’ … Police officials said the rifles offer greater speed and accuracy, firing about 3,000 feet per second—almost three times as fast as the average police pistol.”
“Days before the [shooting] ambush, Miami Police Chief John Timoney agreed to let patrol officers carry assault rifles to help counter the use of such weapons by criminals. John Rivera, president of the Dade County Police Benevolent Association, pleaded for the same for officers in the Miami-Dade department, which protects more than 1.4 million people around the city. ‘It's almost like we have water pistols,’ he said.”
"‘These are killing machines. They are not designed for recreational use,’ Sheriff's Major John Clark [of the Charleston County Police Department in South Carolina] said ... ‘It really makes us worry a lot, particularly when you consider the number of rounds fired during this homicide the other night,’ Major Clark said. ‘We were going up there with handguns, with Glocks. This guy has an AK-47. If a police officer had come up in that area, he would have definitely been out gunned.’ That's why some deputies have gotten permission to patrol carrying their own assault rifles.”
Regarding the FBI UCR data you presented, it doesn’t contain any specific data on assault weapons. The data actually suggests that a substantial number of assault weapons might be used in murders.
As for the Department of Justice (DOJ) report prepared by Christopher Koper, it’s not particularly surprising that the report found the use of assault weapons in gun crimes to be rare, when you consider that prior to the Assault Weapons Ban, these weapons represented only 1% of the firearms in circulation in the United States. Contemporary policy makers should examine how many assault weapons are in circulation today, 15 years later.
We do know that assault weapons are now turning up on crime scenes with increasing frequency, however:
“Since 1993, the year before the ban took effect, ATF has recorded a more than sevenfold increase in 7.62x39mm guns—which includes the original Russian-made AK-47 and a variety of copycats from around the world. The number of AK-type guns rose from 1,140 in 1993 to 8,547 [in 2007]. Since 2005, the first full year after the ban's expiration, ATF has recorded an 11 percent increase in such tracings.”
As an aside, the DOJ report by Mr. Koper also contained the following interesting conclusion:
“Reducing criminal use of AWs [Assault Weapons] and especially LCMs [Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines] could have nontrivial effects on gunshot victimizations. The few available studies suggest that attacks with semiautomatics—including AWs and other semiautomatics equipped with LCMs—result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more wounds inflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms.” - CSGV