Question:

No big deal. The ban never affected real assault weapons anyway. They've been illegal for over sixty years now. The 1994 ban only applied to certain types of semi-automatic weapons that were cosmetically similar to military-type weapons that could fire either semi- or full-auto. Basically, they were mean-looking guns that resembled assault weapons. Other types of weapons that fire the same round were still available -- with or without the ban. An AR-15 (banned under the 1994 law), a civilian version of the Army's M-16 became legal again when a different version was manufactured sans a pistol grip, bayonet lug or flash suppressor.
High-capacity magazines (more than ten rounds) will also be legal once again, although pre-ban versions are still plentiful at any gun dealer or gun show. Again, no big deal. Even with a 10-round magazine, it is quite easy to "banana clip" two of them together for the ability to have twenty rounds at your disposal.
The percentage of "assault weapons" used in crime is still very, very low. True assault weapons - capable of fully-automatic fire - are very tightly regulated and require a federal firearms license.
Most of the lawmakers probably don't even know the difference between a clip and a magazine, semi- and full-auto, etc., etc. Whatever happens, the bad guys will still find ways to get guns -- legal or not. Focus on the criminals, not their instrument of choice.


Answer:

Then, how come several law enforcement organisations deplored the event?
Lars; hopes that there are no school shootings this fall, but if there are, Mr. Bush will be blamed, whether assault weapons were used or not.

Answer:



Answer:


There are several morons among any large group of people. Here makes a perfect example. What's important is that the largest police organization and the only one that really matters, the FOP, endorses Bush and supports gun rights.
As for Bush being blamed for any future school shootings, that's no surprise. Many of the aforementioned morons already blame Bush for their own personal failings so what else would be new? There are otherwise supposedly rational people who blame Bush for global warming, the fact they can't get jobs and cancer. Why not throw school shootings into the mix, too?

Answer:


Funny some law enforcement agencies opposed the ban, while others supported it. The IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police) supported the ban, as they support most other "gun control" laws. This is primarily because their leadership is out of touch with most street cops and have an elitist attitude that only they should be trusted with firearms, especially ones that "pack a punch" of any type.
The Law Enforcement Alliance of America (of which I am a member), made up of "street cops," crime victims and other concerned citizens, strongly opposed the Assault (sic) Weapons Ban - as they oppose most other "gun control" schemes brought about as emotional responses to criminal problems. The LEAA has always stood up for the rights of citizens to be armed & to have the right of self-defense, while simultaneously advocating "crime control" that punishes those who prey upon others.
Read the information on their web page, and then read some of the anti-gun sites. It should become painfully clear that the ban was never about reducing crime at all - but was a backdoor method of banning more types of firearms. Had the government (and especially the Clinton administration) really been concerned about violent crime, they would have prosecuted the criminals who attempted to obtain ANY TYPE OF FIREARM - instead of letting them go and claiming how great the Brady Bill was at keeping bad guys away from guns (as if they did not simply resort to straw-man purchases or theft to obtain them).
Again, when a law is misnamed in the first place, I can't put a whole lot of faith into it. As it has been said before, true assault weapons have been controlled tightly for sixty years. You can indeed own a fully-automatic weapon (machine gun), but you must have a Class III license and the proper tax stamp which starts at about $200. You also must register with your local sheriff's office or police department. I do not know any "statistics" about full-autos, but they are relatively rare and are usually found in the hands of gun dealers and firearms collectors who do not use them for criminal purposes.
The types of rifles banned by the 1994 law are still made, and have been for years -- just with the pistol grip, bayonet lug & flash suppressor removed. My brother owns a pre-ban Chinese AK-style (semi-auto) rifle and two high-capacity magazines. He bought it as an investment, and it doubled in value very quickly ten years ago. Ironically, it is now worth much less since it is no longer 'taboo' to own or sell. Even so, there are other rifles available (pre- and post-ban) that fire the same 7.62 X 39mm round (.308 caliber) and are just as lethal - although they don't look as menacing.
Violent crime has been on the decrease (except in certain areas - many of which are places that ban guns in the hands of law-abiding people), but the (so-called) assault weapons ban probably has nothing to do with it. The actual number of these rifles is rather low, and crimes that are not committed with the "banned" rifles often get chalked up as "assault rifles" because they may happen to fire the same round. Just because you may find a .308 casing at a crime scene does not mean that the round came from an AK-47.
Anyway, I really doubt the ban's removal will have much effect on crime (either way). The good people who buy these weapons are not the problem. Consequently, the bad guys will obtain them whether or not it is legal to do so. Remember that it already is a federal felony for any felon to possess, purchase (or attempt to purchase) or transport ANY type of firearm - even a little .22 pistol.

Flying Dutchman; doesn't plan to buy an AR-15 anytime soon - but would still like to have the option to do so

Answer:


Lars,
As far as school shootings go, it is already illegal to have a fiearm of any type on school property -- without special permission (target shooting, hunting after classroom hours, instruction, etc., etc.). A kid could use a .177 pellet pistol and the "gun control" nuts would be calling for banning everything bigger than a pocket knife.
Regarding police organizations, just remember that some of them poll their members and others have the executive board make all their decisions -- kind of like labor unions. The positions taken "officially" may or may not mirror those of the dues-paying members.


Answer:

I get the impression that if you disagree with the NRA and similar organisations, you must be wrong. if some policemen, mainly Chiefs, disagree thay must be out of touch and the radicals who read more into the constitution than is there are right, even if they are a minority.
As I have said many times, the NRA has had ample opportunities to challenge all gun laws and restrictions on constitutional grounds, but have failed to do so. I know why they are reluctant to do so and I don't blame them. But this question is always avoided around here and I can guess why.
Regarding any future blame, it is political reality and past transgressors do not seem too impressed with current laws, regardless how old these laws are.
Lars; is hardly impressed with lame excuses.

Answer:


Yeah, and the next time there is some kind of violent crime (school shooting, etc.), they'll say that it is "Bush's fault" for not renewing the assault (sic) weapons ban.
I wonder why nobody ever puts the blame where it belongs - on the criminal. No gun has ever walked up to someone and pulled its own trigger. Too many people fall for the "xxxx people are killed BY handguns every year" -- when they are in fact killed WITH handguns (not 'by' them).
I can't blame the NRA for risking more court challenges. After all, the Supreme Court (and lesser courts) have done little to stop other unconstitutional laws. Nor have they done much to protect the First Amendment (so-called Campaign Finance Reform laws) lately. Anyway, I predict that there will be more court challenges in the coming years - even if they are brought about by opponents of the Second Amendment and not the NRA.
The media are also to blame. I watched a little bit of Headline News earlier tonight and the anchor was talking about the assault (sic) weapons ban. He said that it would be legal for people to own Uzis and "Tech Neens" again. (I think he was talking about a Tech 9, but what do you expect from people who don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine?) Sheesh!
In all honesty, I don't think the sunsetting of the ban will do much - for either side. It is a partial victory (at best) for the NRA. It may, in fact, actually reduce the value of many of the previously-banned rifles since they'll now be available. Magazines will probably be cheaper, too. Truth is, the people behind the original ban wanted to use it as a stepping stone for further restrictions on other types of firearms. Even the schmoes from the "Brady Bunch" all but admitted that. Despite getting their wish from President Clinton in 1994, they still lament the "vast numbers of guns" that are still out there.
As I have always said, they will not rest until every American is disarmed and they have absolute control over what types of guns have a "legitimate sporting purpose" {as if that was ever mentioned in the Second Amendment} and what guns too closely resemble military hardware.
Should John Kerry be elected, I think he may try to resurrect the gun ban -- and will probably add more provisions to it. After all, as Algore said, a leopard cannot change his stripes!
As for chiefs being "out of touch" with the rest of the men, this is often true. Chiefs are politicians - to a certain extent. In many areas, particularly big cities, they are beholden to liberal-leaning mayors and city councils. Richmond is a prime example. Our chief is very anti-gun and goes ballistic at the idea of a private citizen defending himself.
Sheriffs in rural counties, who are directly elected by (and thus accountable to) the voters/residents, are more likely to support your right of self-defense and will publicly tell you that you are justified in protecting your family, home and property.

Flying Dutchman; will wait for prices to go down before contemplating the purchase of a nice AR-15
P.S. The police chief of Montgomery County (Mland) was on TV crying the blues about "assault weapons" on the streets. Hey bud; did you ever wonder why your anti-gun county and state have higher crime rates than places where there are more such guns? Well, what else should we expect? That is probably the most liberal county in the DC area!

Answer:

There is a much better reason why the NRA will not challenge gun restrictions on constitutional grounds and it is because they know that they will lose and all the blather about constitutional rights to own guns will be shown to be just that.
An outright ban on guns would be unconstitutional and most people are aware of this, but you still hear all the paranoia that is used to excuse a lack of substance. What the NRA fear is that the Supreme Court will rule that Congress and the States have the right to enact reasonable restrictions, which most reasonable people understand and agree with.
Where I think they make a serious mistake is to not arrive at a broadly accepted political solution, which is pushing the issues into court and they are losing there more and more. But when you are blinded by ideology, that is what you end up with.
Lars; prefers pragmatism.

Answer:


We already have more than enough "restrictions" -- few reasonable and many that are not. Anyway, it is the age-old problem of a few malcontents who use firearms as an instrument of evil. You don't solve the problem by taking them away from those who are not responsible for the mayhem. {That would be like banning cars to stop drunk driving.}
Another problem, as I have stated ad infinitum is that there are many in government who will never stop until ALL firearms are banned and confiscated. That is their goal, although they usually only admit it to each other. If controlling crime were truly the objective, you would have already seen more of an effort to prosecute, convict and PUNISH those who commit violent crimes against others.
I've gotta hit the hay, as I must work tomorrow. You and YDSM will have to carry on until I can jump in again. Just try to figure out why we need EVEN MORE GUN LAWS than the 20,000+ already on the books. We don't enforce the ones we have, so why write more?
Do you want us to end up like Washington, DC? They banned guns there back in the 1970s and look where it got them. Law officers in VA refer to our nation's capital as the "District of Calamity" for good reason.

Flying Dutchman; saying good night
P.S. If Kerry is elected, look for an attempt to resurrect the Clinton gun ban.
<<=<< (You might like this site, sir.)