The Federal Assault Weapons Ban

From Wikipedia, to provide a little background on what the act banned:

The term "assault weapon" in the context of civilian rifles has been attributed to gun-control activist Josh Sugarmann. Assault weapon refers to semi-automatic firearms (that is, firearms that, when fired, automatically extract the spent casing and load the next round into the chamber, ready to fire again and not fire automatically like a machine gun) that were developed from earlier fully-automatic weapons. By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, H&K G36E, TEC-9, all non-automatic AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of features from the following list of features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Folding stock
• Conspicuous pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
• Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
• Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
• Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
• A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
• Detachable magazine

[...]The act separately defined and banned "large capacity ammunition feeding devices", which generally applied to magazines or other ammunition feeding devices with capacities of greater than an arbitrary number of rounds

Click to expand...

To be clear, as a LEO, I have no problem with personal gun ownership. I would prefer training and licensing for concealable weapons. As for long guns, there is probably little purpose to fully automatic weapons in the average person's hands but I believe there are legitimate exceptions such as bonded collectors, training contractors, and the like.

isshinwhat said:

They weren't protecting the muskets, they were protecting an ideal that, "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms," (Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution 1776). They believed that the Constitutional "...advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms," was extremely important (James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46). Are we freemen not now to be trusted? Have we forgotten Ben Franklin's words that, "they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," so quickly? Our founding fathers were not protecting muskets in particular, they were protecting freedom in general.

And yet you are supporting legislation which limited my Constitutional right to bear arms. Do you not see the problem with that?

Click to expand...

People can still bare arms, and could even when this legislation was law. No one is being prohibited from having a rifle or a handgun under this legislation that is adequate to the legal purposes of being armed.

The Republican dominated Supreme Court recently ruled that imposing some reasonable restrictions on firearms is within the limits of the constitution, though. If you accept the automatic weapons ban of 1934, or any sort of waiting period for guns, or restricting felons from owning weapons, in principle you already support the idea of reasonable restrictions. Heck, even being against civilians owning tanks involves a reasonable restriction.

I've always thought that was a good middle ground between the two extremes. Some people would like to have all weapons be legal, others would like to ban them all. Having owning a gun be legal, but with reasonable restrictions, allows people to maintain their right to bare arms, while also preserving the common good and public safety.

By the way, does the sun-setting of this law make grenade launchers on rifles legal now? I just noticed that one of the provisions involved grenade launchers. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with my neighbors having grenade launchers.

Remember, symbolism is often more important than substance.

F&B

That's not what I said. However, even if that's true, it still doesn't address the basic point that handguns and rifles are perfectly adequate for self-defense and for hunting, the legal purposes of guns.

Click to expand...

People can still bare arms, and could even when this legislation was law. No one is being prohibited from having a rifle or a handgun under this legislation that is adequate to the legal purposes of being armed.

Click to expand...

our nation was founded by people who had to revolt agianst the Government, they were not thinking of hunting or protecting your home from theives, they were thinking about killing government troops, this was set up so that the poeple could mount a reasonable revolution if needed.
is a hand gun "adequate" for this purpose? no, not at all.
every citezen should be able to own whatever is standard issue for the US infantry such as
M16A2 Rifle
m-4 Carbine
M-24 sniper Rifle
M-249 SAW
Grenades
Mortats
rocket propelled grenades

Rhamiel said:

F&B
our nation was founded by people who had to revolt agianst the Government, they were not thinking of hunting or protecting your home from theives, they were thinking about killing government troops, this was set up so that the poeple could mount a reasonable revolution if needed.
is a hand gun "adequate" for this purpose? no, not at all.
every citezen should be able to own whatever is standard issue for the US infantry such as
M16A2 Rifle
m-4 Carbine
M-24 sniper Rifle
M-249 SAW
Grenades
Mortats
rocket propelled grenades

Click to expand...

I understand the point you are trying to make, but it is impossible these days to have perfect parity between the citizenry and the government these days in terms of armaments. Primarily, this is because of the march of technology. Nuclear weapons, biological weapons, advanced battlefield armaments, and so forth present too much of a danger in the hands of private citizens. Inevitably, they are such monumental dangers and destabilizing forces, that it would be impossible to maintain law and order anymore.

Sure, you could use them to revolt from an oppressive government, but it would be impossible to maintain a government of any sort, or, most likely, life on the planet earth, if private citizens truly had government-level arms commonly.

Sometimes, times change. We don't live in the same world our founding fathers lived in. The principles carry over and should be preserved, but a completely literalist rendering can fail to take into account changes (and, in fact, many of our founding fathers acknowledged this and were loose constructionists, a view that became enshrined in American law until the Bush administration tried to roll back centuries of history in one fell swoop). We don't know what our founding fathers would have made of today's weaponry.

It's impossible to truly anticipate what they would have thought of this much destructive potential. We can certainly say they would have likely favored private ownership of some guns, but we can't carry that over universally to everything you're talking about.

The Second Amendment was established at a time when people believed an armed populace (aka the militia) was a good check on the government. In order to fully implement the Second Amendment in that sense, you would have to consider an assault weapons ban to not be in the spirit of the Second Amendment itself.

That's not to say the amendment is set in stone. Certainly the government does not want private citizens owning rocket launchers, tanks, nuclear weapons or other sorts of weapons that could have uses in causing mayhem. We certainly don't own slaves anymore, so why should the spirit of the Second Amendment remain the same? Obviously the private ownership of firearms should not be restricted, but there has to be some sort of medium as well.

I would not be opposed to people being permitted to own an M-16, an M-4, an Uzi or an AK-47, but this does not mean I would want to own any of these weapons. That said, I certainly see no reason for private citizens to be permitted to own grenades or heavy explosives. It just doesn't seem reasonable.

As a detective in an area of just under half a million, I can tell you that criminals do not care about gun laws and will obtain guns one way or the other. The only people that respect the law are law abiding citizens.

Case in point is a shooting I worked last night. The three suspects involved were all convicted felons, two of them previously convicted for drugs and firearms violations. Did our laws of preventing a felon from owning a firearm deter them? No it did not.

A person is going to find a way to facilitate their criminal means one way or the other. You will not prevent any killings by banning uzis, M-16s, etc. People are naive to think a black market for these items doesn't exist.

It's not an issue of citizens not having government level arms. It's an issue of how far will we let our rights be infringed. When we surrender our right to bear arms, what right will be infringed upon next? You've seen religion being squashed in school. Will free speech be next? Lawful assembly? Our right to protect ourselves from self incrimination?

jukesk9 said:

As a detective in an area of just under half a million, I can tell you that criminals do not care about gun laws and will obtain guns one way or the other. The only people that respect the law are law abiding citizens.

Case in point is a shooting I worked last night. The three suspects involved were all convicted felons, two of them previously convicted for drugs and firearms violations. Did our laws of preventing a felon from owning a firearm deter them? No it did not.

A person is going to find a way to facilitate their criminal means one way or the other. You will not prevent any killings by banning uzis, M-16s, etc. People are naive to think a black market for these items doesn't exist.

It's not an issue of citizens not having government level arms. It's an issue of how far will we let our rights be infringed. When we surrender our right to bear arms, what right will be infringed upon next? You've seen religion being squashed in school. Will free speech be next? Lawful assembly? Our right to protect ourselves from self incrimination?

Click to expand...

You got it and it reminds of this saying: The 2nd amendment is needed so we can protect the rest!

MrStain said:

You got it and it reminds of this saying: The 2nd amendment is needed so we can protect the rest!

Click to expand...

No one seems to be protecting the 4th amendment these days, unfortunately...

Fish and Bread said:

No one seems to be protecting the 4th amendment these days, unfortunately...

Click to expand...

What in the world are you talking about? Last I knew, warrants were still needed?

The AWB was a perfect example of feel good legislation that served no purpose other than placate a group of people who had been sold on an ignorant idea by the media.

Click to expand...

~~~~>>
EXACTLY.

:o
Ppl seem to use the media as a bible i think.

Don5925 said:

As I have said before, most people do not understand that the Second Amendment is about the people being a legitimate to the government, not hunting. Cities with the most gun violence have the most restrictive gun laws (excepting Gary, IN). Research has borne out that crime retracts when the public is armed, especially when the right to defend one's self is clearly defined by statute and decision, as in the case of Texas where a tax payer can fire on an offender with less restriction than law enforcement as a common citizen is not bound by Tennessee v. Garner.

Click to expand...

Exactly!!

CrusaderKing said:

The Second Amendment was established at a time when people believed an armed populace (aka the militia) was a good check on the government. In order to fully implement the Second Amendment in that sense, you would have to consider an assault weapons ban to not be in the spirit of the Second Amendment itself.

That's not to say the amendment is set in stone. Certainly the government does not want private citizens owning rocket launchers, tanks, nuclear weapons or other sorts of weapons that could have uses in causing mayhem. We certainly don't own slaves anymore, so why should the spirit of the Second Amendment remain the same? Obviously the private ownership of firearms should not be restricted, but there has to be some sort of medium as well.

I would not be opposed to people being permitted to own an M-16, an M-4, an Uzi or an AK-47, but this does not mean I would want to own any of these weapons. That said, I certainly see no reason for private citizens to be permitted to own grenades or heavy explosives. It just doesn't seem reasonable.

Click to expand...

The gun ownership was then and is still a necessity to over throw a corrupt government. To always have a militia if need be.

In fact - it says we are entitled to have a Revolution and revolt a foul government - thus they were serious then and for all times that we KEEP OUR GUNS.

AND I think that time is nearing.:o

WarriorAngel said:

The gun ownership was then and is still a necessity to over throw a corrupt government. To always have a militia if need be.

In fact - it says we are entitled to have a Revolution and revolt a foul government - thus they were serious then and for all times that we KEEP OUR GUNS.

AND I think that time is nearing.:o

Click to expand...

I'm ready...

I don't think it is appropriate to joke about the overthrow of the our government. The point, I believe, is that with an armed citizenry we are able to defend our communities as well as ourselves. Well meaning people can differ on what type of restrictions might be appropriate to weapon possession, but an out right ban is a difficult thing to accept.

Gun ownership is a multi-faceted thing ranging from sport to daily need to potential need, with tradition playing a part as well.