10 year ban on assault weapons ends

[jeepnut]

BOISE, Idaho - The expiration Monday of a 10-year federal ban on assault weapons means firearms like AK-47s, Uzis and TEC-9s can now be legally bought — a development that has critics upset and gun owners pleased.

The 1994 ban, signed by President Clinton (news - web sites), outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons. A clause directed that the ban expire unless Congress specifically reauthorized it, which it did not.

Studies done by pro- and antigun groups as well as the Justice Department (news - web sites) show conflicting results on whether the ban helped reduce crime. Loopholes allowed manufacturers to keep many weapons on the market simply by changing their names or altering some of their features or accessories.

Gun shop owners said the expiration of the ban will have little effect on the types of guns and accessories that are typically sold and traded across their counters every day.

At the Boise Gun Co., gunsmith Justin Davis last week grabbed up a black plastic rifle resembling the U.S. military's standard issue M-16 from a row of more than a dozen similar weapons stacked against a wall.

The civilian version of the gun, a Colt AR-15 manufactured before 1994, could be sold last week just as easily as it can be sold this week. "It shoots exactly the same ammo at exactly the same rate of fire," said Davis.

Many states — including California, Massachusetts, New York and Hawaii — have passed their own laws curbing the use of assault weapons. Some of those are more stringent than the federal ban.

U.S. Rep. Butch Otter, R-Idaho, trumpeted the end of the federal law.

"President Clinton's so-called 'assault weapons' ban was nothing more than a sop to antigun liberals," Otter said Friday in a written statement. "It provided only the illusion of reducing gun violence, but it did real damage to our liberties."

But advocates for the ban, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, point to some particularly vicious shootings in which military-style weapons were used — including the 10 killings in the sniper shooting spree that terrorized residents in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., in 2002.

National police organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Fraternal Order of Police all support the renewal of the ban. President Bush (news - web sites) has said he would sign such a bill if Congress passed it.

Idaho State Police spokesman Rick Ohnsman said troopers have had no significant problems with assault style weapons and his agency has not taken a position for or against the federal legislation.

"Of course, the legitimate owners of guns register them. Unfortunately, whether there is a ban or not, some individuals will find ways to get weapons that are illegal."

The expiration of the assault weapons ban does not mean the end of federal background checks. The 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act is separate legislation from the assault weapons ban, said Daniel Wells, chief of the FBI (news - web sites) unit charged with overseeing the background checks system.

"The change in law relating to assault weapons has no impact on the Brady Law," Wells said.

Davis predicted the biggest change in his business will be the ability of manufacturers and importers to market higher capacity ammunition magazines — the removable "clip" that holds and feeds bullets through guns.

Under the 1994 ban, the maximum capacity of a magazine was set at 10 rounds. That sent the price of high-capacity magazines through the roof, Davis said, even though magazines manufactured before the ban were protected by a "grandfather" provision and could still be sold.

Now, some gun manufacturers are planning to give away high-capacity magazines as bonuses for buying their weapons. Sales of formerly banned gun accessories, such as flash suppressors and folding stocks, are also expected to take off.

Well, what do we think? I don't see any reason to need an assault weapon so this isn't exactly good news from my viewpoint. Of course, according to the article, it doesn't sound like it did much.

[dropCGCF]

Guns aren't the problem. Ammo is.

[DimHalo]

I have a hard time really caring too much (at the moment). I don't live in Idaho and I have more pressing concerns... like finding a recommendation for grad school by the wed deadline.

[Jonbo298]

Gee golly, time for me to go buy an Uzi and a ton of other Assault Weapons for NO ****ING REASON

[The Germanator]

Well, I don't even think handguns should be legal, so you can tell what I think about this...I think it sucks.

[thatmariolover]

Well, I don't even think handguns should be legal, so you can tell what I think about this...I think it sucks.

I'm totally with you man. If their weren't any guns, there generally wouldn't be any need for them.

[Canyarion]

In Holland (I'm not bragging... just telling) all guns are illegal. There is far less crime here. :D Or perhaps people get beat up instead of shot through the head... :unsure:

No guns = good. :p

[Bube]

Firearms are illegal over here as well. Getting a license to carry one is very hard (except for army personnel and police).

People who buy one without a license keep it at home. Then we see their kids in the newspapers, shooting themselves with their father's unlicensed guns...

[Dyne]

I wonder about Canada's law on this now. There probably is a ban on Automatics up here, still, but, I've never cared to check.

[GameMaster]

I don't really mind if it's uplifted or not as long as violence and crime doesn't increase but if it does then we should ban them again.

[dropCGCF]

I don't care if people have guns. We need them to hunt today's superanimals, such as the electric eel.
Societies can be responsible even with assault waepons as long as people are trained and proven to be responsible.

[Professor S]

Well, I'm a long time gun owner and have grown up with them all my life. I have 2 circa 1942 M1 Carbines, a 30/6 (I used to hunt) and a 357 half snub...

And I'm all for the ban on assault weapons. Honestly, there is really no reason for people to own them, outside of the reason that there is no reason for them NOT to have them if they don't use them illegally.

Its just better off for people and if someone's penis is so small that they need a rediculous gun to shoot, the government should just pay for an enlargement. ;)

With that said, legal guns aren't the reason why there is so much violence in this country. People don't kill people just because the have a weapon in their hands. There is something behind it and if we ban all weapons Americans would be killing each other with baseball bats. The big reason that may be hard to find and impossible to fix is still unanswered.

[Typhoid]

Canada has a ban on all guns without a permit i believe. And i think in urban areas, it has to be for hunting only, so it has to be a hunting gun. I have no idea, but guns are illegal, im pretty sure of it.

And the only reason you would need an AK-47 or an Uzi is to protect yourself from someone else shooting at you with an AK-47 or an Uzi. Do you see a problem with that?

I think this will highly raise gang violence and crime.

[Happydude]

i think everybody with an illegal gun should be shot :sneaky:..........jk :p

serioulsy though, i think all the countries in the world should have a very strict policy about owning weapons or ammo or whatever...or just stop manufacturing ammo...if the prices of ammo went up not many people would be able to afford to pay $50/bullet...so i say just stop manufacturing them outside of military bases and such.

[Jason1]

I'm totally with you man. If their weren't any guns, there generally wouldn't be any need for them.


I'll agree with you and Germy on this one...

[ZebraRampage]

Gee golly, time for me to go buy an Uzi and a ton of other Assault Weapons for NO ****ING REASON

This is only in Idaho, right? Well I do realize that these weapons could be used out of state, but like Jonbo said, I don't think that many people would even buy these weapons. I doubt it will contribute a significant amount to the gun issue that our country has.

[Fox 6]

Well, I don't even think handguns should be legal, so you can tell what I think about this...I think it sucks.
Handguns are illegal in Canada.

[Stonecutter]

This is only in Idaho, right? Well I do realize that these weapons could be used out of state, but like Jonbo said, I don't think that many people would even buy these weapons. I doubt it will contribute a significant amount to the gun issue that our country has.
No, nation wide.

What everyone must realize is that this ban didn't really do anything. An "assault weapon" is classified as any semi-automatic rifle which has two or more of the following: Pistol grip, collapsible stock, bayonet mount, muzzle suppressor, grenade launcher. (The grenade launcher was just tacked on to make the law seem more forceful but they're really weren't legal in the first place.)

Fully Automatic (which, by the way, does not mean rapid fire, although all rapid fire weapons are fully automatic) guns are banned in the United States. This law also removed the restriction on magazines over 10 rounds, although those magazines were still legal to own and use, just not manufacture. This law was pretty stupid, it didn't really do anything and ending it doesn't really expand anything.

I believe that single and double shot rifles and shotguns should be legal (for hunting) all other guns should be banned (including hand guns.)

[Fox 6]

Well if you run out of bullets hunting you can just stab a dear with a bayonet in a war rush :p

[jeepnut]

...or just stop manufacturing ammo...if the prices of ammo went up not many people would be able to afford to pay $50/bullet...so i say just stop manufacturing them outside of military bases and such.

That reminds me of a Chris Rock bit. "Man, I'd shoot your ass if I could afford it."

EDIT: (Full quote from Bowling For Columbine)
"You don't need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullit control! We need to control the bullits, that's right!

I think Bullits should cost $5,000. $5,000 for a bullit. You know why? 'Cause if a bullit cost $5,000, there'd be no more innocent bystanders.

Every time people are shot, people'd be like, "Damn! He musta done somethin'! They put $50,000 worth of bullits in his ass!"

People'd think before they killed somebody if a bullit cost $5,000. "Man I would blow your ****in' head off if... I could afford it! I'm gonna get another job, start savin' some money, and you a dead man! You better hope I can't get bullits on layaway!"" - Chris Rock

[Happydude]

That reminds me of a Chris Rock bit. "Man, I'd shoot your ass if I could afford it."

EDIT: (Full quote from Bowling For Columbine)
"You don't need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullit control! We need to control the bullits, that's right!

I think Bullits should cost $5,000. $5,000 for a bullit. You know why? 'Cause if a bullit cost $5,000, there'd be no more innocent bystanders.

Every time people are shot, people'd be like, "Damn! He musta done somethin'! They put $50,000 worth of bullits in his ass!"

People'd think before they killed somebody if a bullit cost $5,000. "Man I would blow your ****in' head off if... I could afford it! I'm gonna get another job, start savin' some money, and you a dead man! You better hope I can't get bullits on layaway!"" - Chris Rock
yeah...that's kinda where i got the idea :D

[TheSlyMoogle]

It would suck to be a cop right about now.

[DimHalo]

Oh, I didn't realize that it was the whole nation. That's a little different story. I'll have to consider that when I have time.

[Professor S]

I apologize for the political vein of this link, but it does shed some light on the assault weapon ban expiring and its implications if you look past the criticism of a MoveOn.org ad campaign:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=258

I removed most of political content in the quote.

Contrary to what the ad clearly implies, any weapon that can fire 300 rounds per minute remains illegal for civilians to own without specific clearance by the US Department of Justice.

In fact, machine guns have been tightly regulated since the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934, in the wake of the gangster era. Legal ownership of a machine gun requires an extensive federal background check, fingerprinting, signed clearance from the chief of local law enforcement (such as a county sheriff), a $200 excise tax , and weeks of paperwork. That was true before the assault-weapon ban was enacted in 1994, and it remains true with the expiration of the ban at midnight Sept. 13, 2004.

[playa_playa]

I can't believe what I'm hearing. All guns should be illegal? All guns but hunting rifles should be illegal? Civilian-aimed replicas of military-issue rifles should be illegal? What's next? People shouldn't have baseball bats in their homes because it injures far too many people?

Listen, guns are NECESSARY in some cases; especially handguns. Do you want to tell a single mom who commutes through a gang-ridden downtown street to do so without protecting herself with a firearm? Do you want to tell your sister, who has to take a subway train to that medical school because she's trying to save as much as she can, that although subway trains and the city she resides in is inundated with criminals, child molesters and rapists that she shouldn't protect herself with a handgun because "guns kill people?"

We cannot un-invent guns (and even if we could, I wouldn't want to). Criminals are going to have guns for the sake of their tasks. And since some of us aren't so proficient in the deadly art of disarming hardened criminals and kicking their asses with a flying double roundhouse, some of us are going to need guns to defend ourselves. A gun is an equalizer, of all the bad rep it receives.

As for the assault weapons issue, think of it like this: as cheap as some assault rifles and submachine guns are, many criminals are going to have them. One could make an argument that a homeowner living in a gang-infested area would need protection afforded by a gun with a superior firepower. And you know what, with all the procedures in place (background checks, necessary paperwork, the taxes), the only argument that could be made against assault weapons is that the owner of one could go berserk and go on a shooting rampage. Yes, it's possible. But it's not very plausible and does not hold water when weighed against the fact that such said protection is sorely needed in some parts of the country.

[Typhoid]

Listen, guns are NECESSARY in some cases; especially handguns. Do you want to tell a single mom who commutes through a gang-ridden downtown street to do so without protecting herself with a firearm?


But you see, if guns were illegal, it would be harder for those gang members to have guns. Meaning they would have to try and conceal a baseball bat.

If guns are illegal, that means nobody woul dhave them. You just need stricter gun laws.

The only reason you would need a gun to protect yourself is because someone is shooting at you with a gun.
And where did they get that gun? At the gun store.
And how did they get it? Because its legal.
If you make guns illegal, shootings will go down, its a proven fact.

Gang crime will go down, because like i said, you cant conceal a baseball bat.

And are the cops gonna belive that 20 guys dressed in colours are going to a game of baseball at 1 am? No, i dont think so.

Its easy to get rid of guns. Make gun laws stricter. I mean come on, you guys get jail time for having weed, but not guns. Guns kill people, weed just makes you stupid.

Make having a gun like a 10 year sentance. Not for shooting a gun, just for having it. Unless it is proven it is for hunting reasons.

EDIT: But who am I to say guns should be illegal, my brother-ish friend was just shot and burned to death, thats all.

And no, im not trying to use that to my advantage in this conversation.

Guns = Violence. Yes, a baseball bat can too, but baseball bats dont fire little balls of iron or lead at your face. You have to walk up to someone to smash-em with a bat, unless you can throw little chunks of the bat at like 600 mp/h. with deadly aim, then were in trouble.

[playa_playa]

But you see, if guns were illegal, it would be harder for those gang members to have guns. Meaning they would have to try and conceal a baseball bat.

If guns are illegal, that means nobody woul dhave them. You just need stricter gun laws.



Are you even serious? If guns were illegal, it would be harder for gang member to have guns? Are you implying that criminals purchase guns from actual cerified vendors who run background checks, fill out paperwork and make you pay tax? Or would they just buy illegal, untraceable guns (meaning the serial number has been removed) from the black market?

Guns = Violence

Yes, in many many cases. But if the criminal aggressor ends up on the receiving end of a justifiable violence in the act of a self-defense by a 19 year-old female college student, I'm more than satisfied. In fact, the girl just did the society a favor.

[Crono]

Making guns illegal or legal won't make a difference in gun related crimes. People will still get them illegally, like playa said.

What you need is a more strict justice system. Make a person afraid to commit a crime, and the crimes will stop.

[Typhoid]

What you need is a more strict justice system. Make a person afraid to commit a crime, and the crimes will stop.


Make having a gun like a 10 year sentance. Not for shooting a gun, just for having it. Unless it is proven it is for hunting reasons.

agreed.

[jeepnut]

Making guns illegal or legal won't make a difference in gun related crimes. People will still get them illegally, like playa said.

What you need is a more strict justice system. Make a person afraid to commit a crime, and the crimes will stop.

You think someone thinks about what will happen if they are caught when committing a crime? No, you wouldn't do it if you did or if you didn't think you could get away with it.

[Crono]

You think someone thinks about what will happen if they are caught when committing a crime? No, you wouldn't do it if you did or if you didn't think you could get away with it.

They would think twice if the punishments were severe. Even if they didn't, the severe punishment would still stand. If you shoot someone, you deserve to be shot. If I ran a country, there wouldn't be any crime, there wouldn't be any gangs... I'd use Russian style policing to make them scared ****less of doing anything bad. :D