ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   D.C. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Legal Is an assault weapons ban out of reach? (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=268757)

notorious 01-11-2013 08:13 AM

Is an assault weapons ban out of reach?
 

Gun control debate: Is an assault weapons ban out of reach?


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...094810128.html

Vice President Joe Biden announced Thursday that he will recommend new gun control measures to President Barack Obama, which include more comprehensive background checks on gun buyers and limits on the sizes of ammunition magazines. The proposal could lead to the most significant move on guns in 20 years, but one regulation highly coveted by gun control advocates was notably missing: a ban on assault weapons.

In 1994, President Bill Clinton managed to push through a sweeping ban on certain kinds of semi-automatic weapons, dealing a crushing blow to the National Rifle Association and other gun lobbyists and sparking a political backlash that helped Republicans reclaim the House and Senate for the first time in 50 years.

That ban, which expired 10 years later in 2004, is still seen as the gold standard by many gun control advocates, who have been fighting in vain to get it reinstated—with some modifications—for years. Since the horrific Dec. 14 school shooting in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 first graders dead and sparked a national conversation about the nation's gun violence problem, many advocates think they see their chance.

"It is time to pass an enforceable and effective assault weapons ban," New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the leading gun control advocate in the nation, said in a press conference after the shooting. Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill quickly introduced legislation to ban the weapons in late December.

But Biden's omission of the ban from his description of his package of proposals on Thursday suggests an assault weapons ban is out of reach. (It's still possible that the ban could be included in Biden's final proposal, which will be announced Tuesday, and both Biden and Obama have voiced support for the ban on other occasions in the past few weeks.) A lot has changed since 1994—including public opinion,the legal landscape and the political might of the NRA.

"I don't think a ban on assault weapons—which is a ban on some of the most popular rifles in America—is likely to get support," said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor and Second Amendment expert. "The 1994 ban was widely recognized to be ineffective and to be riddled with loopholes."

Because the Clinton-era ban focused on cosmetic features of semi-automatic weapons—such as whether the weapon had bayonet slugs—manufacturers could easily remove those features and produce legal guns that were functionally identical to the banned weapons. These loopholes gave the ban a bad rap, making it ineffective on top of being politically toxic.

Another change since the 90s-era ban is that many semi-automatic weapons are more popular now, including the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle used in the Newtown shooting, which is one of the best selling rifles in America. There are at least 3 million AR-15-type rifles in America today, and semi-automatic handguns have overtaken revolvers as the most popular handguns. (Gun ownership on the whole, however, is down since 1994.)

Meanwhile, public opinion on gun control shifted as violent crime started falling in the late 90s. Starting in about 2000, fewer and fewer Americans expressed interest in stricter gun control laws: 78 percent favored stricter gun laws in 1990 compared to only 44 percent between 2010 and 2012.

The majority of Americans would not favor the banning of certain kinds of weapons altogether, such as the assault weapons ban. In 2001, 59 percent of Americans favored that ban, but now the number has dropped to 44 percent.

Some of this public opinion shift may be due to the efforts of the NRA, which has grown more powerful since its defeat in the 90s. "The NRA has about a million more members than it did before and it's got 20 more years' experience on the issue," said David Kopel, an adjunct law professor at New York University and research director at the conservative think tank the Independence Institute.

The NRA told Politico that it has gained 100,000 new members since the Newtown shooting.

Even if gun control advocates were able to pass an assault weapons ban, it would most certainly face a legal challenge.

In a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, a majority of justices ruled that the government cannot ban an entire class of weapons (in this case, handguns) that are commonly used by law abiding gun owners for legitimate reasons, such as self defense. The government could argue that semi-automatic weapons are not commonly used for self defense, but it's still unclear how the Supreme Court might rule.

The news isn't all gloomy for the gun control side, though. If Obama is able to limit magazine sizes or expand gun background checks, it will still represent one of the biggest gun control victories in decades, and a huge departure from the near political silence on the issue over the past few years. And there's some evidence that the public would be more supportive of such a move since the shooting re-ignited the debate. A Gallup poll taken a week after the Newtown shooting found that 58 percent of Americans wanted gun laws to be stricter, a big jump from the 44 percent who said the same when polled a few months earlier.

And the proposals that Biden said he will present to the president have broad public support. A majority of Americans support requiring background checks for all gun buyers, which would happen if Congress closes the current gun show loophole that allows about 40 percent of firearms to be sold without a background check. Most people also said they would support banning ammunition magazines that carry more than 10 bullets.

notorious 01-11-2013 08:13 AM

Hmmm. Not getting excited, but this article goes completely against the 11tybillion articles Yahoo has been posting for the last 2 months.

WV 01-11-2013 08:20 AM

With them swinging for the fences, something like this may actually be a victory for gun owners. Sadly enough.

cosmo20002 01-11-2013 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notorious (Post 9305104)
Hmmm. Not getting excited, but this article goes completely against the 11tybillion articles Yahoo has been posting for the last 2 months.

It also goes against the 11tybillion posts on this board freaking out about Obama's imminent Executive Order that would repeal the 2nd Amendment in full.

notorious 01-11-2013 08:23 AM

Close the background check loophole. Require a seller to sale through an FFL.


Everyone is happy, or at least it doesn't enrage a group.

notorious 01-11-2013 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002 (Post 9305120)
It also goes against the 11tybillion posts on this board freaking out about Obama's imminent Executive Order that would repeal the 2nd Amendment in full.

I am not one of those posters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC native (Post 9301324)
This.

Obama is an astute politician. I put the chances of this happening at less than 10%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by notorious (Post 9301841)
He's way too smart to do this. I would put it at .01%.


I do think that gun grabbers will try to chip away, piece by piece, our gun rights. It won't happen overnight with executive order. It will happen over decades.

You can't boil a frog by throwing him in the water. You have to slowly heat it up.

rockymtnchief 01-11-2013 08:29 AM

I get the feeling they're being extreme and asking for the moon in the hopes of small changes being made to make themselves feel better. That makes me want to stand my ground even more. They're the same one who sucks the peniss who allow abortion yet spend millions to keep murders off death row. They're good enough to be protected by the bullet, but you're not.

rockymtnchief 01-11-2013 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notorious (Post 9305123)
Close the background check loophole. Require a seller to sale through an FFL.


Everyone is happy, or at least it doesn't enrage a group.

Make sure all states report the mentally ill to the background data base.

cosmo20002 01-11-2013 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notorious (Post 9305123)
Close the background check loophole. Require a seller to sale through an FFL.


Everyone is happy, or at least it doesn't enrage a group.

You really think so? I think the NRA and a large group convinced that Obama is intent on repealing the 2nd Am would be outraged.

notorious 01-11-2013 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockymtnchief (Post 9305144)
Make sure all states report the mentally ill to the background data base.

Absolutely.

All computer systems need to linked 100%.

FFL dealers will need to keep all paperwork for a set amount of time (just like they do now), and they have the power to report a suspicious purchase even if they pass a background check.

There will be NO national database of gun owners. There will be no "tax" on specified weapons that are not fully automatic.

cosmo20002 01-11-2013 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockymtnchief (Post 9305144)
Make sure all states report the mentally ill to the background data base.

I'm really surprised "the right" seems to be ok with this. Being placed on tracking lists generally doesn't sit well with people. So all it takes is one person to label you "mental" and you're on a list. No issues with the govt having undue influence about who goes on the list? Seems like a good way to screw with political opponents.

notorious 01-11-2013 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002 (Post 9305148)
You really think so? I think the NRA and a large group convinced that Obama is intent on repealing the 2nd Am would be outraged.

They are in full-blown "We are not budging on anything" mode. I don't blame them.


See my post above for my reasoning.

BucEyedPea 01-11-2013 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockymtnchief (Post 9305144)
Make sure all states report the mentally ill to the background data base.

Hmmm, I have some problems with this depending on how done. Not all mentally ill are violent for one.

WV 01-11-2013 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notorious (Post 9305161)
They are in full-blown "We are not budging on anything" mode. I don't blame them.


See my post above for my reasoning.

I don't blame them either. IMO this thing isn't going away until they get something, so they are standing their ground hoping for something that impacts gun owners rights the least.

blaise 01-11-2013 08:43 AM

They want to give Biden something to do to get in the news. They're afraid Hillary might not be a good candidate in the next election, and so they're trying to make Biden look like he's competent and can take the lead on something.

All they need to come out of it is a couple of small regulations and then they can say Biden was a success at something.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.