Is an assault weapons ban out of reach?

[notorious]

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.

[rockymtnchief]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

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.

31 states have been doing it this whole time without the NRA or myself complaining.
We already track people with lists. Sex offenders and felons are on lists.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by notorious

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.

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to something similar. But the problem still remains of how to get criminals to abide by that. How would that prevent one criminal selling illegally to another criminal? If it wouldn't come close to affecting the areas where we need it, then it's not really worth it.

[notorious]

Originally Posted by Fish

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to something similar. But the problem still remains of how to get criminals to abide by that. How would that prevent one criminal selling illegally to another criminal? If it wouldn't come close to affecting the areas where we need it, then it's not really worth it.

It wouldn't do anything but make the gun grabbers feel good.

That's what this is about.

It also would not infringe on our rights, as long as the FFL keeps the paperwork (for passing background checks). As soon as that stuff is sent to the government, all bets are off.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by notorious

It wouldn't do anything but make the gun grabbers feel good.

That's what this is about.

It also would not infringe on our rights, as long as the FFL keeps the paperwork (for passing background checks). As soon as that stuff is sent to the government, all bets are off.

It will raise the prices of buying and selling firearms. I'm not wild on needlessly raising prices on stuff I like to buy when the only result is placating a bunch of idiots' unfounded paranoia. Making the gun grabbers feel good is irrelevant. **** them, we have no responsibility to make them feel good.

[notorious]

Originally Posted by Fish

It will raise the prices of buying and selling firearms. I'm not wild on needlessly raising prices on stuff I like to buy when the only result is placating a bunch of idiots' unfounded paranoia. Making the gun grabbers feel good is irrelevant. **** them, we have no responsibility to make them feel good.

I would rather have a gutless bill pass and pay an extra $15 (to the FFL)to privately buy/sell a gun than have limited mags and catagorical banning.

[KC Dan]

Originally Posted by rockymtnchief

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

Define "mentally ill"

[notorious]

Originally Posted by KC Dan

Define "mentally ill"

Chiefs fans.

[Munson]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

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.

Agreed. Making a list of the "mentally ill" sounds good in theory, but I think that process could easily be abused.

What is the definition of mentally ill?

Who gets to declare someone mentally ill?

How do you get off the "mentally ill" list and regain your 2nd Amendment rights?

[KC Dan]

Originally Posted by notorious

Chiefs fans.

Bravo!

[Fish]

Originally Posted by notorious

I would rather have a gutless bill pass and pay an extra $15 (to the FFL)to privately buy/sell a gun than have limited mags and catagorical banning.

I'd rather have neither.

It's not an either/or debate, like the media would like you to think.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Fish

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to something similar. But the problem still remains of how to get criminals to abide by that. How would that prevent one criminal selling illegally to another criminal? If it wouldn't come close to affecting the areas where we need it, then it's not really worth it.

How do you get criminals to abide by any law?

[Munson]

Originally Posted by notorious

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.

Yup. Whatever happens won't be enough for the Dems. They will use every crisis to chip away at the 2nd Amendment, calling for a "reasonable" or "common sense" approach every time. And before you know it, our gun laws will be just as restrictive as Europe's.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by notorious

Chiefs fans.

Hey now!

(Shit, he's right)

[notorious]

Originally Posted by Fish

I'd rather have neither.

It's not an either/or debate, like the media would like you to think.

I agree. But, if something is to happen, I hope it is what is listed above.

[dirk digler]

If it was me I would go all high-tech and use this for multiple things...

1. Biometric National ID Card with person's important personal information

a. Name, SSN, address, DOB etc

b. Criminal history that can be updated in real time

c. Military history

d. immigration history

e. drivers\insurance\motor vehicle history

In order to buy a gun (private or through FFL), vote, etc all you have to scan the card and it will instantly run a check to see if you are eligible etc etc...