Salon.com > assault weapons ban

NRA misleads on assault weapons

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:07:00 +0000

As Democrats move to once again ban assault weapons and NBC host David Gregory gets investigated for using a high-capacity magazine, banned in D.C., as a prop in his interview with the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre, one key question still hasn’t been properly addressed by the media thus far -- did the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban actually work?

Even Gregory, who convincingly played a devil's advocate to LaPierre Sunday, was dismissive of its effect on Sunday. “I mean the fact that that it just doesn't work is still something that you're challenged by if you want to approach this legislation again,” he said of the ban to New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, a supporter of the ban.

Lawmakers look to restrict gun magazine capacity

Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:59:00 +0000

WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawmakers from both parties voiced their willingness Sunday to pursue some changes to the nation's gun laws, but adamant opposition from the National Rifle Association has made clear than any such effort will face significant obstacles.

NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre dismissed efforts to revive a ban on assault weapons as a "phony piece of legislation" that's built on lies.

Democratic lawmakers in Congress have become more adamant about the need for stricter gun laws since the shooting of 20 children and six teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California is promising to push for a renewal of expired legislation that banned certain weapons and limited the number of bullets a gun magazine could hold to 10.

"I think we ought to be looking at where the real danger is, like those large clips," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

"I think we need a comprehensive approach," said Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., a longtime gun rights supporter. "I'll look at all the proposals. . I think it looks at mental health, I think it looks at protecting our schools but I also think it looks at these high-volume magazines, you know, that can fire off so many rounds."

North Carolina Tea Party group raffles off assault rifle

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:17:00 +0000

The Asheville Tea Party in North Carolina is raffling off two guns, an AR-15 assault rifle and a .22 magnum handgun, as part of its “Great Gun Giveaway," apparently in response to talk of gun control by "the Left" in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shootings.

In a letter posted on its PAC website, the group defended itself for continuing with its "Great Gun Giveaway" (a follow-up to its "Machine Gun Social"): "We have given the Federal Government permission to disarm school officials by force of law and threat of imprisonment. They are now incapable of defending the children under their care. This is the reality. Does this not need to be changed?"

"We refuse to allow the Left and the Liberal mindset to once again hijack the conversation as they have and allow the political hacks to pass laws that continue to limit our inalienable right to protect ourselves and the most defenseless among us," the group said.

Raffle tickets are $20 for the AR-15 (also the assault weapon used in the shootings), and $10 for the handgun, according to the flier for the raffle.

House GOPers throw cold water on gun control

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:30:00 +0000

Though a number of NRA-backed Democrats have said they'd be open to reviewing gun control laws, among House Republicans it's a different story.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., was recently elected chair of the House Judiciary Committee for the next session of Congress, making him the highest ranked Republican with control over regulating firearms. Goodlatte said Tuesday that he doesn't support implementing tougher gun laws.

“We’re going to take a look at what happened there and what can be done to help avoid it in the future, but gun control is not going to be something that I would support,” Goodlatte told Roll Call.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, would not give a straight answer when asked about gun control, but his spokesman Michael Steel said: “We all join President Obama in mourning the victims of this awful tragedy and we will stand with their families and friends. If the president has specific ideas in mind, we will listen. But right now our focus should be on the victims, their families and their friends.”

Obama will back Feinstein’s bill to reinstate assault weapons ban

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:37:00 +0000

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that the president is "actively supportive" of Sen. Dianne Feinstein's planned bill to reinstate a ban on assault weapons.

Carney was speaking in a White House press briefing, and said that the president will support a push by Feinstein, D-Calif., for the ban, which she said she will introduce in the new session of Congress. Reuters reports that Carney also said that Obama would support closing gun-show sale "loopholes," if any such legislation was introduced.

"It's clear that as a nation we haven't done enough to address the scourge of gun violence," Carney said. He added that Obama "wants to move in the coming weeks."

Meanwhile, several other lawmakers have expressed a new openness to reviewing the nation's gun laws. Following Joe Manchin and Mark Warner, several other NRA-backed lawmakers said that it is time to reconsider gun policy.

Obama in 2000: “Pervasiveness of guns in this country contributes to violence”

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:18:00 +0000

Back in 2000, I found out what Barack Obama really thinks about guns.

Obama was an Illinois state senator, running for Congress in an urban district, so he didn’t have to worry about appealing to rural voters, let alone red states. The most important gun issue he faced was his failure to fly back to Springfield from a Hawaiian vacation to vote on an anti-gun bill, because his then-18-month-old daughter Malia had an ear infection. The Safe Neighborhoods Act -- which Obama supported -- would have made illegal possession of a firearm a felony. It failed by five votes, but a compromise version passed the next year.

A month before the primary -- which he lost to Rep. Bobby Rush -- I interviewed Obama for the Chicago Reader. We mostly talked about the missed vote, which Obama’s opponents were using as an example of his callowness, but then I asked him about his philosophy on gun control. Here is a previously unpublished transcript of those remarks, which did not make the 2000 piece:

Radio silence from most Republicans on gun control

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:40:00 +0000

Gun control is gaining momentum among Democrats following the shootings in Newtown, Conn., with Dianne Feinstein pushing for an assault weapons ban, Frank Lautenberg saying he'll introduce a ban on high-capacity magazines, and even NRA-backed Dem Joe Manchin calling for reform.

But among elected Republicans, so far it's been mostly radio silence.

On Sunday, David Gregory of Meet the Press said that all of the pro-gun rights senators refused to appear on the show. “A note here this morning: We reached out to all 31 pro-gun rights senators in the new Congress to invite them on the program to share their views on the subject this morning,” he said. ”We had no takers.”

And few have addressed the issue since then.

What is an assault weapon?

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:40:00 +0000

Speaking on “Meet the Press” Sunday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she would introduce an assault weapons ban on the first day of the new congressional session. The last federal assault weapons ban, which was in force from 1994 to 2004, motivated gun rights activists and arguably did little to prevent gun violence. Is it possible to write (let alone pass) a more effective law? To answer that it's first essential to understand what was wrong with the last one.

The law banned manufacturing, transferring and possessing "semi-automatic assault rifles.” It listed “several guns by name AK-47, Uzi, Colt AR-15, and Street Sweeper, as well as copies or duplicates of these named firearms in any caliber,” according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. It also banned magazines with more than 10 round capacity. Due to a grandfather clause, however, it did not touch banned guns and accessories that were already in circulation. As a result, the Brady Campaign wrote in 2004 that gunmaker Bushmaster "apparently stockpiled enough 'pre-ban' magazines that it still markets 40 round ammunition magazines as available for sale to the general public for only $24.95." (Bushmaster still does.)

NRA-backed Joe Manchin: It’s time to talk about gun control

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:06:00 +0000

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W Va., a conservative who initially gained fame for his gun-centric "Dead Aim" campaign ad in the 2010 midterm elections, called for action on gun laws in the wake of the shootings in Newtown, Conn.

"It's time to move beyond rhetoric," Manchin said on Morning Joe. "We need to sit down and have a common sense discussion and move in a reasonable way."

Manchin, who has an A-rating from the NRA, continued:

"I believe this is a time for all of us to sit down and move in a responsible manner. And I think [the NRA] will. If Dianne [Feinstein]'s saying basically that assault weapons — I don't know anyone in the sporting or hunting arena that goes out with an assault rifle. I don't know anybody that needs 30 rounds in the clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about."

"Everything has to be on the table, and I think it will be," Manchin added.

Watch:

When Democrats won on guns

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:33:00 +0000

Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who has been at forefront of the debate over gun access for two decades, said on Sunday that she’ll introduce legislation to revive the federal assault weapons ban when the new Congress convenes in January. She also said that she expects President Obama, who vowed at Sunday night's memorial service in Newtown, Connecticut to "“use whatever power this office holds” to prevent future tragedies, to join the fight. But even though there are hints that the political climate on guns really is shifting, the odds of Feinstein's bill becoming law still aren’t that good.

To understand what Feinstein and other gun control advocates are up against, it’s worth recapping the history of the assault weapons ban, which was first enacted in 1994 and expired without congressional action in 2004. Since then, there has been intermittent talk of trying to bring it back, generally in the wake of mass shootings like the one in Connecticut last Friday. But in the eight years since it lapsed, neither the House nor the Senate has ever voted on restoring the ban, and even though President Obama says he supports doing so, he’s not made it a legislative priority.

Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban

Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:55:00 +0000

Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Sunday that she plans to introduce an assault weapons ban bill on the first day of the new Congress.

Following the horrifying murder of 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school, the debate over gun control has reached fever pitch. Following the mass shooting in July at a Colorado movie theater, Feinstein also called for the ban on assault weapons to be renewed (it was introduced by Bill Clinton in 1994 but has since expired). Feinstein noted that she and her colleagues had been working on the bill for a year, not only in the wake of the Newtown massacre.

Feinstein's new bill will "ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession [of assault weapons], not retroactively, but prospectively, And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets. So there will be a bill," she said Sunday.

[h/t Huffpo]

Jason Alexander’s amazing gun rant

Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:00:00 +0000

Jason Alexander, the actor famous for playing George on "Seinfeld," posted a long argument for a ban on assault-style weapons on Twitter after the Auroro, Colo., shooting:

I'd like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday's victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.

This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

That comment has, of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.

Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence, these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

Many of them cite patriotism as their reason -- true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar, so here it is from the document itself:

As passed by the Congress:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution -- if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority -- the answer is no.

Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?

I'm hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see -- does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.

Then there are the tweets from the extreme right -- these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation, and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn't see it should...
a. be labeled a moron
b. shut the fuck up
c. be removed

And amazingly, I have some minor agreement with these folks. I believe there are evil forces at play in our government. But I call them corporatists. I call them absolutists. I call them the kind of ideologues from both sides, but mostly from the far right, who swear allegiance to unelected officials that, regardless of national need or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. That they are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. That are to obstruct every possible act of governance, even the ones they support or initiate. Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, to vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.

These people believe that the U.S. government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats -- no problem. But if they try it with anyone else - it's going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government what's what. These people think they meet the definition of a "militia." They don't. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That's why they have to "take our country back." From who? From anyone who doesn't think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn't believe that? Just asking.

Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head-to-toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning -- I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.

Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources -- sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online, and those transactions could be monitored. "Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar - plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out."

But that won't happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.

I have been reading on and off as advocates for these weapons make their excuses all day long. Guns don't kill -- people do. Well if that's correct, I go with @BrooklynAvi, let them kill with tomatoes. Let them bring baseball bats, knives, even machetes -- a mob can deal with that.

There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.

These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don't agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?

We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.

I'll say it plainly -- if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to "pry it from my cold, dead hands," then they are probably planning on using them on people.

So, sorry those of you who tell me I'm an actor, or a has-been, or an idiot, or a commie or a liberal and that I should shut up. You can not watch my stuff, you can unfollow me and you can call me all the names you like. I may even share some of them with my global audience so everyone can get a little taste of who you are.

But this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.

In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold on to them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless.

Jason Alexander

Veteran officer, gunman die in Texas shootout

Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:45:00 +0000

COLLEGE STATION, Texas (AP) — A routine serving of an eviction notice to a man living near the Texas A&M University campus turned deadly for Brazos County Constable Brian Bachmann when the resident opened fire on him, leading to the death of the law enforcement officer and another man before the gunman was killed.

The spasm of deadly violence Monday left a neighborhood shaken, a tight-knit law enforcement community in mourning and the family of 35-year-old gunman Thomas Alton Caffall anguished and "distraught by the havoc that he has caused."

Just after noon, College Station police began fielding frantic 911 calls reporting shots being fired. Officers responding saw the 41-year-old Bachmann down on the lawn and also were taking gunfire.

For nearly 30 minutes police exchanged shots with Caffall, 35.

By then, Bachmann, a police instructor, one-time Officer of the Year and a married father of two, had been mortally wounded. So was Chris Northcliff, 43, of College Station, who was outside and apparently caught up in the gunfire.

So was Caffall.

Police wouldn't speculate on what sparked the deadly outburst, which is the latest shooting nationwide resulting in multiple deaths in recent weeks.