You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
Senate extends ban on assault weapons, closes gun show loophole
Finally, a bill on gun control that makes sense. Can anyone really find fault with reasonable regulations like this? Kudos to our Republican legislature for getting this bill through, although I see that there was voting against party lines on both sides of the aisle.
------------
Senate OKs Assault Weapons Ban Extension
WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Tuesday to extend for another decade a ban on military-style assault weapons and to require background checks on buyers at private gun shows, giving Democrats rare victories on gun legislation that would also deny crime victims the ability to sue gunmakers and dealers.
Democratic presidential contenders John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina broke away from the Super Tuesday campaign trail to cast votes — their first of the year — with the 52-47 majority on the assault weapons ban and the 53-46 majority on the gun show bill.
The White House had preferred both Democratic bills be kept off the legislation immunizing the gun industry from liability suits, the National Rifle Association's top priority this year.
"The semiautomatic ban, the gun show loophole, a variety of other kinds of issues could simply drag this bill down and deny us substantial tort reform," said Republican Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, the bill's main sponsor who voted against both measures.
House leaders said last year that they did not intend to renew the ban on the manufacture and importation of at least 19 types of common military-style assault weapons. Senate GOP leaders also argued against the ban, saying it was ineffective and unnecessary and could cause the House to kill the gunmaker immunity bill.
But with the help of a few Senate Republicans, including Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner of Virginia, Democrats were able to get enough votes to approve the ban extension.
A few Republicans also voted with the Democrats to close the "gun show loophole." Under current law, unlicensed gun dealers at private shows are not required to ask for government background checks before selling weapons. Democrats and a few Republicans argued that loopholes allows people who normally wouldn't be able to buy guns get dangerous weapons.
"Criminals and terrorists are exploiting this obvious loophole in our gun safety laws," said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona.
The appearance of Kerry and Edwards in the Senate for their first votes of the year underscored the political overtones of the assault weapons issue. Most Democrats voted for the ban, which had been due to expire Sept. 13, while most Republicans voted against it.
Ten Republicans broke party ranks: Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine, George Voinovich of Ohio and John Warner of Virginia.
Six Democrats voted against extending the ban: Max Baucus of Montana, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Zell Miller of Georgia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Harry Reid of Nevada.
"Once again we're in a political season, and once again we're debating gun ownership," Craig said.
Democrats argued that law enforcement officers and regular citizens all would be safer if the assault weapons covered under the bill continued to be banned. "These are weapons of war. They are designed to kill a lot of people quickly," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who authored the 1994 gun ban while in the House.
Warner, who voted against the gun ban in 1994, said the testimony from law enforcement officials in his state convinced him to vote Tuesday for renewing it.
"Law enforcement has shown that it has reduced the use of these weapons in crime, so my words pale in significance to the law officers of the four corners of the commonwealth of Virginia," Warner said.
President Bush has staked out both sides of the issue, calling for the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban while arguing against the Senate's adding it to the gunmaker immunity bill.
After other amendments, the Senate is expected to easily pass the gunmaker immunity bill. It would bar lawsuits against gun makers stemming from a crime in when a legally sold gun is used to commit the crime.
After Senate action, the measure goes to a House-Senate negotiating committee that will hammer out differences with the version passed by the GOP-controlled House last year.
Honestly, I personally disagree with this. Next, they will be trying to ban guns altogether as Ohio has been doing for a while...infringing upon our rights given to us in the 2nd amendment to bear arms...CCL
Yeah, this is just emotional garbage. "Assault" weapons are seldom used for crime. Punishing guns doesn't stop crimes, and it doesn't keep them out of the hands of criminals. If we ban any kind of guns criminals will still find them, buy them, and use them, beecause criminals don't follow the law by definition.
Look at places like Japan where guns have been outlawed strictly by everyone except the military and police, and even violent crime using guns is increasing. It's decreasing here, and it's the lowest in the 30 states that have carry laws, and crime and murder are the highest in places like D.C. and L.A. where there are the most anti-gun laws.
To reduce crime is simple: find, prosecute, and punish the people responsible. Unlike guns, the rate we do that affects crime, and there's statistical evidence to back this up everywhere in the world. But more people vote for politicians who talk tough about guns, because people are more afraid of guns than criminals.
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
i sent an email up to John Warner as he is my senator. i told him he lost the support of my family, i and anyonelse that i know that carries firearms (it's a lot of people). he said he had done a lot of research into this but he hasn't. he also listened to uneducated law enforment officers (ones that aren't out there on the streets) who have no idea what ytpe of weapons this law has banned. it's just so frustrating to me to know that the goverment is constantly trying to tip the scales of power heavily in their favor and they are winning constantly because of moronic politicians. the very first words out of most LEO's when you ask then what type of weapons are banned by this would be "full auto weapons". i just laugh and laugh at them.
I think the reason that crimes are not committed with assault weapons is because the possession and use of such weapons may result in a worse sentence than the committed crime itself.
If so the gun laws are working to reduce that type of crime.
But honestly, if you want to reduce violent gun crime, legalize drugs. That knocks out about 50%* of it right there.
*Pete made that number up.
Pete (likes math)
__________________
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --Thomas Jefferson
Originally posted by plezercruz I think the reason that crimes are not committed with assault weapons is because the possession and use of such weapons may result in a worse sentence than the committed crime itself.
If so the gun laws are working to reduce that type of crime.
But honestly, if you want to reduce violent gun crime, legalize drugs. That knocks out about 50%* of it right there.
*Pete made that number up.
Pete (likes math)
do you know what an assault weapon is by their definition?
the whole ban is for cosmetics, it has nothing to do with rate of fire capabilities or anything that would make these weapons more lethal. the weapons were being used less because you can't purchase them anymore. even by definition in 94 before the ban they were used in less than 3% of all gun related crimes. there is a reason and that is because they are not sold and were not sold as much as pistols and other types of firearms. tell me how a telescoping/collapsable stock or a bayonet lug on a gun is going to make the gun more lethal. or how a pistol grip is going to make a gun more lethal.
by the way the guns only account for 1.5% of all gun crimes but gun crime has not decreased one bit by having the ban in place. as a matter of fact it just makes us citizens less protected by not being able to carry as much ammo as a perpetrator legally. senator allen said it best that it is a pointless law as it only applies to cosmetics and not lethality.
Well about 50% of murders are related to gang crime, and legalizing drugs would destroy most of their market. And about 50% of people in prison are on drug-related charges. So we do see that number come up
>> I think the reason that crimes are not committed with assault weapons is because the possession and use of such weapons may result in a worse sentence than the committed crime itself.
They never have been popular weapons for committing crimes regardless. The main reason is because it makes no sense. They're too big and unwieldy. A handgun is much more useful to a criminal, and to a law-abiding citizen as well.
It's so stupid what we outlaw, too. Fixed knives are illegal. Who the hell is going to use a bayonet to commit a crime? When has that ever been a problem? People ban things like this out of irrational fear.
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
Originally posted by skooly Do you think that closing the gun show loophole unfairly infringes on your right to bear arms?
i personally believe that all 3 issues need to be addressed seperately.
i'm for the gun maker immunity, they have nothing to do with what some wacko decides to do with a weapon that was made by them. it's not their problem a perp committed an illegal act.
i'm agaisn't the ban. it's pointless as i've already shown as it only affects cosmetics on the weapons themselves.
i am agaisn't the loophole as any other citizen should be. we all have a right to bear arms but criminals and felons do not. we are all subjected to background checks and we need to make sure they are done so that weapons do not go to those who can't legally own them.
Originally posted by Dissident Thank god! We're safe now.
In CA, I think weapons that LOOK like assult weapons are banned, too.
i know plenty of people who own ar-15's in CA and that looks identical to an assault weapon. califonia does have very strict laws but that is because it is primarily a democratic state and 90% of democrats want very strong laws in place agaisn't guns. they tend to ignore statistics esspecially ones showing that states with concealed carry laws have less crime than any other states.
All forms of gun control are wrong....they do nothing to stop gun crime....the criminals will ALWAYS have access to any kind of firearm they desire...all it does is keep the law abiding people from having a chance to defend themselves.......
>> Do you think that closing the gun show loophole unfairly infringes on your right to bear arms?
Well, yeah! It does if you or your family gets robbed, injured or killed by a criminal while you're waiting to get your gun.
The term "loophole" itself is a purposeful attempt to manipulate voters. It's a violation of our right to buy and sell goods; those things are essential to our freedom.
BUT even if you don't agree about the right to defend yourself, the question you should be asking is "does requiring background checks really keep criminals from getting guns?" Does it stop crimes? Are people who fail background checks really criminals anyway? Do criminals buy guns at gun shows? Do criminals buy guns at all?
For every crime committed with a gun, there are four crimes stopped. 9/10 of those cases don't even require a shot to be fired since the attacker just runs away.
For every criminal that's turned away from buying a gun legally (which is a very small number), that criminal goes to the black market and buys a stolen gun that profits thiefs or one that has been imported illegally that profits smugglers.
And what about people with clean backgrounds who commit crimes? If you really want to decrease crime (as I do), don't waste money regulating sales. Spend money investigating crimes and prosecuting and punishing criminals. We have a lot of unsolved crimes, backed up courts, and criminals we can't afford to lock up.
If you don't want criminals to buy gun, punish them more severely for having them, and find them.
>> In CA, I think weapons that LOOK like assault weapons are banned, too.
True. So are knives with finger holes, blow darts, and those cool Klingon half-moon swords. (I guess Klingons at Paramount Studios have to be licensed.)
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
Last edited by nbdyfcnsqnc; 03-04-2004 at 05:59 PM.
I'm not sure a ban will ever really work given the complexity of the product and the polarity of the participants. With regard to the types of guns which should be banned, we will never have a good, workable law until we quit trying to define those guns which should be banned and start trying to define those which should be allowed.
For instance, when we ban XYZ Company’s Model 38 Freeloader with 23” barrel and 45 round mag, XYZ Company will simply reduce the barrel length to 22” or the mag capacity to 44 and, voila, we have the new, unbanned Model 39 Notsofreeloader. This is obviously an oversimplification, but it is an example of what happens.
You might get around this weakness by requiring each manufacturer to get each model of their weapons approved, with all specs well set out. Once approved, no changes can be made to that weapon without Fed approval. Also, no new models without similar approval. All approved weapons would receive Fed proof marks stamped on the receiver/frame. (BTW, a regular Fed approval process won't work. It must be one which is fair and speedy. You know, oxymoronish.)
Of course, somewhere along the line, you have to determine what kinds of guns get approved. Personally, I think we could all get along very well with revolvers and pistols of 10 rd capacity or less; rifles of single shot, pump action, lever action, or bolt action design with limited capacity mags; similar shotguns, including doubles.
There is a question as to the need for semi-autos; pistol, rifle or shotgun. I guess it can be argued both ways. However, you can't justify 30-50 rounds, or greater capacity mags.
Full automatic fire - no question, no way, no how. The very idea of these weapons getting into the hands of criminals, terrorists, amateurs or idiots is horrifying. And, BTW, that includes weapons which can be easily modified from semi to full auto.
Now, who gets to own them? And where do they get to carry them? I'm sure our legislature, working together in harmony, can work out those little details.
My guess. Ain’t gonna happen in any consistent and meaningful way; too complex, too deeply rooted in tradition.
BTW, I'm Republican, Christian, White, Male and own 2 revolvers, 2 semi-auto pistols, 3 rifles (1 semi-auto) and 2 shotguns. As you can see, I have 3 semi-autos; no real reason for owning them, I just wanted them and you ain't taking them away from me. Do you see the problem?
This is what I know after about six months of counseling substance abusers in a county jail of a fair sized county.
Criminals have no problem obtaining weapons. They just need the proper funds. Those funds are obtained by committing a crime or crimes or as the result of prior crimes. These folks DO NOT use the conventional process of suitable waiting time etc. They buy their weapons on the street.
As a rule they can't afford an assault weapon.
I try to stay out of political debates so this is just my experiences and my observations
__________________ NISMOS / WORK VSXX/PILOT SPORTS/ BORLA/ GTM SHIFT KIT / VORTECH/ ROTORA/ HAWK/ DC /DEFI/KurumaZ
There are two main problems with regulation. (1) It costs a lot of money. (2) Regulating the design of firearms won't save lives or affect the crime rate.
So we'd spend all this money to hire thousands of employees all over the country, and yet we'd have no effect on the crime rate. Meanwhile we never have enough money to actually fight crime. That sounds like a typical government solution. I'm sure we have people working on it right now.
>> However, you can't justify 30-50 rounds, or greater capacity mags.
Why would you have to justify it? You don't have to justify having a 405 HP sportscar, or an Escalade, and those can just as easily mow down a large group of people if the operator is crazy enough. 50 times as many people die in car accidents than accidental shootings, and yet cars can't be used defensively to stop 2,000,000 crimes per year (unless maybe you're a really good driver).
>> Full automatic fire - no question, no way, no how. The very idea of these weapons getting into the hands of criminals, terrorists, amateurs or idiots is horrifying.
You should agree that it will be even more horrifying not being able to stop them when the situaltion eventually comes up. Criminals don't really want those kinds of weapons. Idiots and terrorosts can already can and do get them on the black market. The only people who *can't* get them are law-abiding citizens. Everyone else just breaks the law.
>> And, BTW, that includes weapons which can be easily modified from semi to full auto.
Well, two of my brothers can easily modify weapons to be semi auto, and I'm sure I could too if I liked guns.
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
>> I try to stay out of political debates so this is just my experiences and my observations
Well your observations are well supported, because I've read a lot of reports that say the same thing about both guns and drugs.
Criminals don't even WANT guns with serial numbers, because they'll get traced right back to them.
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
the majority of us agree on the major issues on this site when it comes to gun control laws.
as for my state and background checks i've never had one take longer than 5 mins and i've basicly ran one at least once a month for the past 2 years. if your record is clean you will have no problems. if its not then of course there will be issues.
i do believe that we as citizens have the right to bear arms. i believe that purpose is to make sure we never have another tyranical leader ever again. i don't think it's fair that LEO's can go and buy hi-caps but we can't without paying a huge increase in price. statisticly LEO's have more of a chance of hitting a by stander than a perp anyways so why would they need more cartridges then soemone who has a CCL? doesn't matter to me though as i have hi-caps for all my pistols and a few 30 rounders for my ar-15 but i would like to pay normal prices not inflated ones.
Closing the gun show loophole is a no-brainer -- background checks are already required at public gun dealers. Why should private gun shows be exempted?
In my opinion, it's very poor logic to argue that because criminals can always get guns illegally, any gun control regulation is ineffective. Some gun control can still prove effective, even if it's not perfect.
Nobody in the thread, including me, has said firearms should be outlawed. The 2nd Amendment is still valid law. However, there is no right, Constitutional or otherwise, that isn't subject to reasonable regulation.
Senate extends ban on assault weapons, closes gun show loophole
