Category: Gun Rights

The assault weapons issue really launched into the scene when Patrick Purdy decided to take a semi-automatic Norinco Type-56 patterned rifle, and shoot up a Kindergarten playground in Stockton, California.  California would soon pass the Roberti-Roos Act, banning various scary features like bayonet lugs, pistol groups, and flash hiders.  They also banned a number of firearms by name, reportedly going through a gun magazine and picking out firearms that looked scary (the law replicated a typo that appeared in a gun magazine).  I was 14 years old when this happened, so my memory of the entire “assault weapons” debate has been from subsequent reading.  The federal assault weapons ban didn’t pass until I was 20, and I was too busy in college to pay strict attention to the debate going on in Congress.  I suspect there are a few readers out there who are around my age, or maybe even a bit younger who would like some of the information I’ve collected about the federal ban.

Congress was under a lot of pressure in the early 90s to pass a crime bill, and Bill Clinton was eagar to show Americans that a Democratic President wasn’t going to be soft on crime.  This was an opportunity for those who wanted to deal with the “assault weapons” issue and institute a federal ban.  The original crime bill started out in the House as H.R. 3355, and did not contain any provision about assault weapons, but was an omnibus bill.  Omnibus bills are relatively hazardous, in that the subject matter is so diverse, relatively few politicians will want to take the risk of voting against one, lest some provision of the bill they voted against be used against them next election.  The Crime Bill was a bipartisan omnibus bill, because the Republicans too, wanted to pass a crime bill.  If partisan omnibus bills, like the stimulus, are dangerous, bipartisan ones are like nitroglycerin in a paint shaker.  You know something bad is likely to happen.  Politicians are reluctant to vote no, because the next election it would have been “Senator X voted against the enhanced sentences for puppy killers.” or something like that.

The original crime bill in The House, with no assault weapons ban, was non-controversial, and passed by voice vote.  In the Senate is where the shenanigans started.  The competing bill in the Senate was Joe Biden’s crime bill, which was S. 1607.  On November 17, 1993, Diane Feinstein’s amendment to S.1607, S.Amdt. 1152, attached the assault weapons ban language.  Take a look at the yeas and nays on the link above, because those are the people in the Senate who voted for the ban.  You will notice a lot of the yeas are no longer with us.  Many of those were victims of the 1994 Republican takeover.

The Senate replaced The House crime bill with Joe Biden’s crime bill, which contained Feinstein’s assault weapons ban language, and passed it overwhelmingly.  I suspect many senators may not have even realized the assault weapons language was in the bill.  Much like the stimulus bill, the crime bill was substantial, and got voted on without most of the politicians having any idea what they are voting for, other than what other people are telling them.

By the time the bill made it back down to the House and Senate conference committee, to work out the details between the House and Senate version, the Assault Weapons language had time to build momentum and become an issue.  Clinton and the House Leadership promised legislators the moon if they would only vote for the amended Crime Bill.  With enough arm twisting and promises, the final crime bill and assault weapons ban passed The House August 21, 1994 235-195.  Many of the yea votes there too, lost their seats in the 1994 elections.  On August 25, 1994, the Senate passed the final version of the Crime Bill 61-38, and it became public law No: 103-322 on September 13, 1994, when it was signed by President Clinton.

I present this information because we, once again, are in danger of this issue coming back, and I think it’s instructive to see how it was done in 1994.  Keep in mind that this was a new issue in the early 90s, and in some ways the ground has shifted more in our favor.  The Republicans seem to be more united than they were in 1994, and we have more conservative Democrats on our side than we did then.  They know the gun issue is a hot iron, and they might not want to touch it.  We’ve already dodged one dangerous omnibus bill with the stimulus.  We must watch carefully others.

I do not agree with NRA on the parking lot issue.  I will just state that categorically.  But this is a welcome victory.  Why?

The challenge to Oklahoma’s bill presented some serious risks to gun owners, in that it was argued that the Occupational Safety and Health Act, through the Supremacy Clause of the constitution, really mandated a federal ban on firearms in the workplace, which state law could not contravene.  If this outlook had prevailed, it employers would presumably be obligated under federal law to ban firearms in the workplace.

So I am very glad this line of reasoning was shot down by the courts.  But there’s still a problem:

“We disagree,” the appellate judges wrote in a 23-page decision. “OSHA is aware of the controversy surrounding firearms in the workplace and has consciously decided not to adopt a standard” banning firearms from the workplace.

What if OSHA did adopt a standard because a certain President directed them to?  In addition to disagreeing with the NRA on principle on this issue, I also just don’t like the politics of this issue, and this is one of the reasons why.

Eugene Volokh talks about a case out of the 7th Circuit that denies Second Amendment rights for drug dealers conducting drug sales.  I’m particularly interested to read the final publication of the  draft law review he’s working on, which is quoted in the post.  I think he gets the balance right in terms of gun possession in the facilitation of crime.

We’ve discussed pretty thoroughly the letter from Congressman Engel here, here, and here.  It turns out it’s not just so called “assault weapons” that we need to worry about, it’s also pistols.  I was talking to SayUncle the other night, and he brought up this old post of his which outlines the ATF point system for pistols.  The interesting thing about this, is if this is the system ATF uses, it’s just an ATF policy.  The regulation actually says on the importation Form 6, the importer must include:

(F) If a firearm barrel for a handgun, an explanation why the handgun is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.

This, folks, means the Glock you’re carrying on your hip could be banned just by a mere policy change, which could be done by executive order with no rulemaking process at all.  ATF can just change it’s policy to exclude Glocks, because they aren’t suitable for sporting purposes.

This poll is rather shocking.  It shows Kirsten Gillibrand losing in a Democratic primary to Carolyn McCarty, with 34 percent of Democratic voters supporting McCarthy, with only 24 percent supporting Gillibrand.  I’m a bit like a kid with an ant farm over this whole topic.  A pro-gun politician elevated to represent a staunchly anti-gun state as a member of the staunchly anti-gun party is not something I’ve seen in my lifetime, and it’s been fascinating to watch.

I still don’t believe there’s any real passion for gun control, even among New York City Democrats.  If there were, we’d run into them more often, and we don’t.  Even the Huffington Post is a rather lonely place for Paul Helmke.  But the fact remains that Carolyn McCarthy, a Congresswoman from Long Island, who’s sole issue is gun control, and who had no success getting anything relating to guns passed until NRA rewrote one of her bills and backed it, is ahead in polling for the Dem primary.

My theory is that it’s not so much gun control itself that is the issue, but that it represents a cultural signaling mechanism to the downstate establishment.  Gillibrand’s support of gun rights signals that she is not one of them.  That she comes from an area that hunts, fishes, and shoots.  That’s something upstate cousin-humpers do.  Those aren’t the values of the Upper East Side.  The message hammered home by the media downstate is that Kirsten Gillibrand is not one of you.  She’s not New York.  Carrie McCarthy?  Well, she’s from Long Island at least.  I do think the cultural condescention is actually that bad among upper middle class urban dwellers from the Northeast, which are going to be heavily represented in any Democratic primary in New York State.

I actually think framing the debate in terms of hunting hurts her.  Self-defense is another matter, and if I were advising Gillibrand on how to handle the gun issue, I would advise her to steer clear of hunting.  Hunting is something completely alien to someone who has lived in New York City all their lives.  Most everyone, even liberal Democrats, can relate to wanting to protect their family and their homes.  Gillibrand will no doubt want the media to drop the gun issue completely, but they won’t.  Given that, if she is going to keep her position on the issue, she needs to speak about it in a context New Yorkers can understand.

Tom King talks about the dichotomy that exists within the Empire State, and how it could play out for gun owners there.  Things do not look very good in New York State right now, so now is not the time to be complacent.

Some folks have asked about the DOJ response in the case the Brady Campaign have brought against the Department of Interior over the National Park carry rule.  For those of you who are interested, here it is.  I’ll update with later with any thoughts I have on it.

UPDATE: It appears that NRA  and Mountain States Legal Fund filed a Motion to Intervene.  What this is, essentially, is NRA and MSLF asking to become a party to the lawsuit.  DOJ, in this brief, is asking the court, that if they grant the motion, that they limit the intervention, so as not to “unduly multiply or delay these proceedings.”

I could be wrong about this, but it looks to me like DOJ would rather NRA and MSLF not be involved in the case, but don’t really have any legal grounds to argue they shouldn’t be.  The consequences of the limits being asked for is that the NRA and MSLF will be limited from seeking “discovery or extra-record consideration,” basically meaning they won’t be able to demand documents and other items from the agency in an attempt to build a case.