The Issue Of Assault Weapons

By Dannie McIntire

JULY 26, 2022

After the most recent “mass shooting” which occurred in our own home state, many readers may be thinking is it time for our congress to renew the expired ban on assault weapons?

Some readers may not know that in 1994 President Clinton signed the “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act” which effectively banned the sale of assault weapons.  It also made it illegal to transfer or possession of large capacity magazines of more than 10 bullets. 

The bill had many loopholes, which allowed many assault-type weapons after modifications to be sold, so in effect, it was never a total ban. 

The bill banning assault weapons had a “sunset provision” written into it that allowed the ban to expire on September 13, 2004, unless congress reauthorized the ban. Congress mad attempts to renew it but none succeeded. 

For the 2^nd amendment folks, there were several constitutional challenges against the ban but all were rejected by the courts. The courts in essence at that time ruled the ban did not infringe on the right of citizens to own a firearm in itself, therefore did not violate the Constitution.

Currently, The House Judiciary Committee has just moved a bill forward, “The Assault Weapons Ban of 2021”; however a date for a vote by the entire House of Representatives has not yet been scheduled.

The members of the house championing “The Assault Weapons Ban of 2021” know that their cohorts n the senate do not have the numbers for passage of this bill.

With the mid-terms coming in November, the pro-ban congressional members will posture to their constituents and say “we tried’, while the “anti-ban” members will say to their constituents “we protected your 2^nd amendment rights”.

As the political landscape now stands, there is a high probability that the Republican Party may take back control of both congressional chambers in November. At that point, any congressional move to ban any type of firearm is dead on arrival. Count on that!

First, let me assure you if our representatives were hooked up for a lie detector test, the “right” or “wrong” of the assault weapon issue would be irrelevant for the majority of them, their main concern is about maintaining their political power and political survival, not gun control in itself. 

Thinking about the above possibility, we’d need an adequate supply of machines as I’m positive several would wear out from the needle swinging wildly during questioning. .            

I am a gun owner. I believe in our constitution’s 2^nd amendment right for citizens to “keep and bear arms”. 

According to the site “Guns.Com”, “an estimated 434 million firearms are in civilian possession, with about half of those entering the market since 1991. Of those, the AR-15 and similar semi-automatics account for an estimated 19.8 million, lending concrete numbers to the argument that such guns are in common use”.   

America is clearly well-armed. 

I am putting forward a question, would the majority of the American populace support any congressional action to control the proliferation of assault-type weapons? 

I know for many readers the thought of any government infringement” on the right of citizens to bear arms” will raise your blood pressure.

However, as a legal gun owner myself, I am open to our congressional representatives taking some type of meaningful action to reasonably control the sale of “assault classified weapons”.    

Please put away the “tar and feathers”, I know that will not be a popular point of view among many readers. I am in no way suggesting a ban, but I am suggesting congress should enact a “reasonable” method of control.  

Let me ask, after the midterms, is there a workable solution to control the proliferation of “assault weapons” in our country that both sides could “hold their nose” and support that wouldn’t necessarily spell the end of their political career?

First, both sides of the issue need to realize the possibility of banning assault weapons is “dead on arrival”. I know congress doesn’t seem to mind wasting time but don’t even go there, it’s not going to happen.

I do have a couple of suggestions that could potentially pass the congressional “smell test” for both sides.

My first suggestion is; Place a high federal excise tax on the purchase price of classified assault-type weapons. For argument’s sake, say besides the normal federal tax rate, an additional 300% excise tax would be applied to the purchase price. The additional excise tax while making the purchase much more expensive, potentially resulting in less sold, the excise tax would be collected and designated to go into a federal fund for state mental health initiatives 

My second suggestion; Congress could revise “The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act”, which basically provides blanket immunity to gun manufacturers against lawsuits. First classify in detail exactly what is an “assault weapon”, and revise the law to exclude those specific weapons manufactured after a specific date from “blanket immunity”. I believe once their protection against lawsuits were removed, many manufacturers would decide “assault weapons” was no longer a viable business to be in. 

Neither of the above suggestions ban or nor do I believe infringe on the 2^nd amendment right to “bear arms”, a manufacturer could continue making the firearm without the “judicial immunity”; buyers could continue purchasing them if willing to pay the high excise tax on them. 

Would doing the above stop firearm deaths? No, absolutely not. Deaths resulting from “mass shootings” in any given year are a very small percentage of our country’s annual firearm death toll.   

Using the FBI definition of an active shooter, “An individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill multiple people in a populated area”, the FBI details between years 2000 to 2018 the following statics for those eight years;

• 277 Active Shooter Incidents
• 1,546 Wounded In Active Shooter Incidents
• 884 Killed In Active Shooter Incidents 

Now, compare the above 8 year statics to the following FBI homicide statistics for just the year 2019; 

• 6,368 Killed By Handguns – not assault weapons – handguns.

Many of our police departments are becoming “outgunned” by those using newer more powerful assault weapons against “us” and the police who protect us. 

Sig Saur, a firearms manufacturer, has recently started selling a civilian model of its equivalent of the US Army’s NGSW-R “Next Generation Squad Weapon-Rifle”, specifically created to tear through body armor that has twice the kinetic energy of an AR-15. Even with a price of approximately $8,000, initial shipments of their MCX-SPEAR were reportedly sold out.

Think about the above, do we want our emergency responders going into active shooter situations against assault weapons specifically designed to penetrate body armor? 

Let me out forth these questions; 

Can we seriously question responding emergency personnel for hesitating to take on an active shooter when they are outgunned by the offender? 

Can we seriously expect responding emergency personnel to put their life on the line confronting armed criminals when our judicial system quickly releases the offender back on the street?   

Is there an acceptable rationale for private ownership of the above type of “assault weapon” in our society today?

Some will quickly answer yes, “in the name of protecting my home and loved ones”; “‘in the name of maintaining liberty”; “in the name of protection from the tyranny of government”; in the name of maintaining our way of life”. 

All of the above can be valid arguments, but we as citizens have a right to expect we can take our families safely to the mall.

The recently passed Bipartisan Safer Communities Act will funnel millions of dollars to mental health initiatives but it will take time, most likely years, to determine any effect it has on reducing gun violence.  

I don’t have all the answers, if any of the answers at all, however invoking “Forest Gump”….”I may not be a smart man”….but I think we as a nation can be smarter than we currently act.  

FOOTNOTE: THE CITY-COUNTY OBSERVER POSTED THIS ARTICLE WITHOUT BIAS OR EDITING.