Assault Weapons

The President of the United States went to Mexico to talk about imposing gun control on Americans.

Now, having said that, I think none of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy. And so, what we?ve focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws, because even under current law, trafficking illegal firearms, sending them across a border, is illegal. That?s something that we can stop.

[?]

The last point I would make is that there are going to be some opportunities where I think we can build some strong consensus. I?ll give you one example, and that is the issue of gun tracing. The tracing of bullets and ballistics and gun information that have been used in major crimes ? that?s information that we are still not giving to law enforcement, as a consequence of provisions that have been blocked in the United States Congress, and those are the areas where I think that we can make some significant progress early.

That doesn?t mean that we?re steering away from the issue of the assault guns ban, but it does mean that we want to act with urgency, promptly, now. And I think we can make significant progress.

Mr. President, we have a Constitution that says you can't do that. 

The Mexican President called for registration and limits on firearms sales to "common citizens". 

One more thing ? one more thing I forgot to mention. One other thing we can do is to track the weapons that we have in Mexico. If we manage to detect weapons sold illegally in the United States in violation of this law on the control of weapons exports, or if, in the United States, they can have ? probably move forward on a good registry of armament or on the prohibition of certain massive sales of weapons, for example, to a hunter or to a common citizen ? we know that these people do not usually buy hundreds of rifles or assault weapons or grenades ? if we can move forward in those areas, I do believe that security both of the United States and Mexico will improve because those weapons are pointing against Mexican people and Mexican officials today.

Americans are not common citizens.  We are not peasants fit only to serve our noble rulers.  We are free men, with the right to possess "every terrible instrument of the soldier."

[Alphecca gets a hat tip for this one.]

After telling Obama and the world that her House would not be passing a new Assault Weapons Ban, Nancy Pelosi is now suggesting the need for a compromise. In her mind, it seems, a compromise is asking for registration and prohibitions on transferring certain firearms across state lines.

For my part, I'm getting pretty tired of "compromises" that consist of Democrats taking some of my rights now and more later. 

Not long ago, Obama's Attorney General called for a renewal of the assault weapons ban in order, he claimed, to save Mexico from drug gangs.  As might be expected, gunbloggers were up in arms over the statements, which came at the end of a long and otherwise boring press conference on crime in Mexico.  As was not suspected, however, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi quickly squelched the idea.  This was followed by a letter from 65 House Democrats stating that they would not support a new assault weapons ban.  The consensus was that Holder's statements were a trial balloon, and the Obama administration would drop the topic following the strong response.

It seems we came to that conclusion too soon.

In a media appearance on Fox News, once again on the topic of Mexican crime, Hillary Clinton brought up the assault weapons ban:

The guns that are sold in the United States, which are illegal in Mexico, get smuggled and shipped across our border and arm these terrible drug-dealing criminals so that they can outgun these poor police officers along the border and elsewhere in Mexico.

This is one of those things that everyone seems to be saying, without actually offering any evidence for it. Mexican drug gangs have grenades and machine guns.  They aren't buying those at US gun shows and smuggling them south of the border, because US gun shows don't have grenades and machine guns.

There's no doubt about it. And you know, Greta, I remember 15 years ago, the reason the assault weapons ban was passed is because police chiefs in America begged for it. They said, I'm sending my guys out onto the street, they're being outgunned. The criminals, the gang members, they have automatic weapons, military assault rifles. Get them off the street. Give our guys a fighting chance.

There's a problem with that.  The assault weapons ban did not ban "automatic weapons" or "military assault rifles".  It banned cosmetic features on semiautomatic firearms; one bullet each time you pull the trigger, just like a revolver.  They are not military weapons, even though they look similar.  The Mexican drug gangs have the real thing, and they are not getting them from the American civilian market.

Real automatic weapons and real military assault rifles have been heavily regulated since 1934 and banned from new manufacture since 1986.  I don't believe those regulations are necessary or useful, but they have nothing to do with the assault weapons ban.

And there's no doubt in my mind that the 10 years we had an assault weapons ban in America was one of the tools that helped to drive down the crime rate... getting those assault weapons off the streets was really helpful.

Hillary may have no doubt that the assault weapons ban reduced crime.  For my part, I have no doubt that the assault weapons ban left crime essentially unchanged.  Why?  Well, mostly because I know that criminals aren't inclined to worry too much about cosmetic details on their firearms; before the ban, assault weapons were used in just a few percent of firearms crimes.  But also because the CDC studied the results of the assault weapons ban (along with many other forms of gun control) and concluded that there was no evidence supporting any effect on crime.

But if Americans will just think back, those of us old enough to remember, what it was like 15, 20 years ago when our own police were facing those assault weapons, and now, unfortunately, the Mexican police are.

I have a better idea.  Let's think back a little less far, just back to, say, right now.  Right now, 5 years after the assault weapons ban expired.  We're not exactly facing a crime wave.

So we have to take our share of the responsibility because they're bought by straw purchasers. They are smuggled across the border. And then they are used to, as you point out, you know, kill a brave policewoman who was doing her job.

There may be weapons that are bought in the USA by straw purchasers and smuggled across the border to Mexico. Some of those weapons may even be assault weapons.  But so-called assault weapons aren't any more dangerous than any other magazine-fed handgun or rifle, and the military rifles and grenades that the Mexican police are seizing are not being purchased at American gun shows.

The real sources for the weapons are international smuggling or the Mexican military, and probably both.  But those sources don't allow for political coup counting.

It seems Nancy Pelosi, the majority leader of the House (and a Democrat), isn't about to pass an assault weapons ban.  The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (also a Democrat) says he won't be passing one either.  That's two separate smackdowns for Hope and Change from his own side, never mind the Senate vote counts suggesting that the bill has little chance of acquiring the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate.  It looks like the Obama administration is pretty much on its own in pushing the issue, assuming it even was pushing rather than sending up a trial balloon.  If it was a balloon, well, I think the answer's pretty clear.

Hat tip to Alphecca for the links.

UPDATE: Even the false-flag gun control group American Hunters and Shooters Association is coming out against this idea.  Probably attempting to get some free credibility since it seems to have no chance of passing anyway.

The exact words, from the Washington Times:

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Mr. Holder said. "I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."

Sebastian saw it first.

Since when are laws in the United States dependent on what will help Mexico?  Since when are Constitutional Rights subject to infringement based on what is good for Mexico?

And that assumes that the passage of a new Assault Weapons Ban would actually help the situation in Mexico.  It won't.  For all intents and purposes, guns are banned in Mexico.  Insofar as guns in Mexico are a problem, they are purchased illegally on the black market...  often from military or police sources. 

How do we know these firearms aren't coming from American gun shows?

Their arsenal ranged from semi-automatic rifles to rocket-propelled grenades. When the smoke finally cleared and the government had prevailed, Mexican federal agents captured 540 assault rifles, more than 500,000 rounds of ammunition, 150 grenades, 14 cartridges of dynamite, 98 fragmentation grenades, 67 bulletproof vests, seven Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifles and a Light Anti Tank (LAW) rocket.

You won't find (live) grenades, dynamite, or anti-tank weapons at gun shows; they are heavily regulated to the point of being essentially illegal.  You might find an assault rifle, but you won't find 500 of them, and the paperwork to get your hands on one will probably take months.  Assuming your state allows you to own one, and your local police chief will sign a letter stating that you are an upstanding citizen.

You will find semiautomatic rifles in many different shapes and sizes.  Some of them look like military assault rifles, but they fire one shot each time you pull the trigger just like any other semiautomatic rifle.  They are actually less powerful than your common hunting rifle.

Say, if gun shows really were supplying the Mexican criminal cartels, wouldn't both governments be paying a lot more attention to securing the border? 

Anyways.  If you are reading here, you already know what's wrong with the whole concept of the assault weapons ban.  So let's get to some political analysis.

There are a couple possibilities.  This might be Obama sending up a trial balloon to measure public response to the issue, or trying to pressure a reluctant Congress to advance legislation.  Or, it might be Holder speaking off the cuff (since the remarks came in response to a question, rather than as prepared remarks) without understanding the impact his personal opinion will have. 

Either way, the best response is to communicate back to your Congressmen (House Senate) and the Obama administration that the gun issue is radioactive.  Be nice, be polite, but let them know.  Even if your legislator is anti-gun, you need to express your opposition to this move.  So long as legislators perceive this as a dangerous move that will cost them votes, they will be reluctant and resist pressure from Obama.  Many of them remember what happened in 1994, following the original assault weapons ban, and it is our job to remind them.  Loudly.

David Codrea spots another gun banner revealing their true intentions in his Gun Rights Examiner column.  Here's the beef, from Senator Howard Metzenbaum talking about the Clinton gun ban:

Anti-gun Sen. Howard Metzenbaum complained that the Clinton ban didn't go far enough, saying, "until you ban them all, you might as well ban none." But, it "will be a major step in achieving the objective that we have in mind," he said.

Remember this the next time someone claims that the gun bigots don't want to ban guns.

Don't worry -- I didn't believe it either.  But do click through the link to read about how Michael Bowers dispells the myth of the easy machine gun.

The sight of Iraqis toting AK-47 assault rifles on the streets of Baghdad is common in the news, and a scary image. Thank goodness America's streets are safe from that kind of firepower, you might be thinking. But the 10-year-old federal ban on assault rifles in the United States is about to expire on Sept. 13.

Well, if Iraqis are actually toting assault rifles, then yes, America is safe from that particular scourge. Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since the 1930s, and that particular regulation has no sunset clause. It's there until repealed (and no one seems really eager to repeal it). The Assault Weapons Ban doesn't ban assault rifles, it bans semiautomatic firearms with certain cosmetic features. The press has a long history of trying to confuse people about this; don't fall for it.

Congress has about 13 working days left to renew the assault weapons ban, otherwise the door will open once more for the manufacture and sale of AK-47s, Uzis, TEC-9s and other assault weapons in America. These are military style weapons that can fire bullets as fast as the shooter pulls the trigger.

That's only if you believe the ban was effective. It wasn't; it banned cosmetic features and normal-capacity magazines, without doing anything about the existing firearms and magazines. Manufacturers quickly redesigned their stock, so only the magazine capacity limit had any significant effect. Even there, thousands of pre-ban magazines are available for most firearm designs.

The only purpose for these powerful weapons is to kill people as fast as possible. That's not a pleasant vision for America. These guns have no place in a civil society. They belong only in war zones.

Note the continuing confusion about military weapons in war zones and the firearms affected by the Assault Weapons Ban. As for having no place in a civil society, "Assault Weapons" aren't any more powerful than other semiautomatic firearms (in many cases, they are less powerful). There are hundreds of millions of firearms in America that haven't killed anyone, and our Constitution clearly indicates that firearms have an important place in civil society. You can't handwave that away.

Since the assault weapons ban was first enacted in 1994, the use of such guns in crimes has fallen 66 percent. Police groups across the nation have asked Congress to renew the ban, and polls show nearly 80 percent of Americans support its renewal, the Brady organization notes. Yesterday, former presidents Ford, Carter and Clinton together urged Bush to renew the ban.

Yeah. It's dropped from about 2-3% of firearm crimes to about 1-2% of firearm crimes. That's a very substantial reduction there. You might even say it's not statistically significant... ya think? As for polls -- what are the odds that the people who "favor" the renewal know what it does?

The politicians from the White House on down are hypnotized by the big money of the National Rifle Association which opposes the ban. But ordinary citizens possess something more valuable than money - your vote. In this presidential election year, every vote is likely to count, just as it did in 2000. Ohio will be one of the key states that tips the balance and decides who will be the next president. Your vote is your leverage and your ammunition in the battle to renew the federal ban on assault weapons.

That's right, folks, your vote is your weapon. The NRA has big money that comes from over 4 million gun owners. And the real pro-gun activists think the NRA is too eager to compromise. Politicians think long and hard before they buck the NRA, because they know damn well that the NRA has 4 million votes to wield.

Our vote is our weapon, indeed. Use it. Vote pro-gun. Vote pro-liberty. (And consider voting libertarian).

Dave Reichert, King County sheriff and Republican congressional candidate, recently told a group of Second Amendment advocates that he supports letting the federal ban on assault weapons expire.

His position shocked community activists with whom he had worked closely in the past to establish and promote gun-violence prevention programs. It is also at odds with a wide segment of law enforcement officials, including Seattle police Chief Gil Kerlikowske.

But Reichert said yesterday his statement should not come as a surprise to anyone. "I've never changed my position," Reichert said. "My whole point has always been holding gun owners responsible and accountable and always focusing on those people who were committing crimes with guns. ... I've never felt that the banning of certain weapons has really done anything at all."

So tell me again how the police support the ban...

Unless President Bush finds the political courage to stand up to the National Rifle Association, the 10-year-old federal ban on assault weapons will expire Sept. 13.

It never ceases to amaze me how fervently the left calls for Bush to commit political suicide by trying to force the Assault Weapons Ban through Congress. I can understand the motives, but I don't have a clue why they would expect Bush to actually do it. He can work the political calculus as well as anyone: claiming to support the ban gets him a more moderate image with soccer moms, but actually signing it would piss off his core supporters -- people who are already disgusted enough to consider walking off to join the Libertarian Party or vote for Michael Badnarik. Bush would have to be as dumb as the left-wing media seems to think he is for that to work.

Feinstein is up! She's talking about the assault weapons ban (and she has 19 minutes to do so!) Things are going to get exciting! She's saying the AWB is one of the most important safety measures she has ever seen! It's going to get exciting today. She admits it's not perfect. "best we can do to stem the growth of these weapons. That legislation is going to expire in 5 days... " "We know we have 52 votes to pass that legislation". She's quoting the 66% decline stats, and claiming every major law enforcement agency supports the ban!

Folks, tune in to C-SPAN now, it's heating up!

"Just one more victim of the selfish... cowardly NRA." She's blaming it on the President, calling for him to intervene. She's talking about grandfathered guns, no confiscation, claiming no hunters lost their guns...

Dear god she's desperate! She's talking about a decline in assault weapons BANNED BY NAME traced! Of COURSE the banned-by-name guns declined, manufacturers changed the names!

Complaining about copycat bans and craven manufacturers, claiming that copycat guns did not replace "assault weapons"...

Talking about the Italian shipment of 8,000 AK-47 parts THAT WAS FOUND TO BE COMPLETELY LEGAL!

Gangbangers, sold on street corners... weapon of choice...

Complaining about Armalite and their coupon. Misrepresenting flash suppressors as if they hide the flash from others, rather than from you.

Who needs a 50-round magazine? I DO, I get damn tired of paying for range time to reload!

"I do not intend to give up. Next year, I will come back with a better bill and attach it to anything I can. I will come back, and back, and back..."

Weapons of death, terrorists, the training manual... terrorists will be able to buy assault weapons without background checks at gun shows!

After about 5 minutes on the ban, he's talking about the casaulty toll in Iraq.

Feinstein is back, talking about a simultaneous press conference... she's dragged out a wounded law enforcement officer who was shot IN THE HEAD by a criminal "clad in kevler." What does any of that have to do with the assault weapons ban?

"Domestic disturbance calls are fraught with danger" "If you have assault weapons in that house, the police officer doesn't have a chance"...

Damn, she doesn't want to give up even when she's gaveled. But her time finally expired...

He says it's about "nuclear security". Nobody else seems to know what's in it. Could be anything. I'm suspicious; maybe having Feinstein speak was a smokescreen so that Schumer can slip something through as a rider on his "nuclear security" bill. Blogger.com is acting fragile again on Walking the Walls. Keep checking here for updates if you don't see anything there.

The Senate has adjourned for tonight; they will reconvene at 9:30am tomorrow. The only mentions of the ban I've heard all morning were in Feinstein's morning-business statement (which included Schumer and Kennedy). Say Uncle thinks the fix is in and it won't be renewed. Publicola isn't so sure (except he's sure he doesn't trust the NRA not to sell us out). As for me, I don't think it will be renewed -- but I'm damn sure that I'm not about to trust anyone else to make sure it isn't.

The Gun Owners of America are urging gun owners to contact President Bush and urge him not to support the renewal. Go there and send an email. Then call tomorrow morning. (The White House takes comments 9-5). My feeling is that the fight in the Senate is won. Close, to be sure, but won... unless Bush throws his weight against us. Feinstein will probably throw an amendment at some bill this week, but without backing from Bush or political cover from the immunity bill it will probably not pass. (Though it will be very, very close).

I do not think Bush wants it to pass. But he is facing an election. It's our job to make it crystal clear that if the assault weapons ban stays, he doesn't.

FreedomSight points us to an editorial about the Assault Weapons Ban. He thinks it's encouraging that the San Fran Examiner describes Feinstein's effort as "apparantly doomed". He might be right, but the evidence offered by the Examiner in support of that is that the House Majority Leader has vowed not to call a vote on the ban.

Unfortunately, if they ban passes in the Senate, he won't have to call a vote specifically on the ban. The reconciliation process between the House and the Senate has holes to slip this sort of thing through when attached to larger bills, although it's not a sure thing. If a ban renewal makes it through the Senate, we can't relax on the assumption that the House will block it. They might, they might not.

Worse, the description of Delay having "vowed" not to bring the matter to a vote is a bit stronger than I would frame the case. I've seen reports that Delay has stated that he would allow a vote if Bush asked for one. While Bush has stated that he supports and would sign a ban renewal, common wisdom is that he doesn't want to and is asking Republican leaders to keep it off his desk. That's not exactly emphatic support. There's a substantial risk that the Democrats may find something to bargain with.

So am I optimistic about the ban expiring? Sure. But we can't relax. Even after it expires, Feinstein and her cronies can keep bringing it up. Until the Supreme Court recognizes that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own military weapons, we will still be living on sufferance and political influence. And that's not an acceptable situation for any of our enumerated rights.

Ten years since a man walked into Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Headquarters on a November morning, climbed the stairs to the second floor, opened the door to the Cold Case Homicide Squad, pulled a MAC-10 assault pistol out from under his jacket, opened fire and killed two FBI agents and a Washington police sergeant and grievously wounded a third FBI agent.

Ten years since one man was able to acquire, conceal and wield sufficient firepower to overwhelm a room full of trained and armed peace officers.

Y'know, I can sort of understand why this guy is pissed. His brother was killed by someone using one of the banned-by-name-only weapons, and that would make anyone angry. It seems to me he's chosen a really silly thing to be angry at, not to mention that it's been 10 years and by now he should have reconciled himself to the loss and regained his capacity for rational thought. I'm going to say this right out: I sympathize with being angry because someone you loved was killed. I want that out of the way first, because where I'm going next is fairly cruel.

This guy is fixated on assault weapons. He's under the impression that the "MAC-10" allowed this criminal to kill or wound three FBI agents and a police officer. He's pissed that the assault weapons ban only covers name-and-cosmetic-features rather than something more meaningful. Well, he's right: the assault weapons ban is absolutely irrelevant to this multiple murder.

The ban covers only semiautomatic firearms. It bans the MAC-10 by name, but the manufacturers immediately renamed it and released a new version that complied with the law; preexisting firearms were grandfathered. So the law wouldn't have prevented his brother's death.

As for the idea that one man could "acquire, conceal, and wield sufficient firepower"... well, the assault weapons ban has nothing to do with firepower. It covers cosmetic features and magazine capacity. The same thing could happen today, and the ban would have absolutely no effect.

Consider: 4 people killed or wounded in a small room before they could react. Any modern handgun is capable of this. A traditional 1911 in .45, completely legal and unaffected by the ban, has a magazine capacity of 8+1. Just one shot with a .45 to center-mass is usually sufficient to kill an attacker, but doctrine generally recommends a double-tap. So, if a hypothetical criminal want to re-enact this killing, a simple 1911 with a magazine capacity substantially less than the ban allows and no cosmetic evil features at all is perfectly capable of the act.

Or, as the psychopathic suicidal mind that seems common to modern criminals engaging in mass murder might express it, "two bullets each and one left for me."

Insensitive? Sure. The author lost his brother. He's got an excuse to be irrational. In fact, he seems to have based his career around being irrational about firearms (he works for Ceasefire NJ). But rational people recognize that the assault weapons ban will not prevent criminals from committing mass murder. And once you recognize that, it's time to start looking at options that will allow people to defend themselves.

Seems to me that the assault weapons ban won't do a damn thing to help the author's brother, but it's been a real boost for the author's career as a lobbiest. And that brings me to the question of self-interest. If you recall, Communism was based on the idea that self-interest was inherently wrong; that people should (and would) work for the common good rather than to advance themselves. That idea turned out to be a miserable failure. So, I'm going to take a moment to analyze the author's position with a view towards his self-interest.

If you don't want to watch someone get kicked when they're down, look away now.

As a lobbiest, and executive director of a state-wide political group lobbying for anti-gun laws, it is not in Bryan Miller's interest to prevent firearms crimes. In fact, it is in his interest to encourage crimes exactly like the one that killed his brother.

How so?

Simple: People donate to groups like his when there are violent crimes committed with firearms in the news. They donate even more when the media can demonize the "bad firearms" to separate them from the handgun that many households maintain for self-defense, and the hunting rifle the rural America still has hanging over the fireplace.

If there are no sensational crimes with firearms in the news, no one will donate to anti-gun organizations, and no one will vote for anti-gun politicians.

If you've been wondering why the anti-gun crowd settled for a ban on cosmetic features that has no practical effect on crime, you could be charitable and assume they couldn't get anything else passed. But I'm through being charitable for this post. They are acting in their own self-interest.

If you're reading this as an anti-gun activist, which I admit is unlikely, I want you to take a long, hard look at your organization, and match it up against the personal reasons you have for associating with it. Will the measures being proposed by your organization have any effect? Will renewing the assault weapons ban prevent people from using the thousands of pre-ban magazines and firearms already out there, or acquiring functionally-identical post-ban weapons? Will even a total ban on firearms prevent criminals from acquiring and misusing them, by smuggling if necessary? What are the effective defenses against criminal attack, and is your organization promoting those -- or trying to ban them as well? Be sure to double-check what is actually effective, and what just sounds good in the press (hint: pepper spray isn't very effective, even though in anti-gun states like Maryland you need a firearms licence to buy it).

If your goal is to stop violent crime, and you're donating time or money to an anti-gun organization, you're working for the wrong side.

One of the main reasons LEAA exists is educate the public about criminal justice and law enforcement issues and to promote legislation that prevents crime and punishes criminals. That?s why we are so opposed to legislation like the 1994 Clinton Gun and Magazine Ban (a.k.a. ?the Assault Weapons Ban?) that does neither.

Thanks to a sunset provision, this liberal-inspired ?feel good? legislation must be renewed by Congress by the end of 2004 or it will expire. We?ll be working with our allies on Capitol Hill to say a final farewell to this useless ban that does nothing to protect law-abiding citizens but does turn some of them into criminals.

Remember, the opinions of the police chiefs do not represent the opinions of the rank-and-file. Police "support" for the assault weapons ban is a lot thinner than the press makes it out to be. The fact that assault weapons are almost never used in crime might have something to do with it:

FBI statistics show that rifles of any description are used in only about 3 percent of homicides each year.

Data compiled by criminologist Gary Kleck put the frequency of assault weapons use in all violent crime at 0.5 percent.

In California, a statewide survey of law enforcement agencies by the state Department of Justice found that a mere 3.7 percent of firearms used in homicides and assaults were assault weapons.

Gee, about 3% of firearms crimes, and .5% (that's one-half of one percent) of all violent crimes. Yep, real serious crime problem with these firearms. And what about after the ban -- did it reduce crime?

The U.S. Department of Justice conducted two studies of the consequences of the 1994 ban. Nearly five years after passage, in 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice, still under Clinton?s control, looked exhaustively at the ban's effects. It concluded that "the public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated." In 2001, a second Justice Department review similarly found no evidence that the ban had a statistically significant effect on violent crime. Finally, a congressionally mandated study by the liberal Urban Institute reached comparable conclusions.

Nope, no crime reduction. The next time someone tells you that law enforcement favors the assault weapons ban, you might want to tell them this (quotation courtesy of Assault Weapons Ban Sunset):

Morgan and Kopel go on to say, "While the largest rank-and-file police organization, the [Fraternal Order of Police] supports "assault weapon" control... the second-largest rank-and-file organization, the American Federation of Police, opposes such controls. Unfortunately, neither organization has polled its membership on the subject. (FOP head [Dewey] Stokes has been repeatedly asked to conduct a poll, and has refused.)" A poll conducted in 1991 by Law Enforcement Technology magazine indicated that almost 79% opposed the ban.

Them's powerful numbers, folks.

Thanks to your efforts, the Clinton semi-auto ban is about to expire. The ban on magazines and firearms -- passed in 1994 -- represents one of the most hated pieces of gun control ever enacted. But with less than two months to go (and Congress being in recess most of that time), the ban is scheduled to sunset on September 13, 2004.

Anti-gun Senator Dianne Feinstein, however, is not giving up and is pushing hard to get the semi-auto ban tacked on to some other bill.

Now, there are less than a dozen legislative days left. And the gun banners are "pulling out all the stops" to get this bill passed.

The focus of their ire is being directed at Senator Frist, since he was instrumental in keeping anti-gun amendments from being offered to S. 2062. One anti-gun website is calling on its readers to "flood Dr. Frist's office with tens of thousands of e-mails telling him to stop blocking the Assault Weapons Ban renewal."

They are also calling on fellow gun banners to pound House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office with calls to renew the ban.

So here's the bottom line: We are winning. The clock is ticking and the Clinton ban will soon die. But the battle is not over yet! The other side is playing its ultimate trump card -- the friendly liberal media -- and is reaching deep into its war chest.

Major newspapers are running anti-gun editorials in favor of renewing the ban. Former Presidents are lobbying Congress with the same message. Law-enforcement bureaucrats are issuing sound bites in cities all across the nation.

And Hollywood types such as Dustin Hoffman, Robert Redford and Barbra Streisand have written a letter to the President, urging him to extend the ban for 10 more years.

There is an all-out effort by the other side right now, and we need to make sure that we are NOT silent. We need to keep the pressure on.

Like the Phoenix, the gun ban renewal could arise out of the ashes at any time. After all, both presidential candidates SUPPORT the ban. Both Kerry and Bush have indicated they want to see the ban renewed.

And even though Majority Leader Tom DeLay has thus far managed to keep this bill off the floor of the House of Representatives, he is being threatened by a politically motivated prosecutor in Austin. His tenure remains in question for the time being, which means that we, gun owners, must remain eternally vigilant!

ACTION: Please urge your Representative to OPPOSE the renewal of the semi-auto ban. Remind him or her that this is an election year and that strident calls from the Brady Bunch in the liberal media do not decide elections! Here?s what you can do:

1. Use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbers are also available).
2. Remember also that since all members of the House are up for reelection -- and Congress is due to take a long summer break -- chances are excellent that you can confront your Rep. in person during the coming weeks. Don't miss an opportunity to do so.

We need to keep the pressure on, folks.

Publicola's trying to start a meme. He's asking whether those of us who support the right to keep and bear arms will vote Bush/Republican in November if the assault weapons ban is renewed. He says no.

I will not vote for Bush or any Republican if the assault weapons ban is renewed.

At risk of dimishing the impact of my statement, I wasn't planning to anyway. Michael Badnarik and the Libertarian Party have my vote in the elections this year, and the Libertarians have it as a general rule. Why is that, though, when I definitely am more sympathetic to the Republican position than the Democratic position, and the Republicans can actually get people elected to national office? Simple: The Republicans can't be trusted. They talk the right talk on most issues. But they won't back it up. They don't vote their rhetoric.

At least the Democrats vote for what they say they support, even if they refuse to call it socialism.

I've been a committed libertarian for years. Up until this year, I never doubted my choice of party, but as November approaches I have found myself asking hard questions. I support the Libertarian platform 100% as a matter of principle, but the application of those principles to Iraq and Afghanistan seems to me a dangerous thing. We cannot afford to leave either nation without our presence, our support, and our good example. An American government that acts primarily within its own borders, rather than entangling itself into the affairs of other nations, is the right long-term principle, but we cannot simply withdraw unilaterally and expect the terrorists to honor a truce; they will sense weakness and they will strike.

Bush is strong on foreign policy and national security overall. He's committed to staying in the Middle East and creating a free and democratic nation in Iraq (and possibly Afghanistan as well). I think that is the best long-term strategy: give the region a taste of freedom and a taste of hope. It's a long-term plan that won't be easy to pull off, but it's the best plan we've got. He's not a perfect candidate on those issues, but he's light-years ahead of Kerry, and though I cringe to say it, Badnarik would probably be a national-security disaster in the present times.

So this year, Bush might have had my vote. But he flubbed it on domestic policy; with the exception of tax cuts and some trivial policy statements, he's flubbed *every single issue* domestically. Let's review:

1. Support the assault weapons ban.
2. Pass the Patriot Act to restrict our freedoms
3. Seek to pass an expanded version in secret...
4. ... and when the secret is exposed, try again... and again.
5. Allow appointees to stonewall and sabotage the armed pilot program.
6. Ignore the principle of separation of church and state
7. Deficit-spend like a sailor on shore leave
8. Give in to the Democrats on socialized health care
9. Give up on privatizing social security
10. Failed to every raise the issue of national concealed carry for ordinary folk
11. Failed to close the borders to illegal immigrants and terrorists
12. Failed to pass a firearms liability protection bill.
13. Trampled the Bill of Rights

I hardly need to go on. The man is a complete disaster on every policy he's touched except terror and taxation.. and there are some questions about terror. Afghanistan and Iraq needed to be dealt with; Iran and North Korea still do. He's got that going for him, but precious little else... and he's betrayed his base. On the assault weapons ban, on the deficit, on health care, on liberty. There are a lot of disillusioned Republicans and gun owners out there.

The good news? Those polls you see that claim large numbers in support of the assault weapons ban don't lie. They're commissioned by the anti-gun groups, of course, so they distort the questions a bit to keep the people answering them from actually understanding what they are being asked, but there are lots of people out there who think "military-style firearms" can and should be banned.

The bad news? Let's think about who those people are. The people who support renewing the ban are responding to a poll. They may be "likely voters" but they aren't likely to vote based on their opinions of the assault weapons ban. Probably about 40-50% of those favoring the ban are Democrats who will vote for Kerry no matter what; the rest will look at Bush on a variety of issues and won't be swayed by any single one. Bush isn't going to get the fiscal responsibility vote this year, for example, and frankly the soccer mom vote isn't going to go Republican.

The people who oppose renewing the ban are dedicated activists who understand the firearms laws and probably consider themselves 2nd Amendment absolutists (or not far from it). These people will vote the gun-rights line and they will mobilize others to do so. You won't see them on the media, but they'll be proselytizing on the internet, on the phone, and in person with their friends. If you can convince them that Bush is a pro-gun candidate who will actually fight for their gun rights, they're worth probably hundreds of votes each.

Recent polls suggest that in Michigan, 76% of voters support the assault weapons ban. Now, this is an anti-gun poll with misleading questions paid for by an anti-gun organization in a liberal bastion. It's safe to assume they aren't underestimating support for the ban. But even so, 24% of the people in Michigan oppose the ban. Since Michigan has a population of about 10 million, that's 240,000 people who are opposed to the ban. And they are the ones with the guns.

The long-term legislative agenda of the anti-gun lobby is an extremely risky one. They do not understand the passion with which many gun owners view the 2nd Amendment and the right to arms. They do not comprehend the consequences of success. Should they ever succeed in passing a bill that says, to borrow some appropriate quotations, "Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in" will be answered by "... from my cold, dead hands!"

In 1994, the original assault weapons ban was not enough to trigger this response. Perhaps the sunset date in the bill prevented it; perhaps the fact that it did not attempt to confiscate existing guns; perhaps the purely cosmetic nature of the banned features. But that was in 1994, under Clinton, when the Democrats had a great deal more power. The Republican party could blame the ban on him, say they had to make deals and play along. It's been 10 years, and we have a supposedly pro-gun President, a supposedly pro-gun House, and an evenly balanced Senate.

If Bush and the Republican Party want to betray their base, by passing and signing a gun control law while the supposedly-pro-gun party is in power, the message they will send to gun owners is simple: it doesn't matter who you vote for, both sides will vote to take your guns away.

By trying to finesse the gun control issue, Bush may get some short-term benefits. But it's a risky strategy, because he will not be able to deny responsibility should more gun control laws pass on his watch. Saying the Democrats did it won't help him when the Democrats aren't even remotely in power. And by thoroughly betraying the trust of the gun owners, Bush will have ensured that they look elsewhere.

If voting and even electing Republicans is not enough to prevent gun control from being enacted, those gun owning activists will throw their vote and their activist support behind other candidates. Libertarians, Constitutionalists, whatever it takes. If the Republican party passes gun control while able to control both Houses of Congress, and Bush signs it, the Republican party will have abandoned all pretense of being pro-gun. Pro-gun voters will no longer have a viable candidate to vote for. Some of them will move to third parties, in the hopes of creating a viable pro-gun alternative. What I fear is that some of them will decide instead to vote with lead.

On September 13, according to a squad of concerned ex-presidents, the streets of America will return to a grim, bloody age of semi-automatic gun murder run amok?all because current President Bush and a feckless Congress seem on track to allow the sunsetting of portions of 1994's Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, popularly known as the "assault weapon ban."

Reason comments on the sunset of the Assault Weapons Ban. It's nice to know that some people get it.

The "daily local", a PA paper, has a truly awful "news" story about the Assault Weapons Ban. It provides some good targets for activism. And the comments are absolutely wonderful.

"I think it?s something to consider," said U.S. Rep. Jim Gerlach, R-6th, of West Pikeland. "I want to see what a final bill would look like." One House bill would provide a straight 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban. Another measure has been introduced that would outlaw more firearms, said Gerlach. He added that Congress could vote on the bill when lawmakers return to Washington, D.C., in September. "Law enforcement feels it?s been effective," said Gerlach, "so that?s good feedback to have."

The only problem with this: the bill hasn't been effective and even the anti-gun groups agree with that assessment. If you want to contact Gerlach to tell him he's wrong, here is his contact information. You won't be able to email him, since his website is not exactly the height of sophistication. But you can use "Pennsylvania" and "19343" in the house.gov email tool. There's suggested text at the bottom.

Of course, it's not surprising that a politician would believe that law enforcement feels the ban has been effective. Why? Seems the Pennsylvania Old Boys Network Chiefs of Police Association told him they wanted it to pass. It's easy for a politician to misinterpert that as the ban being "effective". But then, their spokesman tells lies to the press, so he probably tells lies to politicians too:

"If the ban is lifted, people will be able to purchase fully automatic weapons, and they will be able to use those automatic weapons," he said. "It could jeopardize the lives of the public or police officers or others."

Well, except for the minor matter that fully-automatic weapons aren't affected by the law. The ban covers semi-automatic firearms only.

Easttown Police Chief Thomas Armstrong, who said the statewide police chiefs? resolution to support continuing the ban was decided by a close vote, also favors its renewal.

If it was a close vote, why couldn't the paper find a single police chief who opposed renewal?

"They?re not hunting weapons," he said. "They?re for one purpose and one purpose alone, and that?s to kill people."

Sometimes you gotta. The second amendment is not about duck hunting.

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the 19 guns covered by the Assault Weapons Act are semiautomatic versions of fully automatic guns designed for military use. Military features of these weapons enhance their capacity to shoot multiple targets rapidly, said the Washington, D.C.-based organization, allowing shooters to fire 20 to more than 100 rounds without reloading.

No piece of shrilly biased "journalism" would be complete without a lie from the Brady Campaign. The ban covers a lot more than 19 firearms. But since the Brady statement contradicts their police chief earlier, why didn't they challenge one or the other? I'm not sure if their bias is showing, or if their editors are blind. Perhaps both.

"We never really had a problem here in Chester County," said Franciscus, who has been a county law enforcement officer for 29 years. "But that doesn?t mean there wouldn?t be."

So, in 29 years, you've never had an assault weapon problem. Two-thirds of that time was not covered by the ban. Why do you think you would suddenly have problems if the ban expires?

Armstrong, who said local police officers occasionally encounter armed individuals, agreed. "I don?t think there?s any reason that the general public needs that type of weapon," he said.

Individuals armed with assault weapons? Or just armed? For that matter, what's wrong with being armed -- after all, I am sometimes armed, and I haven't hurt anyone. Criminals, on the other hand, don't obey gun laws.

As for whether the general public needs "that type of weapon"... the nobility sure do like their privileges.

A November NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll indicated that 78 percent of adults who were surveyed nationwide said the ban should be renewed.

"We feel, along with 80 percent of the public, the weapons have no place in America?s communities," said Eric Howard, a Brady Campaign spokesman. "You end up spraying dozens of bullets back and forth indiscriminately. We?ve just seen so many tragic consequences of that over the years."

Did you tell them what the law did before you asked them to render a policy opinion? Thought not. Even police chiefs don't understand what the ban actually bans, how should the average citizen have any idea?

In 1984, the Brady Campaign said, a man used an UZI assault pistol and a shotgun to kill 21 people and wound 19 others at a San Ysidro, Calif., McDonald?s.

At the 1993 Branch-Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas, the organization said, four Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives special agents were killed and 16 others were wounded with an arsenal of more than 170 assault weapons. According to a federal affidavit, the weapons were purchased legally from gun dealers and at gun shows.

When the Brady Bunch says "over the years", they mean it. One incident in 1984? Blaming Waco on assault weapons, rather than the BATF and FBI idiots? Please.

However, since the 1994 ban, said Howard, the number of semiautomatic weapons that have been traced to crime has decreased by 66 percent.

Yeah -- from a little under 3% to a little over 1%. Not that the decline is actually statistically significant.

Terrorists can go to gun shows and purchase assault weapons that were manufactured before 1994 in states that do not require background checks, [The Brady Campaign] said.

Gee, half of this article was written by the Brady Bunch. What a surprise. But with respect to that specific claim: Sure, they can do that. Have they? Apparantly not. They've used boxcutters. Would renewing the ban change the fact that terrorists can buy legal weapons from private owners (if they can convince the private owner that they are not actually a terrorist)? No. Pre-ban firearms and magazines would still be available at gun shows from private sellers.

But even if that wasn't the case, terrorists could buy a new firearm that lacks the banned features. Since the banned features are generally cosmetic, rather than functional, they won't be inconvenienced much. Unless they were planning a bayonet charge or something.

The Assault Weapons Act specifically exempts 661 sporting rifles and shotguns traditionally used for hunting.

I thought it only covered 19 guns?

Lobbyists with the National Rifle Association and some of its members have attacked the assault weapons legislation as being too vague and lacking enforcement.

Too vague? Not really. Too silly is more like it. Heard about any drive-by bayonetings lately? No?

Lacking enforcement? What enforcement is required? Manufacturers stopped making them, and retooled their factories to make legal versions without the silly cosmetic features that got Feinstein so worried.

It's clear this "journalist" didn't even bother to contact the NRA; she just wrote what she thinks they always say about gun laws.

Clem Rost of Delaware County, a member of Treetop Sportsmen, also opposes the ban. He said the ban "outlaws guns on cosmetic features." In addition, he said, some of the banned weapons are used in government-sponsored rifle competitions. "They are a minuscule portion of guns that are actually used in crime," Rost said. "They are very, very difficult, if not impossible, to own."

This is the token pro-gun opinion, tacked like an afterthought on the bottom of the story where no one will read it.

Mr Gerlach,

I understand that you told the Daily Local News that you would be willing to consider renewing the assault weapons ban once you saw the final bill. You also told them that "law enforcement feels it has been effective". But that's not true; if you read the government study[1] on the matter, you'll learn that the ban failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident, or multiple gunshot wound victims. You'll also learn that there is no evidence that the ban reduces crime in general or even crimes committed with assault weapons in particular.

If you were listening to the arguments of the Pennsylvania Police Chiefs Association, as reported in the story[2], then you were lied to. The Assault Weapons Ban covers only semi-automatic firearms with certain cosmetic features, NOT fully-automatic firearms.

Fully-automatic firearms have been heavily regulated since 1934 and banned from manufacture for civilians since 1986. Legally-owned fully-automatic firearms in civilian hands have never been used in crime.

[1]: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

[2]: http://www.dailylocal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12390404&BRD=1671&PAG=461&dept_id=17782&rfi=6

Clayton Cramer and No Quarters are asking where the sunset date of the assault weapons ban is actually specified. After the mess with the Patriot Act, which has a sunset date but one that only covers 15 out of 158 sections. You don't think maybe they aren't ready to just trust the government that it's really there in either case?

In any case, I've read the full text of the 1994 assault weapons ban and seen the sunset provision, so I knew it was there. I quote below:

SEC. 09. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This title and the amendments made by this title--

(1) shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act; and

(2) are repealed effective as of the date that is 10 years after that date.

There you have it in black and white. Of course, I'm trusting the version of the text stored on KeepAndBearArms.com, which is a lot easier to find that the real thing. But I doubt they would get it wrong, especially when they have a link to the government version.

There was another provision that interested me:

SEC. 08. STUDY BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.

(a) Study: The Attorney General shall investigate and study the effect of this title and the amendments made by this title, and in particular shall determine their impact, if any, on violent and drug trafficking crime. The study shall be conducted over a period of 18 months, commencing 78 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

(b) Report: Not later than 8 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall prepare and submit to Congress a report setting forth in detail the findings and determinations made in the study under subsection (a).

A government study on the effectiveness of the ban. This is the first study, I don't have a convenient link to the second. Anyone who does, drop it in the comments?

Tick, tick, tick. Time is running out on the current session of Congress. Lawmakers leaving on their mid-summer break are not expected back until well after Sept. 13, when the 10-year-old ban on assault weapons is due to expire.

This is true, but there's not much else in the article that is.

If that happens, in many states customers as young as 18 (some say 13) could buy brand-new semi-automatic weapons like TEC-9 assault pistols, AK-47s, Uzis and Kalashnikovs - and carry them concealed into taverns and stadiums, colleges, even public schools.

The first half of this is true; adults would be permitted to buy legal semi-automatic firearms, and younger children could receive them as gifts from their family. But then, that was the law before the "ban" expired. The only thing the ban accomplished was to change the names of 19 firearms, require minor cosmetic changes to others, and force people to reload more often; even those items supposedly banned could still be owned and sold, simply not manufactured. for civilian use. (Apparantly, the anti-gun crowd is under the impression that guns wear out rapidly; not so).

It's the second half that is a blatant lie. Start with the practical: how can you conceal an AK-47? (For those wishing to nitpick, an "AK-47" is a "Kalashnikov"; this alone goes a long ways towards demonstrating the ignorance of this editorialist).

On the legal front, I'm not sure what the current legal status on the infamous "no guns within 1000 feet of a school" is at the moment. But leaving that aside, it's generally illegal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit (the exceptions are Vermont and Alaska, where it doesn't seem to be causing a problem). Even if you have a permit, most states say you can't enter a bar or tavern while carrying, and most laws allow for places like stadiums to post "no fireams" signs if they really wanted to do so. Schools, as I noted earlier, have their own special law to protect them.

So, sure, you could do those things with your shiny new "assault weapon", if you're willing to break the law. But then, you could do the same things with your older, pre-ban "assault weapon" if you are willing to break the law. Or a shiny new "cosmetic features removed and name changed" assault weapon, for that matter. Of course, I'm not sure why any of this would be a problem unless you are doing it with intent to shoot someone -- and if that's the case, I rather doubt the additional laws would stop you. Paper doesn't stop criminals; that's why they are criminals.

That's because combined with the so-called "gun-show loophole" and other shortcomings in the nation's gun laws, purchases of this lethal weaponry require no background checks or questions asked.

The "gun show loophole" isn't a loophole; it's the difference between private sellers and people who are in the business of selling firearms. If you go to a gun show and try to buy a gun from a gun dealer, you will have to pass a background check and fill out a yellow form with several questions on it. The answers are required and lying is a felony. That's certainly not "no questions asked".

On the other hand, if you buy from a private individual who happens to be selling a few firearms from his collection, you will not need to pass the background check. That's the same law that covers buying a gun from your friend Mike at his home, since he doesn't need to run a background check either. In fact, he can't; he's not permitted by law to access the database. Of course, if the "private seller" does a lot of selling at gun shows, the BATFE will probably declare charge him with being an unlicensed dealer, so the whole idea is not entirely risk-free.

Now, I'm sure people like Diane Feinstein would love to make all private sales illegal, but so far the people aren't interested in that idea.

Why ban assault weapons? The better question is: Why allow them to begin with? Semiautomatic weapons can fire up to 100 rounds from unregulated magazines; police in San Jose, Calif., test-firing a semiautomatic Uzi were able to empty a 30-round magazine in five seconds. As the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms explains, such weapons are means for close-quarter shooting at human beings. The expiring ban specifically exempts 661 sporting rifles and shotguns from its limit, banning just 19 of the most lethal firearms.

Ahem. Actually, it bans 19 firearms and a whole bunch of others that happened to have a specific combination of cosmetic features. Of course, the industry just removed those features and continued to sell the slightly-modified designs, since the features didn't really alter the functioning of the gun much at all. In practical terms, of course, a pre-ban Uzi with a couple pre-ban 30-round magazines could do exactly the same thing; if a criminal wants an assault weapon he's not going to let a law stop him.

But there's a better question to ask here. Why does this police department have a banned firearm? You might be thinking it was confiscated from a criminal, and you might be right, but if so they likely wouldn't be using it on the firing range to give demonstrations to ignorant reporters. Since they are, it's more likely that the weapon falls under the law enforcement exception.

Wait a minute, you ask. Why is there a law enforcement exception for weapons that are "means for close-quarter shooting at human beings"? Lots of that in police work, is there? Killing lots of people at once in a confined space? Spray fire from the hip? Bloody massacres brought to you by the LAPD? I thought that sort of thing was confined to drug dealers, but then, maybe there's not much difference.

Public and political opinion are squarely behind the assault weapons ban. Polling reliably produces majorities up to 80 percent for renewal. Eleven national police organizations back it, as do the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Episcopal Church and the NAACP, among many other groups. Former presidents Ford, Carter and Clinton and the late Ronald Reagan were all outspoken backers.

Well, sure, unreliable polling produces reliable opinions. Never mind actually holding an honest poll, you might get a surprise.

And no wonder: The use of assault weapons in crimes has fallen 66 percent since the ban took effect in 1994. Moreover, in this jittery, post-9/11 world, the very real prospect of would-be terrorists or their agents buying assault weapons at gun shows, through mail order or the Internet, only adds to the urgency of keeping the ban in place.

Yep, the number of crimes committed with assault weapons fell from just under 3% to not quite 2% over the course of its 10-year effect. That's some real positive impact of the law, at least, until you read the fine print and learn that the change was well within the margin of error. In other words, statistically the ban had absolutely no effect; the small drop was coincidence.

So how could the assault weapons ban expire? The National Rifle Association aims to kill it. House Majority Leader Tom Delay, R-Texas, vows to block a vote. While the Senate approved renewal in March by a bipartisan margin, and while there is wide support in the House, a strange inertia has set in. President Bush has pledged to renew the ban - but the White House says it is waiting for Congress to act. And GOP leaders in Congress say - you guessed it - they're waiting for a signal from the White House.

The National Rifle Association itself is conflicted on the issue. The NRA's 4 million members want to kill it. So do the hundreds of thousands of people who belong to pro-gun political organizations that refer to the NRA as a bunch of sissies. And we all vote. Remember that.

And as for that "bipartisan margin", it was 52 for, 47 against. That's bipartisan only in the sense that a few Republicans voted for it and a very few Democrats voted against. That vote took place under ideal political conditions: the Republicans were not using parliamentary mechanisms to block amendments to the gun industry liability bill: a bill that Republicans and the NRA wanted very badly. It would have made wonderful political cover for a ban renewal. But the combined bill failed with nearly 90 votes against -- THAT was a bipartisan vote, folks. Nobody wanted that bill, once it was amended. Nobody.

But that's all pointless speculation. Very pointless, in fact. I'll close with a question that settles the entire issue in my mind. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand... punk?

The Consumer Federation of America and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence have released three new polls concerning the Assault Weapons Ban debate.

In case you were wondering, the Consumer Federation of America is a lobbying group. It doesn't seem to be a successful one: they have several internet surveys on their site, most with under 10 respondents. Their funding, according to their website, comes from "pro-consumer organizations" rather than actual consumers. Since they have a history of releasing anti-gun "research" I'd say they are a democratic front group, perhaps even one with ties to Nader due to the consumer angle, but that's speculation. All we know is that they've released these three surveys:

• 68 percent of West Virginians Support Assault Weapons Ban
• 76 percent of [Michigan] Voters Support Assault Weapons Ban
• 68 percent of South Dakotans Support Assault Weapons Ban

So how did they get these results? Simple: they asked whether they supported "bans on military-style firearms like Uzis or AK-47s". As anyone with even a little knowledge of firearms law knows, "military-style" weapons (that is, fully-automatic firearms) are heavily regulated, since 1933, have been banned from manufacture since 1986, have never been used in a crime by a civilian legal owner, and are not affected by the Assault Weapons Ban.

Thanks to the media's confusion about semiautomatic assault weapons versus fully-automatic military assault rifles and the ignorance of the general public regarding firearms law, poorly-designed public opinion polls are often published supporting the ban. In evaluating such a poll, ask yourself:

1. Does the poll explain what an "assault weapon" is? (A semiautomatic rifle that functions identically to non-banned rifles, with the only difference being minor cosmetic features)
2. Does the poll explain what an assault weapon isn't? (The law does not affect fully-automatic military rifles).
3. Does the poll explain existing law? (Existing law, unrelated to the assault weapons ban, forbids manufacture of fully-automatic rifles for the civilian market)
4. Does the poll provide information on how often "assault weapons" are used in crime? (1-3% of crimes committed with firearms)
5. Does the poll relay on misleading and inaccurate information from anti-gun groups? (The Violence Policy Center's report on police officer mortality by assault weapons, for example, has been thoroughly debunked)
6. Does the poll ask the respondent to to evaluate whether the ban is legal under the 2nd Amendment? (The courts have so far neglected to strike it down, but a plain-language interpertation suggests it should be)

Obviously, these polls aren't designed to get accurate results, they are designed to produce "support" for the viewpoint of the people who commissioned the poll. Their accuracy is extremely questionable. But enough said on that topic -- why Michigan, South Dakota, and West Virginia?

Michigan and West Viginia are considered swing states. The anti-gun groups are basically trying to tell Bush that letting the assault weapons ban expire may cost him the race in 2004, because of the support for the ban shown in their polls in those two crucial swing states.

Unfortunately, while public confusion about the issue means that the polling shouldn't be considered accurate with regard to the merits of the law, it is more difficult to dismiss the question of public opinion; that is, will voters who think they support the assault weapons ban have their opinion of Bush influenced by whether or not he supports it? And likewise, what about the Senate races? Here are the Senators from those three states, and their votes on the S1805 renewal amendment:

• Carl Levin (D-MI, yes)
• Debbie Stabenow (D-MI, yes)
• Robert Byrd (D-WV, yes)
• John Rockefeller (D-WV, yes)
• Thomas Daschle (D-SD, yes)
• Tim Johnson (D-SD, abstain)

All 6 senators are Democrats. That's odd; I would have expected them to be trying to change the votes of Republican Senators. Only one of the senators on the list did not vote to pass the renewal, so it's not likely to be about their votes. It's probably aimed at Bush. The fact that one of the South Dakota senators abstained despite being democratic may explain why South Dakota is included although it is not on my list of swing states.

It may be worth sending Tim Johnson a note of thanks for his abstention. It's not as good as a no, but it's better than nothing... er, wait, it IS nothing. It's better than I would expect from a Senate Democrat, how's that?