Gun misrepresentations in the local media
Military-style weapons are now legal on the streets of East Tennessee after a 10-year federal ban on certain types of weapons expired at midnight.
No they are not. Military style weapons (AKA machine guns) have been regulated since 1934 and will continue to be regulated. The assault weapons ban does not affect them. She does get one bit right:
Despite that, local law enforcement says it won’t change the way they do their jobs. That’s because despite bans, criminals still get illegal guns.
And then there is this:
For example, take the L.A. bank robbery in 1997. “There are a huge number of those weapons that are out there to begin with that were grand fathered,” said Knox County Sheriff Tim Hutchison. “So, they’re out there for these people that want to break the law to get ahold of anyway. So it really doesn’t make that big of a difference.”
She is now wrong again. The LA robbery involved illegal machine guns, which the assault weapons ban didn’t address, unless they are illegal machine guns that also happen to have more than one of a pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, etc.
September 15th, 2004 at 4:43 pm
[…] Thought I’d let you know . . .
|By SayUncle|
Regarding the gun bias I mentioned here, I am currently involved in an Email exchange with T […]
September 16th, 2004 at 6:44 am
[…] h the charming Ms. Smith (seriously, she really is nice), that I mentioned here, about her misrepresenting the assault weapons ban is taking place o […]
September 17th, 2004 at 4:37 pm
[…] rding some misleading statements she made about what was banned by the assault weapons ban here). It seems she, instead of actually dealing with th […]
September 14th, 2004 at 8:54 am
I think the AWB would only cover “machine guns” if they were select-fire (i.e., could shoot semi-automatically) and had those charactaristics. Maybe. I’m not quite sure if a gun would be classified as a “semi-automatic” for the purposes of the AWB. But who cares now, it’d dead, all but the weeping and gnashing of teeth. –Well, I don’t plan on either. It’s time for the saving up for one of them eeeevvvvilll guns. π
September 14th, 2004 at 8:54 am
I meant to say, “if they were select-fire, i.e., they could ALSO shoot semi-automatically.”
September 14th, 2004 at 12:05 pm
The federal ban had little to do with the L.A. incident, anyway, as California’s AW ban dates back to 1989.
September 14th, 2004 at 12:08 pm
Actually, Nate, the law specifically applies to semi-automatic “assault weapons.”
I believe anything with full-auto capability, which would include selective-fire, would be covered by the NFA.
September 14th, 2004 at 2:59 pm
The AWB did not touch machine guns. A full auto could have all of the banned evil features & it wouldn’t fall under the AWB as it would already fall under a harsher unconstitutional law.
September 15th, 2004 at 4:10 pm
Pubicola: but if a select-fire weapon also had two of the banned features, wouldn’t it then be a “semi-automatic assault weapon” in addition to a NFA regulated automatic weapon? It might have been (it makes me so happy to use the pluperfect subjunctive there) relevant in the following case: you have an actual, military-type assault rifle (not “weapon”) capable of select-fire, and you jumped through all the NFA hoops to get it. It only has a pistol grip (so a semi-auto version is kosher by the AWB). Since it is capable of semi-auto fire (in addition to full-auto), would the AWB have prevented you from putting a folding stock on the rifle? Since, depending on where the selector was set, you had a semi-auto rifle which now had two, instead of one, of the assault weapon features, thus bringing it under the restriction of the AWB.
September 15th, 2004 at 4:16 pm
Nate: the short answer is no. Then again so is the long answer. If a firearm is capable of automatic fire (i.e multiple shots per trigger pull) it falls under the NFA & the AWB would have no effect on it, even if the switch was set to semi. The key word is capable. It does not have ot be full auto exclusively (as only a few firearms are) to fall under the unconstitutional provisions of the NFA & once it did fall under the NFA the AWB had no effect on it whatsoever.
Funny isn’t it? you couldn’t have a semi with a pistol grip & a bayo lug because it would be too dangerous for civilians, yet you could have a full auto with all 5 of the banned features found in the AWB (well, after you jumped through some substantial & unconstitutional hoops).
September 15th, 2004 at 6:11 pm
Publicola:
Thanks for the answer. That’s why you have a blog other people read and why I read other people’s blogs. π