Pro-gun activists show up en masse ...

[spin]

BRAD SHANNON; Staff writer
Published: 01/27/1012:00 am | Updated: 01/27/10 7:03 am

Sen. Adam Kline's quest to ban so-called assault pistols and rifles ran into a human wall of opposition Tuesday morning during a hearing in his committee, despite the heartfelt concerns of a woman whose son was killed by a teen who used such a gun.

Gun-rights activists were outraged, packing the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Senate Bill 6396; a show of hands revealed that about 90 percent opposed the bill. Some laughed in derision when Kline, the Seattle Democrat and bill sponsor, said an assault gun has “characteristics that make it more lethal than your ordinary deer rifle.’’

Kline was talking about the semi-automatic features with the capability of firing more than 10 rounds per clip and other features, such as a pistol grip, barrel shroud, telescoping stock or detachable magazine.

***snip***
Brian Judy, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, flatly called SB 6396 unconstitutional and arbitrary, and the bill is considered a long shot to get far in an election year.

Senate security officers estimated 200 people were on hand, perhaps half of them forced into an overflow room when the hearing chambers filled to capacity.


Kline noted that a Seattle police officer, Timothy Brenton, was slain last year by someone using an assault-style gun (with more than 10 rounds in a clip, according to his bill’s definition), and he suggested the availability of such guns is setting off “an arms race” between law-abiding citizens and criminals. His bill would do at the state level what a federal moratorium enacted in 1994 by Congress did federally until it expired in 2004.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/northwest/story/1045374.html

What Kline fails to realize or admit is the the expired "assault weapons ban" was a total failure and rather than remove such weapons from the street, made them very popular.

Failure Of The Assault Weapons Ban
In the late 1980's and early 1990's, the frequency of crimes involving firearms became a very public issue. The attempted assassination of President Reagan and critical wounding of numerous police officers in a highly publicized shootout with bank robbers in California raised the issue of the need to ban certain types of weapons. For nearly a decade, the need for an assault weapons ban was a hotly debated subject. In 1994, Congress succumbed to public pressure and passed the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Eventually, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was proven to be an impotent piece of legislation due to it's ineffectiveness in banning true assault weapons, its near uselessness as a crime prevention tool, and it was passed with a "sunset clause" which limited its lifespan.
The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was never able to truly ban assault weapons because it did not ban actual weapons, rather it banned cosmetic and ergonomic aspects found commonly on firearms intended for recreational purposes as well as assault weapons. Such aspects as a bayonet mount, a pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock and folding or collapsible stocks were addressed while rate of fire or power of the round fired were not. While the frequency of "drive-by bayonettings" dropped dramatically, the sale of true assault weapons did not. Common shotguns and deer rifles were being pulled from the shelves because of a pistol grip or folding stock while rifles capable of firing 30 high velocity rounds in 30 seconds were being sold in unrestricted amounts because they did not have the banned cosmetic aspects. This fact alone made the ban ineffective.

Along with its lack of effect on banning true assault weapons, the ban also failed to address the issue of illegal gun activity. The Congressional Record, 13 September 1990 states that a group of over 100,000 police officers delivered a message to Congress stating that only 2% to 3% of crimes are committed using a so-called assault weapon....
http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Failure-Assault-Weapons-Ban/71802

A group of four State Senators has introduced Senate Bill 6396, legislation that would bring California-style gun-control to the Northwest and ultimately ban many semi-automatic firearms commonly owned by Washingtonians.

This legislation would establish far-reaching restrictions on semi-automatic firearms (dubbing them "assault weapons") and ammunition magazines. SB6396 affects every firearm modified to conform with the now-extinct Clinton Gun-Ban plus many other semi-automatic firearms that have no lineage to those rifles or any military-style orientation whatsoever.

Like the failed Clinton Gun-Ban that sunset in 2004, this bill is about demonizing certain firearms based on how they look, not about crime fighting. This gun ban scheme will only punish law-abiding citizens and will do nothing to curb crime or keep criminals from obtaining firearms illegally. This is simply another attack on our Second Amendment rights in Washington State.
http://www.pnai.com/pi-blog/so-called-assault-weapons-ban-proposed-in-wa-sb-6396.html

[Cleita]

1. Too bad the same enthusiasm can't be mustered for

meaningful health care reform for the average American. It seems it would be an important issue for people who stand a good chance of being shot in the ass and in need of medical care. btw, I'm not anti-gun ownership, however, I keep wondering about misplaced priorities.

[TheWraith]

6. The problem is nuance.

Hell, even just DUers have a hard time agreeing whether healthcare reform is a good thing or not. The general public can be hopelessly bamboozled on the subject. Gun rights on the other hand are relatively simple, either you have them or you don't. With healthcare you have to debate the relative merits of mandates versus ending preexisting conditions, non-profit co-ops versus public option versus yadda, yadda, yadda... the general public loses interest fast and just wants it to go away.

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. Well, we *did* elect a guy who swore up and down he supported HCR...

Meanwhile, we needed to show up to demonstrate to the dimbulb in the OP the error of his ways.

[spin]

11. I totally agree with you ...

"for profit" healthcare costs us a fortune and we get inferior care compared to other countries for twice the cost.

[SteveM]

16. You are quite right, of course...

But as long as the DNC continues AT THIS VERY MOMENT to include an expanded and permanent "assault weapons ban" in its platform (check the web site), and as long as President Obama has TO THIS VERY MOMENT a stand which favors much the same thing (check out his web site), then the Democrats will have to labor in low gear on "meaningful health care reform."

The responsibility of "misplaced priorities" lies with a small, but hard-core prohibitionist element within the Democratic Party which can for some peculiar reason keep a cancerous political goal front & center. (I must note that the Brady Center has a big influence on Democratic gun-prohibition politics, and that organization is Republican-founded and Republican-led.)

Why not join with fellow Democrats -- most of whom are significantly more progressive than that which passes for such at the DLC -- to junk these policies and platforms? These positions are pure drags on the Democratic Party which I and others in this forum are trying to remove.

[DonP]

2. We had 10,000 people in Springfield Illinois last March ...

up from 5,000 the year before and we were almost totally ignored by the media. Our Chicago representatives refused to meet with any of us. Thank you Mayor Daley for such a fair and level playing field. (Nice to know who they really represent.) But all of our Downstate Dem reps met with us.

A week later Jesse Jackson showed up with two busloads of gun control advocates (that turned out to be on the City of Chicago payroll) and he was on every evening newscast with tight shots that made the 50 or 60 people look like a crowd.

I'm pleasantly surprised to see relatively balanced treatment of the issue.

Now we can wait for someone to claim that all those gun owners showing up was an obvious "threat" to legislators. We had a some of that last Spring.

[spin]

8. Sometimes I wonder if the politicians in Chicago get payoffs ...

from the criminal element to stop honest citizens from owning handguns for self defense and fighting statewide "shall issue" concealed carry permits.

I know that I should go buy some tinfoil and make a hat when I think like this.

[PavePusher]

13. Politicians?! In Chicago!? Get payoffs from Criminals?!?!

Naaaaww, would never happen....


:spray: :rofl: :tinfoilhat: :rofl:

[SteveM]

21. Do you have a web source or link, describing the march? Thanks nt

[derby378]

3. Not just California-style gun laws, mind you...

Senate Bill 6396 would actually designate various pump-action rifles and shotguns as "assault weapons."

I declared the term dead a long time ago, but apparently not only are activists trying to pull it out of the grave, they're turning it into some sort of zombie out of a George A. Romero movie.

[tburnsten]

4. Apparently what the guy wants to do

"and he suggested the availability of such guns is setting off “an arms race” between law-abiding citizens and criminals. His bill would do at the state level what a federal moratorium enacted in 1994 by Congress did federally until it expired in 2004."



To eliminate the "arms race" between criminals and everyone else is to radically infringe on the rights of everyone else, and also, if there were actually an "arms race" going on between criminals and ordinary people, it would do nothing but cripple ordinary people.


Also the idea is mentally deficient at best.

[DonP]

5. "Arms Race" - That's interesting ...

Let's say the guy is right, just for debate.

There is an "arms race" between the law abiding and the criminals in his area/town/state etc.

His solution to the "arms race" is to disarm the law abiding?

What am I missing here, or is his solution as stupid as it sounds?

Or maybe he's found a way to get the criminals to give up all their guns and won't share it until he gets his bill passed.

[PavePusher]

14. Stupid is as stupid does... n/t

[tburnsten]

17. The premise that ordinary firearms constitute an 'arms race' is ridiculous

And the whole plot only qualifies as an 'idea' because of a technicality.

It is brain-dead from stem to stern.

[armueller2001]

7. It would be hilarious

if someone had asked him what a "barrel shroud" is. Chances are, he doesn't have a clue.

[spin]

9. "It's the thing that goes up." (n/t)

[Euromutt]

18. Judging by the text of the bill, he doesn't

From the text of the bill (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6396.pdf):

(22) "Barrel shroud" means a covering, other than a slide, that is attached to, or that substantially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm and that allows the bearer of the firearm to hold the barrel with the nonshooting hand while firing the firearm, without burning that hand, except that the term does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel that does not substantially or completely encircle the barrel.

"A covering that substantially encircles the barrel"? With a definition that loose, any forend that is separate from the stock could be regarded as a "barrel shroud," which makes rifles like these "assault weapons":



Semi-automatic - check; detachable magazine - check; "barrel shroud" - check! Assault weapon!



Ditto! This one even has a muzzle compensator!

I would argue, however, that the definition as given is inherently contradictory; if you're holding the "covering that substantially or completely encircles the barrel," you are by definition not holding the barrel itself.

Moreover, the purpose of a barrel shroud is not to allow the firer to hold the barrel, but to prevent the firer from unintentionally touching the barrel. And, once again, there's no coherent answer to the second half of Tucker Carlson's question to Carolyn McCarthy, namely "why should it be banned?"

[rd_kent]

12. "said an assault gun has “characteristics that make it more lethal than your ordinary deer rifle.’’

Hahahahaha!!!!!!

[PavePusher]

15. They never really explain that claim in detail...

I wonder why.... :eyes:

[Euromutt]

19. So let's see what this legislation would entail...

Exhibit A: the Remington 7615 Police:



Based on the 7615 varmint rifle and chambered for the lighter .223 Remington round, one of its marketing points is that it handles and is operated in very similar fashion to the model 870 shotgun, thus making the transition easier for hunters and police officers who are already used to the 870.

This is a pump-action weapon that accepts detachable STANAG magazines, which means it's most of the way to being an "assault weapon" in Kline's book (see text of bill: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6396.pdf). But it doesn't have a pistol grip, "a stock in any configuration <...> that allows the bearer of the firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such that the web of the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be placed below the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing," a barrel shroud, muzzle brake or muzzle compensator, or "any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the hand that is not the trigger hand." So it doesn't meet the criteria for an "assault weapon."

Exhibit B: the Remington 7615 Police:



Exact same rifle as above, except that this one has... a pistol grip! Which makes it... an assault weapon!

Exact same fucking gun as the first one; same mechanism, same caliber, same barrel length, totally identical ballistics, but because the second has a pistol grip it's a "deadly assault weapon, suitable only for mowing down large numbers of people." Of course, it's never quite adequately explained why prohibitions on "assault weapons" always include exemptions for law enforcement. Why would the police need guns that have no redeeming features and are suitable only for mowing down large numbers of people?

[tburnsten]

20. This post should become a thread unto itself

Many people don't get the fact that the guns in question are exactly the same as any other gun, but they do get the weird outrage that some have towards their very existence.

Some people just hate all guns and 'assault weapons' are just a convenient tool for them to eliminate as many guns at once as possible, and give them the framework to get rid of the rest later.