1994 Assault Weapons Ban
Speaking of Barack Obama and gun “control” this morning, I hear the Democrats are doubling-down on the issue months before the crucial November mid-term elections. Ned Resnikoff reported on the MSNBC website last Thursday:
Gun control, long a dormant issue in American politics, surged to the forefront of the Democratic agenda following December 2012’s massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Yet in the following months, as bill after bill failed to pass through Congress, the renewed push for gun control once again subsided – until now.
One hundred sixty-three House Democrats – over 80% of the entire caucus – signed onto an open letter Thursday addressed to Republican House Speaker John Boehner demanding that he allow “a vote on substantive legislation to address gun violence.” The timing of the letter suggests that Democrats are prepared to make gun control in an issue in the 2014 midterm elections…
“The timing of the letter suggests that Democrats are prepared to make gun control in an issue in the 2014 midterm elections”
Just like they did in the lead up to the 1994 mid-term contests?
I’ve suggested it before on this blog- history could “rhyme” again soon for the Democrats.
On September 13, 1994, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which included a 10-year ban on so-called “assault weapons.” U.S. President Bill Clinton signed the legislation into law the same day.
In the months that followed, Democrats were being swept out of office left and right during the “Republican Revolution.”
Now, some doubt the impact of the gun “control” push on this turnover. Here’s what the former president had to say about that period of his administration in his 2005 autobiography My Life:
Ironically, I had hurt the Democrats by both my victories and my defeats. The loss of healthcare and the passage of NAFTA demoralized many of our base voters and depressed our turnout. The victories on the economic plan with its tax increases on high-income Americans, the Brady bill, and the assault weapons ban inflamed the Republican base voters and increased their turnout. The turnout differential alone probably accounted for half of our losses, and contributed to a Republican gain of eleven governorships…
(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)
This, from the man himself.
As I pointed out in that 2013 post and an earlier September 2012 piece about the Democratic Party’s adopted National Platform, the Democrats own gun “control.”
And evidently, they’re trying to remind the American people of that fact in the months leading up to November.
Political hara-kiri all over again?
By Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)
Resnikoff, Ned. “Democratic House members demand gun control vote.” MSNBC.com. 26 June 2014. (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/democratic-house-members-demand-gun-control-vote). 30 June 2014.
Rudy Giuliani Blasts Obama Gun ‘Control’ Push As ‘False, Misleading, And To Some Extent, Unconstitutional’
Yesterday morning I happened to catch a segment on FOX News in which former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani ripped on President Obama’s new push for more gun “control.” From the exchange:
FOX NEWS: So, from your point of view, how do you characterize what’s been presented so far from the White House?
GIULIANI: I think the President’s program is false, misleading, and to some extent, unconstitutional.
FOX NEWS: Where is it unconstitutional?
GIULIANI: Well, I think that, the original Assault Weapons Ban was passed before the Heller case, before the Supreme Court made it crystal-clear that there’s a constitutional right to bear arms, that includes the right to defend yourself. So now, if you are reducing, significantly, the ability of a legitimate person to defend themselves- aren’t you violating that Constitutional right? Now consider that there are somewhere between 270 million and 300 million guns out there. A large percentage of the guns are in the hands of bad guys. So now you pass a law and you say in a Glock, you have to have a magazine that carries only 10 bullets, right? Now, it carries 15 or 16 bullets, I forget exactly what- but only 10. So now, all the legitimate people have to comply with that. Even if that’s possible to do, they all go down to 10. Every bad guy doesn’t do it (laughing). Every bad guy is now at 15 or 16. So now if you think of it this way- we have these 300 million guns, some of them are in the hands of good guys who follow the law, some are in the hands of bad guys who don’t care about the law- you’ve just increased the firepower and advantage of the bad guys over the good guys, including the police. I don’t know if the police are exempt from these laws- I’m not sure, I hope they are. I’m not sure if the ex-police officers, many of whom are in security jobs, are exempt from these laws. And then, with regard to me personally, being able to defend myself, you’ve just reduced, significantly, my ability to defend myself. You’ve just given the bad guy a great advantage over me that he didn’t have before. Does that violate the Constitutional right to bear arms where it says you cannot infringe? Cannot infringe. I think it might. It think that would be a very, very good argument.
Second, everyone agrees that the definition of “assault weapon” is vague. It’s very hard to define an “assault weapon.” When does something become an “assault weapon?” The first law was notoriously ineffective because it defined “assault weapon” very vaguely. You define it vaguely now, with the new Constitutional decision, then you have an argument that it’s void for vagueness. You can’t write a vague law that restricts a Constitutional right. You have to write a very specific law that is clear. So, I think this if filled with Constitutional issues that didn’t exist the first time they went through this. I don’t see any of these people who are kind of just being very political even talking about this.
You can watch the entire FOX News segment here.
By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)
New information about U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein’s promised new gun “control” legislation that seeks to ban “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” ammunition magazines has just been released. The California Democrat shares a summary of her proposed bill, entitled “Summary of 2013 Feinstein Assault Weapons Legislation,” on her Senate website. And by the looks of things, it seeks more than just bans. From Senator Feinstein’s website:
Summary of 2013 legislation
Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:
Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
• 120 specifically-named firearms
• Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
• Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
• Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
• Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
• Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
• Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
• Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
• Background check of owner and any transferee;
• Type and serial number of the firearm;
• Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
• Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
• Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration
Note that part about “requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act.”
(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)
By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (http://www.survivalandprosperity.com)
Christopher E. Hill, Editor
12,096 Visits in July
466,424 Visits from
Please Rate this Blog HERE
- The Coming Major Terrorist Attack On The U.S.
- General McInerney’s September 7 Mystery Book Revealed?
- Retired General And FOX News Analyst: ‘We May Even See On 9/11/14 MH370 Resurface Again’
- Former CIA Director: Islamic State Attack On U.S. ‘Will Come Probably Sooner Rather Than Later’
- Thoughts On Concealed-Carry Permits And Their Relation To ‘Falling’ Chicago Crime
- Reminder To Californians
- Quote For The Week
- Posting Resumes Next Week
- 2015 Old Farmer’s Almanac Predicts ‘Super-Cold’ Winter For Eastern Two-Thirds Of U.S.
- Signs Of The Time, Part 76
- Editor on General McInerney’s September 7 Mystery Book Revealed?
- Jason on General McInerney’s September 7 Mystery Book Revealed?
- Editor on Islamic State Flag ‘Displayed’ Outside White House
- Nick Aragua on Islamic State Flag ‘Displayed’ Outside White House
- Editor on 82 Shot, 14 Killed In Chicago Over Long July 4 Weekend
- Derek @ MoneyAhoy.com on 82 Shot, 14 Killed In Chicago Over Long July 4 Weekend
- Editor on Dick Cheney Warns Of Massive Terrorist Attack On U.S. Before Decade Is Out
- tj & the bear on Dick Cheney Warns Of Massive Terrorist Attack On U.S. Before Decade Is Out
- Editor on U.S. Senator Michelle Obama (D-IL)?
- Bill Taylor on U.S. Senator Michelle Obama (D-IL)?