"Reinstate" the “Assault Weapon Ban?”
Biden is lying. He doesn't want to "reinstate" anything.
Lately, nominal president Joe Biden has been saying “reinstate the ‘assault weapon’ ban.” If he were telling the truth, he would mean the “ban” imposed by a Democrat Congress and Pres. Bill Clinton from September 13, 1994, until the same date in 2004. But Biden, a frequent liar, is lying.
Biden doesn’t want to “reinstate” the 1994 “ban.” He’s trying to dupe people into going along with a much more severe ban, the most severe gun ban in U.S. history. In several Congresses since 2003, Democrats have proposed such a ban, and in the current Congress it has been introduced by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) as H.R. 1808. That is the legislation, not the relatively anemic 1994 law, that Biden wants imposed now.
In saying “reinstate the ‘assault weapon’ ban,” Biden is also guilty of two deceptions. The first is in his failure to clarify what is meant by “ban.” That’s an important point, because Biden also claims that the “ban” reduced crime, which, according to progressive dogma, it could have done only if it reduced the number of firearms it targeted.
Before continuing, it should be noted that even if Biden’s “crime” claim were true, it would be irrelevant to the question of whether a ban is constitutional.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court struck down D.C.’s handgun ban, saying “The very enumeration of the right (to keep and bear arms) takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.” Heller also said that the government cannot ban arms that are “in common use,” a standard easily met by firearms targeted by the 1994 “ban” and even more easily by those targeted by H.R. 1808.
In New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court said that laws that impact a presumptively constitutional activity, which in the case of a gun ban would be “the right of the people to keep . . . arms,” are impermissible if they are outliers in American history. Firearms targeted by the 1994 “ban” have been extant for 80 years and were “banned” under federal law for only 10 years, and those additionally targeted by H.R. 1808 have been extant for over 125 years and have never been banned under federal law. Thus both bans are unconstitutional outliers.
But, let’s consider Biden’s crime claim for the sake of argument. As noted, the only way the 1994 “ban” could have reduced crime would have been if it had reduced the number of firearms it targeted. But it didn’t do that, and that’s why I put quotation marks around “ban.” Here are three reasons why:
First, the “ban” exempted the hundreds of thousands of “assault weapons” that existed before the “ban” took effect.
Second, the “ban” only prohibited manufacturing firearms it defined as “assault weapons” (during the 10 years the “ban” was in effect, of course). More on that in a moment.
Third, the manufacturing ban took effect five months after it was approved by Congress, and manufacturers accelerated production in that interim to have the largest possible inventories of exempt firearms to sell after the “ban” began.
Biden’s second deception is his failure to explain what was meant by “assault weapon,” and that is why I place quotation marks around that term.
For example, the “ban” defined a rifle as an “assault weapon” if the rifle (1) was semi-automatic, and (2) could use a detachable ammunition magazine (even one capable of holding only one round of ammunition), and (3) had two or more of the following features: a folding or telescoping (adjustable-length) stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor or a threaded muzzle to accommodate a flash suppressor, or a “grenade launcher,” the latter included for hyperbolic effect, since grenades are restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Therefore, a semi-automatic, detachable-magazine rifle made with only one of the listed features was not an “assault weapon” and could be made during the 10 years the “ban” was in effect. Below, the top photo shows a three-feature AR-15 made before the “ban,” and the bottom photo shows a one-feature AR-15 made while the “ban” was in effect.
How Many One-Feature AR-15s Were Made During the So-Called “Ban?”
I was in the Research & Information Division of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action from 1991 until I retired as the organization’s Senior Research Coordinator on the 2016 anniversary of the “ban’s” 2004 expiration. While at the NRA, I used the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ annual firearm manufacturer reports to count the number of AR-15s made each year. By my conservative count, there were more than 730,000 one-feature AR-15s made (thus bought by Americans) while the “ban” was in effect. (The data were not sufficient to show the numbers of other one-feature firearms made during the “ban.”)
The exemption of pre-ban “assault weapons,” the increased production of exempted “assault weapons” during the five months before the “ban” took effect, and the manufacture of one-feature firearms while the “ban” was in effect were noted by CBS 60 Minutes’ Leslie Stahl in a segment titled “What Assault Weapons Ban?,” aired in 1995. Stahl said, “Assault weapons are still . . . . sold by the thousands,” and she called 1994 “the best year for the sales of assault weapons ever.” As to President Clinton’s claim that the “ban” reduced the number of “assault weapons,” Stahl ridiculed that as “a good applause line.” Interviewed by Stahl, the congressional sponsor of the “ban,” Communist China’s favorite U.S. senator, Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), didn’t disagree.
Not mentioned by Stahl, the “ban” didn’t affect semi-automatic, fixed-magazine rifles, or any kind of rifle that was not semi-automatic, regardless of magazine type. Such rifles could be manufactured with all of the features listed in the 1994 “ban.”
However, the 1994 “ban” is water very far downstream of the bridge. The legislation in Congress today, H.R. 1018, would ban the manufacture of semi-automatic, detachable-magazine rifles regardless of their number of features, semi-automatic rifles that use non-detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, various shotguns and handguns similarly defined, and rifle, pistol, and shotgun magazines that hold 11 or more rounds of ammunition.
To pass the House, H.R. 1808 would require 218 votes. It already has 210 Democrat sponsors and co-sponsors among House members who are eligible to vote. To prevent it from becoming law will likely require Senate Republicans to hold the line. Urge them to do so. They may not realize that the new ban is far more severe that the one Biden falsely claims he wants to “reinstate.”
© 2022 Mark Overstreet