Gentlemen, start your engines.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 7:57 pm

Weapons ban on its last legs

Valley observers split on effectiveness of soon-to-expire federal gun law.

Bee staff and news services

(Updated Thursday, September 9, 2004, 5:38 AM)

Despite the continued push by top law-enforcement officials this week, it's become clear the federal assault weapons ban will expire on its 10th anniversary Monday.

Republican leaders Wednesday rejected a last-ditch effort by supporters to renew it.

"I think the will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire, so it will expire," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., told reporters.

Those aren't soothing words to law-enforcement leaders such as Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer, who noted Wednesday that "hard-core gang members and drug dealers" favor the rapid-fire weapons.

"Bullets fired from these assault weapons can easily penetrate ballistic vests worn by officers, as well as vehicles and buildings," Dyer said. "It is imperative that we not relinquish the controls we have in place."

The 10-year law, signed by President Clinton in 1994, bans 19 designated semiautomatic weapons and ammunition clips of more than 10 rounds. A clause directed that the ban expire unless Congress specifically reauthorized it.

The assault weapons legislation has since incited heated debate over its Second Amendment implications and real-world effectiveness.

It's a debate with an unusual flavor for California and the six other states that have enacted their own assault weapons laws.

"I have noticed no difference since it's been in effect," said Madera County Sheriff John Anderson. "It may be necessary in other states, but assault weapons aren't our problem. California's laws are [already] so much more restrictive."

The California law, initially enacted in 1989 after the shooting of five children at a Stockton elementary school, goes further. For instance, California also bans weapons with specific military characteristics such as pistol grips and folding stocks.

Nationwide, a 1999 Justice Department study found, 1.6% of the firearms used in crimes since 1994 were banned assault weapons.

This was a marked reduction from the five years before the federal ban, when assault weapons accounted for 4.8% of the guns used in crimes.

The fall from 4.8% to 1.6% amounts to a two-thirds reduction, which gun-control proponents cite as evidence of the law's effectiveness. Gun-control opponents retort that assault weapons still account for only a tiny share of all guns used in crimes.

California law-enforcement officials have seized 1,012 banned assault weapons in the state since July 2002, according to Hallye Jordan, spokeswoman for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

A few particularly large busts accounted for many of these, but police regularly encounter assault weapons. For instance, on the first night of a crackdown on gang members and violent parolees who were committing crimes in April, Fresno police confiscated one assault weapon. A week later, an assault weapon was used to spray an east-central Fresno house with about 30 rounds in a drive-by shooting.

"Clearly, getting them off the street is a good thing," Merced County Undersheriff Bill Blake said Wednesday of banned assault weapons. "We're not against guns. We're against certain kinds of guns that are designed to kill people."

Appearing at a news conference Wednesday in Washington, D.C., chiefs of police from the District of Columbia, Los Angeles, Atlanta and Seattle predicted an increase in violent gun crimes if the ban does expire.

Blake, noting that "most of our homicides are committed with more traditional handguns," agreed with Anderson that the existing state law has minimized the federal law's direct impact on California. That hasn't silenced the controversy, though, with Blake observing that "we see a lot of people against gun control" in the San Joaquin Valley.

"The ban does not actually make us safer," Mariposa Republican George Radanovich asserts in a letter he's prepared for constituents.

"This bill has the unfortunate effect of endangering law-abiding citizens rather than regulating violence and criminal access to assault weapons."

Of the San Joaquin Valley's other lawmakers in office when the House narrowly approved the 1994 legislation by a two-vote margin, Tracy Republican Richard Pombo opposed the weapons ban while Fresno-area Democrat Cal Dooley supported it. Merced Democrat Dennis Cardoza, elected in 2002, has received "quite a few calls and letters from both sides" of the issue, spokesman Bret Ladine said.

Technically speaking, Radanovich, Pombo and other skeptics may be in the minority. In March, the Senate by a 52-47 vote added the assault weapon renewal to another bill. Organizations including the International Association of Chiefs of Police support its extension.

Under National Rifle Association pressure, the entire Senate bill that included the ban extension was blocked. House Republican leaders have made clear they will not bring up for a vote the House version of the assault weapons renewal, which is co-sponsored by 136 lawmakers.

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, co-author of the 1994 assault weapons ban, criticizes President Bush for not supporting its renewal.

"The president quietly awaits September 13th and hopes that after he lets the ban expire, he can once again receive the endorsement of the NRA," Feinstein said on the Senate floor Wednesday.

The White House challenged Feinstein's characterization.

"The president supports the reauthorization of current law," spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters traveling with Bush to Florida on Wednesday.

Asked whether the president had called Republican congressional leaders to encourage Congress to send him a bill, McClellan said, "The President doesn't set the congressional timetable. ... What we've continued to do is step up our efforts to prosecute crimes committed with guns and strictly enforce our laws. And that's the best way we can deter violence committed with guns."

Compiled from reports by Bee Washington Bureau reporter Michael Doyle and the Associated Press.

AAAAAAAAMEN!

B-

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 8:00 pm

I'd rather that the entire country had access to these weapons instead of just the cops.

Viralphrame · Post by **Viralphrame** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 8:04 pm

Yeah, uh, like gangs will seek to legally purchase said assault weapons, anyway.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:27 pm

at least it'll give honest joe the ability to match the gang's AK with his own AK.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:37 pm

LOL! Ferno, you'd better stick to Canadian issues.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:34 pm

i think everyone should get access to nuclear weapons!

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:28 am

I thought everybody had.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:29 am

no, the american conservatives decided only certain people get weapons

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:51 am

LoL, touche!! If your talking about what i think your talking about you can blame the French.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:08 am

Birdseye wrote:no, the american conservatives decided only certain people get weapons

And that's a good thing too! We don't need thugs, criminals and whacko's armed with nukes!

American liberals on the other hand don't think it's right to even recognize the whacko's for what they are and that we have no right to refuse arms to them.
Well, except *in* america, there the liberals have no problem trying to refuse arms to all americans!

Bunch of self loathing ostriches afraid there own shadow might offend some mass murdering zealot!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:56 am

So how many here know the difference between the AR-15 that you could buy legally, the pre-ban AR-15 that you could buy legally and the AR-15 that is illegal to buy under the present assault weapons ban? Too many of you have been sucked in by hype from the liberal ban the assault weapon crowd and fail to understand the AWB had, in effect, banned nothing of importance.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 7:19 am

I think the AWB ban was meant to keep guns out of whacko's hands woodchip, sort of like yours. I am willing to be your one of those people that keeps a handgun in the glove compartment in case someone cuts you off in traffic. Then you can really teach them right?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 7:51 am

Thread crapping again Zurdick?

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 8:12 am

Still is funny that legal limits are put on people who disregard legality alltogether... Empty pre-emptive measures that don't do much.

What should be in the law books instead, is that if you commit a crime with a gun (offense, not defense), you just don't see the light of day again. Period. Then maybe people will think about their actions before they act upon them. If they are capable of thought.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 10:05 am

you guys are pussies, I deserve the right to have a nuke in my backyard!

nukes don't kill people, people do!

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 10:34 am

Flabby Chick wrote:LoL, touche!! If your talking about what i think your talking about you can blame the French.

We would blame the French anyway. It's just too much fun.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:41 am

I think the AWB ban was meant to keep guns out of whacko's hands woodchip, sort of like yours.

That's how they sold it to the American people, but it never worked and it will not work.

I am willing to be your one of those people that keeps a handgun in the glove compartment in case someone cuts you off in traffic. Then you can really teach them right?

How about banning cars, Zuruck? they cause more deaths than any firearms. I mean, I bet you're one of those people who would ram another car into a guard-rail because the occupant cut you off. That would really teach them, right?

you guys are pussies, I deserve the right to have a nuke in my backyard!

While I'm sure you're being goofy and know the level of danger involved between a single firearm and a single nuke: lol! Why am I even commenting on this?

B-

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:56 am

Might as well get a cruise missile while you're at it Birds

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:07 pm

Birdseye wrote:you guys are pussies, I deserve the right to have a nuke in my backyard!

nukes don't kill people, people do!

Yes you do deserve it ... And, if I had one, I'd be happy to launch it to your yard

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:02 pm

Monday, the day that the Ice Cream trucks will be chiming past the school yards and playgrounds dolling out Uzi's and AK-47's to all the little chitlins..

All you have to ask for is a "Hot Lead Sundae" and the guy will wink and give you a full-auto (or at least that's what they were saying last night on Nightline).

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:38 pm

Hey c'mon what's this wimpy bs? I need to be able to protect myself. Ever heard of the 2nd amendment? Right to bear arms--It never said you couldn't have nuclear.

What's the problem?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:44 pm

Birdseye wrote:Hey c'mon what's this wimpy bs? I need to be able to protect myself. Ever heard of the 2nd amendment? Right to bear arms--It never said you couldn't have nuclear.

What's the problem?

It interferes with national security which as you know takes precedence over the constitution.
I think it's right there in the Patriot Act, Chapter 4 Line 2.vii: Don't let smart alec kids buy nukes until further notice

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 7:41 pm

Maybe Birdy needs a new name...like Dr Strangelove.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 7:45 pm

woodchip wrote:So how many here know the difference between the AR-15 that you could buy legally, the pre-ban AR-15 that you could buy legally and the AR-15 that is illegal to buy under the present assault weapons ban?

Automatic fire?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 7:55 pm

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 7:57 pm

D-Crazy.. a victim of the vile liberal lies.

Not your fault though, They *appear* to know what they're talking about and they seem so sincere. heh!

While the military version of the AR has burst selections, the civilian does not. It is the same rate of fire as any other semi-auto, 1 shot per trigger pull.

Try again.

This could be fun.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:37 am

FP, I agree. Still waiting for those with a homophobic fear of a piece of iron with a "long" protrusion to answer the question.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 8:21 am

Fusion pimp wrote:
"We're not against guns. We're against certain kinds of guns that are designed to kill people."

B-

HUH?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 8:40 am

Actually, I do not suffer from road rage. Like others that drive in big cities, Chicago for me, we get to deal with the great gridlock every single day. I deal with it my way, I take the top off my Jeep and I listen to Led Zeppelin and smoke cigarettes. I keep with traffic and try to avoid cutting people off. I don't like it when someone cuts me off but I worry about, and we do have a problem in this city with it, is cutting off the wrong person and getting angry and then being shot because that person is like woodchip, no common sense and pulls a gun and kills me. The wrong people have guns and it's too hard to tell who would use it.

Woodchip, what's the nominal effected dispersion rate of a mortar shell from a 350 yd range with a draw angle of 35 degrees?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 8:40 am

woodchip wrote:So how many here know the difference between the AR-15 that you could buy legally, the pre-ban AR-15 that you could buy legally and the AR-15 that is illegal to buy under the present assault weapons ban?...

Probably stuff like bayonette lug, flash supressor?

God knows how many people were run through with bayonettes during school shootings before the assault weapon ban came to the rescue. And how about those kids in Columbine who could have returned fire if only they could have seen the muzzle flash of their killers weapons to know where they were

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 9:54 am

Zuruck wrote:
Woodchip, what's the nominal effected dispersion rate of a mortar shell from a 350 yd range with a draw angle of 35 degrees?

Nice try. Tell me this first:

1) What size mortar, 60 or 81 mm
2) What explosive, HE, phosphorus or incendary
3) Ground conditions, rocky, mud, dirt, forest or open terrain

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 1:17 pm

you guys are all pussies with your guns

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 1:42 pm

Cuda,
I dunno where you got that quote, but I never said that.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 3:22 pm

are any of you guys from the intelligence reports i keep reading on the southern poverty law centers website?

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:06 pm

My bad, Cuda..That was a quote of a quote from the news article.

Gentlemen, start your engines.

Gentlemen, start your engines.

Re: Gentlemen, start your engines.