Gentlemen, start your engines.
Posted: 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-
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-
