![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/awb-300x158.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act *cough* or Federal Assault Weapons Ban was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as “large capacity”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It expired on 13 September 2004 as programmed, after having little effect in curtailing overall criminal activity, illegal firearm use and lethality of gun crimes.<\/p>\n
Before I get dog-piled, there are some studies that may show a reduction in mass shootings during that period. Is this enough to go for another bite at the AWB apple?<\/p>\n
Joe Biden Plans To Ban and Register ‘Assault Weapons’ but Won’t Say What They Are<\/h3>\n
The presidential contender says the 1994 ban made mass shootings less lethal, even though the guns it tolerated were “just as deadly.”<\/em><\/strong>
\nJACOB SULLUM<\/strong><\/p>\nFormer Vice President Joe Biden claims the 1994 federal ban on “assault weapons,” which expired in 2004, “reduced the lethality of mass shootings.” Yet the Democratic presidential contender simultaneously concedes<\/a> that the 1994 law, which was part of a broader crime bill that he sponsored, had no impact on the lethality of legal firearms, which remained “just as deadly.”<\/p>\n
In a gun control plan<\/a> he unveiled today, Biden promises to fix that problem with new legislation that will “prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality.” Since such laws have always been based on arbitrary distinctions <\/a>that have little or nothing to do with a gun’s capacity to kill people, it is hard to see how he can possibly keep that promise.<\/p>\n
Under the 1994 ban<\/a>, removing “military-style” features such as folding stocks, flash suppressors, or bayonet mounts transformed forbidden “assault weapons” into legal firearms, even though the compliant models fired the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity as the ones targeted by the law. That is also true of the new, supposedly improved “assault weapon” ban<\/a> sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D\u2013Calif.), who wrote the 1994 law. Feinstein has fiddled with the list of military-style features (omitting bayonet mounts while adding barrel shrouds, for instance), and any one of them would now be sufficient to make a rifle illegal, whereas two were required under the 1994 ban. But the problem identified by Biden remains: Removing these forbidden features results in a gun that is “just as deadly.”<\/p>\n
Biden’s plan does not specify how he would improve on Feinstein’s approach. “Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun,” he says. “That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Take an ill-conceived, ineffective law, make it more onerous, and be surprised when it fails as the 1994 version did. But hey, as long as it saves ONE vote…<\/p>\n
Read the rest here: Reason<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"