| Conclusion Assault weapons are
increasingly being perceived by legislators, police organizations, handgun restriction
advocates, and the press as a public health threat. As these weapons come to be
associated with drug traffickers, paramilitary extremists, and survivalists, their
television and movie glamour is losing its lustre to a violent reality.
Because of this fact, assault weapons are quickly becoming the leading topic of
America's gun control debate and will most likely remain the leading gun control
issue for the near future. Such a shift will not only damage America's gun lobby,
but strengthen the handgun restriction lobby for the following reasons:
- It will be a new topic in what has become to the press
and public an "old" debate.
Although handguns claim
more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains
a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. The
reasons for this vary: the power of the gun lobby; the tendency of both sides
of the issue to resort to sloganeering and pre-packaged arguments when discussing
the issue; the fact that until an individual is affected by handgun violence he
or she is unlikely to work for handgun restrictions; the view that handgun violence
is an "unsolvable" problem; the inability of the handgun restriction movement
to organize itself into an effective electoral threat; and the fact that until
someone famous is shot, or something truly horrible happens, handgun restriction
is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets,
machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing
looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus
semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed
to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions
on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these
weapons. - Efforts to stop restrictions on assault
weapons will only further alienate the police from the gun lobby.
Until recently, police organizations viewed the gun lobby in general, and the
NRA in particular, as a reliable friend. This stemmed in part from the role the
NRA played in training officers and its reputation regarding gun safety and hunter
training. Yet, throughout the 1980s, the NRA has found itself increasingly on
the opposite side of police on the gun control issue. Its opposition to legislation
banning armor-piercing ammunition, plastic handguns, and machine guns, and its
drafting of and support for the McClure/Volkmer handgun decontrol bill, burned
many of the bridges the NRA had built throughout the past hundred years. As the
result of this, the Law Enforcement Steering Committee was formed. The Committee
now favors such restriction measures as waiting periods with background check
for handgun purchase and a ban on machine guns and plastic firearms. If police
continue to call for assault weapons restrictions, and the NRA continues to fight
such measures, the result can only be a further tarnishing of the NRA's image
in the eyes of the public, the police, and NRA members. The organization will
no longer be viewed as the defender of the sportsman, but as the defender of the
drug dealer. - Efforts to restrict assault weapons
are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns.
Although the majority of Americans favor stricter handgun controls, and a consistent
40 percent of Americans favor banning the private sale and possession of handguns,[129]
many Americans do believe that handguns are effective weapons for home self-defense
and the majority of Americans mistakenly believe that the Second Amendment of
the Constitution guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms.[130] Yet,
many who support the individual's right to own a handgun have second thoughts
when the issue comes down to assault weapons. Assault weapons are often viewed
the same way as machine guns and "plastic" firearms—a weapon that poses such a
grave risk that it's worth compromising a perceived constitutional right.
Although the opportunity to restrict assault weapons exists, a question remains
for the handgun restriction movement: How? Defining an assault weapon—in legal
terms—is not easy. It's not merely a matter of going after guns that are "black
and wicked looking." Although those involved in the debate know the weapons being
discussed, it's extremely difficult to develop a legal definition that restricts
the availability of assault weapons without affecting legitimate semi-automatic
guns. Most likely, any definition would focus on magazine capacity, weapon configuration,
muzzle velocity, the initial purpose for which the weapon (or its full-auto progenitor)
was developed, convertibility, and possible sporting applications. Any law based
on this definition would, however, need to have a clause to excuse legitimate
semi-automatic weapons that would inadvertently fall under it. And although legislation
could be passed that would ban specific weapons, the world's arms manufacturers
are expert at producing weapons that follow the letter, but not the intent, of
the law. This often results in products that are virtually identical to the restricted
weapon, yet different enough to remain on the market. Yet, the
framework for restricting assault weapons already exists. On the federal level,
ATF currently excludes from import handguns recognized as Saturday Night Specials.
This is done by application of criteria designed by the agency that takes into
account such things as barrel length, caliber, quality of materials, safety devices,
and other factors. Any gun that does not meet the importation threshold cannot
be sold in the United States. Any manufacturer whose product is refused for import
can challenge the decision in federal court. Criteria to identify and categorize
assault weapons could be developed by ATF and applied toward restricting the availability
of both foreign- and domestically-produced assault weapons.
The state of Maryland has taken a similar approach in banning the sale of Saturday
Night Specials. The 1988 Maryland law established a nine-member board responsible
for creating a roster of permitted handguns. The nine members of the board include:
the superintendent of the state police; representatives of the Maryland States'
Attorney's Association, Maryland Association of Chiefs of Police, Marylanders
Against Handgun Abuse, the National Rifle Association, and a Maryland gun manufacturer;
and three citizen board members to be determined by the governor. After January
1, 1990, the law requires that no person in Maryland may: manufacture a handgun
not on the Handgun Roster or sell or offer to sell any handgun not on the Handgun
Roster that was manufactured after January 1, 1985. In determining whether a handgun
has a legitimate use and can therefore be placed on the roster, the board will
consider: concealability; ballistic accuracy; weight; quality of materials; quality
of manufacture; and reliability as to safety, caliber, and detectability by standard
security devices used at airports and courthouses.[131] States could develop similar
rosters to ban the sale of assault weapons. Since passage
of the Maryland law, the NRA has collected enough signatures of Maryland residents
to bring the measure to referendum on the November 1988 ballot. The NRA's opposition
to such a panel is not surprising. The organization fears giving the government,
at any level, the power to restrict the availability of firearms—conjuring up
images of a "gun czar." And although such proposals would solve the definitional
problems posed by assault weapons, it would guarantee fierce opposition from the
gun lobby. The success of any proposed legislation to
restrict assault weapons and their accessories depends not only on whether the
American public pays attention to the topic, but agrees that these products are
dangerous. Obviously, some aspects of America's fascination with assault weapons
and their accessories are here to stay. Publications are clearly protected under
the First Amendment of the Constitution. Yet the weapons themselves, and accessories
such as laser sights and grenades requiring only the explosive charge, can be
restricted and even banned at the local, state, or federal level. The fact that
assault weapons are increasingly being equated with America's drug trade may play
a major role in motivating the public to call for their restriction. Yet, recognizing
the country's fascination for exotic weaponry and the popular images and myths
associated with guns, it may require a crisis of a far greater proportion before
any action is taken. Back to Table of Contents |
