My view of the bill to renew and strengthen the AWB

[Withergyld]

This is another paper I am working on for one of my classes. I would appreciate CONSTRUCTIVE criticism of the logical basis of my argument. Thanks for taking the time to read it.

On September 13th 2004 the ban on semi-automatic assault weapons will expire. The current law bans 19 specific firearms and firearms that have a detachable magazine and at least two of a list of military features. It also bans the manufacture of magazines of over ten round capacities for civilian use. The current ban has been ineffective because manufacturers changed the name of their weapons and removed enough military features to be legal under the ban. It also allowed importation of foreign magazines of over ten rounds as long as they were made before September 13, 1994. The current law has had little if any effect on crime.
There is currently proposed legislation in Congress to renew and strengthen the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. This law bans more weapons by name, contains a stricter definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon and bans importation of magazines with a capacity over ten rounds. It also requires a dealer to conduct a background check any time an assault weapon is bought or sold. The proposed legislation to renew and strengthen the 1994 AWB is a bad law because it will have little effect on reducing criminal access or misuse of firearms, and the proposed legislation violates the 2nd Amendment.
The primary weapon of choice for criminals is the handgun. The 2001 report “Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted” by the FBI shows that between 1992 and 2001 almost 600 officers were killed by firearms. 448 of these officers were killed by handguns, which accounts for 75% of the officers killed. The National Institute of Justice in a March 1999 report on the effectiveness of the current ban noted that criminals prefer handguns with the statement, “Various provisions of the ban limited its potential effects on criminal use… about half the banned makes and models were rifles, which are hard to conceal for criminal use” The report further stated “… the banned guns are used in only a small fraction of gun crimes; even before the ban…” Although there have been several highly publicized cases where “assault weapons” have been used to commit a crime, criminal use of assault weapons is rare. The NIJ report also found “the ban failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder or multiple gunshot victims.” Due to this rarity of criminal use the proposed legislation to strengthen and renew the 1994 AWB will have little effect on crime.
One of the primary premises of the current ban and the proposed ban is that the weapons being banned are base on Military type weapons and serve no sporting purpose. However in the context of the riling by the US Supreme Court in US v. Miller the Right to Keep and Bear Arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with sporting use and everything to do with military type weapons. In the late 1930’s Jack Miller transported a shotgun with a barrel length less then 18 inches across state lines. He appealed the case stating that it was a violation of his 2nd Amendment rights. In the ruling handed down the Supreme Court stated that a shotgun with a barrel length less then 18 inches was not standard military equipment and served no military purpose. Because of this the arm in question was not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Based on this ruling the only arms protected by the 2nd Amendment are those arms that are suitable for use by the military. Some interpret the 2nd Amendment as only applying to the militia or National Guard. It is important to note that Jack Miller never served in the armed forces of the United States. Further Title 10 section 311 of the United States Code defines the composition of the militia as follows “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.” The code then further defines two sub-classes of militia “The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.” According to this definition all male citizens over 17 are members of the militia. Because the current law and proposed legislation to renew and strengthen the Assault Weapons Ban are in violation of the 2nd Amendment because they specifically ban or restrict militia members from possessing military firearms and firearms that have characteristics that would make them useful to the military. This restriction of military weapons infringes upon the right of the militia members to keep and bear arms.
In conclusion it has been shown that the proposed legislation is a bad law because it will have little effect on crime and that the proposed legislation infringes the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

[a2birdcage]

1. Nice paper........

Do you mind if I use it as one of my templates for my monthly letters I send to my Congressmen as well as the President? I won't use it word for word but there are some good facts in there I could use in the context of the letter.

[Hammie]

2. Dead on

Not the best essay I've ever read, but I don't see any flaw in your logic.