Did Issa's committee ever even discuss the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban

[ProgressiveEconomist]

the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban in september 2004? See the excellent Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban .

Wouldn't reinstatement of that law, in force for 10 years after 1994, be the simplest way to diminish deadly gunrunning to Mexico?

And where did Issa himself stand on efforts to reinstate the AWB in 2007 and 2008?

The 2007 effort, introduced by Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), who lost her husband to a heavily armed madman on a train, attracted 60 cosponsors but died in committee.

A 2008 REPUBLICAN effort, by Mark Kirk (R Ill.-10), met the same fate, but with only 4 co-sponsors: Michael N. Castle (R Del.-1), Mike Ferguson (R N.J.-7), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R Fla.-18) and Christopher Shays (R Conn.-4).

IMO, Issa's committee for longer than a year has been a partisan political circus rather than any serious effort to fix the problem of gunrunning that's killing thousands and corrupting Mexican governments.

WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. No, the assault weapon ban was pretty weak.

MANY regular non-assault rifles were produced during the AWB years. Claifornia and several other area still have AWB laws in effect (local versions of the 1994 AWB) and enjoy shooting extremely similar firarms pretty much uninhibited. Basically, the 1994 AWB banned cosmetic featuers on what are otherwise regular semiautomatic rifles. The actual action and operational mechanisms of the rifles were not legislated... just the configurations and acessories. So all the manufacturer has to do is tweak a restricted featuer or item so it's outside of the covered ban and the rifle is legal again and no less lethal in practice. Furthermore, millions of actual "assault weapons" that already existed on the market before 1994 were grandfathered in and exempt from the ban. It was a pretty pointless ineffective ban that cost LOTS of democrats their seats in congress. The AWB did nothing but popularize these style of weapons even more than they were!

The only real technical thing the 1994 AWB was effective at was the high capacity magazine ban (any mag/clip over ten rounds). Even then, all prior existing mags were grandfathered in. Literally hundreds of millions of "high capacity" magazines were already on the market when the 1994 AWB went into effect so rather than being "banned" they just got a tad more expensive because of limited supply... but nevertheless you could walk into ANY gunstore in 1994-2004 and buy a new or nearly new hicap mag/clip for your gun.

AWB Legal gun:



AWB Illegal gun (virtually no different in looks or action):

[ProgressiveEconomist]

8. How many military-style weapons and large clips were sold per quarter before

and after September 2004 in the US? Even though there were definitional issues with the AWB, did it apparently suppress the market for such unnecessary firepower? When there was an assault weapons ban, did the vast majority of people aparently want to steer far clear of the cutting edge of the law?

And in assessing public policy, shouldn't the costs and benefits be weighed against each other? How many expected human lives is it worth for 10,000 "sportsment" to be able to shoot the heads off deer?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

22. I don't have the time to dig up hard statistics... but

I can say (being a firearm enthusiast in the thick of it all)... the AWB made these "assault weapons" and high cap mags extremely popular.

When the law passed there a run on everything AWB related right off the get go. AR15s, AKs/MAC90s, TEC pistols, magazines... even non AWB banned rifles that simply looked scary became popular (SKS & Mini14). Remember, all preexisting items remained legal as they were grandfathered and the manufactures knew this was coming so they ramped up mfg capacity before the effective ban date. So if it wasn't somewhat popular before the ban, it was sell-out popular during the ban. And the 1st day of the ban warehouses and shelves were stocked with legal pre-ban assault weapon stuff.

And when supply of newly made pre-AWB stuff began to dry up or prices got too high then the items that became popular were the "ban-compliant" models. Items that were still legal and on the ragged-edge of the law. Basically, they were renamed models of then banned firearms with one or two VERY minor changes to make them legal. Common changes for AR15 & AK47 type rifles involved removing a flash hider, pinning the stock (AR15), and grinding off the bayonet lugs (seriously, who uses bayonets anymore). Other than that the rifle mechanisms operated 100% the same, used the same mags, used the same bullets, had the same rate of fire, and basically looked the same. For all intents and purposes, the ban-era rifles were the same as the pre-ban rifles. The only pistols really affected by the ban were the UZI clones, MAC clones, and IntraTEC pistols... and even then just removing the shrouds & barrel threads made them legal again.

As I said before, the only somewhat annoying part of the ban was the 10 round magazine limit. Of course, new and used pre-ban magazines were plentiful and never really got prohibitively expensive so if you owned 2 or 3 for a gun you were set. Even if you couldn't get a hold of a high capacity mag for a decent price, the legal 10 round mags were cheap and it only takes a second or so to swap out a new mag/clip. Basically, it only takes an extra 3-5 seconds to blow off 30 rounds with ban compliant mags when compared to a 30 round mag.

Basically, as you are no doubt beginning to discern, the ban-era assault weapons were 100% just as lethal, scary looking, and rapid firing as the pre-ban "assault weapons". There just plain was no practical real-world difference whatsoever imparted onto the usefulness/deadliness of the guns. So it comes as no surprise that there was NO demonstrable benefit (decrease in crime/casualties) from having the ban in place. At the end of 10 years, Bush stated he would sign the renewal if it made it to his desk. However, the people who supported renewing the ban could not even demonstrate any actual statistical benefits... and congress never voted to renew it. It's not about, "How many expected human lives is it worth for 10,000 "sportsment" to be able to shoot the heads off deer? It's about an AWB that offered nothing to society yet cost many democrats their seats in congress. Pretty poor trade, IMO, and the same thing would happen today if Obama somehow reinstated an AWB.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. You'd think laws that say "No gunrunning to Mexico or anywhere else." would be enough

You'd think but you'd be wrong.

[slackmaster]

3. OK, you asked for it so here's my opinion and you probably won't like it.

Mexico's crime problem is not a US problem. Mexico should enforce its own import/export laws, guard its own borders, fight its own political corruption, and put its own violent criminals in prison.

The US should also enforce its own laws. Straw purchases of firearms are already illegal. Exporting firearms without the proper licensing is also illegal.

The expired federal "assault weapons" "ban" was a feel-good political photo opportunity that did NOTHING to reduce violent crime in the US or anywhere else, and completely failed to address the root causes of criminal behavior which include poverty, poor education, lack of economic opportunity, and the farce known as the War On (some) Drugs.

Proponents of the expired evil cosmetic feature ban that for 10 years artificially defined some popular firearms as "assault weapons" had TEN FULL YEARS to justify renewing it. When September 2004 came around they showed up empty handed. They had NOTHING to justify the senseless restrictions that actually increased interest in certain kinds of firearms and resulted in MORE of them being in circulation.

Thanks for asking.

[badtoworse]

4. Spot on! (as usual)

[ProgressiveEconomist]

5. What was the incidence of firearm deaths in Mexico and mass killing incidents in the US

before and after September 2004?

It seems to me that, if you really want to simplify government, you should investigate whether there are simple solutions to serious problems, such as Mexican drug murders and US shooting sprees like the one in Blacksburg Virginia in 2007.

[slackmaster]

7. Pick whatever statistics and factoids make you feel good

Here is a list I got of the Intewebz that supposedly provides firearm homicide rates per 100,000 people for Mexico for some years. I have no idea how reliable this source is, but here are the numbers.

2009: 9.797
2008: 7.63
2007: 5.43
2006: 6.09
2005: 5.51
2004: 5.69
2003: 6.27
2002: 6.70
2001: 7.21
2000: 7.10
1999: 4.548
1998: 3.45
1994: 9.8813

If the AWB had any effect, why was the rate higher in 1994 than in any other year presented? Why was the rate so high in 2001? Why did it take all the way to 2009 for it to get back in the high 9s?

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/mexico

The numbers don't tell me anything other than Mexico has a lot of violent crime. I know that a lot of Mexican crime is driven by the War On (some) Drugs.

It seems to me that, if you really want to simplify government...

I don't believe I've ever said that I did.

...and US shooting sprees like the one in Blacksburg Virginia in 2007.

Are you aware that neither of the handguns used in the Virginia Tech massacre were affected by the AWB? It's true that some magazines with capacities over 10 rounds were used, but they were available before and during the ban.\

As I posted previously, Mexican crime is Mexico's problem.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

10. Funny you focused on 1994. 1998 and 1999 were the series low points.

and 1995-7 and years before 1994 are suspiciously missing for presumably some innocent reason. There's no question the trend has been UP since 2005, when presumably the US output of military-style weapons and large-magazine clips would have taken off.

Maybe US dealers dumped their inventories across the border for fear they wouldn't be able to sell them at any price when the impending AWB hit them in late 1994.

[slackmaster]

12. Yet for some strange reason, violent crime has been trending DOWN in the US the whole time

There's no question the trend has been UP since 2006, when presumably the US output of military-style weapons and large-magazine clips would have taken off.

LOL @ failure to consider anything happening in Mexico as a cause of Mexican violence. Here's a quick history lesson:

Mexican violence started taking off in 2006 when Felipe Calderón became President and started deploying tens of thousands of soldiers and federal police to battle the drug cartels. Prior to that, the government basically let the cartels work out their own territorial issues. The arms race took off when the Mexican military escalated the fight. There are plenty of real military weapons in the hands of Mexican criminals BTW, things that have never been available on the US civilian sporting arms market.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

15. 'The Mexican military escalated the fight'--and the US firearms market

responded to the historic sales opportunity.

BTW, on the off-topic issue of US crime rates, have you read "Freakonomics" or seen the documentary of the same name?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

6. Thanks for the kicks, folks, but so far no one has answered the question

I asked in the OP headline.

[oldhippie]

9. My opinion is that the Assault weapon ban .......

.... is an entirely different subject and doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of Issa's committee, which is government oversight.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

11. It appears that Issa's committee is focusing ONLY on government actions AFTER

Operation Fast and Furious was terminated. If, instead, Issa's committee had focused on the actual problem that needs to be fixed and thus on the ATF's strategy for achieving an important goal (suppressing deadly illegal mass exports of military-style weapons), wouldn't the AWB's expiration and possible renewal be at least relevant? Used in one of the Committee's recommendations to Congress?

[oldhippie]

14. No, the AWB is not relevant to the investigation

The investigation is about a dead agent and the policy decisions that contributed to a Mexican national having the weapon that killed him. Though I suppose you can make it about anything you want.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

17. 'about a dead agent ... and policy decisions'. NO. Issa has no interest in documents

or witnesses relevant to the period when "Operation Fast and Furious" still was being run out of a rogue ATF office in Phoenix.

[oldhippie]

20. The policy decisions that continued it.

I am done. You asked for an opinion and I gave it.

[aikoaiko]

13. Legalizing drugs (even just pot) would have a much bigger impact on reducing gun violence.

Most of the guns captured after Mexico gang violence didn't come from US gun stores.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

16. 'Most ... didn't come from US gun stores'--So there ARE foolproth methods to trace

captured Mexican cartel firearms?

[aikoaiko]

18. Nothing is foolproof.

But the available data, whether it is analyzed by left (Annenbergs Factcheck) or right (Fox news) groups puts the percentage of US originated firearms recovered after incidents between 17 and 35%.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

19. Are there some captured guns that cannot be traced? Then that

17-35 percent figure would be an underestimate of US origin, wouldn't it? Or does the 35 percent upper limit already take into account the probable origin of captured guns that cannot be traced?

[aikoaiko]

21. They already take into account the untraceable ones if I recall correctly.

Those numbers likely overestimate the number of guns purchased at gun stores because they include firearms that originated from government to government transactions.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

23. Whether a gun originated as a legal civilian or government US firearm...

it will have serial numbers. As required by law, firearms commercially manufactured in the US or legally imported must have a manufacturer/importer name, location, caliber, and serial number. Even if this information were obliterated (to avoid discrete tracking) it would still be evident that some information at some point existed and likely existed because the gun is from the US. Such a firearm can be reasonably considered to have been trafficked from the US.

From the government GAO-09-709 Firearms Trafficking Report: Over 90 percent of the firearms seized in Mexico and traced over the last 3 years have come from the United States. ... In 2008, of the almost 30,000 firearms that the Mexican Attorney General’s office said were seized, only around 7,200, or approximately a quarter, were submitted to ATF for tracing.

Note the bolded portions above and understand the caveat of the "most guns come from the US" meme... you can only determine the origin of TRACEABLE firearms. In the government's own report, it indicates that mexico only submits about 25% of the net firearms seized. If a firearm appears to have no markings destroyed and no legal american required markings or it is evident that the firearm carries foreign identification (soviet surplus, chinese, combloc, etc...) then there is little reason for the Mexican government to request US trace data for that firearm.

Not to mention when you see the photo op pictures of Mexican police posing behind the proverbial gaggle of seized guns. Next time you notice a pic like this, if the resolution is good enough, look at the firearms closely. In addition to your average rifle/pistol you'll see grenade launchers, light/crew machine guns, grenades, AK/AR rifles with select fire fire control groups, belt fed machineguns, RPGs, short barreled rifles... all sorts of actual military grade shit. These guns are not coming from US civilian gun shops and gun shows. Stuff like this in the US, if it's legal at all, is WAY more regulated and not simply cash and carry.

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. Not really his committee's juristiction

The original assault weapons ban went through the Judiciary Committee:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR03355:@@@X