Elections Have Consequences – (Part 3)

20 Years Ago: The “Assault Weapons Ban” of 1994 Passed into History (or, Elections have Consequences)

Like many of you, I find it hard to believe that 2004 was 20 years ago. A couple weeks ago Guy Relford mentioned it was the 20th anniversary on his radio show (The Gun Guy on WIBC) and it got me thinking about how far we have come in regards to 2nd Amendment (2A) rights. It also serves as another reminder that elections have consequences.

On 13 September 2004, the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (AWB of 94) hit the 10-year sunset and was no more. The actual title of the bill was the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, (and that’s the biggest case of false advertising since Chunky Monkey Ice Cream.) Reading the provisions of the AWB of 94 I was reminded of how our elected officials kept us safe by identifying assault weapon features such as: telescoping stocks (making it easier for people of smaller stature shoot effectively is bad?) Bayonet lugs (because attaching a large knife to a rifle gives it an effective range of 1 yard?) A flash-hider (because having night vision after the first shot is a bad thing?) And the ever-evil pistol-grip (which has more to do with ergonomics and design than with making a rifle more “assaultee”.)

In 1994 the Democrats had a 57-43 majority in the Senate. Senate rules require 60 votes to “end cloture” and allow the bill to come up for a vote. Six Republicans voted in favor of the AWB of 94. Elections do have consequences. Less than two months after the AWB of 94 was signed into law, Republicans took the majority in both the Senate and House for the first time in over 40 years. Actions have consequences as well.

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, there are an estimated 28 million modern sporting rifles in private hands, an estimate 20 million are AR-15 platforms. The “in common use for lawful purposes” standard from the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in DC v Heller (2008) would make another ban unlikely to pass judicial scrutiny. Unfortunately, we’ve seen the current administration operate in an unconstitutional manner (student loan forgiveness, rent moratorium.) Elections do have consequences.

After reviewing the provisions of the AWB of 94 (and a couple other things since I saw a lot of similarities) I made a couple observations. First, a lot of our elected officials really know absolutely nothing about firearms. I don’t mean “explain the difference between how a semi-automatic handgun operates compared to a semi-automatic rifle” level of knowledge. I mean “doesn’t know which end the bullets come out” level of knowledge. Second, the ends always justify the means, so they reverse-engineer the means to arrive at the ends.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 gave us a point system which led to the ban of many imported firearms, including the Walther PPK. You can buy the gun carried by James Bond here in the United States, it’s made in Arkansas, not Germany.

Wearing another of my many hats, I’m a staff member on an Internet-based discussion forum that has a classifieds section. In this role I’ve learned there are many things about which I do not know. I can’t tell a counterfeit Benchmade Infidel knife from a real one. I know a Lee-Enfield rifle is chambered in .303 British, but I can’t tell the difference between one used in the Boer War and one used in WW II. Then one day, a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) brought up an issue, and I was even more certain that to people who know nothing about firearms, the ends justify the means.

Since November 1990, there has been a ban on importing semi-automatic rifles and shotguns with certain features. Importers bring them into our country and swap out foreign parts for US-made parts to make it legal according to a point-system designed by people who really know nothing about firearms. This also means that replacing US-made parts with foreign-made parts that have nothing to do with the weapon’s operation, makes it an illegal weapon.

I’d be willing to say that most of the folks reading this are familiar with Benelli and Beretta semi-automatic shotguns. I’d also be willing to say that very few of you know that neither Benelli or Beretta semi-automatic shotguns can be imported with an extended tube magazine. But wait, there’s more.

To determine which firearms are illegal to import there is of course, a point system. 20 parts, if more than 10 of them are imported, then parts must be replaced with US-made parts until the number of imported parts is 10 or less.

Of the parts listed which could possibly make a firearm illegal: a magazine counts for 3 points. The magazine body, follower, and floorplate each count as 1 point. A magazine feeds ammunition into a firearm. Is there a difference in operation of the firearm if the magazine was made in Bulgaria or in Texas? Is anyone surprised they didn’t assign a 1-point value to the magazine spring?

Does the country of manufacture of the butt-stock and fore-grip make a firearm more or less dangerous? Changing the American Walnut butt-stock and fore-grip on my Winchester Model 12 out and replacing it with a Polish Walnut butt-stock and fore-grip really won’t matter. Replacing the American Walnut butt-stock and fore-grip on my Romanian AK-47 (semi-automatic version) imported after November 1990 and replacing it with a Polish Walnut butt-stock and fore-grip could lead to a long prison sentence since that is 2 points. Switch out the pistol-grip made in Texas by Magpul with an original Romanian pistol-grip? That’s another point.

What attaches the butt-stock on an AK-47 to the receiver? It’s a bent piece of metal called a trunnion. An American-made bent piece of metal verses a Chinese-made bent piece of metal can be the difference between a legal weapon and an illegal weapon since it counts as 1 point.

To sum up my observations: Anti-2A individuals seem to pride themselves on their ignorance of firearms. The ends always justify the means. Cosmetic features that have no effect on the operation of a firearm are an easy means to an end, when you have no knowledge about what you want to ban.

The landmark SCOTUS case New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) established the “text, history, and tradition” standard in reference to 2A rights. I don’t think any of the examples I provided would pass that standard.

Any way you look at it, a lot of elected officials voted for these laws. Elections do have consequences.

Kelly Myers, ISRPA Government Affairs Co-Director