Today (three
weeks late!) Sen. Dianne Feinstein finally followed through on
her
threat to introduce a new federal ban on “assault weapons.” Or
so news reports claim. So far I have not been able to locate an
actual bill, and The Washington Post reports
that Feinstein was still fiddling with the text yesterday. There is
no link to the bill on Feinstein’s website,
and the lines at her office are too busy for me to get through,
presumably because many other people are wondering where the hell
the bill is. So for now all I have to go on is the summary
that her office posted in December, plus the details that her aides
have divulged to the press.The bill bans the manufacture and sale of more than 100 guns by
name, including the Bushmaster rifle that Adam Lanza used to murder
26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut,
last month. That may seem emotionally satisfying, but it would have
been equally logical to ban the car he drove to the school. After
all, had he not been able to reach the school, the massacre never
would have happened. Even if the particular model of car that Lanza
used to commit his crimes had been unavailable, of course, he could
have driven a different, equally effective car. Yet for people who
think like Dianne Feinstein, it is inconceivable that such
substitution might occur with guns as well as cars.In addition to the specifically listed guns, Feinstein’s bill,
like the “assault weapon” ban that expired in 2004 (which she also
sponsored), covers guns that accept detachable magazines and have
military-style features such as pistol grips, folding stocks, and
flash suppressors. But while a rifle needed two military-style
features to qualify as an “assault weapon” under the old law, it
needs only one under the new bill. That might count as an
improvement if these features had anything to do with the ability
to kill defenseless schoolchildren and moviegoers, but they don’t.
Judging from her office’s summary, here are the features Feinstein
considers especially menacing: pistol grips, folding stocks,
thumbhole stocks, and grenade launchers (not very useful unless you
have grenades, which are already illegal for civilians).This sort of legislation makes sense only to people who don’t
understand what it does. The folks at CNN, for example, who put
this headline on their
story about Feinstein’s press conference: “Feinstein
Proposes New Ban on Some Assault Weapons.” Since “assault weapons”
are defined by law, how is it possible for the law that defines
them to cover only some while missing others? In case that’s not
confusing enough, CNN adds that “not all of the weapons in the bill
meet the technical definition of assault weapons.” What “technical
definition”? It can’t be Feinstein’s, since any gun covered by her
bill is an “assault weapon” by (arbitrary) definition. Maybe CNN
corresponents Dana Bash and Tom Cohen mean that Feinstein’s
definition is different from Connecticut’s, which is essentially
the same as the old federal definition; or California’s, which is
broader; or New York’s, which is based on a somewhat different list
of military-style features. More likely, they do not know what they
mean. Evidence for the latter conclusion:
Supporters of more gun control acknowledge the
constitutional right to bear arms, but argue that rifles capable of
firing multiple rounds automatically or semi-automatically exceed
the reasonable needs of hunters and other gun
enthusiasts.
It is amazing that, a quarter of a century after California
passed the first “assault weapon” ban, journalists who cover this
issue still think such laws are 1) aimed at machine guns, 2) aimed
at all semiautomatics, or 3) both, as Bash and Cohen seem to
believe. But maybe we should not be too hard on them. After all,
President Obama, who supports Feinstein’s bill, suffers from a
similar
misconception.Even if you accept Feinstein’s false premise that there is
something especially assaulty or murdery about the guns she wants
to ban, her bill would not actually get rid of them, since millions
of existing “assault weapons” would remain in circulation.
Feinstein
says her aim is to “dry up the supply of these weapons over
time.” But guns are durable products that remain usable for
decades, not a puddle that evaporates when the sun comes up.
Feinstein claims her
bill will “help end the mass shootings that have devastated
countless families and terrorized communities.” How exactly will it
do that?
Link to article:
If It Makes Sense to Ban Adam Lanza’s Gun, What About His Car?
Print 
PDF
