FRI 10 SEP 2004
Assault weapons ban a victim of politics
Beginning Monday, Americans will be able to legally purchase Striker 12, TEC-9 and UZI assault weapons for the first time since 1994.
With the passage that year of Title XI of the Federal Violent Crime Control Act, a 10-year moratorium was placed on the purchase of “military-style” weapons. Signed by former President Bill Clinton and supported by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, its goal was lower gun crime rates. Continuation of the ban required renewed authorization by Congress.
However, the ban will expire Monday with only a feeble attempt at renewal and noise from both sides.
It is shameful that politicians are so concerned with keeping their seats in this election year that they will let this vital policy slip quietly into oblivion.
In March, the Senate added the ban to a bill limiting the liability of gun manufacturers. It then failed to pass the bill by a vote of 90-8.
President George W. Bush has said he would sign a bill renewing the ban. Congressmen from both parties have argued its merits. Police unions, victims’ rights organizations and other interest groups supporting gun control have contended the expiration of the ban will trigger more crime.
The National Rifle Association and others have maintained the ban is a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. They also have said the ban has not affected gun crime rates because those who commit crimes with assault weapons are not concerned with the law and are not likely to purchase the weapons legally in any case.
Ban supporters argue the purpose of assault weapons is to kill people, the ban opposition argues the virtues of assault weapons as hunting and collectors’ items, and both claim a policy decision in the opposite direction would victimize more people than it would benefit.
However, the true victim is the ban, a piece of legislation that has the possibility to save lives and should be supported. And it is a victim of politics. In this election year, politicians are more concerned with their electability than their policies.
Following the passage of the 1994 act, the Democrats lost their majority in Congress, which they attributed to their role in passing the ban and the subsequent increase in voting by right-leaning gun advocates. Clinton told USA Today “the fight for the ‘assault weapons ban’ cost 20 members their seats in Congress.”
Also, the March bill on which the ban was riding was killed by an impressive majority following intense lobbying by the right-wing NRA.
Congressmen say neither the House nor the Senate will take action on the ban because there is not enough support for it. There is support for the ban, from both the Republican president and the Democratic Party platform. However, no one will risk angering the substantial voting block of middle Americans who could swing the close election.
Instead, they will let the ban expire for now. And when the new president and the new members of Congress are settled in office, they will address it, with a four-year cushion for the opposing public to forget their action.
If only politicians cared as much for the safety of their constituents as they do for the security of their offices.
A.L.
UI Argonaut, 301 Student Union, Moscow, ID 83844
Argonaut: 208.885.7845 Advertising: 208.885.5780