It was signed into law.  Then it expired.  And now some Senators and Representatives want to bring it back - possibly even stronger than before.

It's Section 4502, "Restriction on Manufacture, Transfer, and Possession of Certain Semiautomatic Assault Weapons," and it was included in HR 3355, better know the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

You've heard the Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March, and the Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence weigh in on the perceived necessity and effectiveness of the ban.  Now it's time for Amendment II Democrats to deliver a much-needed counterpoint in the form of ten persistent myths about semi-automatics and the push to ban them once again.

MYTH #1: The assault weapon ban only prohibited 19 types of deadly semi-automatic military-style rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

This is a very common misconception that is frequently raised by gun-control advocates.  The 1994 gun ban did enumerate 19 specific types of semi-automatic firearms as being specifically banned, along with any "types, replicas, or duplicates in any caliber" of any of these firearms: 

• Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (AK-47, all models)
• Action Arms Israeli Military Industries Uzi and Galil
• Beretta AR–70 (SC–70)
• Colt AR–15
• Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC
• SWD M–10, M–11, M–11/9, and M–12 (aka MAC-10, MAC-11, etc.)
• Steyr AUG
• Intratec TEC–9, TEC–DC9 and TEC–22
• Any shotgun which contains its ammunition in a revolving cylinder, such as (but not limited to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12

But wait.  That's just the list of firearms specifically targeted by the ban.  This is the list that every proponent of reauthorizing the ban mentions during their stump speeches.  But keep reading the text of the ban; the list has only just begun.

The ban also prohibited any semi-automatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and features two or more of the following characteristics:

• A folding or telescoping stock
• A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
• A bayonet mount
• A flash suppressor or barrel having a threaded muzzle
• A grenade launcher

The ban also prohibited any semi-automatic pistol that can accept a detachable magazine and features two or more of the following characteristics:

• An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip
• A barrel having a threaded muzzle
• A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel, permitting the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned
• A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded
• A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm

And finally, the ban also prohibited any semi-automatic shotgun that features two or more of the following characteristics:

• A folding or telescoping stock
• A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
• A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds
• An ability to accept a detachable magazine

That list of banned firearms seems a lot longer than just 19 scary-looking military guns, doesn't it?  Did your gun wind up on the list?

MYTH #2: The assault weapon ban also restricted many other firearms that aren't semi-automatic, including some pump-action shotguns.

This myth affected many in the RKBA crowd, including your humble Webmaster.  But, to be honest, the 1994 law specifically exempted any firearm that "is manually operated by bolt, pump, level, or slide action" from being banned.  A list of some 670 firearms deemed to be appropriate for "hunting and sporting" purposes was specifically exempted from the ban, including the Browning BAR Mark II Safari (Semi-Auto and Magnum), the Ruger Mini-14 (as long as it didn't have a folding stock), and many variations of the Mossberg 500 pump shotgun.  Curiously, the Mossberg 590A1 - big brother to the 500 and a favorite with the Marines, Coast Guard, and Special Forces - was not on the list of protected shotguns.  Maybe it was the bayonet lug and optional pistol grip that kept it off the "safe" list...

MYTH #3: Assault weapons are frequently used in violent crime, and banning them reduces violent crime.

This claim probably merits the closest review of all.  No sane person wants to see violent crime levels increase in America, so it was probably easy to convince some people that the 1994 ban was needed on the grounds that it would reduce violent crime.  So how does the data hold up?

Jeffrey A. Roth and Christopher S. Koper of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), which is the "R&D" arm of the United States Department of Justice, published a report in 1999 titled Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-1996 that examined what effects the ban had on violent crime over a two-year period since the ban went into effect.

One interesting little fact reported in the 1999 NIJ report dealt with gun traces, which are used by the BATF to track usage of particular guns in crime.  Roth and Koper compiled a list of BATF gun traces from 1993 that monitored use of the 19 types of semi-automatic firearms explicitly prohibited by the 1994 ban.  Four of the firearm types that wound up on the crime bill's verboten list were used so infrequently during gun crimes in 1993 that one must wonder why they were even included in the ban to begin with.

Out of a total of 3,393 BATF traces in 1993 for the weapons banned in the upcoming crime bill, there were 1,202 traces for Intratec weapons (TEC-9, TEC-DC9, and TEC-22), 878 traces for SWD weapons (MAC-10, etc.), 581 traces for Colt AR-15s, 281 for Uzis, 175 for Intratec copycats, 99 for AR-15 copycats, 87 for AK-47s, and 64 for revolving cylinder shotguns like the Street Sweeper.  In addition, there were only 12 traces for Galil rifles, 9 for Fabrique Nationale weapons, 4 for Steyr AUG rifles (importation into the US banned in 1989), and only one single trace for a Beretta AR-70 rifle for the entire year of 1993.

The NIJ study furthermore reports that traces for 19 enumerated firearm types climbed to 4,077 in 1994 and then dropped to 3,268 in 1995, a decline of approximately 20% over one year.

In addition, the NIJ study detailed that the number of gun murders in America decreased by 10% from 1994 to 1995, mirroring a drop in gun traces for "assault weapons" as well as overall gun traces for the same time period.  The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and other pro-ban organizations often cite this statistic from the NIJ study as proof that the semi-auto ban helped reduce gun murders.

What the Brady Campaign doesn't often mention, though, is that the same NIJ study by Roth and Koper demonstrated that gun murders were already on a downward trend, dropping 4-5% from 1993 to 1994.  Even with "assault weapons" readily available and "on the streets."

Furthermore, a July 1995 report by the USDoJ Bureau of Justice Statistics titled Guns Used in Crime helped to shed more light upon the actual role of semi-automatics in the commission of violent crime.  Although there were 3,393 traces of "assault weapons" for 1993, those firearms represented only 8% of the total number of firearms used in violent crime for the entire year.

The BJS report also presented a list of the ten firearms most heavily traced by the BATF in 1994.  Number one on the list was the Lorcin P25, a "Saturday Night Special" pistol from one of the most notorious gun manufacturers in American history.  The only non-pistol firearm to make it onto the list was the 12-gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.  Not a single "assault weapon" made it onto the list.

MYTH #4: The definition of an "assault weapon" is tightly drawn; therefore, there should be no confusion as to which firearms should be banned.

If the definition of "assault weapon" is really so tightly drawn, then why are so many people still confused by it?  The only characteristic shared by all "assault weapons" banned by the 1994 law was that they were all semi-automatic.  Aside from that, many other semi-automatic firearms were explicitly protected from the ban.  So is it merely a squabble over cosmetic features?

It may not be strictly cosmetic, but it does appear to be a debate over features.  The aforementioned NIJ report detailed that firearms that fell under the 1994 ban, if not expressly listed, were considered "features test" weapons.  The features, listed above in Myth #1, were deemed useful for military and criminal purposes, but were considered unnecessary for shooting sports.  So while an individual feature itself could be considered an objective feature of a particular gun, the overall evaluation of the gun is subjective in nature, based on the opinionated "hunting and sporting purposes" paradigm first conceived within the BATF.

Therefore, there is no actual, objective, tightly-drawn definition of an "assault weapon" in Federal law - and there probably never will be.

MYTH #5: The majority of Americans support reauthorizing a Federal ban on assault weapons.

We've heard the claims over and over again.  From Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), "Today almost three-fourths of the American public supports the ban, as do more than two-thirds of gun owners." (September 8, 2004) From Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), "Even gun owners across this nation agree that assault weapons should not be on the streets." (May 4, 2004) From Representative Lois Capps (D-CA), "This ban has broad public support." (September 13, 2004)

There's not enough room in this article to go into detail, but it appears that some pro-ban activists may have manufactured support for the ban's passage and extension.  Whether this was by accident or by design is unclear and unimportant.  What is important is how Americans perceive the issue and where we as Democrats go from here.  To read more on this topic, check out the article Don't Think of an Assault Weapon.

MYTH #6: Assault weapons are weapons of mass destruction.

I can't make this stuff up.  In an age where we regard sarin, anthrax, and nuclear weapons as "weapons of mass destruction," it seems that trying to compare a semi-automatic WASR-1 to a vial of VX nerve agent would be patently ludicrous.  However, not everyone feels that way, as demonstrated by Donna Dees-Thomases, founder of the Million Mom March, during a CNN interview on May 7, 2004:

These are weapons of mass destruction. These are not weapons for hunting, these are not weapons for personal protection. These are weapons to kill as many people as quickly as possible.

Representative McCarthy quickly followed suit on the House floor just four days later:

May I remind our people out there, the guns we are talking about are AK-47s, Uzis, the guns unfortunately that we see in the war every day. Do we actually want them back in our communities? Do we want them in our streets? In our schoolyards? Have we not seen enough gun violence in this country that we would want to put these weapons of mass destruction back out on the streets?

As a nation, we're already tired of nonexistent WMDs being used to justify dramatic shifts in government policy.  With all due respect to the pain and agony that Representative McCarthy has endured because of a gun-toting psychopath, her energies would be better spent trying to help victims of gun violence instead of obfuscating the gun ban issue with this sort of rhetoric.

It's not over yet, though. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has also started referring to semi-automatics as "weapons of mass destruction," using the term at a March 2006 rally in support of a proposed state ban on such firearms.

MYTH #7: A nationwide ban on assault weapons does not violate the Second Amendment, according to the Supreme Court.

Not true.  The United States Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of the 1994 gun ban, although it has refused to hear an appeal from Intratec (manufacturer of the TEC-9) claiming that the ban exceeded Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.  The suit had previously been dismissed by the appeals court for the District of Columbia.

In fact, the Supreme Court has not issued any significant ruling on the application of the Second Amendment to the American public since the 1934 United States v. Miller ruling, and the exact meaning of that ruling is still a matter of debate in legal circles.

MYTH #8: Lawmakers who support banning assault weapons don't want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

That depends on which lawmakers you're referring to.  Senator Feinstein was interviewed on the December 5, 1995 issue of 60 Minutes about her support for the 1994 semi-auto ban.  During the program, she declared:

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban [on semi-automatic firearms], picking up every one of them, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in," I would have done it. I could not do it. The votes weren't there.

Clearly, Feinstein was referring to outright confiscation of firearms.  To be fair, not all pro-ban lawmakers wanted such extreme legislation.  But some do, and some high-ranking activists and politicians have expressed similar views.  Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence, in a September 14, 2004 press release, declared that "semiautomatic assault weapons...should not be available to the general public. Their availability should be restricted to the military and law enforcement agencies." Attorney General Janet Reno declared in 1993 that "Deadly assault weapons which were developed to wage war have no place in civilian hands..." And the original version of Illinois HB2414 would have completely outlawed private ownership of semi-automatics within the state. (A modified version of HB2414 is now being considered that will "grandfather" current owners of semi-automatics, but only allows them to leave such firearms to their heirs or sell them to qualified out-of-state buyers.)

MYTH #9: You don't need an assault weapon for self-defense.

One common sentiment expressed by gun-control advocates is that ownership of semi-automatics by law-abiding citizens is simply unnecessary.  For example, consider this excerpt from a September 6, 2004 editorial in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel:

You don't need an assault weapon to defend your home and family against an intruder. Neither do you need one to go duck or deer hunting. What you need an assault weapon for is to commit murder and mayhem on a massive scale.

Which means you don't need one at all.

You don't need a 36" plasma television in order to watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann when a 12" black-and-white TV set will do quite nicely.  You don't need a hybrid car in order to make a trip to the local grocery store when a traditional gasoline or diesel car will get you there just as quickly.  For that matter, you don't need to drink organic milk that is free of rBGH when there is so much supermarket milk laced with antibiotics and hormones just waiting to find a place in your refrigerator.

Since when did the concepts of freedom and personal choice become anathema to the pro-gun control movement in America?  Enough, already.

The editors of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel would do well to re-read the Bill of Rights.  After all, there's a good reason why the Founding Fathers never called it a Bill of Needs.

MYTH #10: Assault weapons have no legitimate place in society.

To quote Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) from his remarks on the Senate floor on September 8, 2004: "Semiautomatic weapons are killing machines with utterly no redeeming value in any sane community..."

Since we have already demonstrated that "assault weapons" are nothing more than semi-automatic firearms, we can now examine Senator Kennedy's verbatim quote.  After all, he did say that semi-automatic weapons have no value in "any sane community," so let's think about that for a moment.

Although the first semi-automatic rifle was designed and built by German-born Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher back in 1885, it was American gunsmith John Moses Browning who first introduced semi-automatics to the civilian market, including the Remington Autoloading Repeating Rifle, first manufactured in 1906 and renamed the Model 8 in 1911.  The semi-automatic firearm has been in civilian hands longer than the fuel-injected engine, the personal computer, the microwave oven, the credit card, the television, the snowmobile, and even the humble tube of lipstick.

And, for the longest time, nobody complained.

It is true that the 1994 gun ban did not prohibit all semi-automatics, but, as we have seen earlier, a semi-auto is a semi-auto, no matter how mean or scary someone thinks a particular model is.  The basic firing mechanism is still the same, and the technology is a hundred years old.  So if you feel that "assault weapons" have no place in society, then you also feel that semi-automatics of any kind have no place in society.  But our nation has persevered for close to a hundred years with these guns in private hands, and there appears to be no sign of fundamental social breakdown as a result.

If you want the police to chase down AK-toting gangsters, you won't find anyone objecting to this.  Better to put the real criminals behind bars than to classify a large group of responsible, law-abiding citizens as potential criminals just because of the type of gun they own.

Therefore, if Senator Kennedy is against semi-automatic firearms, he shouldn't buy one!