If for some reason you decide to visit the VPC’s web page, you’ll see that their current whipping boy is Assault Weapons. They are pushing hard to have the existing Assault Weapons Ban “strengthened.”

Now, we gun enthusiasts have known all along that the “assault weapons ban” was a ridiculous concept; except for specifying a few models by name, it essentially banned manufacture of guns that had certain features. So manufacturers said, “OK, we’ll leave off the features.” It was hard for us to see what problem the ban was going to solve. Were there really that many bayonetings going on? Were criminals really using rifle-launched grenades during their crimes?

Even the VPC members themselves admit that letting the ban expire will not “make one whit of difference one way or another.” They know it’s broken. But, in a brilliant example of political jiu-jitsu, they’ve found a way to use this fact to their advantage.

They say, “The law needs to be strengthened.” It’s brilliant.

Here’s an example of one of their documents. Their current strategy is a two-pronged offensive. First, they demonize the Evil Gun Manufacturers for “evading” the law. The law bans certain guns by name; the manufacturers change the name! The law bans guns having more than two features from a list; the manufacturers leave off the features!

Next, they call for a refined definition of “assault weapon.” The a la carte definition proved to be too obvious an attempt to disguise what was essentially a ban on “scary-looking guns,” and was, as they point out, pretty easy to work around. Instead, the VPC has decided that they must focus on something that (they say) makes these firearms especially lethal.

So now the VPC has identified the “key features” of “assault weapons” as:
1. pistol grips or barrel shrouds that allow the weapon to be “spray-fired” from the hip
2. the ability to accept detachable, high-capacity ammunition magazines holding from 10 to 100 rounds of ammunition

Now, this is more like it. Who could be against such “common sense” features? You don’t need a pistol grip, a barrel shroud, or a high-capacity magazine for hunting or target shooting, after all. And that’s really what the Second Amendment is about, right?

Let’s table for now a discussion of whether or not “spray-firing” is really something that happens all that often, or is especially deadly, or whether you need a pistol grip or barrel shroud to do it. Suppose the VPC prevails and Congress bans guns with pistol grips. What, exactly, IS a pistol grip? The current ban says it “protrudes conspicuously beneath the stock.” In some cases it’s obvious; the grip on an AR-15 or an AK-47 is clearly a pistol grip. But what about a thumb-hole stock? Or a Monte Carlo stock? Are these legal or not? If they’re technically legal, how long before the VPC claims they are attempts by the manufacturers to “evade” the law, and calls for a ban on ANY stock that doesn’t look like the one on a Marlin 1894?

Let’s consider also the phrase “ability to accept detachable, high-capacity magazines.” It doesn’t take a genius to realize that most firearms that can accept a detachable magazine can accept one of ANY capacity. The only limitation is the amount of weight that the magazine catch can support*. Are manufacturers going to be required to design their magazine catches to support no more than 10 rounds? Will the magazine wells have to be re-designed so that pre-ban magazines won’t fit anymore? Or will the VPC accuse manufacturers of “evading” the law when it turns out that a magazine is a magazine is a magazine, and call for banning ALL firearms that accept detachable magazines PERIOD?

Of course, I’m sure that there won’t be any restriction on law enforcement or other government agencies. Just civilian ownership, because while These Guns Have No Place In Our Society, they’re perfectly safe in the hands of the government agents.

* I’m mainly talking about rifles here. Of course, some handguns have a magazine catch at the bottom of the well that rules out using a magazine longer than the grip.

Posted in uncategorized on March 12th, 2004 by Thibodeaux | RSS 2.0 |