Assault Weapons Ban Miscellany

THE senseless shooting that cut short the life of 6-year-old Bryesha Limbrick focuses attention on firearm legislation. The youngster was shot in the head July 18 while eating ice cream outside an El Monte convenience store. Police Chief Ken Weldon said he is sure the assailants used an assault rifle.

He is sure? Is there any doubt? Of course there is. The criteria defining guns as assault rifles is arbitrary and based on cosmetic features. I doubt that whether or not this weapon had those features is of consequence to the child.

The ban of such weapons didn’t save Bryesha, but failure to re- enact the 1994 prohibition against assault rifles by the Sept. 13 deadline could very well flood the market with the weapons.

The ban didn’t save her nor has it saved anyone else. These weapons have never been common violent crime.

In the Bryesha murder, witnesses said the shooters sprayed the area with bullets. All fully automatic weapons are currently illegal, but semi-automatic assault weapons are easily converted.

And converting those weapons is already illegal. All semi-automatic guns can be converted to full auto-fire. It’s not easier just because the same weapon has a flash suppressor or a pistol grip. In fact, civilian AR15s manufactured in this country are intentionally made harder to convert by not having the holes for M16 parts cut in them.

And, my favorite, is this ridiculous paragraph:

Only the most narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment is consonant with freedom not only to bear arms, but to produce, buy and own weaponry engineered specifically as weapons of war.

Weapons of war are machine guns. The ban does not affect machine guns. And possession of rifles is not a narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment, it’s the correct one.

The article then likens the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment to hate speech. Further, it repeats the tired argument that assault weapons serve no recreational purpose. I suggest the visit the local range or the national matches at Camp Perry.

There is a call for a ban in Indiana since a gunmen went on a rampage last week:

Many Indiana lawmakers say they wouldn’t ban assault weapons, despite last week’s shooting rampage that left one Indianapolis policeman dead and four wounded.

But calls last week to more than half of the state’s 150 legislators found much more interest in finding ways to keep guns out of the hands of people such as Kenneth C. Anderson, a schizophrenic who used an SKS military-style rifle to kill Patrolman Timothy “Jake” Laird during 16 terror-filled minutes early Wednesday morning.

The man was insane (which excludes him from legally owning a gun) and the gun (an SKS) is not covered by the Assault Weapons Ban. Indiana lawmakers aren’t taking the bait:

One big question, many said, was whether a state government can do anything without trampling on the constitutional right to bear arms. It’s a right that many of the lawmakers exercise themselves — about six out of 10 of those contacted by The Indianapolis Star said they own guns.

“Banning guns would not solve the problem,” said Rep. John Frenz, a Vincennes Democrat. “Would it have been better if (Anderson) had killed his mother with an ax and gone after the police with an ax?”

Lawmakers considering the rights of people? An excellent idea. Good for Indiana.