Does anyone know a link to a history of the 1994 Federal AWB that describes the political climate that allowed a bipartisan majority of Congress to pass it? I'm interested in whether there were incidents or a mass shooting that swayed the public opinion at the time.
1994 AWB: history question
- Thread starter eye5600
- Start date
- Status
A useful first start is the Wikipedia link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban
The ban is a good example of how law can get snuck in under the radar as an attachment, rider or well hidden sets of phrase in a large, well supported omnibus "good" bill.
It was like inserting a rule on mandatory 2 year jail terms for spitting in public inside a huge bill on cracking down on pedophiles.
To answer your other question, there was no other single originating incident that kicked this off.
Caveat
It is possible/probable to posit that the Long Island railways shooting incident of December 7th 1993 which got Carolyn McCarthy in the game may have helped to get the already in play legislation passed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban
The ban is a good example of how law can get snuck in under the radar as an attachment, rider or well hidden sets of phrase in a large, well supported omnibus "good" bill.
It was like inserting a rule on mandatory 2 year jail terms for spitting in public inside a huge bill on cracking down on pedophiles.
To answer your other question, there was no other single originating incident that kicked this off.
Caveat
It is possible/probable to posit that the Long Island railways shooting incident of December 7th 1993 which got Carolyn McCarthy in the game may have helped to get the already in play legislation passed.
Last edited:
I had been thinking that, despite all the fear of the Obama Administration, the real fear of the gun owners is some horrible, attention-getting gun crime. Congress and state legislatures can be very reactive to headlines.
It seems to me that if Lee Harvey Oswald had bought his rifle from the local gun shop instead of by mail, we might not have the mail-to-FFL situation today. I think it may be a good idea, actually, but as legislation it's locking the door after the horse is gone.
It seems to me that if Lee Harvey Oswald had bought his rifle from the local gun shop instead of by mail, we might not have the mail-to-FFL situation today. I think it may be a good idea, actually, but as legislation it's locking the door after the horse is gone.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
Violent crime peaked in 1991, and was still pretty high in 1993 and 1994. The Clintons encouraged a whole lot of "anti-crime" legislation which passed, in an era when Republicans thought "cracking down on crime" was a good conservative thing. The assault weapon ban was part of the crime legislation, as was the utterly absurd law that a convicted misdemeanor batterer may never possess a firearm. Historically, most oppressive measures are disguised as a crackdown on crime.
Crime really was a lot worse in the 1980s and 1990s than today. Helicopter parents who use "these aren't the good old days, it's dangerous" as an excuse to oversupervise their children are flat wrong, and I make a bit of a nuisance of myself by telling them so every time I hear that line. They never listen, anyway.
Crime really was a lot worse in the 1980s and 1990s than today. Helicopter parents who use "these aren't the good old days, it's dangerous" as an excuse to oversupervise their children are flat wrong, and I make a bit of a nuisance of myself by telling them so every time I hear that line. They never listen, anyway.
Little_Bigman
Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 63
I heard an interview of Rudi Gulianni (I have not a clue how it's spelled) on Hannity yesterday, He said that Obahama is very,very concious of public opinion and his "image". If this acessment is true I can't imagine O making a move against "Assualt Weapons" when Americans have made their "public opinion" well known since the first AR got bought on Nov 5
Prince Yamato
Member
The world wide web was in its infancy, so most people got their info from their local "trustworthy" newspaper; which was really a shill for the far-left. Accurate information was not available concerning AWs and what they really were. The media and the politicians collaborated in convincing the general public that there was a massive crime wave. The movies of the 1980s generally featured these "evil" looking weapons as well. It's not hard to imagine that the first image that pops into someone's head in the 1980s/early1990s when you say, "massive crime wave" is the bad guys from those movies toting Uzis, Tec-9s and what not. The politicians played into that fear and passed the AWB along with the Crime Bill... makes it look like they were doing actually doing something.
Never mind the fact that Columbine happened well into the AWB... that little fact is not important...
Never mind the fact that Columbine happened well into the AWB... that little fact is not important...
ServiceSoon
Member
Depends on which demographic group he wants to impress. It probably isn't the "bitter clingers."
This is what I had considered for the last 10 months, not very worried about it if he became president - it would be political suicide. But now I'm a bit more worried. Here's why -
Since forming a cabinet, it's been pretty clear the Obama administration is about "more of the same," not "hope and change." The appointment of the same tired, corrupt pols to cabinet and high positions has been a real let-down. Championing and using his political clout to pass a pork-barrel spending bill, and call it a "stimulus package" is just not "hope and change." It's more of the same.
So reading the tea leaves of what is actually happening, it looks like the staff have the control, not Obama and any "vision" he articulates. In that environment, who knows what could happen? My suspicion is that past transitional presidential patterns will play out - he'll be beholden to the entrenched interests who staff his party and White House for a while. Somewhere down the road he'll realize how much this is hurting him and do a staff purge. Right now, I am just hoping the gun agenda comes up LATER rather than sooner when the possibility of real harm can come. Remember, he is a real neophyte to national politics.
Summary: I'm more worried now than I was on Nov. 5th. He's got less control of his White House staff and party than he thinks, and isn't shaping policy and action to his purported "vision" and ideal.
I was pretty young back then, 'just' a hunter at the time and didn't really even hear about the law till it passed. The history is pretty astonishing, "Senate vote on the ban was 95 in favor, 4 against, and 1 abstention. 50/53 (94.3%) Democrats voted for the legislation. 45/47 (95.7%) Republicans voted for the ban."
I'd agree the the web wouldn't allow such a bill to pass with that kind of support now, that's not to say it wouldn't pass, but I couldn't ever see 95% of congress voting for one.
I've kept my NRA and local organization dues paid since 2006 and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
The Purdy incident influenced (caused) the 1989 ban, but less so the 1994 ban.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Some trivia:
The AWB idiocy passed the House by only one vote, and that only after the Speaker held the gavel for additional arm-twisting. At least[/] a dozen of the "yes" votes thought they were voting for a ban on over-the-counter sale of machineguns.
Newt Gingrich could have killed the AWB in conference committee, but let it pass. IMO, he did so on purpose, knowing that the Clinton-coattailers who gleefully rammed it through would take the fall for it, and he'd ride the backlash into the Speaker's chair. He did, of course.
Tom Foley, who helped ram the ban through the House, afterward became the first sitting House Speaker to lose reelection since the Civil War.
The AWB idiocy passed the House by only one vote, and that only after the Speaker held the gavel for additional arm-twisting. At least[/] a dozen of the "yes" votes thought they were voting for a ban on over-the-counter sale of machineguns.
Newt Gingrich could have killed the AWB in conference committee, but let it pass. IMO, he did so on purpose, knowing that the Clinton-coattailers who gleefully rammed it through would take the fall for it, and he'd ride the backlash into the Speaker's chair. He did, of course.
Tom Foley, who helped ram the ban through the House, afterward became the first sitting House Speaker to lose reelection since the Civil War.
Gunnerpalace
Member
THIS!!!!
We are much more organized now to see threats, whereas before it was word of mouth when it was passed.
When the news media talked about and discussed assault weapons at the time they ususaly showed firearms such as AKs. They would often show footage of someone letting loose a long full auto burst during the discussion.
The conclusion reached by the majority of the ignorant population was therefore that they were discussing select fire weapons.
This at a time when the modern concept of a gang member was just becoming mainstream.
The late 80's early 90's had the highest crime and most violent streets. Murder rates that vhastly exceed anything today. It was primarily a result of the new teenage gang problem.
Gang members actualy owned neighborhoods at the time. There was sections of cities police would not even go without additional units. Gang members would walk down streets openly in gang uniforms or "colors" well armed with little fear.
I remember entire sections of LA where you literaly could not find 2x2 feet of wall or sidewalk without graffiti.
It was also the time when mainstream militarization of police started. When SWAT teams and similar paramilitary units started forming in PDs across the nation. Prior to that just a few of the largest cities openly had such forces.
It was an entire changing atmosphere of all powerful government coming to save everyone by cracking down on crime, reducing rights, and increasing the capabilities and firepower of LEO. Politicans and government agencies readily accepted and grabbed up all the power citizens would allow.
Governments love crisis or anything they can spin into crisis because they can sieze far more power, and reduce limitations like "rights" most rapidly during them.
However gang members rarely actualy used the types of firearms described as "assault weapons" outside of movies. Handguns then as now were prefered by both criminals and good citizens for offense and defense respectively.
Politicians simply saw a way to remove a type of firearm they didn't want in civilian hands during the changing times.
All governments throughout history have always wanted thier agents to have much more effective arms than the subjects thier agents must control. When such an opportunity presents itself those in government will often use it. Except for the rare true believers of the Constitution in office wishing to uphold the ideals it stands for.
The conclusion reached by the majority of the ignorant population was therefore that they were discussing select fire weapons.
This at a time when the modern concept of a gang member was just becoming mainstream.
The late 80's early 90's had the highest crime and most violent streets. Murder rates that vhastly exceed anything today. It was primarily a result of the new teenage gang problem.
Gang members actualy owned neighborhoods at the time. There was sections of cities police would not even go without additional units. Gang members would walk down streets openly in gang uniforms or "colors" well armed with little fear.
I remember entire sections of LA where you literaly could not find 2x2 feet of wall or sidewalk without graffiti.
It was also the time when mainstream militarization of police started. When SWAT teams and similar paramilitary units started forming in PDs across the nation. Prior to that just a few of the largest cities openly had such forces.
It was an entire changing atmosphere of all powerful government coming to save everyone by cracking down on crime, reducing rights, and increasing the capabilities and firepower of LEO. Politicans and government agencies readily accepted and grabbed up all the power citizens would allow.
Governments love crisis or anything they can spin into crisis because they can sieze far more power, and reduce limitations like "rights" most rapidly during them.
However gang members rarely actualy used the types of firearms described as "assault weapons" outside of movies. Handguns then as now were prefered by both criminals and good citizens for offense and defense respectively.
Politicians simply saw a way to remove a type of firearm they didn't want in civilian hands during the changing times.
All governments throughout history have always wanted thier agents to have much more effective arms than the subjects thier agents must control. When such an opportunity presents itself those in government will often use it. Except for the rare true believers of the Constitution in office wishing to uphold the ideals it stands for.
RaferJanders
Member
Well I think it was the ATF's ass whopping they took on TV when the
raided the Waco compound and a bunch of untrained religiouse zellots crushed their assault with legal 7.62x51 semi auto rifles. Not to mention the Freeman in Montana possing for news camara's with AK's
raided the Waco compound and a bunch of untrained religiouse zellots crushed their assault with legal 7.62x51 semi auto rifles. Not to mention the Freeman in Montana possing for news camara's with AK's
- Status
