What Will It Take to Address Gun Control?
The debate over gun control in the United States has waxed and waned over the years. Each time there is a mass killing by gunmen in civilian settings,…
October 05, 2017 at 02:01 PM
8 minute read
The debate over gun control in the United States has waxed and waned over the years. Each time there is a mass killing by gunmen in civilian settings, there is outrage—for what seems like 10 seconds. In particular, the killing of 20 schoolchildren and six educators in Newtown in December 2012 fueled a national discussion over gun laws, with calls by the Obama administration to limit the availability of military-style weapons.
But despite extensive public support, legislation to ban semi-automatic assault weapons and expand background checks was defeated in the Senate in 2013. Deadly mass shootings in 2015, including the killing of nine people at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, and 14 at a community center in San Bernardino, California, helped to rekindle the debate. But little has changed.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited the sale of firearms to several categories of individuals, including persons under 18 years of age, those with criminal records, the mentally disabled, unlawful aliens, dishonorably discharged military personnel and others. In 1993, the law was amended by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated background checks for all unlicensed persons purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer. But by 2016, there were no federal laws banning semi-automatic assault weapons, military-style .50 caliber rifles, handguns, or large-capacity ammunition magazines. The federal prohibition on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines between 1994 and 2004 had expired.
Not that that prohibition was so great. First, there is no technical definition of an “assault weapon.” There are fully automatic weapons, which fire continuously when the trigger is held down. Those have been strictly regulated since 1934. Then there are semi-automatic weapons that reload automatically but fire only once each time the trigger is depressed. Semi-automatic pistols and rifles come in all shapes and sizes and are extremely common in the United States. Because Congress didn't want to ban all semi-automatic weapons, lawmakers mainly focused on 18 specific firearms, as well as certain military-type features on guns. Complex flow charts laid it all out but it was extremely complicated, thereby making it easy to evade.
Additionally, as both gun control advocates and gun rights advocates noted, at least some of the features outlined in the federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 were merely cosmetic. In May 2012, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said, “the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced.” The term was repeated in several stories after both the 2012 Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings.
Moreover, there was an important exception. Any assault weapon or magazine that was manufactured before the law went into effect in 1994 was legal to own or resell, and at the time there were roughly 1.5 million assault weapons and more than 24 million high-capacity magazines in private hands. Further, as soon as Congress began working on the law, manufacturers increased production of weapons and magazines in anticipation of higher prices. But, as imperfect as it was, it was something.
In January 2016, President Barack Obama issued a package of executive actions designed to decrease gun violence, notably a measure to require dealers selling firearms at gun shows or online to obtain federal licenses and, in turn, conduct background checks of prospective buyers. Additionally, he proposed new funding to hire hundreds more federal law-enforcement agents, and budgeting $500 million to expand access to mental health care in light of the fact that suicides—many by individuals with undiagnosed mental illnesses—account for about 60 percent of gun deaths. The president acted under his own authority because Congress had failed to pass “common-sense gun safety reforms.” Congress continues to fail.
Mother Jones magazine tracks and maps every shooting spree in the last three-plus decades. It found that since 1982, there have been at least 91 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. And in most cases, the killers had obtained their weapons legally. The deadliest shooting came this week in Las Vegas, leaving 59 people dead and more than 500 injured. So once again, we ask: What's it going to take for Congress to respond?
The debate over gun control in the United States has waxed and waned over the years. Each time there is a mass killing by gunmen in civilian settings, there is outrage—for what seems like 10 seconds. In particular, the killing of 20 schoolchildren and six educators in Newtown in December 2012 fueled a national discussion over gun laws, with calls by the Obama administration to limit the availability of military-style weapons.
But despite extensive public support, legislation to ban semi-automatic assault weapons and expand background checks was defeated in the Senate in 2013. Deadly mass shootings in 2015, including the killing of nine people at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, and 14 at a community center in San Bernardino, California, helped to rekindle the debate. But little has changed.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited the sale of firearms to several categories of individuals, including persons under 18 years of age, those with criminal records, the mentally disabled, unlawful aliens, dishonorably discharged military personnel and others. In 1993, the law was amended by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated background checks for all unlicensed persons purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer. But by 2016, there were no federal laws banning semi-automatic assault weapons, military-style .50 caliber rifles, handguns, or large-capacity ammunition magazines. The federal prohibition on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines between 1994 and 2004 had expired.
Not that that prohibition was so great. First, there is no technical definition of an “assault weapon.” There are fully automatic weapons, which fire continuously when the trigger is held down. Those have been strictly regulated since 1934. Then there are semi-automatic weapons that reload automatically but fire only once each time the trigger is depressed. Semi-automatic pistols and rifles come in all shapes and sizes and are extremely common in the United States. Because Congress didn't want to ban all semi-automatic weapons, lawmakers mainly focused on 18 specific firearms, as well as certain military-type features on guns. Complex flow charts laid it all out but it was extremely complicated, thereby making it easy to evade.
Additionally, as both gun control advocates and gun rights advocates noted, at least some of the features outlined in the federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 were merely cosmetic. In May 2012, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said, “the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced.” The term was repeated in several stories after both the 2012 Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings.
Moreover, there was an important exception. Any assault weapon or magazine that was manufactured before the law went into effect in 1994 was legal to own or resell, and at the time there were roughly 1.5 million assault weapons and more than 24 million high-capacity magazines in private hands. Further, as soon as Congress began working on the law, manufacturers increased production of weapons and magazines in anticipation of higher prices. But, as imperfect as it was, it was something.
In January 2016, President Barack Obama issued a package of executive actions designed to decrease gun violence, notably a measure to require dealers selling firearms at gun shows or online to obtain federal licenses and, in turn, conduct background checks of prospective buyers. Additionally, he proposed new funding to hire hundreds more federal law-enforcement agents, and budgeting $500 million to expand access to mental health care in light of the fact that suicides—many by individuals with undiagnosed mental illnesses—account for about 60 percent of gun deaths. The president acted under his own authority because Congress had failed to pass “common-sense gun safety reforms.” Congress continues to fail.
Mother Jones magazine tracks and maps every shooting spree in the last three-plus decades. It found that since 1982, there have been at least 91 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJustices Weigh Constitutional Standard Applicable to Law Banning Trans Care
Federal Judge Weighs In on School's Discipline for 'Explicitly Copying AI-Generated Text' on Project
When Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
Trump Election-Interference Prosecution Appears on Course to Wind Down
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Like a Life Raft: Ben Brafman Reflects on Nearly 50 Years as a Defense Attorney
- 2HSF Partner Removed Over ‘Deeply Offensive’ Tweets
- 3Another Latham Partner Heads to Sidley in London
- 4In 'Kousisis,' the DOJ Once Again Pushes the Limits of Federal Fraud Prosecutions
- 5How Kirkland Has 'Reinvented a Meaningful Aspect' of Funds Work
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250