The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/illinois" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Illinois</a> Supreme Court ruled in favor of a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/debunking-top-5-myths-about-ar-15-aaron-bandler" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ban on AR-15s</a> and other similar firearms after Republicans challenged the law, arguing it was unconstitutional.
In a narrow 4-3 ruling, the court said that Illinois could ban the sale of certain handguns, rifles like AR-15s, magazines for long guns holding more than 10 rounds, and magazines for handguns holding more than 15 rounds. 
In her majority decision, Democratic Judge Elizabeth Rochford <a href="https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/3ada0367-2637-42d9-b823-cfa97ae14924/Caulkins%20v.%20Pritzker,%202023%20IL%20129453.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> that the plaintiffs were trying to &#8220;piggyback a second amendment claim&#8221; onto an equal protection argument, saying that an argument that the law violates <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/second-amendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Second Amendment</a> could not be made due to previous line of arguing. 
Governor J.B. Pritzker (D-IL), who signed the ban into law, praised the court’s decision. “This is a commonsense gun reform law to keep mass-killing machines off of our streets and out of our schools, malls, parks, and places of worship,&#8221; Pritzker said. &#8220;Illinoisans deserve to feel safe in every corner of our state — whether they are attending a Fourth of July Parade or heading to work — and that&#8217;s precisely what the Protect Illinois Communities Act accomplishes,” he <a href="https://twitter.com/GovPritzker/status/1690012828076281856" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a statement. 
Pritzker was referencing a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/shooting-sends-4th-of-july-parade-into-chaos-multiple-feared-injured-or-dead" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shooting</a> in Highland Park on July 4, 2022 that left seven dead and dozens injured. 
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
In her dissent, Judge Lisa Holder White pointed to the rights of citizens to own guns for protection, referencing the founding of the U.S. 
“This great nation was founded on the premise that the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms is essential to what it means to be a free people. The right of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms and to arm themselves to protect their families, their homes, and themselves must not be infringed,” she wrote. “Belief in the previously mentioned precepts in no way diminishes the fact that all law-abiding citizens desire safe communities where schools, workplaces, houses of worship, and public gatherings are free from gun violence.”
She added that the constitutional “procedural requirements” were not met when the law was passed so it should be struck down. 
The U.S. Supreme Court previously declined to hear a challenge to the case, saying that it would wait for an appeals court ruling on the decision.

US-NEWS-ILL-ASSAULTWEAPONS-BAN-2-TB

Illinois Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of State Ban On AR-15s

Assault Weapons

Courts

Guns

Illinois

J.B. Pritzker

Second Amendment

U.S.

A federal judge in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/illinois" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Illinois</a> has blocked the state&#8217;s assault weapons ban from taking effect.
Judge Stephen P. McGlynn of the Southern District of Illinois issued a <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94369/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94369.45.0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">preliminary injuction</a> against the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/illinois-becomes-9th-state-in-union-to-ban-dozens-of-firearms" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA)</a> Friday, blocking it while a lawsuit proceeds. McGlynn ruled that the law likely violates the Second Amendment and Supreme Court precedents set by the Heller and Bruen cases.
&#8220;Can the senseless crimes of a relative few be so despicable to justify the infringement of the constitutional rights of law-abiding individuals in hopes that such crimes will then abate or, at least, not be as horrific?&#8221; McGlynn wrote. &#8220;More specifically, can PICA be harmonized with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and with Bruen? That is the issue before this Court. The simple answer at this stage in the proceedings is &#8216;likely no.’”
&#8220;The Supreme Court in Bruen and Heller held that citizens have a constitutional right to own and possess firearms and may use them for self-defense,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;PICA seems to be written in spite of the clear directives in Bruen and Heller, not in conformity with them. Whether well-intentioned, brilliant, or arrogant, no state may enact a law that denies its citizens rights that the Constitution guarantees them. Even legislation that may enjoy the support of a majority of its citizens must fail if it violates the constitutional rights of fellow citizens.&#8221;
First, McGlynn ruled against the law&#8217;s prohibition on &#8220;non-essential accessories&#8221; on firearms, such as threaded barrels, barrel shrouds, flash suppressors, or arm braces, as well as bans on 15-round handgun magazines. The state defended the law by contending that because they are not necessary to the function of a firearm, such accessories are not &#8220;arms&#8221; under the Second Amendment.
&#8220;The Seventh Circuit has recognized the Second Amendment as extending to &#8216;corollar[ies] to the meaningful exercise of the core right to possess firearms for self-defense,’” McGlynn ruled. &#8220;It is hard to imagine something more closely correlated to the right to use a firearm in self-defense than the ability to effectively load ammunition into the firearm. This Court agrees that magazines are ‘arms’ as used in the plain text of the Second Amendment.”
The judge also found that prohibiting accessories like arm braces, without any exceptions, interferes with the right of individuals with disabilities to use firearms. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives recognizes that stabilizing braces are necessary for disabled persons to use firearms. As such, the law fails to stand up to Second Amendment scrutiny. Furthermore, accessories that increase firearm proficiency, like pistol grips and flash suppressors, are also protected. The court also found that accessories, high-capacity magazines, and &#8220;assault rifles&#8221; like AR-15s and AK-47s are protected under &#8220;common use&#8221; because all of them have millions of units in circulation.
<a class="c-link" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9125">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
&#8220;The Court recognizes that the issues with which it is confronted are highly contentious and provoke strong emotions,&#8221; McGlynn concluded, noting that the injunction does not yet block the law on the merits. &#8220;Nothing in this order prevents the State from confronting firearm-related violence. There is a wide array of civil and criminal laws that permit the commitment and prosecution of those who use or may use firearms to commit crimes. Law enforcement and prosecutors should take their obligations to enforce these laws seriously. Families and the public at large should report concerning behavior. Judges should exercise their prudent judgment in committing individuals that pose a threat to the public and imposing sentences that punish, not just lightly inconvenience, those guilty of firearm-related crimes.&#8221;

Gun and Gavel

Federal Judge Blocks Illinois Assault Weapons Ban

Federal Judge Block Illinois Assault Weapons Ban

Court

White House Press Secretary <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/topic/karine-jean-pierre/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Karine Jean-Pierre</a> claimed during Monday&#8217;s briefing that assault weapons bans work to lower the incidence of gun violence, but nationally syndicated radio host <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/topic/dana-loesch/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dana Loesch</a> said otherwise — and she brought evidence.
Jean-Pierre responded to the news of another mass shooting in Louisville, Kentucky — this one likely a case of workplace violence brought about by a personal grievance — by calling for increased background checks and limits on magazine capacity. Jean-Pierre also argued that assault weapons bans have worked in the past.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
KJP: &quot;If you think about Assault Weapons Ban&#8230;We saw gun violence go down. When it sunset 10 years laters, it went back up!&quot; <a href="https://t.co/4TUTkUSNNP">pic.twitter.com/4TUTkUSNNP</a>
&mdash; Townhall.com (@townhallcom) <a href="https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1645502517671854092?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 10, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Jean-Pierre claimed that the 1994 assault weapons ban — which President Joe Biden supported as a senator — had resulted in a drop off in gun violence, which then ticked upwards again after the ban&#8217;s sunset a decade later.
&#8220;If you think about assault weapons ban, we know, when we saw — when the president was involved in 1994 to get that done, we saw. We saw gun violence go down and when it sunset ten years later, it went back up,&#8221; Jean-Pierre insisted. &#8220;So we know what could work and that&#8217;s why you continue to hear the president calling on Congress to take action.&#8221;
But as Loesch quickly pointed out, that claim just wasn&#8217;t true – and she wasn&#8217;t the only one saying so.
&#8220;This literally never happened,&#8221; Loesch began, sharing a series of links to others who also explained that the 1994 assault weapons ban had not resulted in less gun violence.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This literally never happened. 
Here&#39;s the DOJ saying it didn&#39;t happen <a href="https://t.co/H4IPoUBHVF">https://t.co/H4IPoUBHVF</a>
Here&#39;s JAMA saying it didn&#39;t happen<a href="https://t.co/L8RsI35nq9">https://t.co/L8RsI35nq9</a> 
Here&#39;s RAND saying it didn&#39;t happen<a href="https://t.co/eRff2Pwmh0">https://t.co/eRff2Pwmh0</a> 
Here&#39;s NYT saying it didn&#39;t happen <a href="https://t.co/Q6Db7XhuQA">https://t.co/Q6Db7XhuQA</a> <a href="https://t.co/pQn778L7YN">https://t.co/pQn778L7YN</a>
&mdash; Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) <a href="https://twitter.com/DLoesch/status/1645520614403309569?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 10, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1681313451267000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3nO3EKGAEUHbjXmJbALLTd">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Loesch went on to say that the gun homicide rate had not changed as a result of the ban – despite the claims often made by Jean-Pierre and Biden himself – adding, &#8220;The AWB had zero, none, nada effect on the gun homicide rate. You can lie about this all you want and I&#8217;ll continue publicizing the actual facts of the matter every single time.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I wrote about this in my first book &#8212; but to repeat until the end of time, the firearms they incessantly blame for homicide are involved in the fewest homicides annually.
&mdash; Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) <a href="https://twitter.com/DLoesch/status/1645522327692607492?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 10, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;I wrote about this in my first book — but to repeat until the end of time, the firearms they incessantly blame for homicide are involved in the fewest homicides annually,&#8221; she concluded.

Dana Loesch

‘This Literally Never Happened’: Dana Loesch Levels Karine Jean-Pierre Over Assault Weapons Ban

Dana Loesch Levels Karine Jean-Pierre Over Assault Weapons Ban

Gun Laws

Karine Jean-Pierre

Media

In light of the recent tragic mass shooting in Nashville, many grieving Americans find themselves inundated with anti-gun rhetoric from the legacy media and politicians alike.
Whether it’s a ban on “assault weapons,” magazine capacity restrictions, or increased licensing requirements, President Biden and the Left have been increasingly open about their desire to restrict access to firearms.
But will new gun control measures actually do anything to curtail gun-related homicide rates? A look back at past legislation can help answer that question.
Here are three major gun control measures, and how they turned out.
<h2>The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 </h2>
Also known as the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/4296" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act</a>, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was a subsection of a larger crime bill signed into law by former President Bill Clinton. The bill was largely motivated by an increasing amount of violent crime in the United States.
The law prohibited the selling, manufacturing, importation and transfer of specific semi-automatic firearms characterized as “assault weapons.”
The ban included a sunset provision, meaning it phased out in 2004 after President George W. Bush declined to renew it.
Despite all of the regulations, limitations and conditions inherent in the bill, numerous studies in subsequent years have shown the ban to have been largely ineffective.
In a 2017 review from JAMA Internal Medicine titled <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2582989" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“Firearm Laws and Firearm Homicides: A Systematic Review,”</a> it was concluded that “Limited data from 4 studies on the effects of the federal assault weapons ban (in effect from 1994 to 2004) do not provide evidence that the ban was associated with a significant decrease in firearm homicides.”
Arriving at a similar conclusion was Grant Duwe, the director of research and evaluation for the Minnesota Department of Corrections. In a 2019 study titled, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1745-9133.12478" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Criminology &amp; Public Policy</a>, Duwe found that after adjusting for population growth, it was not apparent that the assault weapons ban had any impact on the number of public mass shootings.
During the fifth year of the ban being in effect, one of the most infamous mass shootings in United States history occurred, the Columbine massacre. On April 20, 1999, two high school seniors entered Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, and mercilessly ended the lives of 12 students and one teacher, injuring 21 others in the process.
One of the weapons used in the Columbine shooting was a TEC-9, a weapon specifically banned by name in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, thus further proving the ban was ineffective to criminals who refuse to acknowledge the law.
<h2>The Brady Act</h2>
Named after former White House Press Secretary James Brady who was left paralyzed after being shot in the head by John Hinckley Jr. in the assassination attempt of former President Ronald Reagan, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/1025" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act</a> required a federal background check before any handgun was sold from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer in 32 states.
In addition, when the bill was originally passed in 1993 it required a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases. This remained the case for five years until the National Instant Background Check System was implemented in 1998.
Just before signing the Act into law, President Bill Clinton expressed his optimism, <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PPP-1993-book2/html/PPP-1993-book2-doc-pg2079.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">saying</a>, “When I go and sign this bill in a minute, it will be step one in taking our streets back, taking our children back, reclaiming our families and our future.”
Despite this, various studies show the bill — similar to the assault weapons ban — was largely ineffective.
A widely cited study conducted by Jens Ludwig and Phillip J. Cook titled, “<a href="https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/2003_spr/cook.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Limited Impact of the Brady Act – No Evidence of Reduction in Deaths”</a> found no evidence of a reduction in homicides after the act was put into effect.
Phillip J. Cook, co-author of the study, <a href="https://today.duke.edu/2000/09/brady901.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">explained</a> in a Charlotte Observer article that when comparing the 32 states who implemented the Brady Bill to the 18 that did not, no significant difference in homicide reduction presented itself in the data.
Some gun-control advocates have challenged the study’s conclusion by mentioning a slight decrease in the number of annual gun-related deaths, to which researchers have <a href="https://today.duke.edu/2000/09/brady901.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">responded</a>, “While it is possible that the Brady Act has thus contributed to the nationwide reduction in gun violence, the evidence is sketchy at best. The fact is that homicide rates already started to decline in 1991, before the Brady Act became law. Various reasons have been offered for this decline, more cops, more prisons, a better economy and an easing of the crack epidemic are all plausible explanations.”
<h2>The Various Laws of Illinois</h2>
Despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the country, the state of Illinois, especially Chicago, is subject to some of the worst homicide rates in America. As a result, gun crime in Chicago is frequently cited by opponents of gun control as proof that restricting firearms doesn’t necessarily solve the problem of gun violence.
Illinois is one of the few states that requires residents to <a href="https://www.ispfsb.com/Public/FOID.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">obtain</a> a “Firearms Owners Identification Card” (FOID) from state police if they want to own a firearm or ammunition of any kind. In addition, “assault weapons” are banned in certain areas of the state, and mandatory wait times of up to 72 hours are required for most firearms purchases.
Illinois’ gun legislation has been so strict that at times the Supreme Court has had to intervene. In 1982, for example, the city of Chicago banned the possession of handguns by civilians. It wasn’t until 2010, when the Supreme Court ruled the ban unconstitutional in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1521" target="_blank" rel="noopener">McDonald vs. City of Chicago</a>, that residents were once again allowed to own them.
Despite all of the regulations that are still actively enforced, violence has consistently been a major problem for the state.
<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/chicago-has-had-most-mass-shootings-in-u-s-since-2018/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">According</a> to CBS Chicago, out of all cities in the United States, Chicago has had the most mass shootings over the last four years. They report that since 2018 the city has seen 811 injuries and fatalities.
Another local news outlet, ABC 7 Chicago, <a href="https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootings-2020-shooting-crime-stats-statistics/9250374/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reports</a> that in 2020, Chicago saw 769 murders and 3,261 shootings. Both of these numbers were up significantly compared to 2019, which saw 495 murders and 2,140 shootings.
Considering these sobering numbers, the common pattern that follows gun legislation is that in a realistic world, it doesn’t do what it is supposed to. If criminals were to abide by and care for the law, they wouldn’t commit violent crime, and the country wouldn’t need gun restrictions at all.
Instead of trying old tricks that have time and time again proven themselves ineffective, America should take a deeper look into what is driving killers. Only then will we be able to understand the problem and turn the tide.
Jacob Falach is an associate producer at The Daily Wire. You can find him on Instagram at @thatjewishconservative.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Gun Display Stands. Pistols for sale in the store.

 A Look Back On Three Gun Control Laws That Were Ultimately Ineffective

Bill Clinton

Chicago

Gun Control

Readers Pass

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) admitted that President Joe Biden has &#8220;probably not&#8221; secured the needed 60 votes to pass <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/gun-control" target="_blank" rel="noopener">gun control</a> in the lame-duck session of Congress.
Appearing on CNN&#8217;s &#8220;<a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/11/27/chris-murphy-assault-weapons-ban-sotu-vpx.cnn" target="_blank" rel="noopener">State of the Union</a>&#8221; Sunday, Murphy dashed <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/joe-biden" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Biden</a>&#8216;s hopes to pass an assault weapons ban. However, Murphy did praise the sweeping gun bill passed earlier this year and claimed that banning assault weapons would lead to fewer mass shootings.
&#8220;I&#8217;m glad that President Biden is going to be pushing us to take a vote on an assault weapons ban,&#8221; Murphy said. &#8220;The House has already passed it. It&#8217;s sitting in front of the Senate. Does it have 60 votes in the Senate right now? Probably not. But let&#8217;s see if we can try to get that number as close to 60 as possible. If we don&#8217;t have the votes, then we will talk to Senator Schumer and maybe come back next year with maybe an additional senator and see if we can do better.&#8221;
&#8220;President Biden is right,&#8221; Murphy continued. &#8220;If we passed an assault weapons ban, we would see less mass shootings in this country. Yes, there are already tens of thousands of assault weapons on the street. Nobody&#8217;s talking about taking those weapons away from individuals. We&#8217;re just talking about stopping new sales.&#8221;
&#8220;But if you look at some of the most high-profile mass shootings in the last couple of years, many of those mass shooters bought the weapon just days before carrying out the crime,&#8221; he added. &#8220;And so, if those weapons were no longer commercially available, only in possession of those who had bought them previously, I think a lot of mass shootings would have been prevented.&#8221;
Biden told reporters Thursday that he planned to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-says-he-wants-congress-to-pass-gun-control-in-lame-duck-session" target="_blank" rel="noopener">push for an assault weapons ban</a> after two recent mass shootings left 11 people dead.
“I’m sick and tired of these shootings,” Biden said. “We should have much stricter gun laws.”
Biden then said he intended to pass a gun control bill during the lame-duck session if he could get the votes.
“I’m going to try,” Biden replied. “I’m going to try to get rid of assault weapons.”
“During the lame duck?” the reporter asked again.
“I’m going to do it whenever I — I got to make that assessment as I get in and start counting the votes.”

DHS Secretary Mayorkas Testifies In Senate Hearing

Top Senate Dem Admits Biden ‘Probably’ Doesn’t Have The Votes To Ram Through Gun Control In Lame-Duck Session

Top Senate Democrat Admits Biden Likely Doesn't Have The Votes To Ram Through Gun Control 

Chris Murphy

Congress

Joe Biden

Mass Shooting

Politics

Senate

Governor <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/top-democrat-mocks-gavin-newsoms-desire-to-be-politically-relevant/">Gavin Newsom</a> (D-CA) took some heat on Friday for a video — in which he wielded an AR-15 — made to tout two new gun control laws he had just signed banning &#8220;ghost guns&#8221; and firearms marketing aimed at younger audiences.
The bulk of the criticism came from the fact the <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/newsom-criticizes-abbott-for-discussing-evil-and-mental-health-after-mass-shooting/">Newsom</a>, who held up a firearm as a visual aid in the video and appeared to maintain reasonable trigger discipline throughout, proceeded to point the weapon at whoever was manning the camera.
&#8220;This is an AR-15. A weapon of war. The gun industry is openly marketing these to KIDS. With cartoons and mini JR-15s,&#8221; Newsom caption d the video in a tweet. &#8220;These don&#8217;t belong in the hands of our kids or on our streets. I just signed 2 bills that ban ghost guns and these sick marketing ploys.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This is an AR-15. A weapon of war. The gun industry is openly marketing these to KIDS. With cartoons and mini JR-15s.
These don’t belong in the hands of our kids or on our streets.
I just signed 2 bills that ban ghost guns and these sick marketing ploys. <a href="https://t.co/PesYLjPlzi">pic.twitter.com/PesYLjPlzi</a>
&mdash; Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) <a href="https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1542872574467510272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 1, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In the video, Newsom addressed the Supreme Court and &#8220;right-wing Republicans&#8221; directly, saying, &#8220;Do you have no common decency, respect, or even common understanding that kids should not have one of these?&#8221;
&#8220;This is an AR-15, a weapon of war, a weapon of mass destruction,&#8221; he continued, moving to put the weapon down — and in the process, he appeared to point it directly at whoever was standing behind the camera.
&#8220;I&#8217;ve never seen anyone so awkwardly hold a sporting rifle in my life (it&#8217;s not a weapon of war and is responsible for the least fatalities, under blunt objects even) and then you flagged your d*** cameraman,&#8221; syndicated radio host Dana Loesch <a href="https://twitter.com/DLoesch/status/1542906955043377152">pointed out</a>.
&#8220;Dude, did you just point that right at a cameraman,&#8221; Emily Zanotti <a href="https://twitter.com/emzanotti/status/1542922004554293248">added</a>.
&#8220;Kids can’t buy guns legally dude. If parents want to buy guns for their kids and teach them how to shoot responsibly that’s fine. California Dems just want to stop the new generation from being exposed to gun culture because they know it will hurt their gun control agenda,&#8221; @NuanceBro <a href="https://twitter.com/NuanceBro/status/1542987790308220931">tweeted</a>.
And then @daddywarpig chimed in, <a href="https://twitter.com/DaddyWarpig/status/1542979192655974400">adding</a>, &#8220;Get a load of Nazi Hairgel here. Not an AR-15. Not a WEAPUHN OF DER WEHR. Not marketed to babies. JR-15. Shoots a .22lr. Basically for plinking cans and target practice. Also, he points the gun at the cameraman and everyone else in the room, because gun safety what’s that?&#8221;
&#8220;Dear @GavinNewsom, This is a .22-caliber rifle. It is not a &#8216;weapon of war&#8217; — for good reason. Lastly, please if you&#8217;re going to handle a firearm, treat it as if it is loaded and don&#8217;t point the barrel at your camera crew. Thanks,&#8221; Young Americans for Liberty <a href="https://twitter.com/YALiberty/status/1542969027903033347">tweeted</a>.
Larry Taunton <a href="https://twitter.com/LarryTaunton/status/1542972732190736385">concluded</a>, &#8220;Gavin &#8216;Alec Baldwin&#8217; Newsom points this rifle at his cameraman. This much is clear about so-called #guncontrol: Democrats should not own guns as they don’t know how to use them.&#8221;

New Zealand PM Ardern Meets With California Governor Newsom On Climate Change

Gavin Newsom Explains How Dangerous AR-15s Are — Right Before He Points One At His Cameraman

Gavin Newsom Explains How Dangerous AR-15s Are, Then Points One At His Cameraman

California

Gavin Newsom

A federal judge in the Southern District of California ruled late on Friday that California&#8217;s controversial &#8220;assault weapons&#8221; ban is unconstitutional.
&#8220;This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection,&#8221; Judge Roger T. Benitez <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1622850515/Miller_v_Bonta_Opinion.pdf?1622850515">wrote</a>. &#8220;The banned ‘assault weapons’ are not bazookas, howitzers, or machineguns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed ‘assault weapons’ are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.&#8221;
&#8220;One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter,&#8221; Benitez continued. &#8220;Federal Bureau of Investigation murder statistics do not track assault rifles, but they do show that killing by knife attack is far more common than murder by any kind of rifle. In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle. For example, according to F.B.I. statistics for 2019, California saw 252 people murdered with a knife, while 34 people were killed with some type of rifle – not necessarily an AR-15. A Californian is three times more likely to be murdered by an attacker’s bare hands, fists, or feet, than by his rifle. In 2018, the statistics were even more lopsided as California saw only 24 murders by some type of rifle. The same pattern can be observed across the nation.&#8221;
The ruling was the result of a 2019 lawsuit filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) to challenge California&#8217;s Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA), which banned popular semiautomatic firearms.
As noted by <a href="https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-wins-assault_weapon-lawsuit-in-historic-victory-for-second_amendment-rights">FPC</a>, the order included an injunction against “Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order,” preventing them “from implementing or enforcing” the following:
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>California Penal Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8) (defining an “assault weapon” by prohibited features);</li>
<li>§ 30800 (deeming those “assault weapons” a public nuisance);</li>
<li>§ 30915 (regulating those “assault weapons” obtained by bequest or inheritance);</li>
<li>§ 30925 (restricting importation of those “assault weapons” by new residents);</li>
<li>§ 30945 (restricting use of those registered “assault weapons”) ;</li>
<li>§30950 (prohibiting possession of those “assault weapons” by minors); and,</li>
<li>the penalty provisions §§ 30600, 30605 and 30800 as applied to “assault weapons” defined in Code §§ 30515(a)(1) through (8).</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
“In his order today, Judge Benitez held what millions of Americans already know to be true: Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are unconstitutional and cannot stand,” FPC President Brandon Combs said. “This historic victory for individual liberty is just the beginning, and FPC will continue to aggressively challenge these laws throughout the United States. We look forward to continuing this challenge at the Ninth Circuit and, should it be necessary, the Supreme Court.”
Benitez slammed the state of California, which is run by Democrats, for infringing of American&#8217;s constitutionally protected rights.
&#8220;You might not know it, but this case is about what should be a muscular constitutional right and whether a state can force a gun policy choice that impinges on that right with a 30-year-old failed experiment,&#8221; Benitez wrote. &#8220;It should be an easy question and answer. Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where Constitutional rights are concerned.&#8221;
&#8220;California may certainly conceive of a policy that a modern rifle is dangerous in the hands of a criminal, and that therefore it is good public policy to keep modern rifles out of the hands of every citizen,&#8221; Benitez  continued. &#8220;The Second Amendment stands as a shield from government imposition of that policy. There is only one policy enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of lawabiding responsible citizens are better. To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms commonly owned and kept for lawful purposes.&#8221;
This report has been updated to include additional information.

US-HEALTH-VIRUS-GUNS

Federal Judge Strikes Down California’s ‘Unconstitutional’ Assault Weapons Ban, Torches Media

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, gun control lobbyist turned ATF nominee David Chipman struggled to provide his definition of an &#8220;assault weapon,&#8221; even though he has previously advocated for an assault weapons ban. When he eventually provided his definition, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) pointed out the nominee&#8217;s definition would ban most rifles in America.
&#8220;Senator, an &#8216;assault weapon&#8217; would be, in the context of the question you asked, what Congress defines it as,&#8221; Chipman replied.
&#8220;So you&#8217;re asking us to ban &#8216;assault weapons,&#8217; we have to write legislation. Can you tell me what is an &#8216;assault weapon?'&#8221; Cotton asked. &#8220;How would you define it if you were the head of the ATF? How have you defined it over the last several years in your role as a gun control advocate?&#8221;
According to Chipman, he can only recall one instance where the department has defined what an &#8220;assault weapon&#8221; actually is. &#8220;ATF, in that program, has defined an &#8216;assault rifle&#8217; as any semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine above the caliber of .22, which would include a .223, which is, you know, largely the AR-15 round.&#8221;
Cotton asked if Chipman wanted to ban any firearm larger than a .22 that has a detachable magazine. Chipman reiterated that his definition was solely for rifles.
&#8220;You asked me if ATF had used this term and I was sharing with you my knowledge of a program in which ATF has defined this term and it is in the demand letter 3 program,&#8221; the nominee explained. &#8220;And that rifle is a semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine with a round greater than a .22 caliber &#8230;&#8221;
&#8220;I&#8217;m amazed that might be the definition of an &#8216;assault weapon.&#8217; That would basically cover every single modern sporting rifle in America today,&#8221; Cotton replied.
The ATF nominee stated the firearms industry previously used the term &#8220;assault rifle&#8221; in marketing materials but changed the term to &#8220;modern sporting rifle&#8221; after the 1994 assault weapons ban.
&#8220;I&#8217;ve been in Walmarts and I&#8217;ve been in Cabela&#8217;s and I&#8217;ve seen that you can find sections for pistols or handguns or for shotguns or for rifles because those are actual kinds of firearms,&#8221; Cotton clapped back. &#8220;Our conversation here illustrates that there really is no such thing as an &#8216;assault weapon.&#8217; That is a term that was manufactured by liberal lawyers and pollsters in Washington to try and scare the American people into believing that the government should confiscate weapons that are widely popular for millions of Americans to defend themselves and their families and their homes.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Senator <a href="https://twitter.com/TomCottonAR?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TomCottonAR</a> asks Biden&#39;s ATF nominee David Chipman to define an &quot;assault weapon&quot;:
&quot;Any semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine above the caliber of .22&quot; <a href="https://t.co/EA4NveiqKt">pic.twitter.com/EA4NveiqKt</a>
&mdash; Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) <a href="https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1397596024051539974?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 26, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
According to the <a href="https://www.nssf.org/msr/">National Shooting Sports Foundation</a> (NSSF), the firearms industry trade association, &#8220;Modern sporting rifles are chambered in .22 LR, .223 (5.56 x 45mm), 6.8 SPC, .308, .450 Bushmaster and in many other calibers.&#8221; Even though gun control advocates take aim at AR-15s, they are actually &#8220;chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the .30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.&#8221;
Since 1990, 19.8 million AR-15s have gone <a href="https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/11/19/20-million-modern-sporting-rifles/">into</a> circulation, making it one of the most popular firearms in America.

American AR-15

WATCH: Biden’s ATF Pick Provides His Definition Of An ‘Assault Weapon.’ His Proposed Ban Would Outlaw Most Rifles In America.

Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)

Tom Cotton

During his U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Joe Biden’s nominee to lead the the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) admitted that he supported a ban on AR-15s, the most popular rifle in the country.
“Mr. Chipman, a minute ago Senator Whitehouse asked you if any of your views on guns are out of step with the majority of the American people,” Sen. Ted Cruz said. “The AR-15 is one of, if not the most popular rifle in America.”
“It’s not a machine gun, it’s a rifle,” Cruz continued. “Your public position is that you want to ban AR-15s, is that correct?”
“Senator, thank you for the question, and thank you for our visit yesterday, and offering me a Dr. Pepper, it made me reminisce about my time in central Texas,” Chipman responded. “But now to your question, with respect to the AR-15, I support a ban as has been presented in a Senate bill, and supported by the president.”
“The AR-15 is a gun I was issued on ATF’s SWAT team,” Chipman added. “And it’s a particularly lethal weapon, and regulating it as other particularly lethal weapons, I have advocated for.”
“As ATF director, if I’m confirmed, I would simply enforce the laws on the books, and right now there is no such ban on those guns.”
“So, you want to ban the most popular rifle in America,” Cruz fired back.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
WATCH: Sen. Ted Cruz gets Joe Biden’s ATF Director nominee David Chipman to admit that he wants to BAN the AR-15, the most popular rifle in America. 
“With respect to the AR-15, I support a ban.” <a href="https://t.co/6nDgalAkRj">pic.twitter.com/6nDgalAkRj</a>
&mdash; Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1397585833138528262?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 26, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Before working as a gun control activist, Chipman was a special agent with the ATF for 25 years. As <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-gun-control-atf-david-chipman-assault-weapons-nra">Fox News</a> reported, Dudley Brown, the President of the National Association for Gun Rights, slammed Chipman’s nomination, saying “Chipman has embraced every hair-brained gun control scheme proposed, so of course Biden and Harris chose him — he’ll fit right in with their corrupt administration.”
As president, Joe Biden has indeed been an advocate for a return of the so called “assault weapon” ban. During a press conference in early April, Biden <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/fact-checking-bidens-latest-gun-control-press-conference">said</a>, “I know this has been a hobby horse of mine for a long time. Got it done once. We should also ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in this country.”
“For that 10 years we had it done, the number of mass shootings actually went down,” Biden claimed. In reality, this is false, with the average number of mass shootings per year before and during the “Assault Weapons Ban” remaining <a href="https://tcf.org/content/commentary/the-assault-weapons-ban-did-it-curtail-mass-shootings/?session=1">unchanged</a> at 1.5 events per year.
Biden has made similarly false or misleading statements in the past. In late April, Biden <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/5-false-or-misleading-claims-that-biden-made-during-his-speech-to-congress">claimed</a>, “In the ’90s we passed universal background checks, a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that hold 100 rounds that can be fired off in seconds. We beat the N.R.A. Mass shootings and gun violence declined, check out the report, over 10 years. … We need a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. And don’t tell me it can’t be done. We did it before and it worked.”

Ted Cruz

WATCH: Biden’s Nominee To Lead ATF Admits To Ted Cruz That He Supports A Ban On AR-15s

A left-wing columnist at The New York Times admitted over the weekend that there was no strong evidence that the assault weapons ban enacted under the Clinton administration, which lasted 10 years, &#8220;saved lives.&#8221;
Columnist Nicholas Kristof, who advocates for laws cracking down on the Second Amendment, made the admission in a piece about some of the executive orders that he wants Democrat President Joe Biden to use against the Second Amendment. Kristof said that he was &#8220;sympathetic&#8221; toward wanting to ban so-called &#8220;assault weapons,&#8221; which are semi-automatic firearms that effectively operate the same way that basic pistols do, but noted that there was no way that Congress was going to ban them.
&#8220;It’s also true that while liberals loved the assault weapons ban for the 10 years it was in effect, there is no strong evidence that it saved lives — but it did turn the AR-15 into a conservative icon, so that today there appear to be more AR and AK rifles in private hands than in the United States military,&#8221; Kristof wrote. &#8220;And most crime and deaths involve handguns, not rifles.&#8221;
Statistician Leah Libresco, a former writer for the data journalism site FiveThirtyEight, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html">noted</a> in a piece in The Washington Post back in 2017 that her months-long research into gun violence concluded that few laws would have any impact on gun violence in the U.S.
Highlights from her piece:
<ul>
<li>&#8220;We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I&#8217;d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.&#8221;</li>
<li>&#8220;The column comes as there have been a couple of shootings that have garnered national headlines over the last month. Democrats and their allies in the media have used the tragedies to shift attention off of Biden&#8217;s border crisis, which had dominated the news cycle for weeks.&#8221;</li>
<li>&#8220;I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn&#8217;t prove much about what America&#8217;s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans.&#8221;</li>
<li>&#8220;As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference.&#8221;</li>
<li>&#8220;By the time we published our project, I didn&#8217;t believe in many of the interventions I&#8217;d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don&#8217;t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can&#8217;t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them.&#8221;</li>
</ul>
The Biden administration recently <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-admin-presses-supreme-court-to-let-police-enter-homes-without-a-warrant-and-seize-firearms-report">urged</a> the Supreme Court to uphold a warrantless gun confiscation in a case that was argued late last month. Biden has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-to-congress-enact-major-restrictions-on-constitutionally-protected-second-amendment-rights">called</a> on Congress to ban assault weapons, and his administration has signaled that he is open to using executive action to crackdown on the Second Amendment.

Firearm Store Sales As Mass Shootings Give Democrats New Urgency On Gun Control

Left-Wing NYT Columnist On Clinton’s Assault Weapons Ban: ‘No Strong Evidence That It Saved Lives’

As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/several-killed-including-police-officer-in-tragedy-at-boulder-grocery-store">reported</a> earlier this week, “Ten people were killed in a tragedy that unfolded in a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado on Monday afternoon after a man walked into a King Soopers store and opened fire.”
Almost immediately, multiple Democrats used the latest attack as an opportunity to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrats-use-colorado-mass-shooting-to-spark-renewed-calls-for-gun-control">advocate</a> for stricter forms of gun control, especially after the shooter in Boulder was reported to have used an “AR-15 style” rifle.
Joe Biden said, “We can ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in this country once again.” Sen. Mazie Hirono called for Congress to pass H.R. 8, tweeting “Another week, another unspeakable tragedy — this time 10 lives lost in Boulder. While we mourn those lost, we can’t become numb to the ever growing toll of gun violence in our country.”
 Sen. Elizabeth Warren used the tragedy as her latest excuse to achieve an unrelated ideological victory and end the filibuster, tweeting “Week after week, month after month, year after year – the gun violence doesn&#8217;t end. And things won&#8217;t get better until Democrats get rid of the filibuster and finally pass gun safety legislation that a huge majority of Americans support.”
The shocking events which took place in Atlanta and Boulder are both despicable acts of evil, regardless of motive or perpetrator. However, when we move from the initial emotional reaction to the promotion of legislation, it becomes necessary to first understand the problem of “gun violence ” in its full statistical context.
After all, how can we hope to “solve” a problem if we don’t understand the problem?
Here are some key data points regarding gun violence in the United States which are often ignored or dismissed by Democrats who hope to cherry-pick data for political purposes.
Causes of injury-related deaths
Based on CDC data, 70.3% (173,040) of injury deaths were unintentional, 19.3% (47,511) were due to suicide, 7.8% (19,141) were homicides, 2.3% (5,683) were of undetermined intent, and 0.3% (652) were due to “legal intervention.” 
Looking at homicides, 75.3% (14,414) were committed with a firearm. Other causes include 8.9% (1,702) caused by cutting or piercing, and 2.4% (455) caused by suffocation.
Firearm deaths by gender and age
Males are vastly more likely to be murdered with a firearm than females, with a death rate per 100,000 of 7.65 for males and 1.44 for females across all age ranges. This disproportionality becomes even greater when we adjust for age. In the 15-19 age range, males have a death rate per 100,000 of 14.31 while females have a death rate per 100,000 of 2.10. The death rate for males per 100,000 spikes in the 20-24 age range at 20.53 compared to 2.96 for females. Between the ages of 25-29, the rate is 18.51 for males and 2.50 for females. Between the ages of 30-34, the rate is 15.21 for males and 2.36 for females.
The vast majority of deaths from firearms for males occur between the ages of 15 and 34, with a total of 7,759 deaths. That’s over 53% of all firearm deaths across the entire population.
Firearm deaths by race
Black people are far more likely to be killed with a firearm than people of any other race. Across the entire population, black people have a death rate per 100,000 of 17.83 when it comes to firearm deaths. White people have a rate of 2.22, Native Americans have a rate of 4.07, and Asians have a rate of 1.08.
In terms of raw count, 8,607 black people were killed with firearms in 2019, which accounts for almost 60% of all firearm deaths that year. 5,367 white people were killed, which made up over 37% of firearm deaths.
The disproportional impact of gun violence on the black community becomes even more apparent when we group by sex. 7,685 black males were killed with firearms in 2019, which is over 53% of all firearm deaths. In other words, black males make up the majority of victims of gun violence.
Deaths by weapon used
According to <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/">Statista</a>, 6,368 murders were committed in 2019 using handguns, amounting to approximately 44% of all firearm deaths. 3,281 deaths were caused by firearms of an unknown type (over 22%). Rifles were used in 364 murders in 2019, which amounts to 2.5% of all firearm deaths. Shotguns were used in 200 murders, amounting to under 2% of firearm deaths.
To add further perspective, while 364 murders were committed with a rifle, 397 murders were committed with blunt objects, 600 with personal weapons such as fists or feet, and 1,476 with knives or cutting instruments.
Possession of firearm during offense which resulted in conviction
According to the <a href="https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf">Bureau of Justice Statistics</a>, the disproportional nature of gun possession during criminal offenses follows the earlier patterns based on age, sex, and race.
21.8% of male prisoners in state institutions, and 20.9% of male prisoners in federal institutions, possessed a firearm during their offense, compared to just 9.5% in state institutions and 6.6% in federal institutions for female offenders.
Regarding these firearms, 10.1% were purchased or traded at a retail source (such as a gun store or pawn shop). Just 0.8% were purchased at a gun show. 25.3% were obtained from an individual. 43.2% were obtained from street or underground markets, and 6.4% were obtained through theft. 6.9% were found at the location of the crime.
***
Mass shootings are undeniably horrendous acts of unimaginable evil, and it is certainly valid for elected officials to pursue legislative — and constitutional — policies which aim to prevent their occurrence. However, given the clear statistical breakdown of gun violence in the United States, one simply must ask why the focus of our legislative officials remains squarely on one form of violence, while ignoring the vast majority of other forms which are impacting thousands of Americans — most of them black — every single day.
Ian Haworth is an Editor and Writer for The Daily Wire. Follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Handgun

The Data Proves It: When It Comes To Gun Violence, ‘Assault Weapons’ Aren’t The Problem

Gun Violence

In the aftermath of the mass shooting events in Atlanta, Georgia and Boulder, Colorado, the Biden administration has urged Congress to implement a ban on so-called “assault weapons.”
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/psaki-biden-considering-executive-action-on-guns">told</a> reporters on Tuesday that President Biden is “considering a range of levers, including working through legislation, including executive action” for new gun control measures.
Also on Tuesday, Biden delivered remarks on the need to ban “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines.”
“I got that done as a Senator. It brought down mass shootings, we can do it again,” Biden remarked. “We can ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in this country once again.”
President Biden was referring to his role in passing the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — a portion of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 — which halted the manufacture of many semi-automatic firearms for civilian purposes. The Bush administration permitted the bill to expire in 2004.
Biden touted his role in passing the 1994 legislation throughout the 2020 election season, and the Biden-Harris campaign <a href="https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/">platform</a> applauded his “passage of 10-year bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.”
Far preceding the recent presidential race, Biden has consistently invoked the assault weapons ban as a resounding success and a key legislative accomplishment of his four-decade career in Congress. For instance, after President Obama tapped then-Vice President Biden to lead the administration’s gun violence task force following the 2012 Newtown shooting, Biden <a href="https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/biden-1994-assault-weapons-ban-worked-too-well">told</a> the public that “the crime bill worked too well because what happened was violent crime diminished significantly.”
Later analyses — which note that assault weapons have an inconsequential role in gun crimes broadly and mass shootings specifically — beg to differ.
“Assault weapons” apply to small percentage of crimes
The 1994 assault weapons ban was ineffective in curbing firearm deaths fundamentally because it applied to a very small number of crimes.
In July 2004, Christopher Koper — a former University of Pennsylvania researcher and current George Mason University criminology professor — carried out a federally-funded <a href="https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf">assessment</a> of the assault weapons ban for the Department of Justice. To this day, the report is among the most often cited analyses of the 1994 legislation. 
Koper acknowledged that assault weapons “were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%.” Most of these weapons were “assault pistols rather than assault rifles.”
Accordingly, he was skeptical of the continued success of the regulations.
“Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement,” Koper said, again emphasizing that assault weapons “were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”
Fifteen years after the 1994 legislation expired, Amy Swearer — a Senior Legal Policy Analyst for the Heritage Foundation — emphasized similar findings during <a href="https://www.heritage.org/testimony/protecting-america-assault-weapons">testimony</a> to the House Judiciary Committee.
“Banning the civilian possession of certain commonly owned semi-automatic rifles is an unnecessary and ineffective means of combating gun-related violence, in large part because these rifles are simply not used in the overwhelming majority of firearm-related deaths in the United States,” she stated. “They play such a minimal role in gun-related violence that, even if prohibition were 100% successful and no substitution for other firearms occurred, such a law would fail to have a meaningful impact on overall rates of gun violence.”
Swearer also cited a 2017 FBI <a href="https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls">report</a> showing that “far from being the weapon of choice for would-be criminals, semi-automatic rifles are statistically the type of firearm least likely to be used for unlawful purposes, particularly compared to handguns.”
“Assault weapons” aren’t always a “major factor” for mass shootings
Though proponents of banning assault weapons claim that such policies would limit deaths from mass shootings, the data point to different conclusions. 
In his assessment, Koper wrote that mass shootings are “very rare.” He concluded that any drops in violent crime involving assault weapons were “likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non- banned semiautomatics” with large capacity magazines, “which are used in crime much more frequently” than assault weapons.
Swearer similarly testified that assault weapons aren’t the central necessary component for those hoping to inflict massive casualties. She observed that “gun control advocates, politicians, and the media routinely characterize semi-automatic rifles, specifically the AR-15, as the ‘weapon of choice’ for mass public shooters,” although such conclusions are “objectively incorrect.”
“The reality is that, even if all would-be mass public shooters were successfully diverted to the use of ‘non-assault weapons,’ it would likely have no meaningful impact on their ability to kill large numbers of unarmed civilians,” she added in reference to <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/">data</a> from Mother Jones’ mass shooting database. “With only a few notable exceptions, such as the Las Vegas shooting in 2018, the type of firearm was simply not a major factor in the ability of mass shooters to cause significant casualties, particularly compared to other important factors such as the time the shooter remained unconfronted by an armed response.”
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

AR15

Why The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Didn’t Work

Menu