Illinois Attorney General on proposed (state-level) assault weapons ban

The lies just don't stop, do they? No matter how wrong they are proven to be, anti-gun politicians and news organizations continue to deliberately confuse the public. When the so-called journalists do it, I'm not exactly surprised, but there's not much that can be done. However, when public officials do it, there should be some remedy.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan today urged the General Assembly to pass a state assault weapons ban. This legislation would ban the manufacture of non-sporting, ?cop killer? assault weapons that are designed with military features to allow rapid spray firing, as well large capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Clearly, this is a buzzword-heavy press release. Let's take 'em in order. Non-sporting: First, remember that the so-called "sporting purposes" test originated with the Nazi government.

The cop-killer epithet originated with a special type of "armor-piercing" bullet designed for law-enforcement use in shooting through vehicles; the reality is that just about any rifle bullet will penetrate a police-style bulletproof vest, since the vests are designed ot stop handgun bullets. Assault weapons are actually low-powered weapons compared to a typical hunting rifle.

Now, if we were really talking about military features, we'd be talking about automatic weapons, also known as machine guns. Assault weapons are not machine guns and are not considered military rifles. They have a military "look and feel" in many cases, but they function identically to a more traditional wood-stock hunting rifle. In other words, they aren't any more useful for rapid spray firing than any other semiautomatic rifle.

And finally, as for large capacity ammunition feeding devices (which normal people call magazines), what makes these devices too dangerous for civilian use yet perfectly acceptable for police use? Are police in need of assault weapons with "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" so they can "spray fire" into crowds of criminals? Do they need special "cop-killer" weapons to penetrate bulletproof vests commonly worn by criminals? No? Then why are they exempted from the law?

The 1994 federal ban, which expired on September 13, prohibited the manufacture of 19 semi-automatic assault weapons and any semi-automatic firearm with at least two specified military features and the ability to accept a detachable magazine. It also banned production of ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition except for police or military use. Assault weapons and ammunitions clips holding more than 10 rounds manufactured before September 13, 1994, were ?grandfathered? under the federal ban and have continued to be legally sold and possessed during the period of the ban.

Amazingly, this paragraph is actually accurate and does not contain much spin. However, it's insufficient, simply because it is in the second paragraph; the first paragraph is filled with spin. In addition, the "military features" on the banned list are not necessarily "military" and should be explicitly listed so that the reader will understand how completely irrelevant to the actual functioning of the firearm they are.

The federal ban was passed in large part because many police across the nation in the 1980s reported that semi-automatic assault weapons had become the ?weapon of choice? for criminals. This year, when the ban was up for renewal, both of Illinois' U.S. Senators voted to extend the federal ban. However, Congress failed to pass the measure. In anticipation of the non-renewal of the federal ban, State Sen. John Cullerton and State Rep. Karen May sponsored a bill to return Illinois to pre-September 13 status when it comes to assault weapons.

If police reported that, they lied. The weapons banned by the law are mostly semi-automatic rifles, yet according to the Uniform FBI Crime Report, all rifles composed 4.05% of firearm murders -- and just 2.71% of all murders. Both numbers are inherently high, because not all rifles are assault weapons -- in fact, relatively few qualify. These are the criminal's "weapons of choice"? On what planet?.

?Ten years ago, Congress wisely passed the assault weapons ban to protect law enforcement officers and our communities from weapons that have no legitimate civilian use. Ten years later, however, special interests have persuaded Washington to allow these dangerous weapons to return to our streets,? Madigan said. ?Washington has turned its back on protecting law enforcement and our communities. Illinois should not put its law enforcement officers at risk one more day. Criminals do not need more firepower on our streets.?

How does a flash suppressor, a pistol grip, or a folding stock increase the amount of "firepower" available to criminals?

?This legislation simply extends a law which has been on the books for 10 years,? Cullerton said. ?My plan is to fine tune and strengthen the law in the next General Assembly."

So not only does he want to replace a law that, in 10 years, has had precisely no statistically detectable effect on crime.. he wants to make it stronger. Let me make it simple. He wants to confiscate guns. That's what assault weapons bans are leading up to.

?I have no quarrel with hunters who want to go after deer or ducks,? Devine said. ?But I do have a quarrel with allowing on the street the type of deadly assault weapon that killed Tsarina Powell. We all should have a quarrel with that.? Tsarina Powell, 12, was killed in July 2000 with an AK-47 assault rifle.

Well, there are two possibilities here, since in 2000 (when this child was killed) the assault weapons ban was in effect.

1. If the rifle was actually a fully-automatic AK-47 assault rifle, a type of weapon which has been heavily regulated since 1934, it was almost certainly illegally possessed.
2. If the rifle was a semi-automatic AK-47 assault weapon, covered by the assault weapons ban... then the ban doesn't seem to be very effective.

?If you talk to any community member in some of Chicago's most challenged neighborhoods, they would tell you they want fewer assault weapons on their streets, not more,? Grau said. ?By establishing a new ban on these deadly weapons, we're taking one more step toward building safer communities.?

Chicago is generally considered to have the second or third strictest gun control laws within the United States. Those gun control laws don't seem to be working very well, do they?

?By allowing these assault weapons on these streets, we have the potential of putting officers and communities at greater risk than need be. Such action also will have a negative impact on the quality of life in every community across the country,? Jones said. ?The criminal element has us outgunned on the streets. People must take a responsible position on issues that affect the safety of law enforcement and their communities.?

If the criminals have the police outgunned, they're doing it with handguns.

?We are pleased to see that Attorney General Madigan is willing to take a leadership role on this issue, which is something that was clearly absent from our leadership in Washington,? sadi Beth Coolidge, Chairman of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. ?We look forward to working with her and members of the General Assembly to ensure that this issue gets the full consideration and debate it deserves.?

It deserves none.