| Revision as of 15:13, 4 May 2018 editTerrorist96 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,264 edits Reverted to revision 839466042 by ClueBot NG (talk). (TW)Tag: Undo← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:27, 11 May 2018 edit undo2601:14f:8200:361b:d102:ac46:5268:68c (talk) ←Blanked the pageTags: Blanking blankingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Use mdy dates|date=February 2018}} | |||
| {{About|the U.S. Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 that expired in 2004|other assault weapons bans in the U.S.|Assault weapons legislation in the United States}} | |||
| ] signing the bill into law.]] | |||
| {{USgunlegalbox}} | |||
| The '''Federal Assault Weapons Ban''' ('''AWB'''), officially the '''Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act''', is a subsection of the ], a United States ], which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain ]s that were defined as ]s as well as certain ammunition ] that were defined as "]." | |||
| The 10-year ban was passed by the ] on September 13, 1994, following a close 52–48 vote in the ], and was signed into law by US President ] on the same day. The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its ]. | |||
| Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by the courts. There were multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none succeeded. | |||
| Studies have shown the ban had little effect in criminal activity, but that may have been caused by various loopholes.<ref name="nap.edu 10881"/><ref name="Lott MGLC3rd"/<ref name=impact/> Other studies have shown small decreases in the rate of mass shootings, followed by increases beginning after the ban was lifted.<ref name="LemieuxBricknell2015"/> | |||
| ==Background== | |||
| Efforts to create restrictions on ]s at the federal government level intensified in 1989 after ] with a semi-automatic AK-47 rifle.<ref name=PittsPress900523>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=May 23, 1990 |title=Senate restricts assault weapon imports, production |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=onk0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=6pYEAAAAIBAJ&dq=assault-weapon&pg=7212%2C4372530 |newspaper=The Pittsburgh Press |agency=Associated Press |page=A13 |accessdate=September 30, 2013 |quote=A campaign for curbs on assault weapons began in January 1989 after a deranged gunman with an AK-47 semiautomatic rifle opened fire on a Stockton, Calif., school yard at recess time, leaving five children dead and 30 wounded. }}</ref><ref name=Pazniokas931220>{{cite news |last=Pazniokas |first=Mark |date=December 20, 1993 |title=One Gun's Journey Into A Crime |url=http://articles.courant.com/1993-12-20/news/0000000491_1_gun-control-assault-weapons-assault-weapon-law |newspaper=The Courant |location=Hartford, Connecticut |accessdate=September 30, 2013 |quote=The campaign to ban assault weapons began Jan. 17, 1989, after Patrick Purdy shot 34 children and a teacher in a Stockton, Calif., schoolyard, using a semiautomatic replica of an AK-47 assault rifle. }}</ref><ref>More Stockton schoolyard shooting sources: | |||
| *{{cite news |last=Adams |first=Jane Meredith |date=May 29, 1995 |title=Sparked By School Massacre, Gun Debate Still Rages |url=http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-05-29/news/9505290097_1_assault-weapon-ban-patrick-purdy-opened-fire-anti-assault |newspaper=Chicago Tribune |accessdate=March 17, 2014 |quote=Every murder horrifies, but the massacre of five children as they ran screaming that sunny January morning, and the wounding of 30 others, including a teacher, packed such emotional power it ignited the nascent anti-assault weapons movement.}} | |||
| *{{cite journal |last=Roth |first=Jeffrey A. |last2=Koper |first2=Christopher S. |year=1997 |title=Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994 |url=http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/aw_final.pdf |publisher=The Urban Institute |location=Washington, D.C. |accessdate=September 30, 2013 |quote=Nonetheless, the involvement of assault weapons in a number of mass murder incidents such as those discussed above provided an important impetus to the movement to ban assault weapons. }}{{rp|12}} | |||
| *{{cite news |last=Cowan |first=Lee |date=December 16, 2012 |title=1989 Calif. school shooting led to assault weapons ban |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/1989-calif-school-shooting-led-to-assault-weapons-ban/ |publisher=CBS News |accessdate=March 17, 2014 }} | |||
| *{{cite news |last=Johnson |first=Kevin |date=April 2, 2013 |title=Stockton school massacre: A tragically familiar pattern |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/01/stockton-massacre-tragically-familiar-pattern-repeats/2043297/ |newspaper=USA Today |accessdate=March 17, 2014 |quote=Like Newtown, the Stockton shooting helped prompt a heated national debate about gun control, culminating in a landmark, 10-year federal ban on assault weapons, which expired in 2004.}}</ref> The ] in October 1991, which left 23 people dead and 27 wounded, was another factor.<ref>"Assault Weapons Ban." Encyclopedia of Gun Control and Gun Rights. Glenn H. Utter and Robert J. Spitzer. 2nd ed. Amenia, NY: Grey House Publishing, 2011. 24–25. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. August 20, 2016. Quote: "Two events spurred the introduction of an assault weapon ban in Congress: the January 1989 schoolyard shooting in Stockton, California, that left five children dead and 29 others wounded; and the Killeen, Texas, cafeteria shooting in which 22 people were killed and 23 others wounded before the shooter took his own life."</ref> The July 1993 ] also contributed to passage of the ban. The shooter killed eight people and wounded six. Two of the three firearms he used were ] semi-automatic handguns with ]s.<ref name=Bingham120727>{{cite news |last=Bingham |first=Amy |date=July 27, 2012 |title=Shootings That Shaped Gun Control Laws: 101 California Street Shooting |url=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/shootings-shaped-gun-control/story?id=16863844#4 |newspaper= |location= |publisher=ABC News Internet Ventures |accessdate= }}</ref> The ban tried to address public concerns about mass shootings by restricting firearms that met the criteria for what it defined as a "semiautomatic assault weapon", as well as magazines that met the criteria for what it defined as a "large capacity ammunition feeding device".<ref name="Roth-Koper ImpactsBrief1999">{{cite journal |last=Roth |first=Jeffrey A. |author2=Christopher S. Koper |title=Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban |url=https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf |journal=National Institute of Justice Research in Brief |issue=NCJ 173405 |date=March 1999 }}</ref>{{rp|1–2}} | |||
| In November 1993, the proposed legislation passed the ]. The bill's author, ] (D-CA) and other advocates said that it was a weakened version of the original proposal.<ref name="Bunting 931109">{{cite news |title=Feinstein Faces Fight for Diluted Gun Bill |first=Glenn F. |last=Bunting |url=http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-09/news/mn-54844_1_assault-weapon |newspaper=Los Angeles Time |date=November 9, 1993 }}</ref> In May 1994, former presidents ], ], and ], wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns". They cited a 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that found 77 percent of Americans supported a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of such weapons.<ref name="Eaton 940505">{{cite news |title=Ford, Carter, Reagan Push for Gun Ban |first=William J. |last=Eaton |url=http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-05/news/mn-54185_1_assault-weapons-ban/2 |newspaper=Los Angeles Times |date=May 5, 1994 }}</ref> | |||
| Rep. ] (D-TX), then chair of the House Judiciary Committee, tried unsuccessfully to remove the assault weapons ban section from the crime bill.<ref name="Seelye 940728">{{cite news |title=Assault Weapons Ban Allowed To Stay in Anti-crime Measure |first=Katharine Q. |last=Seelye |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/28/us/assault-weapons-ban-allowed-to-stay-in-anti-crime-measure.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=July 28, 1994 }}</ref> The ] (NRA) opposed the ban. In November 1993, NRA spokesman Bill McIntyre said that assault weapons "are used in only 1 percent of all crimes".<ref name="Daley 940508">{{cite news |title=Senate Acts To Ban Assault Weapons: Brady Bill Still Awaiting Action |url=http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-11-18/news/9311180157_1_brady-bill-ban-assault-weapons-violent-crime |newspaper=Chicago Tribune |date=November 18, 1993 }}</ref> The low usage statistic was supported in a 1999 ] brief.<ref name="Roth-Koper ImpactsBrief1999"/> | |||
| The legislation passed in September 1994 with the assault weapon ban section expiring in 2004 due to its ]. | |||
| ==Provisions== | |||
| The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Act was enacted as part of the ].<ref name="ChuFAWB">Vivian S. Chu, , ] (February 14, 2013), pp. 3–5.</ref> The prohibitions expired on September 13, 2004.<ref name="ChuFAWB"/> | |||
| The Act prohibited the manufacture, transfer, or possession of "semiautomatic assault weapons," as defined by the Act. "Weapons banned were identified either by specific make or model (including copies or duplicates thereof, in any caliber), or by specific characteristics that slightly varied according to whether the weapon was a pistol, rifle, or shotgun" (see ]).<ref name="ChuFAWB"/> The Act also prohibited the transfer and possession of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" (LCAFDs). An LCAFD was defined as "any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date that has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition".<ref name="ChuFAWB"/> | |||
| The Act included a number of exemptions and exclusions from its prohibitions: | |||
| *The Act included a "]" to allow for possession and transfer of weapons and ammunition that "were otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of enactment."<ref name="ChuFAWB"/> | |||
| *The Act exempted some 650 firearm types or models, including various types of ], ], and ] guns, as these were viewed as primarily "suitable for target practice, match competition, hunting, and similar sporting purposes. This list was not exhaustive and the act provided that the absence of a firearm from the exempted list did not mean it was banned unless it met the definition of 'semiautomatic assault weapon.'"<ref name="ChuFAWB"/> | |||
| *The Act "also exempted any firearm that (1) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action; (2) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or (3) is an ]."<ref name="ChuFAWB"/> | |||
| *The Act "also did not apply to any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition nor any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine."<ref name="ChuFAWB"/> | |||
| *The Act provided an exemption for the use of "semiautomatic assault weapons and LCAFDs to be manufactured for, transferred to, and possessed by law enforcement and for authorized testing or experimentation purposes" as well as transfers for federal-security purposes under the ] and "possession by retired law enforcement officers who are not otherwise a prohibited possessor under law."<ref name="ChuFAWB"/> | |||
| In 1989, the ] had banned the importation of foreign-made, semiautomatic rifles deemed not to have "a legitimate sporting use." It did not affect similar but domestically-manufactured rifles.<ref name="Rasky 890708">{{cite news |title=Import Ban on Assault Rifles Becomes Permanent |first=Susan F. |last=Rasky |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/08/us/import-ban-on-assault-rifles-becomes-permanent.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=July 8, 1989 }}</ref> (The ] gives discretion to the ] to choose whether to "authorize a firearm or ammunition to be imported or brought into the United States," under what is known as "the sporting purposes test."<ref name="ChuFAWB"/>) Following the enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the ] determined that "certain semiautomatic assault rifles could no longer be imported even though they were permitted to be imported under the 1989 'sporting purposes test' because they had been modified to remove all of their military features other than the ability to accept a detachable magazine" and so in April 1998, it "prohibited the importation of 56 such rifles, determining that they did not meet the 'sporting purposes test.'"<ref name="ChuFAWB"/> | |||
| ===Definition of assault weapon=== | |||
| Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:<ref name=FedBan94>, Government Printing Office. Retrieved January 26, 2013.</ref> | |||
| ] rifle.]] | |||
| ] with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an assault weapon under federal law.]] | |||
| :]s able to accept detachable magazines and '''two or more''' of the following: | |||
| :*Folding or ] | |||
| :*] | |||
| :*] mount | |||
| :*], or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one | |||
| :*] | |||
| :]s with detachable magazines and '''two or more''' of the following: | |||
| :*Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip | |||
| :*Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or ] | |||
| :*] safety feature that prevents burns to the operator | |||
| :*Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more | |||
| :*A semi-automatic version of a fully ]. | |||
| :]s with '''two or more''' of the following: | |||
| :*Folding or telescoping stock | |||
| :*Pistol grip | |||
| :*Detachable magazine. | |||
| The ban defined the following semi-automatic firearms and any copies or duplicates of them, in any caliber, as assault weapons: | |||
| {| class="wikitable" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! Name of firearm !! Preban federal legal status | |||
| |- | |||
| | ], Mitchell, and ] ] (all models) || Imports banned in 1989* | |||
| |- | |||
| | Action Arms Israeli Military Industries ] and ] || Imports banned in 1989* | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] ] (SC-70) || Imports banned in 1989* | |||
| |- | |||
| | Colt ] || Legal | |||
| |- | |||
| | Fabrique National ], ], ] || Imports banned in 1989* | |||
| |- | |||
| | SWD (MAC type) ], ], M11/9, M12 || Legal | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || Imports banned in 1989* | |||
| |- | |||
| | INTRATEC ], ], ] || Legal | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] cylinder ]s such as (or similar to) the ] and ] || Legal | |||
| |} | |||
| ===Cosmetic features=== | |||
| ] advocates and ] advocates have referred to at least some of the features outlined in the federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 as cosmetic. The ] and the ] both used the term in publications that were released by them in September 2004, when the ban expired.<ref name="NRA040913">{{cite web |author=<!--no byline--> |date=September 13, 2004 |title=Finally, the End of a Sad Era—Clinton Gun Ban Stricken from Books! |url=http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2004/finally,-the-end-of-a-sad-era-clinton.aspx |publisher=National Rifle Association, Institute for Legislative Action |location=Fairfax, Virginia |quote=Law-abiding citizens, however, will once again be free to purchase semi-automatic firearms, regardless of their cosmetic features, for target shooting, shooting competitions, hunting, collecting, and most importantly, self-defense.}}</ref><ref name="VPC040913">{{cite press release |author=<!--no byline--> |date=September 13, 2004 |title=Violence Policy Center Issues Statement on Expiration of Federal Assault Weapons Ban |url=http://www.vpc.org/press/0409aw.htm |publisher=Violence Policy Center |location=Washington, D.C. |quote=Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing 'post-ban' assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts. |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20131010231937/http://www.vpc.org/press/0409aw.htm |archivedate=October 10, 2013 |df= }}</ref> In May 2012, the ] said that "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."<ref name="AWPS120521">{{cite web |author=<!--no byline--> |date=May 21, 2012 |title=Assault Weapons Policy Summary |url=http://smartgunlaws.org/assault-weapons-policy-summary/ |publisher=Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence |location=San Francisco, California }}</ref> The term was repeated in several stories after the ] and ].<ref name="Seitz-Wald130206">{{cite web |url=http://www.salon.com/2013/02/06/dont_mourn_the_assault_weapons_bans_impending_demise/ |title=Don't mourn the assault weapons ban's impending demise| publisher=Salon |first=Alex |last=Seitz-Wald |date=February 6, 2013 |quote= says the ban created an artificial distinction between 'assault weapons' and other semi-automatic weapons, based almost entirely on cosmetic features. This is largely true.}}</ref><ref>More ''cosmetic'' sources: | |||
| *{{cite web |url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/21/just-say-no-to-dumb-gun-laws.html |title=Just Say No to Dumb Gun Laws |publisher=The Daily Beast |first=Megan |last=McArdle |date=November 12, 2012 |quote=... 'assault weapon' is a largely cosmetic rather than functional description.}} | |||
| *{{cite web |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323723104578185271857424036 |title=Guns, Mental Illness and Newtown |newspaper=Wall Street Journal |first=David |last=Kopel |date=December 17, 2012 |quote=None of the guns that the Newtown murderer used was an assault weapon under Connecticut law. This illustrates the uselessness of bans on so-called assault weapons, since those bans concentrate on guns' cosmetics, such as whether the gun has a bayonet lug, rather than their function.}} | |||
| *{{cite web |url=http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/277663-assault-weapons-pose-a-problem-of-definition |title=The problem with 'assault weapons' |publisher=The Hill |first=Jordy |last=Yager |date=January 16, 2013 |quote=Gun companies quickly realized they could stay within the law and continue to make rifles with high-capacity magazine clips if they steered away from the cosmetic features mentioned in the law.}} | |||
| *{{cite web |url=http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/30/whats-an-assault-weapon |title=What's an Assault Weapon?| publisher=Reason |first=Jacob |last=Sullum |date=January 30, 2013 |quote=The distinguishing characteristics of 'assault weapons' are mainly cosmetic and have little or no functional significance in the context of mass shootings or ordinary gun crimes.}} | |||
| </ref> ] cited that issue during a town hall forum, responding to questions from survivors of the 2018 ] shooting in Parkland, Florida.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/politics/cnn-town-hall-full-video-transcript/index.html|title=Read Stoneman students' questions at the CNN town hall|work=CNN|access-date=February 22, 2018}}</ref> | |||
| ==Legal challenges== | |||
| A February 2013 ] (CRS) report to ] said that the "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was unsuccessfully challenged as violating several constitutional provisions" but that challenges to three constitutional provisions were easily dismissed.<ref name=CRSr42957130214>{{cite web |last=Chu |first=Vivian S. |date=February 14, 2013 |title=Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Legal Issues |publisher=Congressional Research Service |url=http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42957.pdf |accessdate=April 24, 2014}}</ref>{{rp|7}} The ban did not make up an impermissible ].<ref name=Navegar-US1996>{{cite court|litigants=Navegar Inc. v. United States|vol=103 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=994 |pinpoint= |court=D.C. Cir.|date=1999|url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-caDC-98-05491/pdf/USCOURTS-caDC-98-05491-0.pdf}}</ref>{{rp|31}} It was not ].<ref name=US-Starr1996>{{cite court|litigants= United States v. Starr |vol=945 |reporter=F. Supp. |opinion=257 |pinpoint= |court= M.D. Ga. |date=1996 |url= http://www.leagle.com/decision/19961202945FSupp257_11149 |quote=Accordingly, the statute is not unconstitutionally vague and Defendant Starr's motion is hereby DENIED.}}</ref> Also, it was ruled to be compatible with the ] by the ].<ref>{{cite court|litigants= San Diego Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno |vol=98 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=1121 |pinpoint= |court= 9th Cir. |date=1996 |url=http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1413776.html |quote=To grant plaintiffs standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Crime Control Act in the circumstances of this case would eviscerate the core standing requirements of Article III and throw all prudential caution to the wind.}}</ref> | |||
| Challenges to two other provisions took more time to decide.<ref name=CRSr42957130214/>{{rp|7}} | |||
| In evaluating challenges to the ban under the ], the court first evaluated Congress's authority to regulate under the clause and then analyzed the ban's prohibitions on manufacture, transfer, and possession. The court held that "it is not even arguable that the manufacture and transfer of 'semiautomatic assault weapons' for a national market cannot be regulated as activity substantially affecting interstate commerce."<ref name=CRSr42957130214/>{{rp|8–9}}<ref name=Navegar-US1996/>{{rp|12}} It also held that the "purpose of the ban on possession has an 'evident commercial ]'".<ref name=CRSr42957130214/>{{rp|9}}<ref name=Navegar-US1996/>{{rp|14}} | |||
| The law was also challenged under the ]. It was argued that it banned some semi-automatic weapons that were functional equivalents of exempted semi-automatic weapons and that to do so, based upon a mix of other characteristics, served no legitimate governmental interest. The reviewing court held that it was "entirely rational for Congress... to choose to ban those weapons commonly used for criminal purposes and to exempt those weapons commonly used for recreational purposes."<ref name=CRSr42957130214/>{{rp|10}}<ref name=OA-Buckles2002>{{cite court|litigants= Olympic Arms v. Buckles |vol=301 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=384 |pinpoint= |court= 6th Cir. |date=2002 |url= http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1156271.html |quote=Accordingly, it is entirely rational for Congress, in an effort to protect public safety, to choose to ban those weapons commonly used for criminal purposes and to exempt those weapons commonly used for recreational purposes.}}</ref> It also found that each characteristic served to make the weapon "potentially more dangerous" and were not "commonly used on weapons designed solely for hunting."<ref name=CRSr42957130214/>{{rp|10–11}}<ref>{{cite court|litigants= Olympic Arms v. Buckles |vol=301 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=384 |pinpoint= |court= 6th Cir. |date=2002|url= http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1156271.html |quote=Each of the individual enumerated features makes a weapon potentially more dangerous. Additionally, the features are not commonly used on weapons designed solely for hunting.}}</ref> | |||
| The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was never directly challenged under the Second Amendment. Since its 2004 expiration, there has been debate on how the ban would fare in light of cases decided in following years, especially '']'' (2008).<ref name=Kopen120808>{{cite news |last=Kopan |first=Tal |date=August 8, 2012 |title=If Congress, W.H. wanted to ban assault weapons, could they? |url=http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/08/if-congress-wh-wanted-to-ban-assault-weapons-could-131451.html |newspaper= |location= |publisher=POLITICO |accessdate=April 24, 2014 }}</ref> | |||
| =={{anchor|Expiration and effect on crime}}Studies on effectiveness== | |||
| ] | |||
| A 2002 study by Koper and Roth found that around the time when the ban became law, assault weapon prices increased significantly, but the increase was reversed in the several months afterward by a surge in assault weapons production that occurred just before the ban took effect.<ref name=impact>{{cite journal|last1=Koper|first1=Christopher S.|last2=Roth|first2=Jeffrey A.|title=The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban on Gun Markets: An Assessment of Short-Term Primary and Secondary Market Effects | |||
| |journal=Journal of Quantitative Criminology|date=2002|volume=18|issue=3|pages=239–266|doi=10.1023/A:1016055919939}}</ref> | |||
| In 2003, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent, non-federal task force, examined an assortment of firearms laws, including the AWB, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."<ref name="MMWR RR5214">{{cite journal |year=2003 |title=First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Early Childhood Home Visitation and Firearms Laws. Findings from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. |journal=MMWR |volume=52 |series= |issue=RR-14 |pages=11–20 |location=Atlanta, Georgia |publisher=Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |format=PDF |issn=1057-5987 |url=https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5214.pdf <!--|author= |editor1-last= -->}}</ref> A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a ] committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes." The committee noted that the study's authors said the guns were relatively rarely used criminally before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small.<ref name="nap.edu 10881">{{cite book |editor1-first=Charles F |editor1-last=Wellford |editor2-first=John V |editor2-last=Pepper |editor3-first=Carol V |editor3-last=Petrie |title=Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review |url=http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=97 |year=2013 |edition=Electronic |origyear=Print ed. 2005 |publisher=National Academies Press |location=Washington, D.C. |isbn=0-309-54640-0 |page=97}}</ref> | |||
| In 2004, a research report commissioned by the ] found that if the ban was renewed, the effects on gun violence would likely be small and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes. That study, by ], Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, ], found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. The authors also report that "there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury." <ref name="Koper 204431">{{cite journal |last=Koper |first=Christopher S. |last2=Woods |first2=Daniel J. |last3=Roth |first3=Jeffrey A. |date=June 2004 |origyear=First published 1997 |title=An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994–2003 – Report to the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice |location=Philadelphia |publisher=Jerry Lee Center for Criminology, University of Pennsylvania |format=PDF |url=http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf }}</ref> | |||
| In 2004, the ] examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban, ''On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act''. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990–1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law's enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime. Page 10 of the Brady report, however, adds that "an evaluation of copycat weapons is necessary". Including "copycat weapons", the report concluded that "in the post-ban period, the same group of guns has constituted 3.1% of ATF traces, a decline of 45%."<ref name="Brady On_Target">{{cite web |url=http://bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/on_target.pdf |title=On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act |author=<!--no byline--> |date=March 2004 |publisher=Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence |location=Washington, D.C. |format=PDF}}</ref> A spokesman for the ] (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of the report.<ref name="Ove 040328">{{cite news |title=Assault Weapon Ban's Effectiveness Debated |first=Torsten |last=Ove |url=http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/uncategorized/assault-weapon-bans-effectiveness-debated-532064/ |newspaper=Pittsburgh Post-Gazette |publisher= |location= |date=March 28, 2004 |accessdate= }}</ref> | |||
| A study conducted by Dube in 2013, showed that the passing of the FAWB in 1994 had an insignificant impact on violent crime in Mexico, while the expiration of the FAWB in 2004 combined with political instability was correlated with an increase in gun-related homicides among Mexican municipalities near the border.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=DUBE|first1=ARINDRAJIT|last2=DUBE|first2=OEINDRILA|last3=GARCÍA-PONCE|first3=OMAR|title=Cross-Border Spillover: U.S. Gun Laws and Violence in Mexico|journal=American Political Science Review|date=July 10, 2013|volume=107|issue=03|pages=397–417|doi=10.1017/S0003055413000178}}</ref> Also in 2013, Koper reviewed the literature on the ban's effects and concluded that its effects on crimes committed with assault weapons were mixed due to its various loopholes. He also concluded that the ban did not seem to affect gun crime rates, but may have been able to reduce shootings if it had been renewed in 2004.<ref>{{cite book | url=http://selfdefensefund.com/wp-content/uploads/Reducing-Gun-Violence.pdf#page=186 | title=Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis | publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press | author=Koper, Christopher S. | year=2013 | pages=187}}</ref> | |||
| Research by gun advocate ] found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates,<ref name="Lott MGLC3rd">{{cite book |last=Lott |first=John R. |title=More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZPAHlwEACAAJ |accessdate=December 31, 2012 |edition=3rd |date=May 24, 2010 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-49367-1}}</ref> but provided evidence that the bans may have reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.<ref name="Lott BAG2003">{{cite book |last=Lott |first=John R. |title=The Bias Against Guns |url=https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895261146/ |accessdate=December 31, 2012 |date=February 1, 2003 |publisher=Regnery Publishing |location=Washington, D.C. |isbn=978-0895261144}}</ref> Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's look at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults.{{cn|date=April 2018}} Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state assault weapon bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.{{cn|date=April 2018}} | |||
| In a 2013 report Samantha Bricknell from the ], Frederic Lemieux and Tim Prenzler compared mass shootings between America and Australia and found the "1996 NFA coincided within the cessation of mass shooting events" in Australia, and that there were reductions in America that were evident during the 1994–2004 US Federal Assault Weapon Ban.<ref name="LemieuxBricknell2015">{{cite journal|last1=Lemieux|first1=Frederic|last2=Bricknell|first2=Samantha|last3=Prenzler|first3=Tim|title=Mass shootings in Australia and the United States, 1981–2013|journal=Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice|volume=1|issue=3|year=2015|pages=131–142|issn=2056-3841|doi=10.1108/JCRPP-05-2015-0013}}</ref> | |||
| ==Efforts at renewal== | |||
| The assault weapons ban expired on September 13, 2004. Legislation to renew or replace the ban was proposed numerous times unsuccessfully. | |||
| Between May 2003 and June 2008, U.S. Senator ], D-CA, and Representatives ], R-DE, ], D-FL, and ], R-IL, introduced bills to reauthorize the ban.<ref name="AWB Reauthorization Act">{{USBill|108|S.|1034}}, {{USBill|108|S.|2109}}, {{USBill|109|S.|620}}, {{USBill|108|H.R.|3831}}, {{USBill|108|H.R.|5099}}, {{USBill|110|HR|6257}}</ref> At the same time, Senator ], D-NJ, and Representative ], D-NY, introduced similar bills to create a new ban with a revised definition for assault weapons. None of the bills left committee.<ref name="AWB & Law Enforcement Protection Act">{{USBill|108|S.|1431}}, {{USBill|109|S.|645}}, {{USBill|108|H.R.|2038}}, {{USBill|109|H.R.|1312}}, {{USBill|110|H.R.|1022}}</ref> | |||
| After the ], the website of ] ] listed a detailed agenda for the forthcoming administration. The stated positions included "making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."<ref name="archive.org change.gov">{{cite web |title=Urban Policy Agenda |url=http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/ |publisher=Office of President-elect Barack Obama |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20081116144703/http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/ |archivedate=November 16, 2008 |accessdate=December 31, 2012 |deadurl=no }}</ref> Three months later, newly sworn-in ] ] reiterated the ]'s desire to reinstate the ban.<ref name="ryan 090225">{{cite news |title=Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban |first=Jason |last=Ryan |url=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1 |publisher=ABC News |id=6960824 |date=February 25, 2009 |accessdate=December 31, 2012}}</ref> The mention came in response to a question during a joint press conference with ] Acting Administrator ], discussing efforts to crack down on ]. Attorney General Holder said that "there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons."<ref> {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090228133334/http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15821 |date=February 28, 2009}}</ref> | |||
| Efforts to pass a new federal assault weapons ban were made in December 2012 after the ], in ].<ref name=Barron121215>{{cite news |last=Barron |first=James |date=December 15, 2012 |title=Children Were All Shot Multiple Times With a Semiautomatic, Officials Say |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/gunman-kills-20-children-at-school-in-connecticut-28-dead-in-all.html |newspaper=New York Times |location= |publisher=New York Times Company |accessdate=April 12, 2014 }}</ref><ref name=Levy121221>{{cite news |last=Levy |first=Gabrielle |date=December 21, 2012 |title=Obama responds to gun violence petition |url=http://www.upi.com/blog/2012/12/21/Obama-responds-to-gun-violence-petition/1021356100902/ |newspaper= |location= |publisher=United Press International |type=blog |accessdate=May 26, 2014 }}</ref><ref name=Steinhauer130124>{{cite news |title=Senator Unveils Bill to Limit Semiautomatic Arms |author=Steinhauer, Jennifer |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/us/politics/senator-unveils-bill-to-limit-semiautomatic-arms.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=January 24, 2013 |accessdate=May 26, 2014}}</ref> On January 24, 2013, Senator Feinstein introduced {{USBill|113|S.|150}}, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (AWB 2013).<ref name=CSPAN130124>{{cite AV media |people=Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Rev. Gary Hall, Rep. ] |date=January 24, 2013 |title=Assault Weapons Ban Bill |medium=video |url=http://www.c-span.org/video/?310581-1/assault-weapons-ban-bill |format= |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=National Cable Satellite Corporation |accessdate=April 13, 2014 |display-authors=etal}}</ref> The bill was similar to the 1994 ban, but differed in that it would not expire after 10 years,<ref name=Steinhauer130124/> and it used a one-feature test for a firearm to qualify as an assault weapon rather than the two-feature test of the defunct ban.<ref name=USAToday130124>{{cite news |last=Kucinich |first=Jackie |date=January 24, 2013 |title=Democrats reintroduce assault weapons ban |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/01/24/assault-weapons-ban-feinstein-democrats/1861493/ |newspaper=USA Today |location= |publisher= |accessdate=April 13, 2014 }}</ref> The GOP Congressional delegation from Texas, and the NRA, condemned Feinstein's bill.<ref name="freedman 130124">{{cite news |title=Feinstein offers new assault weapons ban |first=Dan |last=Freedman |url=http://www.chron.com/default/article/Feinstein-offers-new-assault-weapons-ban-4221873.php |agency= |newspaper=Houston Chronicle |date=January 24, 2013 |accessdate=January 24, 2013}}</ref> On March 14, 2013, the ] approved a version of the bill along party lines.<ref name="steinhauer 130314">{{cite news |title=Party-Line Vote in Senate Panel for Ban on Assault Weapons |first=Jennifer |last=Steinhauer |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/us/politics/panel-approves-reinstatement-of-assault-weapons-ban.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=March 14, 2013 |accessdate=March 14, 2013}}</ref> On April 17, 2013, AWB 2013 failed on a Senate vote of 40 to 60.<ref name=Simon130417>{{cite news |title=Senate votes down Feinstein's assault weapons ban |last=Simon |first=Richard |url=http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-vote-20130417,0,5349684.story |newspaper=Los Angeles Times |date=April 17, 2013 |accessdate= }}</ref> | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| {{portal|United States|Law}} | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ==References== | |||
| {{reflist|30em}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||