Assault Weapons Banned

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was ratified in 1994, by President Bill Clinton. It entailed a ban on the manufacture, possession, or transfer of semiautomatic assault weapons, as well as large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The ban was enacted for 10 years and expired in 2004. Even though it was hard to discern how the ban effected crime or gun violence it should be reinstated, since it made a significant affect on gun control. It banned assault weapons, a military style, to be sold to citizens. However, the ban was not without its faults. For a weapon to be banned it had to possessed certain features such as a bayonet mount or a telescopic stock, but many gun manufacturers modified weapons slightly so they could not be banned. They

The term diversion is used because trafficking means to obtain illegally, but most of the guns are legally purchased. Most gun diversion is done intrastately, meaning that the firearms are purchased from states with lax gun laws to be sold in states with strict gun laws. An event that happened in New York sheds light on this occurrence. The eight criminals were charged with buying guns in Atlanta and Pittsburgh. This is why even in states with strict gun laws, there is still many firearm caused deaths. It is hard for officers to control illegal gun sales, since they can not stop the guns from entering their city. Officer said “90 percent of guns used in crimes in New York City come from someplace else.” Between September 2014 and September 2015, the defendants allegedly were going to sell guns purchased in Georgia and Pennsylvania. The trafficking or diversion of firearms is possible to prevent since FFLs are federally required to report multiple sales of guns. However, law enforcement is not required to investigate these sales that could stop criminal activity (smartgunlaws.org). For instance, it is possible for traffickers to distribute firearms to juvenile gang members and those under the age of 18

They feel that background checks are invasive to one’s privacy and would infringe on the Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Obviously, they have a right to care about their rights to bear arms being taken away, but it will not happen if their not mentally ill, a danger to themselves and others, or convicted of a felony. The background checks are currently implemented to protect the safety of the people and since the federal background check requirement was implemented in 1994, over 2 million people have been denied gun purchases (smartgunlaws.org). That is a good number and the current background check has done its job, but there are many loopholes and faults that would be eliminated with a more thorough background check. Also, the Second Amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (Cornell)." It highlights the need for a regulated military and the people, meaning the United States, have a right to defend itself. Additionally, the opposers believe that strict gun control laws would also infringe upon on their right for self defense. Furthermore, with strict gun control laws Americans would not be able to protect themselves and the country from foreign invaders