Finally, after 10 long years, the Clinton gun ban has expired. This means that starting tomorrow morning, law abiding citizens across the country will be able to go out and purchase firearms, and higher capacity magazines that they were unable to purchase for the past 10 years.Why is this a good thing? Well, for starters, the Clinton gun ban did nothing to reduce crime. The same people who were allowed to purchase firearms over the weekend (like me, with my new Glock 23) are able to purchase firearms tomorrow morning. That means that if someone wanted to commit a crime with a firearm, and they could legally acquire it, nothing was stopping them. So who was hurt by this law? Well, again it was people like me, who are law abiding citizens, using firearms for nothing but legal purposes. Gun owners like myself were unable to buy certain guns because they looked like “military style” firearms. The appearance however, had absolutely nothing to do with the actual operation of the gun.
For example, certain rifles in a .223 caliber were banned under the Clinton gun ban. Eight years into the Clinton gun ban, my Dad bought a .223 rifle. Why were some banned and not others? It’s because the whole law was arbitrary, banning guns purely for cosmetic purposes (i.e. they looked like they were more dangerous than others). The guns that were banned were given the name “assault weapons”, for no other reason than because the name sounds scarry. Some of the guns that were banned shot a smaller caliber than did some of the legal guns. Again, this was arbitrary.
The other thing that was banned was “high capacity magazines”. “High capacity” meant any magazine that held more than 10 rounds. Why 10, you might ask? Well, again it was a decision that wasn’t really based on much. My guess is that when drafting the bill, the lawmakers probably figured that if they went too low, say 5 rounds, the law would never pass, and if they went too high, say 15, the anti-gunners wouldn’t be happy with the law. Ten was the [un]happy medium. But once again, this part of the law had its flaws. The law only said that a private citizen couldn’t possess an ammunition magazine, manufactured after September 13, 1994, that holds more than 10 rounds. It never said that if you already owned one you couldn’t keep it, or if you were to see a used one (manufactured pre-ban) in a gun store, or at a gun show you couldn’t buy it, which is why my Dad had owns a 30 round magazine for that same .223 caliber rifle I was discussing earlier, as well as one for a pistol.
Look, this article could go on forever, discussing the benefits of this law expiring. But the bottom line is this, law abiding citizens now have the right to own a wider variety of firearms. Firearms, which criminals would have possessed anyway, despite the presence of Clinton’s ban. If you’re looking for a way to truly reduce crime, banning guns on arbitrary measures is not the way to do it. Harsher penalties, like longer jail sentences for those who commit crimes with guns is the way to go.
For those of you who still are not convinced, here are the top 10 reasons that this ban should expire according to the NRA’s ClintonGunBan.com:
• Number 10: The ban was never intended to reduce crime.
• Number 9: The shape of a gun`s grip is not a reason to ban it.
• Number 8: The claim that the guns are “high-powered” is a lie.
• Number 7: The guns are not machine guns or “weapons of war.”
• Number 6: Some of the guns are widely used for sports and hunting.
• Number 5: Gun control supporters lie about police officers.
• Number 4: The ban has had no effect on crime.
• Number 3: The guns have never been criminals` “weapon of choice.”
• Number 2: More guns equal less crime.
• Number 1: The ban interferes with the right of self-defense.
Leave a Reply