World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Article Id: WHEBN0040129756
Reproduction Date:

Title: Federal Assault Weapons Ban  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Gun politics in the United States, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, Gun law in the United States, Social policy of Barack Obama, 1994
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Federal Assault Weapons Ban

President Bill Clinton signing the bill into law.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), formally titled the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

The ten-year ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on September 13, 1994, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment, and it expired on September 13, 2004, per its sunset provision.

Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by reviewing courts. There were multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none succeeded.


Efforts to create restrictions on assault weapons at the federal government level intensified in 1989 after 34 children and a teacher were shot and five children killed in Stockton, Calif. using a semi-automatic copy of an AK-47 assault rifle.[1][2][3] The July 1993 101 California Street shooting also contributed to passage of the ban. The shooter killed eight people and wounded six. Two of the three firearms he used were TEC-9 semi-automatic handguns with Hellfire triggers.[4] 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."[5]:1–2

In November 1993, the proposed legislation passed the U.S. Senate. The bill's author, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and other advocates said that it was a weakened version of the original proposal.[6] In May 1994, former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, 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.[7]

Rep. Jack Brooks (D-TX), then chair of the House Judiciary Committee, tried unsuccessfully to remove the assault weapons ban section from the crime bill.[8] The National Rifle Association (NRA) opposed the ban. In November 1993, NRA spokesman Bill McIntyre said that assault weapons "are used in only 1 percent of all crimes".[9] The low usage statistic was supported in a 1999 Department of Justice brief.[5]

The legislation passed in September 1994 with the assault weapon ban section expiring in 2004 due to its sunset provision.

Provisions of the ban

The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act - commonly called the "assault weapons ban," the "federal assault weapons ban," and the "AWB" - was part (Title XI, Subtitle A) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

The ban defined the term "semiautomatic assault weapon," which is commonly shortened to assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms shoot one round (cartridge or bullet) with each trigger pull.

The term assault weapon is also commonly used to refer to some military weapons and weapon systems. The similar but technical term assault rifle refers to military rifles capable of selective fire - automatic (full-auto), semi-automatic, and burst fire. Automatic firearms (like machine guns) and assault rifles in automatic mode, shoot multiple rounds with a single trigger pull. Such firearms are Title II weapons regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Neither the ban or its expiration changed the legal status of automatic firearms.

The ban restricted the manufacture, transfer, and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons except for: those already in lawful possession at the time of the law's enactment; 660 rifles and shotguns listed by type and name; permanently inoperable, manually operated, or antique firearms; rifles unable to accept a detachable magazine of more than five rounds; shotguns unable to hold more than five rounds in a fixed or detachable magazine; and those made for, transferred to, or owned by the U.S. government or a U.S. law enforcement agency.

The ban also defined the term "large capacity ammunition feeding device," which is commonly shortened to "large capacity magazine," or high capacity magazine. These were defined by the assault weapons ban as magazines, belts, drums, feed strips, or similar devices with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. It restricted the transfer and possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices except for: those made before the law's enactment; and those made for, transferred to, or owned by the U.S. government or a U.S. law enforcement agency.

Criteria of an 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:[10]

A semi-automatic Yugoslavian M70AB2 rifle.
An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an assault weapon under federal law.
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Semi-automatic pistols 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 suppressor
  • Barrel shroud 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 automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • Detachable magazine.

The ban defined the following semi-automatic firearms, as well as any copies or duplicates of them in any caliber, as assault weapons:

Name of firearm Preban federal legal status
Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (AKs) (all models) Imports banned in 1989*
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil Imports banned in 1989*
Beretta AR-70 (SC-70) Imports banned in 1989*
Colt AR-15 Legal
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN-LAR, FNC Imports banned in 1989*
SWD (MAC type) M-10, M-11, M11/9, M12 Legal
Steyr AUG Imports banned in 1989*
Revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12 Legal

Bush's 1989 ban was on the importation of foreign-made, semiautomatic assault rifles deemed not to have "a legitimate sporting use." It did not affect similar but domestically manufactured rifles.[11]

Cosmetic features

Gun control advocates and gun rights advocates have referred to at least some of the features outlined in the federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 as cosmetic. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action and the Violence Policy Center both used the term in publications they released in September 2004 when the ban expired.[12][13] In May 2012, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said, "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."[14] The term was repeated in several stories after the 2012 Aurora shooting and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.[15][16]

Legal challenges

A February 2013 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report to Congress said that the "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was unsuccessfully challenged as violating several constitutional provisions." The report said that challenges to three constitutional provisions were easily dismissed.[17]:7 The ban did not make up an impermissible Bill of Attainder.[18]:31 It was not unconstitutionally vague.[19] And it was not incompatible with the Ninth Amendment.[20]

Challenges to two other provisions took more time to decide.[17]:7

In evaluating challenges to the ban under the Commerce Clause, the court first evaluated Congress' authority to regulate under the clause, and second 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."[17]:8–9[18]:12 It also held that the "purpose of the ban on possession has an 'evident commercial nexus.'"[17]:9[18]:14

The law was also challenged under the Equal Protection Clause. 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."[17]:10[21] 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."[17]:10–11[22]

The federal assault weapons ban was never directly challenged under the Second Amendment. Since its expiration in 2004 there has been debate on how it would fare in light of cases decided in following years, especially District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).[23]

Studies on effects of the legislation

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."[24] A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council 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 used criminally with relative rarity before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small.[25]

In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its 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.[26] That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania 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. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.[26]

Research by John Lott found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates,[27] but provided evidence that the bans may have reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.[28] Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's look at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state assault weapon bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, 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%."[29] A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of the report.[30]

Research by Arindrajit Dube, Oeindrila Dube, and Omar Garcia-Ponce (2013) in the American Political Science Review suggests that lifting the U.S. Assault Weapons Ban increased homicides in Mexico.[31] The 2004 expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban appeared to exert a spillover on gun availability in Mexican municipalities near Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, but not near California, which retained a state-level ban. The authors state "We find substantial increases in homicides as well as homicides tied specifically to guns. Homicides rose by 60% more in municipios at the non-California entry ports, as compared to municipios 100 miles away, suggesting that the policy change induced at least 238 additional deaths annually in the area located within 100 miles of the border ports." The authors also acknowledge that the largest differentials occurred in areas with volatile local politics and significant drug cartel activity.[31]

Efforts to renew the ban

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 Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and Representatives Michael Castle, R-DE, Alcee Hastings, D-FL, and Mark Kirk, R-IL, introduced bills to reauthorize the ban.[32] During the same time, Senator Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, and Representative Carolyn McCarthy, D-NY, introduced similar bills to create a new ban with a revised definition for assault weapons. None of the bills left committee.[33]

After the [34] Three months later, newly sworn-in Attorney General Eric Holder reiterated the Obama administration's desire to reinstate the ban.[35] The mention came in response to a question during a joint press conference with DEA Acting Administrator Michele Leonhart, discussing efforts to crack down on Mexican drug cartels. Attorney General Holder said: "... 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."[36]

Efforts to pass a new federal assault weapons ban were made in December 2012 after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.[37][38][39] On January 24, 2013, Senator Feinstein introduced S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (AWB 2013).[40] The bill was similar to the 1994 ban, but differed in that it would not expire after 10 years,[39] 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.[41] The GOP Congressional delegation from the State of Texas condemned Feinstein's bill, along with the NRA.[42] On March 14, 2013, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a version of the bill along party lines.[43] On April 17, 2013, AWB 2013 failed on a Senate vote of 40 to 60.[44]

See also


  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^ More Stockton schoolyard shooting sources:
    • :12
  4. ^
  5. ^ a b
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^ Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, H.R.3355, 103rd Congress (1993-1994), Government Printing Office. Retrieved January 26, 2013.
  11. ^
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^
  15. ^
  16. ^ More cosmetic sources:
  17. ^ a b c d e f
  18. ^ a b c Navegar Inc. v. United States, 103 F.3d 994 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
  19. ^ United States v. Starr, 945 F. Supp. 257 (M.D. Ga. 1996) (“Accordingly, the statute is not unconstitutionally vague and Defendant Starr's motion is hereby DENIED.”).
  20. ^ San Diego Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996) (“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.”).
  21. ^ Olympic Arms v. Buckles, 301 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 2002) (“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.”).
  22. ^ Olympic Arms v. Buckles, 301 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 2002) (“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.”).
  23. ^
  24. ^
  25. ^
  26. ^ a b
  27. ^
  28. ^
  29. ^
  30. ^
  31. ^ a b Dube, Arindrajit, Oeindrila Dube and Omar Garcia-Ponce (2013). "Cross-Border Spillover: U.S. Gun Laws and Violence in Mexico." American Political Science Review, 107, pp 397-417. doi:10.1017/S0003055413000178.
  32. ^ S. 1034, S. 2109, S. 620, H.R. 3831, H.R. 5099, H.R. 6257
  33. ^ S. 1431, S. 645, H.R. 2038, H.R. 1312, H.R. 1022
  34. ^
  35. ^
  36. ^
  37. ^
  38. ^
  39. ^ a b
  40. ^
  41. ^
  42. ^
  43. ^
  44. ^
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.