From: [m--iw--r] at [f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Nra testimony         1/4
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 21:47:00 PDT

 * Carbon Copy:
 * Original message to ALL in the LU-GiwerWorl conference.

                    TESTIMONY OF SUSAN LAMSON
                    DIRECTOR, FEDERAL AFFAIRS
                INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION
              NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
              BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
                         AUGUST 3, 1993

                        TOPIC OF HEARING

                        "ASSAULT WEAPONS"

Mr. Chairman,

     My name is Susan Lamson and I am the Director of Federal Affairs
for the National Rifle Association, Institute for Legislative Action
(NRA-ILA).

     As an Association representing 3.2 million members, we encourage
the responsible use of firearms and deplore the misuse of firearms.
We remain willing to work with any Member of this body to seek common
ground on criminal justice reform to reduce violence.  What the NRA
will not do is yield reason to the flawed logic which says that the
activities of the lawless can be controlled by restricting the actions
of the law-abiding.

     The NRA believes strongly that the attack on semi-automatic
firearms is no less than an attack on an entire class of firearms that
have been owned by millions of law-abiding Americans throughout this
century.  In a sense, the NRA's historic position on gun control, at
times characterized as paranoia by our opponents, has been vindicated.
Advocates of gun control have finally admitted that they are not
interested in protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners --- they
are merely interested in eliminating any type of firearm whenever
presented with an emotionally charged opportunity to do so.  What was
once an attack on handguns is this year an attack on rifles, shotguns
and handguns.

     Sportsmen have been told for years that the reason gun control
advocates targeted handguns was because they were not suitable for
militia use, hunting, or self-protection and were therefore not
included under the constitutional safeguard of the Second Amendment.
We are now being told by anti-gun advocates and certain politicians
that precisely because many semi-automatic firearms useful for hunting
and target shooting are patterned after their military counterparts,
they should be banned or heavily restricted in the interest of public
safety.

     The NRA, supported by the available crime statistics, rejects the
idea that additional "gun control" -- including a ban on the so-called
"assault weapons" -- is going to be a step forward in controlling
crime.  To the extent that the focus is on "gun control", rather than
on enforcement of existing laws and punishment for criminal behavior,
the discussion is worse than fruitless, it is counterproductive.

     A recent Bureau of Justice survey taken of convicts in prison
documents the all but complete absence of the use of military style
firearms in crime.  The less than 1% of those convicts who admit using
such firearms in crime correlates almost perfectly with the less than
1% figure based on the FBI's Uniform Crime Report data.

     Taken to the lowest common denominator, it appears that the
reason why the various bills contain lists which ban many of the same
semi-automatic firearms is because they are using as the main criteria
the fact that these firearms have either a military style or, to a
non-firearms person, exotic looking appearance when compared to more
conventional firearms.  Evidence of this is found in both S. 653, and
a similar bill, S. 639.

     Equally common to these bills is that they provide no meaningful
definition of an "assault weapon" but instead rely on the existence of
cosmetic accoutrements as the means of determining the firearms to be
banned.  For instance, the AK-47, often used generically by the media,
and listed in several different manners in S. 653, is already banned,
as are the MAC-10 and MAC-11.   In fact, an AK-47 is one model of
Avtomat Kalashnikov and has been banned for import under provisions
governing trade with communist countries, since 1954.

    This intentional confusion between semi-automatic and fully
automatic firearms is but one part of a campaign to achieve a public
policy goal that has nothing to do with crime control. Banning the
Steyr AUG, Galil, Fabrique National FNC, or the Beretta AR-70 will not
reduce crime, but serves only to draw attention away from the real
issues.

     There can be no legitimate public policy goal served which bans
firearms based on appearance.  Additionally,  attempts to control high
capacity magazines,and the parts from which such magazines may be
assembled, criminalizing springs, screws, bolts and sheet metal have
no legitimate criminal justice purpose. Advocates of such proposals
are unaware of the relative ease with which a magazine may be
manufactured.
   [ Continued In Next Message... ]


 -- SPEED 1.30 >01<: Clinton to Gore. "How are things on the Hil?"


--  
Fidonet: 1:3603/326
Internet: [m--iw--r] at [mechanic.fidonet.org]
Note:  These are only my own opinions...but others may agree!