From: [m--iw--r] at [f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG] (Matt Giwer) Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Nra testimony 3/4 Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 21:47:00 PDT [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] purchased revolvers, cut-down shot guns, or even numerous semi-automatic firearms with limited capacity magazines. The Senator attempted to make the connection between firearm's traces and crime control. Such assertions are unfounded. BATF has addressed this issue on several occassions, most prominenetly in connection with an analysis of a Cox news service article on tracing "assault weapons". BATF noted that that: "We do not necessarily agree with the conclusions of Cox Newspapers and need to express that all firearms trace requests submitted by law enforcement agencies are not crime guns and that the 42,000 traces examined are but a small percentage of all firearms recovered by law enforcement during the period." (Emphasis added.) [Press Statement of the BATF.] BATF explained: "Many crimes may not be reported to the police, and traces requested by police are not always for guns that are used in crimes. Traces are sometimes submitted for firearms recovered by police investigating crimes where the guns were found but were not necessarily used to commit a crime reflected in the UCR. Accordingly, concluding that assault weapons are used in 1 of 10 firearm related crimes is tenuous at best since our traces and/or the UCR may not truly be representative of all crimes." [Letter from Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to U.S. Representative Richard T. Schulze, March 31, 1992; emphasis added.] The entire debate on semi-automatic firearms as a "special category" subject to a gun ban is nothing more that a bill of goods sold to appease a public clamoring for substantive crime control measures. In fact, the designation "assault weapon" for certain semi-automatic firearms with military styling is part of an ongoing effort to capitalize on the confusion over the difference between a semi-automatic firearm and those capable of a fully automatic rate of fire. Because proponents of a semi-automatic ban cannot provide any compelling, legitimate justification, they resort to terminology that is without a specific definition. There is nothing new about semi-automatic firearms, they have been around for more than a century. The term semi-automatic designates a multiple round firearm that uses the explosive gases produced by the discharge of a round of ammunition to chamber the next round. In the hands of an experienced shooter many manually operated firearms have the capacity for a rate of fire equal to, or in some cases greater than, many semi-automatic firearms. The idea that an assault weapon is capable of "spray fire" is an attempt to foster among the uniformed the idea that a semi-automatic firearms is capable of firing at the same rate of fire as a fully automatic firearm. "Assault rifle" is a military term originated during World War II to describe selective fire military rifles of intermediate power cartridge and capable of fully automatic fire. Selective fire firearms mean those firearms capable of producing variable firing patterns including the discharge of a single shot, a burst of shots, or the continuous discharge of ammunition with a single depression of the trigger. Semi-automatic firearms do not meet these criteria, since they discharge one round of ammunition with each depression of the trigger, rather than multiple rounds. Fully automatic firearms, which fire multiple rounds with a single depression of the trigger, have been stringently controlled since 1934. The notion that a military configured semi-automatic firearm using military ammunition is inherently more lethal or capable of greater firepower is simply untrue. Semi-automatic firearms have been owned and used for sporting purposes and self-protection by millions of Americans for almost a century. They are a mainstay in the hunting community with 49 states currently allowing hunting with semiautomatic firearms. The NRA believes strongly that current laws are sufficient to punish criminals -- what is lacking is the will to do so. We are strongly supportive of strict enforcement and adherence to the law in regard to the use of a firearm in a crime, particularly since we helped draft and pass many of the relevant laws. The "sporting purposes" criteria used in various bills and advocated as the criteria by which the Department of Justice is directed to evaluate semi-automatic firearms presumably to decide if they fit the category of "assault weapons" is indefensible. The Second Amendment was not drafted to protect hunting, or target shooting, or collecting, all of which are legitimate activities carried out by millions of law-abiding Americans. We believe strongly that banning an entire class of firearms, such as semi- automatics, would be violative of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The consequences of federal legislation restricting semi- automatics ownership will be exactly the same as evidenced in New Jersey and California, namely turning otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals, with no resultant benefits accruing to society. as a "model" for some past Congressional bills has an estimated compliance rate of about 10% -- and that includes all guns labeled as "assault weapons" which do not fit the state legislature's definition. The inescapable fact is that banning firearms has no effect on crime. Until there is effective deterrence, crime will continue to [ 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!