Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Prof. Volokh on DC gun mfr decision | Main | How often do you see a Federal agent admitting perjury on videotape? »

NY Time: end of "assault gun ban" meaningless

Posted by David Hardy · 24 April 2005 11:43 AM

(Via Instapundit) The N.Y. Times acknowledges the expiration of the assault gun ban has had no effect.

Despite dire predictions that the streets would be awash in military-style guns, the expiration of the decade-long assault weapons ban last September has not set off a sustained surge in the weapons' sales, gun makers and sellers say. It also has not caused any noticeable increase in gun crime in the past seven months, according to several metropolitan police departments.

Of course, the Times has to claim that the reason the ban was meaningless was that it was too "porous." Hard to reconcile with its admission that assault weapons "were never used in many gun crimes" and "Assault weapons account for a small fraction of gun crimes: about 2 percent, according to most studies, and no more than 8 percent."

Now, I'm NOT claiming that the AW ban had no good effects at all. It played a substantial role in costing the Democrats control of both houses of Congress. One of these days maybe they'll ask whether passing legislation aimed at guns which "were never used in many gun crimes" was worth it.

· contemporary issues

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Farix | April 24, 2005 7:16 PM | Reply

Someone really should fact-check Dianne Feinstein's assertion that price of assault weapons increased after the so-called "assault weapons ban"?

And I also noticed that she resorted to the classic liberal logic that because no citizen has a "legitimate need" to own an assault weapon, it is perfectly fine for the government to ban them. And logical arguement that wouldn't even pass the smell test if it was applied to anything else other then fire-arms.

ScottyDog | April 30, 2010 4:24 PM | Reply

Do not forget that Diane Feinstein's, David Blum, husband was caught red handed importing full auto AK-47's from China back in the 1990's.

Leave a comment