By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Schumer, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Levin, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 2109. A bill to provide for a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senators WARNER, SCHUMER, DEWINE, LEVIN, CHAFEE, DODD, JEFFORDS, BOXER, CLINTON, REED and LAUTENBERG to offer legislation that will reauthorize the 1994 assault weapons ban--which is now set to expire on September 13, 2004--for another ten years.
I would first like to thank my courageous colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, for joining me in this effort. Senator Warner voted against the assault weapons ban in 1994.
But this year, Senator Warner was willing to revisit his position on the issue. He saw that--contrary to the fears of many in 1994--the ban has done nothing to hurt innocent gun owners. Instead, the ban has only made it harder for criminals to get access to military style firearms. A willingness to look at issues like this with an open mind, particularly this issue, shows a courage and a commitment to making the right decisions that should be emulated by all public servants, and I want to again thank Senator Warner for this.
Second, I would like to speak about who else supports this legislation.
Those who join us in supporting a reauthorization of the assault weapons ban include: Fraternal Order of Police; National League of Cities; United States Conference of Mayors; National Association of Counties; International Association of Chiefs of Police; National Association of Police Organizations; International Brotherhood of Police Officers; U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; National Education Association; Americans for Gun Safety; The Brady Campaign/Million Mom March; NAACP; American Bar Association; and the list goes on, and on.
More than ten years ago--on July 1, 1993--Gian Luigi Ferri walked into 101 California Street in San Francisco carrying two high-capacity TEC-9 assault pistols. Within minutes, Ferri had murdered eight people, and six others were wounded. This tragedy shook San Francisco, and it shook the entire Nation.
The American people saw in that incident and so many others that came before and after it the incredible destruction that could be inflicted with military-style assault weapons--weapons designed and manufactured with one goal in mind--maximum lethality.
[Page: S1524] GPO's PDF
It all started, really, on August 1, 1966, when Charlie Whitman climbed the clock tower at the University of Texas and killed more than a dozen people in an hour and a half shooting spree before he was finally killed himself.
The day Whitman climbed that tower was the first time Americans realized that they could become the random victims of gun violence no matter where they were, and no matter what they were doing.
What made the Texas shooting so terrible was the total inability of law enforcement to get to Charlie Whitman until he had been firing shots for almost 96 minutes. The tower allowed him to do this. The tower made him, at least for that amount of time, invincible.
But gunmen no longer need the protection of clock towers, because they now have assault weapons.
We saw in the Columbine shooting, in the Long Island Rail Road shooting, and so many others, that high capacity assault weapons can make those who wield them temporarily invincible to law enforcement, because it is so difficult to get close to the shooter.
It is often only when a gunman stops to reload that bystanders or the police can move in to stop the shooting. And if the gun's magazine holds hundreds of bullets, that could take a long time, and result in a lot of deaths.
This is vitally important, because grievance killings by disgruntled members of society have taken an increasing number of lives in recent years. And when those grievance killers wield high capacity weapons, the toll on lives is exponentially increased.
The grievance killings have been across the Nation, in every forum: In a San Ysidro, CA, McDonald's in 1984, when a gunman with an Uzi killed 21 and wounded 15 others. In Stockton, CA, in 1989, when drifter Patrick Purdy walked into a schoolyard with an AK-47 and killed 5, wounding 30 others. In Long Island, NY, in 1993, when a gunman killed 6 and wounded 19 others on a commuter train--he was only brought down when he finally stopped to reload. In Pearl, MS, in 1997 when 2 students killed. In Paducah, KY, in 1998 when 3 students were killed. In Jonesboro, AR, in 1998 when 5 were killed, and 10 more wounded. In Springfield, OR, in 1998 when 2 were killed, and 22 wounded. In Littleton, CO, when 12 teens and one teacher were killed in Columbine High School. In Atlanta, GA in 1999 when a troubled day trader killed his wife, 2 children and several people trading stocks. At a Granada Hills, CA, Jewish Community Center when a gunman wounded three and killed a Filipino-American postal worker--many of us remember that one touching photo of small children being quickly led across the street to escape the gunfire. No child should have to go through that. At a Fort Worth, TX, Baptist church where seven were killed and seven more wounded at a teens church event, all by a man with two guns and 9 high capacity clips, with a capacity of 15 rounds each.
Recognizing the earliest of these shootings as a problem that needed to be dealt with, Congress finally took notice in 1993. In the aftermath of the 101 California shooting, we in Congress did something that no one had succeeded in doing before--we banned the manufacture and importation of military-style assault weapons.
We were told it could not be done--but we did it. I was even told by colleagues on my own side of the aisle that I was wasting my time--that the gun lobby was just too strong. I hear many of the same arguments today. But we succeeded in 1994, and we will succeed this year. We succeeded, and we will succeed, because the American people will accept no less of us.
The goal of the 1994 legislation was to drive down the supply of these weapons and to make them more difficult to obtain, and to eventually get them off our streets. And in the years following the enactment of the ban, crimes using assault weapons were indeed reduced dramatically--in fact, the percentage of crimes using banned assault weapons fell by more than 65 percent between 1995 and 2002.
The ATF has found that the proportion of banned assault weapons used in crime has fallen from 3.57 percent in 1995 to just 1.22 percent by 2002. Now these are not big percentages--most crimes are not committed by assault weapons.
But it is important to note that crimes committed with assault weapons often result in many more deaths than crimes committed with other guns. A simple robbery with a handgun is far less likely to result in multiple deaths than a drive-by shooting with an Uzi, or a grievance killing in a school using an AK-47 with a large capacity ammunition magazine.
And contrary to the near-hysterical rhetoric coming from the NRA at the time, no innocent gun owner lost an assault weapon. No gun was confiscated as a result of the ban. The sky did not fall. And life went on--but it went on with fewer grievance killers, juveniles, and drive-by shooters having access to the most dangerous of firearms.
Despite these results, House Majority Leader TOM DELAY said last year that House Republicans will let the Assault Weapons ban die when it sunsets after ten years.
To those of us who have been in Congress for some time, this comes as little surprise--after all, the House actually voted to repeal the original assault weapons ban soon after it was signed into law.
But the good news is that the President of the United States does support reauthorizing the ban.
In April of last year, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said of the assault weapons ban, ``The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law.''
That is what we are doing with this legislation--reauthorizing the current law. Period.
I know the President agrees with me when I say that I don't believe that banned guns like the AK-47, the TEC-9, or the Street Sweeper should once again be manufactured or imported into the United States. These are military guns, with no purpose but the killing of other human beings. They have pistol grips and other features designed solely to allow the weapons to be more easily concealed, and more easily fired from the hip in close quarters combat--or, tragically, in places like the schoolyard in Stockton, where five children died, the McDonalds in San Ysidro, the law firm at 101 California Street in San Francisco, Columbine High School, or so many other places where maniacs with their military guns were able to shoot large numbers of people in short periods of time.
That is why I believe that Congress should reauthorize the 1994 law, which expires next September 13. And that is undoubtedly why the President also supports our efforts.
I know there will be some who will say that the current law doesn't go far enough--and frankly, I agree. I would prefer to expand the ban to California law, so that we prohibit the copycat assault weapons that manufacturers so cravenly designed following the ban.
Senator Lautenberg has introduced legislation to do this, and I co-sponsored that bill. Ideally, we would pass legislation that fully prevents craven manufacturers from circumventing the ban.
But in an environment where the NRA has such a stranglehold on gun legislation, we will need all the help we can get just to keep the current ban.
The current ban has been effective in limiting the supply of these most dangerous guns. Even the copycat guns are less dangerous, because they are harder to conceal, harder to fire from the hip.
And no matter whether the ban has been entirely effective or not, what is the argument for letting these banned guns back on the streets?
Who is clamoring for newly manufactured AK-47s?
Who is clamoring for new TEC-9s?
These are guns that are never used for hunting. They are not used for self defense, and if they are it is more likely that they will kill innocents than intruders.
These guns--and everyone knows it--have but one purpose, and that purpose is to kill other human beings. Why would we want to open the floodgates again and let them back on our streets? There is simply no good reason.
This debate should not be about whether the assault weapons ban is perfect. This debate should be about whether these guns need to come back--and the American people know that they do not.
With the President, law enforcement, and the American people behind us, we
[Page: S1525] GPO's PDF
can succeed. We can beat the NRA's narrow, special interest agenda and keep these guns off the streets.
I urge my colleagues to read the dozens of editorials in support of the ban, to listen to their constituents, to ask us questions, and to make the only decision that makes sense--to support this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2109
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. 10-YEAR EXTENSION OF ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN.
Section 110105 of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (18 U.S.C. 921 note) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 110105. SUNSET PROVISION.
``This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle are repealed September 13, 2014.''.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of reauthorizing the Assault Weapons Ban.
Signed into law in 1994, the Assault Weapons Ban placed a 10-year prohibition on the domestic manufacture of semi-automatic assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips. The 10-year ban ends on September 13, 2004. Consequently, unless Congress and the President act prior to September 13, 2004, weapons like Uzis and AK-47s will once again be produced in America, and more and more often, these weapons will fall into the hands of criminals who lurk in our neighborhoods.
For a number of years now, President Bush has indicated that he supports reauthorizing the assault weapons ban. To date, though, no legislation has been introduced in the Senate to accomplish the President's goal. While measures have been introduced to make the ban permanent or to even expand the ban further, no legislation has been introduced to simply reauthorize the Assault Weapons Ban for another ten years.
I am pleased today to introduce, with Senator Feinstein, legislation that models exactly what the President has indicated he would sign into law: a straight 10-year reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban.
Not only does President Bush support this legislation--law enforcement does as well. The men and women of law enforcement know that this legislation makes communities safer. In a letter dated February 18, 2004, the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police writes, ``It is the position of the Grand Lodge that we will support the reauthorization of current law, but we will not support any expansion of the ban.'' This endorsement comes in addition to the endorsement of just about every other major law enforcement organization, and in addition to the endorsements of chiefs of police all across Virginia.
Now, admittedly, I have not always been a supporter of the Assault Weapons Ban. When the ban legislation came before the United States Senate for a vote in 1993, I opposed it. At the time, I believed Senator Feinstein's legislation would do nothing to help reduce crime in this country, and I believed it would be a back door way to take firearms out of the hands of law abiding gun-owners and hunters.
Ten years have since passed from the day of that vote. Over the course of those ten years, I have watched the bill be signed into law, and I have watched its implementation. I have studied the law and its affect on crime, and I have watched carefully to see how it affects law abiding gun-owners.
Based on the ten years of history of the Assault Weapons Ban, my thoughts on the ban have evolved.
Ten years of experience provides us with key facts. The Assault Weapons Ban has helped to dramatically reduce the number of crimes using assault weapons. It has made America's streets safer, and it has protected the rights of law abiding gun-owners better than many of us predicted. In fact, the law explicitly protects 670 hunting and recreational rifles.
Moreover, we all know that the world has dramatically changed since that Senate vote in 1993. September 11, 2001, has forever changed our country and has taught us many lessons.
No longer is America protected by the great oceans. The war on terror is not only being fought abroad, but now here at home. September 11 showed us that terrorism lurks in the shadows of our own backyard. Given the world today, now is not the time to make it easier for terrorists to acquire deadly rapid fire assault weapons and use them in our neighborhoods.
Now, over my 25 years plus in the United States Senate, I have always tried to stand up for what is right, regardless of politics. I believe that is why the good people of the Commonwealth of Virginia have given me their trust and elected me to represent them in the United States Senate for five terms.
I know that reauthorizing the Assault Weapons Ban is the right thing to do.
I am pleased to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this legislation, and it is my hope that the Senate will act expeditiously and send this legislation to President Bush to sign into law.
RE: Senate's statements on TODAYS intro of renewing assult weapon ban
Well it just might end up there pretty quick!! They are going to slide it in on the S659 Junk lawsuit bill as an amendment! They know how bad we want that bill passed, and I would bet the farm on the bassturds using it to their political advantage. They will let the fence sitting RINO's pass this lawsuit bill if they get to renew the Assult weapon ban! You watch! I'm calling it right now, and Bush will sign it and be a one term Pres like his daddy!
RE: Senate's statements on TODAYS intro of renewing assult weapon ban
Quote:
What made the Texas shooting so terrible was the total inability of law enforcement to get to Charlie Whitman until he had been firing shots for almost 96 minutes. The tower allowed him to do this. The tower made him, at least for that amount of time, invincible.
Should we, therefore, ban clock towers? And Charles Whitman didn't use an assault weapon.
Quote:
We saw in the Columbine shooting, in the Long Island Rail Road shooting, and so many others, that high capacity assault weapons can make those who wield them temporarily invincible to law enforcement, because it is so difficult to get close to the shooter.
I'd like to ask her how, exactly, "assault" weapons make someone "temporarily invincible to law enforcement." Are they equipped with forcefields that deflect bullets fired at the user by LEO's? Beam her up, Scotty!
Quote:
And if the gun's magazine holds hundreds of bullets, that could take a long time, and result in a lot of deaths.
Where does she come up with this crap? Hundreds of bullets? This asinine statement is further proof that she doesn't have the slightest idea of what she's talking about. I think that she's watch too many damn movies where the guns never seem to run out of ammo. Typical liberal idiocy.
Quote:
The ATF has found that the proportion of banned assault weapons used in crime has fallen from 3.57 percent in 1995 to just 1.22 percent by 2002. Now these are not big percentages--most crimes are not committed by assault weapons.
At least sometimes they get it partially right. The numbers are too high though. Less than 1% of crime is committed with her definition of "assault weapons".
Quote:
But it is important to note that crimes committed with assault weapons often result in many more deaths than crimes committed with other guns. A simple robbery with a handgun is far less likely to result in multiple deaths than a drive-by shooting with an Uzi, or a grievance killing in a school using an AK-47 with a large capacity ammunition magazine.
Crap crap crap crap CRAP! I guarantee that I could kill more people with well aimed fire from a scoped bolt-action rifle than I could by using an AK to spray-n-pray inthe same amount of time.
Quote:
And contrary to the near-hysterical rhetoric coming from the NRA at the time, no innocent gun owner lost an assault weapon. No gun was confiscated as a result of the ban. The sky did not fall. And life went on--but it went on with fewer grievance killers, juveniles, and drive-by shooters having access to the most dangerous of firearms.
BS! Her own state of California has confiscated "assault weapons". And the last sentence is bogus...most of the incidents she mentioned earlier in her speach happened AFTER 1994. Criminals can get whatever types of firearms they want, and they don't care if Diane Fienstein says they're legal or not.
Quote:
I know the President agrees with me when I say that I don't believe that banned guns like the AK-47, the TEC-9, or the Street Sweeper should once again be manufactured or imported into the United States. These are military guns, with no purpose but the killing of other human beings. They have pistol grips and other features designed solely to allow the weapons to be more easily concealed, and more easily fired from the hip in close quarters combat--or, tragically, in places like the schoolyard in Stockton, where five children died, the McDonalds in San Ysidro, the law firm at 101 California Street in San Francisco, Columbine High School, or so many other places where maniacs with their military guns were able to shoot large numbers of people in short periods of time.
How exactly does a pistol grip, high-cap magazine, bayonette lug or muzzle brake make a weapon more concealable? They all serve to make a weapon LARGER...but alas, logic is not a liberal's strong suit. She must also be basing her statement regarding the combat effectiveness of "hip firing" from her own extensive tactical combat training and notable hollywood how-to combat documentaries like Rambo, Terminator and Scarface.
But so you know what really amazes me? The fact that there are actually people stupid enough to take her crap at face value and believe she actually knows what she's talking about. Why doesn't someone from the other side stand up and challenge her idiotic, deceptive, and blatantly untrue statements in open debate? If I were in the Senate I'd have stood up and tore her entire argument apart in front of everyone present, and made her look like the complete incompetant lying idiot that she is.
RE: Senate's statements on TODAYS intro of renewing assult weapon ban
Unfortunately, I fear that Mr. Bell might be 100% right about this. Our only hope is that the house kills any bill that reauthorizes the AWB like they've said they would. If not, we're screwed because I really think that Bush will sign it if it hits his desk. Bush has been a rubber stamp for congress since the beginning, why would he start using his veto power now?
Senate's statements on TODAYS intro of renewing assult weapon ban
][&o][>:]
[&:][:@][:'(][
