Colorado Murder Gun Was Illegal Till 2004

The weapon the guy used in Colorado — and assault rifle with a drum magazine that can hold 100 rounds — was illegal under the federal assault weapons ban.
But the federal assault weapons ban was killed by Republicans in 2004,

Reps. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Michael Castle, R-Del., said they were disheartened. “My leadership is playing Russian roulette,” Shays said. “There will be without question a horrific crime committed without an assault weapon ban, and every member of Congress will have to ask where were they on this issue.”
Castle said gun manufacturers have offered discounts and pre-orders for months. “The gunmakers are salivating,” he said. “I hate to think of what can happen now.”

The public wanted the ban extended but what the public wants doesn’t count. USA Today: Popularity can’t extend ’94 assault weapon ban,

The law’s demise is playing out against a curious backdrop: Several polls have indicated that there is broad public support for the ban, and both President Bush and Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry say they support it.
… Meanwhile, a poll released this week by the National Annenberg Election Survey found that 68% of Americans support renewing the ban.

68% wanted it extended. It was effective. But the NRA had the big money…
P.S. Mexico — Calderon Blames Violence On End Of U.S. Gun Ban,

Mexican President Felipe Calderon said drug-related violence is being fueled by illegal imports of U.S. guns that have surged since a ban on assault weapons ended in 2004.
“The violence in Mexico started when the assault weapons ban expired,” Calderon, 48, said today in an interview on the “Charlie Rose” program airing on PBS and Bloomberg Television.

3 thoughts on “Colorado Murder Gun Was Illegal Till 2004

  1. All I can say about this article is WOW…
    First of all, the weapon used in the shooting was not an assault weapon, but an AR15 which is simply a semi-automatic look alike of an assault rifle. An AR15 does not even meet the criteria of being an assault weapon, because IT IS NOT CAPABLE OF FULLY AUTOMATIC FIRE, ONLY SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIRE (meaning the rifle only fires one shot when the trigger is pulled).
    Secondly, the 100 round drum magazine was not illegal to posses, buy, or use during the ban, but only illegal to import and manufacture. So please explain to me how the 100 round drum magazine was illegal use under the terms of the ban.
    Finally, the raise in drug related violence has nothing to do with the removal of the assault weapons ban, but rather the increasing number of gangs/cartels joining in the drug trade. As a result, the violence has erupted because of situations such as who has the right to use a specific drug trafficking route, trying to evade capture/discovery by law enforcement, and simply the want to get rid of competition.
    Simply put, an assault weapons ban would not have prevented this horrible atrocity from happening, and it certainly would not slow the drug related violence happening in Mexico and on this country’s borders.
    P.S. My prayers go out to the victims of this horrible crime!

    The magazine capacity alone was entirely illegal under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. If he had his AR 15 with any of the following, it would be even MORE illegal: folding stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor, or bayonet lug. The Wall Street Journal says it was tricked out with a ton of previously illegal features. YOU ARE INCORRECT.
    This is what is wrong with America. People get on one side of an issue, build the core of their identity around it, then make all kinds of false assertions (ignoring readily available facts) to support their viewpoint.
    Thus, we continuously make IRRATIONAL conclusions from premises that are demonstrably FALSE, and then, boldly and stupidly, design policy based on these idiotic conclusions.
    And, you know, all we really have to do is read a little first. Double-check ourselves for 10 seconds to see if we’re acting rationally. But we don’t.
    It’s sad.

  3. Hey SecretMojo, let me quote you a couple of lines from your own article:
    “It is unclear whether Mr. Holmes’ rifle had those features which would have then qualified the weapon for the federal ban. Indeed, stripped-down versions of the AR-15 were sold legally during the federal ban, experts say.”
    Do you make a habit of reading only the headlines, or is that just how you twist things to support your (factually incorrect) conclusions?

Comments are closed.