Should Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban be passed? -Andrew J. Mach S. 150, Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban was proposed in response to the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut where a shooter went on a rampage killing several students and teachers with a high powered, high capacity riffle. Lawmakers want to stop the manufacturing of high capacity weapons which will make the repeating of tragedies like the one seen in Newtown that much harder. Currently there is no federal law which restricts the round capacity of a weapon.
However with gun laws so diverse around the nation it is a good possibility that states have their own round capacity laws for firearms. Several states has had and has Assault Weapons Bans in place, but each differing in what guns qualify as an assault rifle. There was also one a federal assault weapons ban which was enacted in 1994 and expired in 2004. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was criticized for being too easy to get around thus it was not reinstated (“Assault”). The main issue for this bill is the US Constitution’s Second Amendment, which gives the American public the right to bear arms.
It is such a problem because Feinstein’s Assault Weapons ban aims to ban the very thing the Constitution protects. Several interest groups of varying size and power have chosen sides in this matter and aim to sway its outcome through various efforts. One side feels that the Assault Weapons Ban will protect us by keeping high capacity guns out of the hands of people who would do harm with them. The others feel that the assault weapons will not prevent mass shootings like the one in Newtown, and that the ban hiders the American public’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Where one side believes that if nobody has the guns to cause mass havoc their won’t be any, where the other believes that without such weapons law abiding American citizens cannot defend themselves properly. International Association of Chiefs of Police, and Mayors against Illegal Guns support the bill. The National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation opposes the bill. The National Rifle Association’s goal is to protect the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and to promote safe, responsible, and competent use of firearms (Head).
Their main strategy to accomplish their goals is to persuade people to join the NRA, also to contact their representatives and let their voices be heard. The NRA has over 4. 4 million members and growing fast (Riky Phone Interview). The people in the NRA are all concerned about the government infringing on their right to bear arms. The NRA in 2010 had a total revenue of $23,362,102, total expenses were $26,539,658, and the net Assets overall $72,426,634 (“NRA” Charity). The NRA had a deficit in 2010 of $-3,177,556 (“NRA” Charity).
The incredibly large budget and membership of the NRA makes them extremely powerful but especially in this case because it pertains to the Second Amendment the very amendment which the group was formed in the interest of defending. The NRA did several things to sway the vote in the matter of Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban. They posted on their website that the bill is just taking advantage of the tragic situation in Newtown Ct in which Senator Feinstein is portrayed as a very mean person for taking advantage of this rare and tragic circumstance (Cox).
The NRA also posted on their website that the bill will not work to prevent mass shootings. In the post they broke down the bill and its faults in a very clear and easy to understand way, absent from any large political jargon (Cox). They then posted a summary of the bill and how each part of it will effect gun owners in a negative fashion (Feinstein). They did this so that their constituents would understand the bills impacts on a more personal level.
In another post on their website the National Rifle Association claimed that the bill will be ineffective in fighting crime but will succeed in restricting the rights of gun owners (Shackelford). The National Rifle Association offers an alternate plan to reduce crime, that Congress votes to give millions of dollars to federal law enforcement officials so that they can catch people who blatantly lie on their gun permit applications (Shackelford). Urge people to contact their representatives and tell them to shoot down any bill which they feel infringes on their second amendment right to bear arms (“NRA”).
This probably works most of all because with people contacting their lawmakers that would then force their representatives to recognize that the people which they represent do not want Feinstein’s Assault Weapons ban to pass and make them vote accordingly. The Second Amendment Foundation also does not support Senator Feinstein in her push of getting her Assault Weapons Ban passed. Their mission statement states The Second Amendment Foundation is dedicated to understanding about our Constitutional heritage to privately own and possess firearms (Mission).
This puts them directly at odds with Senator Feinstein. The Second Amendment Foundation mainly uses publicity to get their ideas out so that they can bring attention to the issues. The Second Amendment Foundation is a public, nonprofit organization. The Second Amendment Foundation has 650,000 members (Tomas). These members are all ardent defenders of the Second Amendment. In 2011 The Second Amendment Foundation had a total revenue of $3,894,695, a total expense tally of $3,935,402, and this resulted in a deficit for the year equated to $-40,707. Their net assets overall came too be $3,840,180 (“SAF”).
They are moderately strong because where they do have a decent membership platform they do not have too much money to spend to influence the vote. The Second Amendment Foundation posted an article on their website which showed that not all Democrats are for gun control, pointing out that the Democratic Party was founded to support Thomas Jefferson in his campaign for president and you can hardly find anyone more pro-gun than him. The post asks Democrats who support the Second Amendment to stand up to the larger political party and let their voices be heard (Tartaro).
They accused politicians of demonizing certain firearms, and their owners, while at the same time letting violent offenders free from jail. Meanwhile there is no reason to demonize rifle owners, rifles of any kind are used in a fraction of gun related crimes annually. SAF tried to bring attention to the fact that millions of Americans own the type of firearm being targeted by Feinstein’s bill and that the overwhelming majority of those owners have never hurt anybody. The Second Amendment Foundation are also encouraging their members to contact their Senators about this legislation so that their voices are heard (“CCRKBA”).
The International Association of Chiefs of Police organization supports Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban. Their mission is to help law enforcement in any way they need to help accomplish their jobs and make shore that every officer has the best chance of going home after his tore (International). The International Chiefs of police’s main strategy was awareness, to make people aware of what is happening regarding gun violence. The International Association of Chiefs of Police have assets at a value of $22,098,301 their annual income is $23,505,485 and of that $22,155,620 is profit. “International”) Over 20 thousand members and each member is a police chief somewhere in the world (“Membership”). The International Association of Chiefs of Police wile is a very financially strong group they severely lack in membership. They can therefore be evaluated as a semi-strong group. The International Association of Chiefs of Police Posted a link on their web site to a magazine article which states that with the passing of Feinstein’s Assault Weapons ban there will be less shootings, with the link they stated that they are partnering with the White House to oversee its passing (Ward).
Unfortunately with the likely hood of Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban passing decreasing so too did the efforts of The International Association of Chiefs of Police too get it to pass. So past this one web post The International Association of Chiefs of Police did nothing in the support of Feinstein’s Assault weapons ban. Mayors Against Illegal guns is another organization which supports Feinstein’s efforts in trying to get her Assault Weapons Ban passed. Mayors Against Illegal Guns is a national, bipartisan coalition of mayors working to make America’s communities safer by keeping illegal guns out of dangerous hands (Mayors).
Co-founded in 2006 by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, the coalition has grown from a committed group of 15 members to more than 950 mayors from 45 states, including Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, from major cities and small towns around the country (“Coalition”). And their main weapon in the fight to get Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban passed getting the word out and organizing support in any way possible. Mayors Against Illegal Guns has $2,379,327 in assets, $3,476,643 in income this last year, with all its income directly becoming profits (“Mayors”).
There is well over 950 Mayors across the country are a part of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (“Coalition”). This group is neither wealthy nor has a large membership basses but they have a unique attribute. That each one of their members is a mayor, which gives them huge political pull so over all this group to be very powerful. Sum things Mayors Against Illegal Guns did to influence the vote was posted on their web site that the bill is still too lenient in the controlling of weapons but it is a step in the correct direction so it should be supported (Home).
They also posted on their web site segments of speeches from Mayor Blumberg and Mayor Menino’s stating their and their combined constituents support for the bill to pass because they can’t stand to see another innocent life lost over needless gun violence (Bloomberg/Menino). Like The International Association of Chiefs of Police, Mayors Against Illegal Guns Stopped actively supporting Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban as it became abundantly clear that it would not pass. Instead choosing to support other bills which they felt had a better chance of passing.
Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban was introduced into the United States senate on March 21st by Senator Feinstein (Bendery). With the senate being the first too vote on the matter they would be the primary focus of interest groups. Assuming that the bill passes at every stage the standard procedure in a bill becoming a law is for a senator to first propose it, then it is sent to that houses comity on its topic, then it goes before the floor, then to the next house comity, then to that houses floor, the finally it ends up on the president’s desk.
At any stage of a bill becoming a law it can be shot down or “vetoed” or by the president when it reaches him (“Assault”). For a period of time Feinstein’s Assault weapons ban was to be a part of senates overall gun control packet being comprised by the Democratic Party in the senate but it was dropped due to its unpopularity (“How”). The Assault Weapons Ban on its own got as far as the senate, the first legislative, floor where on Tuesday April 16th it was shot down in a staggering vote of 60 to 40. 5 democrats, people in Feinstein’s own political party, voted against her bill, all but one republican voted agents the bill and the only independent senator voted against the bill as well. Feinstein discussed by her colleges hopes that with her bill failing on the federal level that it would inspire state legislators to pass their own Assault Weapons Bans and pledges to never give up the fight for gun controlee. Simon) The National Riffle Association both was impressive and scary during my research over Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban. Their pursuit to get it shot down was unwavering, even when large supporters of the legislation like Mayors Against Illegal Guns gave up on it the National Riffle Association kept attacking it with countless web posts on their website. It is to the point that people should no longer going say stop beating a dead horse but instead start to say stop beating on a gun bill like the National Riffle Association.
But with Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban shot down, something which might not have very well have happened if the National Riffle Association didn’t exists, they did accomplished what they wanted so there is something to be said about their tactics effectiveness. Bibliography “About. ” International Association of Chiefs of Police. International Association of Chiefs of Police, n. d. Web. 24 Mar. 2013. . Bloomberg, Michael R. , and Thomas M. Menino. “About the Colalition. ” Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Mayors Against Illegal Guns, n. d.
Web. 27 Mar. 2013. . Bloomberg, Michael R. STATEMENTS OF MAYORS AGAINST ILLEGAL GUNS CO- CHAIRS ON PRESIDENT OBAMA’S COMPREHENSIVE PROPOSAL TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE. Mayors Against Illegal Guns. N. p. , 16 Jan. 2013. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. . “CCRKBA Blasts Party-Line Passage of Feinstein Bun Ban Measure. ” Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Seacond Amendment Foundation, 14 Mar. 2013. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. . “Coalition Members. ” Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Mayors Against Illegal Guns, n. d. Web. 23 Mar. 2013. . Cox, Chris W.
No Calm Before the Anti-Gunners’ Storm. National Rifle Assoceation. National Rifle Assoceation, n. d. Web. 4 Mar. 2013. . NRA sorce “Feinstein Goes For Broke With New Gun-Ban Bill. ” NRA-ILA. NRA-ILA, 28 Dec. 2012. Web. 4 Mar. 2013. . “Home Page. ” Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Mayors Against Illegal Guns, n. d. Web. 28 Feb. 2013. . -intrist group “INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE. ” Charity Stat. N. p. , n. d. Web. 22 Mar. 2013. . Koplowitz, Howard. “Assault Weapons Ban: Feinstein Bill Exempts 2,220 Guns; Critics Complain List Is Arbitrary. International Business Times. N. p. , 18 Feb. 2013. Web. 19 Feb. 2013. . “Mayors Against Illegal Guns. ” Charity Stat. N. p. , n. d. Web. 22 Mar. 2013. . “Membership. ” International Association of Cheifs of Police. International Association of Cheifs of Police, n. d. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. . Menino, Thomas M. STATEMENTS OF MAYORS AGAINST ILLEGAL GUNS CO-CHAIRS ON PRESIDENT OBAMA’S COMPREHENSIVE PROPOSAL TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE. Mayors Against Illegal Guns. N. p. , 18 Jan. 2013. Web. 1 Mar. 2013. . “NRA News. ” NRA News. National Rifles Association, n. . Web. 10 Apr. 2013. . NRA, Riky. Telephone interview. 25 Mar. 2013. “The NRA Foundation. ” Charity Navigator. N. p. , n. d. Web. 20 Apr. 2013. . “Second Amendmant Foundation. ” Charity Navigator. N. p. , n. d. Web. 24 Mar. 2013. . Second Amendmant Foundation, Tomas. Telephone interview. 25 Mar. 2013. Shackelford, Laura. “SHACKELFORD: Pushing back on arbitrary gun bans. ” The Washington Times [Washington D. C. ] 1 Apr. 2013: n. pag. The Washington Times. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. . Simon, Richard. “Senate votes down Feinstein’s assault weapons ban. Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles] 17 Apr. 2013: n. pag. Los Angeles Times. Web. 21 Apr. 2013. . Smith, Matt. “Mayor Disputes Feinstein’s Gun Claim. ” Cleburne Times Review [Cleburne] 14 Apr. 2013: n. pag. Cleburne Times Review. Web. 14 Apr. 2013. . Tartaro, Joseph P. “Democrats for the Second Amendment. ” Second Amendment Foundation. Second Amendment Foundation, n. d. Web. 4 Mar. 2013. . Ward, Meredith. “IACP Partners with White House to Seek Law Enforcement Leadership Perspective on Immigration Reform. ” The Police Chief: n. pag. Print.
