Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Expired Assault Weapons Ban Would Have Covered Rifle Used In Colorado Shooting

Posted by   + Show Post

Expired Assault Weapons Ban Would Have Covered Rifle Used In Colorado Shooting

An AR-15 rifle.

One of the principal weapons used by James Eagan Holmes in the horrific Dark Knight Rises shooting would have been subject to a series of sharp restrictions under the now-expired federal Assault Weapons ban. The AR-15 rife carried by Holmes, a civilian semi-automatic version of the military M-16, would have been defined as a “semiautomatic assault weapon” under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. If the law was still in force, semiautomatic assault weapons would have been outright banned:

  • Such weapons were “unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess” under section (a)(v)(i).
  • Though there were several loopholes in the Violent Crime Control Act that allowed gun manufacturers to legally produce slightly modified AR-15s, a new version of the bill proposed in 2008 closed them.
  • The 1994 Act contained a sunset provision that caused it to automatically expire 10 years after passage, and it was not renewed in 2004, meaning that there are no federal restrictions on the ownership of AR-15s and similar weapons. Both Congressman Ed Perlmutter (who represents Aurora, the site of the shooting) and President Obama proposed a new assault weapons ban during their campaigns.
  • Today, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg called on the President and Governor Romney to address gun violence, saying “maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be President of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.”

    UPDATE

    Holmes’ guns, including his AR-15, were all legally purchased since May from two national chains, Bass Pro Shops and Gander Mountain Guns.


    UPDATE

    Purportedly, the AR-15 used by Holmes had a high-capacity clip, which were banned as “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” in the 1994 legislation.

    by on Jul. 20, 2012 at 3:42 PM
    Replies (31-40):
    mehamil1
    by on Jul. 20, 2012 at 7:55 PM

    Regardless of the laws, people who want weapons will find a way to get them. When we ban firearms then those who are law abiding and (usually) responsible will not have them. Those who don't give a shit will break the law and get them anyway. And they tend to not be responsible people. 

    That being said, I don't like guns. I want nothing to do with them. My father is working as a security guard right now and it kills me that we have a gun in the house (my son is 8). My dad keeps the gun in a combination safe and the bullets somewhere else also locked up. He keeps the key on him and he has never written down the number to the combination. Only he knows what it is. 

    We are not afraid of a break in since we have a very large and very black dog. Dogs are the number 1 deterrent in home break ins. Not guns or alarm systems. If someone is canvassing a house to rob, they move on once they see a dog. My dog is part Great Dane, he's a big boy. And this neighborhood isn't that bad. 

    So yeah, that's my two cents on guns. And here's my boy, Paulie. He's a ferocious beast! 

    LIMom1105
    by on Jul. 20, 2012 at 9:12 PM
    Not talking about an outright ban, but ordinary civilians do not need assault weapons. I can think of no good purpose for them. So I don't see this as penalizing ordinary civilians.

    You are right though, big dogs are supposed to be the best deterrent
    Carpy
    by Platinum Member on Jul. 20, 2012 at 9:33 PM

    Just using my reply to the other post on this

    Look at what he was able to do with his apt.  If not a gun he was certainly more than capable of using another means.  perhaps even more loss of life would have occurred.

    new_mom808
    by Bronze Member on Jul. 20, 2012 at 10:47 PM
    2 moms liked this

     Sure, because guns are NEVER illegeally gained.

    -Eilish-
    by Johnson 2012 on Jul. 20, 2012 at 11:45 PM
    1 mom liked this
    -Eilish-
    by Johnson 2012 on Jul. 20, 2012 at 11:46 PM

    That's okay - you can do that. I was trying to point out that people who carry don't do it - necessarily - because they feel threatened.

    Quoting PamR:

    That's very nice for you, but I have no intention of walking around with a gun on me. 

    Quote:

    I open carry my Glock around town. I wore it to a ladies Bible study one time because we had our church in a strip mall, and we stayed well after dark. My pastor's wife, who's husband carries his gun around the house, asked me politely to not bring it anymore because it may make someone nervous. I politely obliged her.

    A few weeks later, the ladies from the church were meeting at a park. I decided to bring the gun on the request of my pastor's wife. I was sitting on the grass next to my pastor's wife, facing the playground. Out of the corner of my eye I spotted a man in a trench coat coming up behind me. I stood up and turned to face him. The guy appeared to be homeless. (Back story: at a park near by, a child was killed by homeless man roaming the park). He was carrying a brown paper bag with him and said to me directly, "I have some cookies in here, can I give your kids some cookies." I politely said no thank you. He looked at me and replied, "are you sure? It's not like I'm trying to kill them." I again politely turned him down (while scanning the playground for my kids).

    The man walked off and approach some other mothers. My pastor's wife immediately says to me, "Eilish, where is your gun?!?!" Another mom said, "Yeah, what happened, I thought you liked carrying your gun." I said, "you know, if I had told you that I carry my gun on the off chance that homeless man offering me cookies and promising not to kill me approached me from behind at a park, and I just wanted for safety, you would have though I was off my rocker."

    My point is that I don't carry my gun because I feel threatened. I carry it so that I won't be threatened. Wearing a gun is usually deterrent enough, but having the knowledge and skill to defend myself and my kids is comforting. (And if you have a chance to carry one, don't put it in your purse. That's the last place you want it).




    -Eilish-
    by Johnson 2012 on Jul. 20, 2012 at 11:50 PM

    Which begs the question - where would a student get the money to purchase all that high profile gear? That stuff is expensive, hard to come by, and the government is supposedly monitoring purchases of this stuff. Why didn't they stop it? It's also conveniently happened about a week before the UN Treaty banning assault weapons is set to go before the Senate. ETA: He was allegedly unemployed struggling to find work.

    Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

     

    Quoting rachelrothchild:

    You know what else would have saved them?  A gun.

     No it wouldn't have.  He was decked out in full body armor.  He even had it wrapped around his neck.



    PamR
    by Platinum Member on Jul. 21, 2012 at 9:55 AM

    There are countries where private gun ownership is roughly the same as it is here, and they do not have anywhere near the level of gun violence we have.  Isn't that issue just as relevant as citizens owning guns?  What is going on in this country, in our culture, that causes such disrespect for others?  We have people who can't go on enough about saving fetuses, yet anyone who dies in an incident like this is collateral damage for our "right" to own guns?  Why?  Why are we so in love with violence? 

    rachelrothchild
    by on Jul. 21, 2012 at 10:19 AM

    I don't buy the story.

    Quoting -Eilish-:

    Which begs the question - where would a student get the money to purchase all that high profile gear? That stuff is expensive, hard to come by, and the government is supposedly monitoring purchases of this stuff. Why didn't they stop it? It's also conveniently happened about a week before the UN Treaty banning assault weapons is set to go before the Senate. ETA: He was allegedly unemployed struggling to find work.

    Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

     

    Quoting rachelrothchild:

    You know what else would have saved them?  A gun.

     No it wouldn't have.  He was decked out in full body armor.  He even had it wrapped around his neck.



    CafeMom Tickers
    PamR
    by Platinum Member on Jul. 21, 2012 at 10:39 AM

    In circumstances like the one in Colorado, where a mentally ill person opens fire on a group of people, how many times has a private citizen who is legally carrying a firearm, fired back and stopped the shooter?

    Zero.


    Add your quick reply below:
    You must be a member to reply to this post.
    Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
    Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

    (minimum 6 characters)