USA – Many Say End Of Firearm Ban Changed Little
Date: Apr 24, 2005 11:24 AM
PUBLICATION: The New York Times
SECTION: National
EDITION: Late Edition – Final
DATE: 2005.04.24
PAGE: 1
BYLINE: DEBORAH SONTAG
ILLUSTRATION: Photos: Gun enthusiasts checked out AR-15 semiautomatics at the National
Rifle Association’s convention in Houston earlier this month. Versions of the rifle
were available throughout the decade-long assault weapons ban. (Photo by Michael
Stravato for The New York Times); Randy E. Luth, founder of the gun manufacturer
DPMS/Panther Arms, said he never thought the weapons ban was “that big a deal.”
(Photo by Ingrid Young for The New York Times); Two AR-15 rifles made by DPMS. The
bottom one, adapted to comply with the weapons ban, holds fewer rounds, among other
changes. (Photo by Ingrid Young for The New York Times)(pg. 35)

——————————————————————————–

Many Say End Of Firearm Ban Changed Little

——————————————————————————–

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.

The uneventful expiration of the assault weapons ban did not surprise gun owners,
nor did it surprise some advocates of gun control. Rather, it underscored what many
of them had said all along: that the ban was porous — so porous that assault weapons
remained widely available throughout their prohibition.

“The whole time that the American public thought there was an assault weapons
ban, there never really was one,” said Kristen Rand, legislative director of
the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control group.

What’s more, law enforcement officials say that military-style weapons, which were
never used in many gun crimes but did enjoy some vogue in the years before the ban
took effect, seem to have gone out of style in criminal circles.

“Back in the early 90′s, criminals wanted those Rambo-type weapons they could
brandish,” said Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police.
“Today they are much happier with a 9-millimeter handgun they can stick in
their belt.”

When the ban took effect in 1994, it exempted more than 1.5 million assault weapons
already in private hands. Over the next 10 years, at least 1.17 million more assault
weapons were produced — legitimately — by manufacturers that availed themselves
of loopholes in the law, according to an analysis of firearms production data by
the Violence Policy Center.

Throughout the decade-long ban, for instance, the gun manufacturer DPMS/Panther
Arms of Minnesota continued selling assault rifles to civilians by the tens of thousands.
In compliance with the ban, the firearms manufacturer “sporterized” the
military-style weapons, sawing off bayonet lugs, securing stocks so they were not
collapsible and adding muzzle brakes. But the changes did not alter the guns’ essence;
they were still semiautomatic rifles with pistol grips.

After the ban expired in September, DPMS reintroduced its full-featured weapons
to the civilian market and enjoyed a slight spike in sales. That increase was short-lived,
however, and predictably so, said Randy E. Luth, the company’s owner.

“I never thought the sunset of the ban would be that big a deal,” Mr.
Luth said.

No gun production data are yet available for the seven months since the ban expired.
And some gun-control advocates say they don’t trust the self- reporting of gun industry
representatives, who may want to play down the volume of their sales to ward off
a revival of the ban.

Indeed, a replica of the ban is again before the Senate.

“In my view, the assault weapons legislation was working,” said Senator
Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, a chief sponsor of the new bill. “It
was drying up supply and driving up prices. The number of those guns used in crimes
dropped because they were less available.”

Assault weapons account for a small fraction of gun crimes: about 2 percent, according
to most studies, and no more than 8 percent. But they have been used in many high-profile
shooting sprees. The snipers in the 2002 Washington-area shootings, for instance,
used semiautomatic assault rifles that were copycat versions of banned carbines.

Gun crime has plummeted since the early 1990′s. But a study for the National Institute
of Justice said that it could not “clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s
recent drop in gun violence.”

Research for the study in several cities did show a significant decline in the criminal
use of assault weapons during the ban. According to the study, however, that decline
was offset by the “steady or rising use” of other guns equipped with high-capacity
magazines — ammunition-feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds.

While the 1994 ban prohibited the manufacture and sale of such magazines, it did
not outlaw an estimated 25 million of them already in circulation, nor did it stop
the importation of millions more into the country.

Senator Feinstein said she wished she could outlaw the “flood of big clips”
from abroad, calling that the “one big loophole” in the ban. But that
would require amending the bill, and Republicans like Senator John W. Warner of
Virginia and Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio are willing to back it only without amendments,
she said.

Some gun-control advocates say it is pointless to reintroduce the 1994 ban without
amending it to include large magazines and a wider range of guns. They see more
promise in enacting or strengthening state or local bans. Seven states — California,
Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey and New York — already
have bans, most based on the federal one. The model ban, gun-control advocates say,
is a comprehensive one in California (referred to as “Commiefornia” on
some gun enthusiast Web sites).

The Fraternal Order of Police has not made a new federal ban a legislative priority,
either. Mr. Pasco, the organization’s director, said he could not recall a single
“inquiry from the field about the reauthorization of the ban — and we have
330,000 members who are very vocal.”

“In 1994, I was the principal administration lobbyist on this ban,” said
Mr. Pasco, who then worked for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
“But here we are 10 years later, and these weapons do not appear to pose any
more significant threat to law enforcement officers than other weapons of similar
caliber and capability.”

The ban made it illegal to possess or sell a semiautomatic weapon manufactured after
September 1994 if the weapon accepted a detachable magazine and contained at least
two features from a list that included protruding pistol grips and threaded muzzles.
The ban outlawed 19 weapons by name, among them some foreign semiautomatics already
banned under the 1989 firearms importation law, which still stands.

But gun manufacturers increased production of assault weapons while the ban was
being debated. Then, by making minor changes in design, they were able to produce,
as they called them, “post-ban” assault weapons that were the functional
equivalent of the originals.

Colt came out with a “sporterized” version of its popular AR-15 semiautomatic
rifle, leaving off some military features that were “meaningless as far as
its lethality,” said Carlton S. Chen, vice president and general counsel for
Colt.

“People might think it looks less evil,” Mr. Chen said, “but it’s
the same weapon. It was a hoax, a Congressional hoax, to ban all these different
features.”

Mr. Pasco of the police organization disagreed. “We knew exactly what we were
doing by trying to ban guns with certain features,” he said. “While it
didn’t affect their function or capability, those features, at that point in time,
seemed to make those weapons more attractive to those who wanted to commit crimes.”

Gun-control advocates say military-style semiautomatics do not belong in civilian
hands. “They are weapons of war,” Senator Feinstein said, “and you
don’t need these assault weapons to hunt.”

Gun makers, however, say the weapons do have sporting uses, in hunting and in target
shooting. “People buy these rifles because they’re fun to shoot and they perform
well,” Mr. Luth of DPMS said. “They also like them because you can jazz
them up like you can your car. You can custom-paint them, put on a multitude of
handguards or buttstocks.”

Some collectors simply admire certain guns. Charles Cuzalina, a gun dealer in Oklahoma
who specializes in banned weapons, is taken with the Colt AR-15.

“I just like the look of the weapon,” Mr. Cuzalina said. “When I
bought my first, I went out on the farm shooting at a pie plate, and I realized
how accurate it makes you. You think you’re the world’s best shot.”

Mark Westrom, owner of ArmaLite Inc., a gun maker in Illinois, said prey hunters
and target shooters did not miss bayonet lugs and other features that disappeared
with the post-ban rifles. Collectors looking for an exact civilian replica of a
military rifle, however, consider the removal of a bayonet lug “a matter of
design defacement,” Mr. Westrom said.

Several manufacturers are offering factory conversions or selling kits so gun owners
can retrofit their post-ban weapons. They are also increasing their production of
pre-ban weapons and decreasing production of post-ban weapons.

Many gun store owners say that sales of assault weapons spiked briefly in September
and October. Gun dealers sought to capitalize on the ban’s sunset and, during the
presidential campaign, to raise the specter of a tougher ban if John Kerry won.

“We view this time as a ‘pause’ and urge you to take advantage of the opportunity
to exercise your Second Amendment rights,” Tapco, a shooting and military gear
company, said on its Web site last fall. “Anti-gun politicians learned much
over the past 10 years. They will surely not leave as many loopholes in future legislation.”

After President Bush was re-elected and the novelty of the ban’s expiration waned,
sales leveled off at many gun shops. But Mike Mathews, the owner of Gunworld in
Del City, Okla., said sales had been holding steady at a higher level.

Norm Giguere of Norm’s Gun & Ammo in Biddeford, Me., on the other hand, said
that he had not sold any military-style semiautomatic rifles since right after the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and that the gun business in general was “going
down the tubes.”

Mr. Luth of DPMS, however, said that his sales had been increasing for years, to
the law enforcement community, the civilian market and an unexpected new clientele.
“We’ve picked up new customers with the troops returning from Iraq,” he
said, “who had never shot an AR-15 before and now want one.”

The war in Iraq has had another unintended consequence for the marketplace. Colt,
one of the biggest manufacturers, has decided against putting its AR-15 back on
the civilian market because the company is backlogged with military orders.

Unlike assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, which are used with many guns,
have been selling briskly since the ban ended because prices have dropped considerably.

“The only thing Clinton ever did for us was drive up the price of magazines,”
said a weapons specialist named Stuart at TargetMaster, a shooting range and gun
shop in Garland, Tex. (He declined to give his last name.) “A 17-round Glock
magazine crept up to $150 during the ban. It’s $75 now.”

Since September, the Web site of Taurus International Manufacturing Inc., a major
maker of small arms, has celebrated the demise of the prohibition on magazines,
flashing in red letters, “10 years of 10 rounds are over!”