The “Ugly Gun” Ban of 1994 —- VS. —- Chicago 2012

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called “assault weapons”. The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day.

The following took place in 1997 – Three Years After The Ban:

The ban expired in 2004 due to the sunset provision.In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as “assault rifles” or “assault weapons”, are rarely used in gun crimes.

That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders.   However, they concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.

In Chicago it is illegal to own a gun – They have the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.

2012 -  62 school aged children slain in Chicago this year

446 School Age Children have been shot with 62 murdered

About these ads
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Potus Gun Ban, Thrill Kill, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to The “Ugly Gun” Ban of 1994 —- VS. —- Chicago 2012

    • Arkindole says:

      arch – HICKOK45 is a great guy-been subscribed a long time. I saw this when he first liked it, and was amazed at the courage that woman had to point the finger at those deadbeats and say “you”.

    • Josh says:

      Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp – a former Republican member of the Texas House of Representatives.

      “After surviving the Luby’s massacre in 1991, Hupp became a leading advocate of an individual’s right to carry a concealed weapon.”

      “She has also written a book called From Luby’s to the Legislature: One Woman’s Fight Against Gun Control.”

      “As a survivor of the Luby’s massacre, Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws. She said that if there had been a second chance to prevent the slaughter, she would have violated the Texas law and carried the handgun inside her purse into the restaurant. She testified across the country in support of concealed handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996. The law was signed by then-Governor George W. Bush.”

      “Hupp is quoted as having said, “How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp

    • khunley73 says:

      Thanks for posting this!

    • jordan2222 says:

      She eloquently explains the second amendment in 5 minutes including why so called “assault” weapons should never be banned.

  1. cajunkelly says:

    The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government. — Thomas Jefferson

    Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth. — George Washington

    Just saw these two quotes under Cuomo’s “forced gun buy back” proposal. His claim is that “assault weapons aren’t used for hunting”. Oh and if forced buy back doesn’t work, he’s all for confiscation.

    As others commented, I wanna see him go into the slums and confiscate “assault weapons” from the gang thugs. Yep, I truly wanna see that.

    He also said:
    “There is a balance here — I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters

    No, Cuomo, I seriously don’t think you do. :evil:

  2. Arkindole says:

    “…its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as “assault rifles” or “assault weapons”, are rarely used in gun crimes.”

    That’s correct. I realize actual data means nothing to the left, but pick out any state report, e.g. CA 2009, and you’ll see something like this…

    Firearms used in Homicides
    ~75% Handguns
    ~13% Shotguns
    ~9% Rifles
    ~3% “[Other]”

    Who uses what…
    Street Gangs–83.3% Handguns/16.7% [Other]
    Drug Trafficking–92% Handguns/4% Rifles/4% [Other]
    Firearms used in all Crimes–81.6% Handguns/8.8% Rifles/7.5% Shotguns/2% [Other]

    A November 2012 Congressional Research Service report found that, as of 2009, there were approximately 310 million firearms in the United States: “114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns.”
    .
    So, proportionally speaking, rifles are LEAST likely to be used in any crime. Even the professional gangstas don’t use them. It makes perfect sense–Those black scary ARs sticking way out of your belt loop tend to get people’s attention.

    And, ask any LEO. I’d much rather come up against some adrenaline-hyped dude or dudette with an AR, as compared to someone with a 12 gauge stuffed with buckshot or foster slugs.

    • Knuckledraggingwino says:

      It is important to remember that the percentage of firearms used by street gangs and narcotics traffickers was even lower before the Clinton, “ugly gun” ban was passed. If you peruse the actual printouts of the FBI SHRs, you will find than many of the nation’s largest, most crime ravaged cities, including Washington DC had ZERO homicides committed with rifles of any type during the years before the ban.

  3. cajunkelly says:

    Take a look at this article on the Brady site. Look at what *they* list as “assault weapons”. YEP, a TEC 9 is incuded.

    I found this with a search for “police outgunned” because I wanted to make a point that not only police can be outgunned, SO CAN HOMEOWNERS trying to defend their home and family against invasion by thugs.

    I don’t intend to be caught trying to defend my home against invasion with a pea shooter while the invader uses an illegally owned “assault weapon”.

    Mr. Woolery used a great analogy in that video I haven’t heard before. Yes, I’ve heard (ad nauseum) guns don’t kill people, people do, cars don’t kill people, drunk drivers of those cars do, and even “if guns kill people, then ink pens write hot checks”. But “we didn’t blame airplanes for 9/11″ is much better.

  4. czarowniczy says:

    The city of New Orleans, which is regularly f the deadliest cities in the US and generally in the top 5, has outlawed gun sales in the city decades ago. The overwhelming number of deaths is black-on-black and, for the last 30+ years I’ve been following it, both the police department and the city attorney’s office have not only dropped the ball in dealing with the gun violence, they’ve dropped kicked the ball into the public’s lap. They swear that the reason they cannot seem to get any convictions is that the public won’t come forth, testify and do their jobs for them. Of course a contributing reason might be that so many witnesses and their family members are murdered by thugs’ accomplices to kill the prosecution, and the city’s best witness protection lasts for about two weeks, but what the hell, it’s your civic duty to be dead after testifying. There were rumors that members of the city government were leaking witnesses names and locations but we know that can’t be true.

    For a while the NOPD rank were releasing not only the dirt on the alleged murderess but also all of the dirt they could dredge up or make up on the victims. Imagine your wife is mugged by some gun-wielding thug while out Christmas shopping and NOPD apprehends (I said ‘imagine’) him. Not only is his criminal record plastered all over TV but your wife’s name and a host of fuzzy, foggy hints at ‘brushes with the police’ and ‘court prosecutions’ in the past. The allegations about your wife are based on traffic tickets and random stops, barely inside of the 4th Amendment, which result in ‘contact cards’ that the police store as part of an ‘if needed’ intel base.

    Howz police protection in your city?

    • cajunkelly says:

      Remember, our state just passed the best gun protection law in the nation.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/louisiana-senate-gun-rights_n_1416114.html

      (The “brady bunch” now proclaims we have the “worst gun laws”) /smirk

      In part, this law was passed to protect US from THEM (the LEAs) who went door to door after Katrina, confiscating guns from citizens who had broken NO laws.

      That incident is a case-study for those who believe that LEOs will never comply with an order to disarm law abiding citizens. They DID, and they WILL.

      I wonder how our gun laws will hold up against the jackass-in-chief and his current agenda to disarm the citizenry and abolish the 2nd Amendment.

      • cajunkelly says:

        Here’s another unique gun law for Louisiana residents:
        http://employeeissues.com/blog/guns-work-la/

      • czarowniczy says:

        As you most probably know, New Orleans thinks of itself as ‘in’ Louisiana but not ‘part’ of Louisiana – we do have a home-rule charter, only one in the state. I was here for Katrina and not only were some NOPD confiscating guns but they had the Guard doing it also, a questionable violation of the Guard’s charter. There were rumors that they had the Activr=e Duty Army here doing it also but I have no proof of that. Major ‘rumor’ (cough,cough) was that thug elements that had hidey-ho’d to Texas, having to leave their guns here as they couldn’t board evacuation vehicles with them, came back in groups to retrieve them and LEA here were told not to interfere with them as long as they were picking them up and immediately going back to Texas with them.

        We had a lot of folk who didn’t leave who, after the short confiscation fiasco ended, put up 4×8 sheets of plywood with “You Loot We Shot” spray-painted on them. We never bothered with them, we figured that they were protecting their blocks and we knew that houses from the day after Kat hit to well into January were being looted for whatever the stay-behind and returning thugs could get. Houses were systematically stripped of cooper pipes and wiring, severely damaging houses that were otherwise undamaged, for months after the storm. People who did not evacuate and lived on the Westbank of the city lived without power until late October and slept in shifts so that an armed person was awake 24/7 – there was no police response even if you had a way to contact them. The city did NOTHING about looters who stripped and sold copper or stole tools equipment and rebuilding supplies or who looted the thousands of vending machines in the city for months after the storm. I remember going into a supermarket with my wife in November, well after order was restored to the Westbank, and seeing thugs with 5-galloln buckets full of wet coins going into the store ahead of us to run them through the commercial coin-counting machine and get a cash back. Yep, looks like the Administration’s plan is to make sure those in the face of impending disaster disarm, evacuate leave their goods behind so that less fortunate thugs can redistribute them. As I keep on remembering the inner-city minister chiding me: “If those folks in the suburbs didn’t own so much stuff the poor kids in the cities wouldn’t feel the need to steal it.” On that note…

        • cajunkelly says:

          Sounds like you’re LEO, or have inside info. What was the *real* reason (not the PC one issued) for confiscating guns from people who had broken no laws?

          • czarowniczy says:

            Was, I retired from everything and unassed the city for rural life. i still have a house there and go back to check on it every now and then to look for new bullet holes. The city government fell apart the day the levees broke. Police and sheriffs’ (we had two elected sheriffs) deputies ran like rats from a sinking ship, there were no effective communications between any branches (or inside any branches for that matter) and it was anarchy. the mayor and a city councilwoman were chased up the stairs of a major hotel by armed thugs, the police stations on the East Bank were all flooded, there were no emergency supplies for the police (food, ammo, gas, nada) and the city was in a virtual state or anarchy. The mayor, for whatever reasons, ordered the confiscation. Many of us thought that he made such a piss-poor display of leadership from the time the the hurricane hit until – oh – he left office that his knee-jerk confiscation order was just an attempt to look – oh – functional. There was no procedure or law beforehand, it was just a pull-it-out-of-your-posterior .pronouncement. Some think it was aimed at the thugs who stayed behind to loot and rob (oh yeah, they tried everything from stores to banks) not just at homeowners who stayed as they were afraid their houses would be looted. They concentrated the confiscation on the East Bank, the downtown side of NOLA, the Westbank (where many of the politicians and upper class lived) was spared. In any event it appeared that that the confiscators mostly grabbed weapons from the safer areas of town, especially the upper-middle-class-white areas. It didn’t last that long, the dust the `incident created made it look larger than it was but a dangerous precedent had been set. The mayor had no legal right to force people to evacuate, he had no legal right to break into their occupied houses without a warrant and no right to confiscate their weapons. The NRA sued him and the city, won, and some people got their weapons back. Many didn’t because the people doing the confiscations just grabbed the guns as the Mayor didn’t tell them to account for them or leave receipts. There was no way to prove that all of the weapons that were confiscated were turned in and unless you had a receipt or other proof by serial number that a given weapon was yours you did not get it back even after the city lost the suit. Another area that got lost is how the police and military confiscated weapons from evacuees boarding buses or helicopters for evac to areas outside of New Orleans. Quite a few weapons were taken but no one knows what happened to them or where they are. I know that I stopped a number of trucks and cars that didn’t belong in my neighborhood, alleged sightseers in a controlled and evacuated area, and made sure that everyone in my area who needed a break to go and get food, water or fuel had their neighborhoods covered. As I said, the PR folks really did keep the looting reporting way down, just as they’re doing now with the Sandy-hit areas. Report the warm and fuzzy stuff so the citizens won’t be upset by reality.

      • czarowniczy says:

        Montana passed a law last year that told the Federal government that weapons produced entirely inside of Montana would be governed entirely by Montana state laws and the Feds would have no control over them. ATF waited until the governor signed the bill and everyone was done popping champagne corks and mooning DC, then sent a phonebook-sized letter to the governor stating Federal case law that made Montana’s law a waste of time and paper. Da State may proposes but da Fedra gummint disposes.

    • cajunkelly says:

      czar,
      I am currently involved in a movement to prevent the release of identities of people involved as witnesses to crimes and/or accidents (traffic).

      I was in the unfortunate position of being a first-on-the-scene witness to a horrific accident with casualties. As a trained “first responder” (CPR, etc.) I did what any caring individual would do. One made it, one didn’t. My name and phone number was included in the accident report. As a result, I was contacted repeatedly by family members; “did he have any last words for me?”, “did he suffer”? The scene was extremely traumatic for me. Those desperate (and understandable but gut wrenching) calls made it worse. This family, in their grief stricken reality, didn’t understand that asking me for minute (read gorey) details of the scene didn’t help them *or* me. Hell, it was so horrific that *I* ended up in counseling over it.

      In talking with the local LEA about redacting personal information regarding persons such as myself, I was told it would take legislation. Ooookay…got it…off on a mission I am. It is my belief that if I am successful in getting identities redacted from LEA reports that are available to the general public for a minor fee, more people will be willing to be good samaritans/witnesses, and less likely to toe the “I don’t want to get involved” line.

      • cajunkelly says:

        Oh, and the one who made it has appeared at my door, late at night while I was home alone. We immediately know it’s a stranger because people we *know* go to a certain door, strangers use the other door.

        There he is, drunk as a skunk, on his knees, just wanting to shake my hand and thank me. As I held my pistol in my right hand behind my back, he kept saying “just let me shake your and and I’ll leave, I promise”.

        I told him; if you are really are thankful for a second chance, stop drinking yourself into oblivion and showing up on the local LEA arrest report site every other week. If you *ever* show up here again I’ll call 911 immediately.
        Leave *now*.

        Haven’t seen or heard from him since.

        FTR, the accident was due to extreme DUI. Beer was running down inside the windows of the overturned vehicle like rain water. Hopefully my harsh words got through to him.

        Experiences such as these certainly have made me have second thoughts about doing the right thing ever again.

      • czarowniczy says:

        Good luck with that – La law basically only redacts personally identifying info like SSNs. La is one of the unfriendly good sam states, probably has a lot to do with our healthy herds of tor lawyers. The tort boys might want to sue the good sam if they can convince the ‘injured’ party that there’s gold in them thar hills for everyone so they want all of the info to stay until hell freezes over. We had a scandal (SOP here) earlier this year when the city aws handing out copies of police reports with all of the info, from names to dates of birth to SSNs, under the state FOIA to anyone with the right amount of cash. Early 90s was when the state stopped selling ALL of the information off of your driver’s license to anyone with cash.

  5. 22tula says:

    “Well, What Do You Know, The NRA Just Endorsed Bill Clinton’s School Protection Plan” By Lonely Conservative – December 22, 2012
    http://lonelyconservative.com/2012/12/well-what-do-you-know-the-nra-just-endorsed-bill-clintons-school-protection-plan/

    “Here’s Who The NRA Really Represents”
    By Walter Hickey – December 19, 2012
    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-nra-has-sold-out-to-the-gun-industry-to-become-their-top-crisis-pr-firm-2012-12

    “Gun Owners Of America Steals Newtown Gun Debate Spotlight while NRA Hides”
    By Christina Wilkie – December 17, 2012
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/gun-owners-of-america-newtown-gun-debate-_n_2318951.html

  6. 22tula says:

    “Flashback: Senator Harry Reid & NRA’s VP Wayne LaPierre Open Clark County Shooting Park in Nevada” By Paxalles – December 19, 2012
    http://paxalles.blogs.com/paxalles/2012/12/flashback-senator-harry-reid-nras-vp-wayne-lapierre-open-clark-county-shooting-park-in-nevada.html

    “Why Does the NRA Support Harry Reid?”
    Free Republic – June 13, 2010 – By Anthony G. Martin
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2533780/posts

    “Yet Again the NRA Sells Out Freedom to the Democrats”
    By Erick Erickson – June 14, 2010
    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/06/14/yet-again-the-nra-sells-out-to-democrats/

    “National Rifle Association’s First Amendment Sellout”
    By RedState Insider – June 15, 2010
    http://www.redstate.com/rs_insider/2010/06/15/national-rifle-associations-first-amendment-sellout/

  7. howie says:

    Media Control is a much larger need than any new gun laws.

  8. Knuckledraggingwino says:

    According the caliber specific data in the FBI’s annual publication Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, only one police officer was murderred with a rifle chamberred with the 7.62x39mm cartridge that is consistent with the AK-47 pattern rifles. Another police officer was murdered with a rare variant of the AK type rifle that was chambered in .223 caliber. In both cases, the perps fired only one round, so firing rate and magazine capacity were irrellevant. The propaganda campaign that led to passage of the Clinton gun ban seems to have brought the AK type rifles to the attention f cop killers because during the decade the ban was in effect an average of half a dozen police officers were killed with rifles chambered for 7.62×39 mm. The use of rifles of this caliber has actually declined during the years since the ban was repealed.

  9. cajunkelly says:

    I was listening to talk radio when this happened:
    So LaPierre goes out today; he gets heckled, shouted down. And when he gets to the meat of what he’s saying, CNN goes to a commercial break.”

  10. Arkindole says:

    Well, I just mailed off my hard copy of email to Rubio. Rubio always responds, and it will be real interesting to see what “Mr. great hope of the GOP” has to say about the “protection from tyranny” issue. I’ll post the response if it has any merit one way or the other.

  11. Josh says:

    Regarding the initial video:

    [insert expletive here] intense!

    Part 1 10:13
    “I knew we were outgunned because we don’t have automatic weapons.“
    “The LA police officers tried to apply lethal force but their handguns and shotguns don’t have the range or the ability to penetrate the suspect’s body armor. The department had lobbied for patrol rifles but the request was denied. Now, they’re outgunned in a war zone.”
    Because no innocent person died I will say that the quotes above are THE MOST TRAGIC PART OF THE STORY.

    Part 4 3:42
    “…we definitely didn’t want to just let somebody lay there and die just because they are a suspect.”
    “suspect!” “suspect”!?! There ain’t no suspicion on this! I, for one, am glad that the [insert expletive here] bastards/”suspects” died.

    Part 4 5:39
    “…they should have been prosecuted. They should have stood trial for what they did.”
    I, for one, am glad that the [insert expletive here] bastards did not live to stand trial. I do not want my tax dollars used to “try” these “suspects”. I’m glad my tax dollars were used to KILL these [insert expletive here] bastards!

    I’m just trying to keep it clean people.

  12. cajunkelly says:

    If you don’t currently own enough .223 ammo, you’re out of luck. The DHS has declared that ammo for “government use” and it is unavailable for re-order until no one knows when.

    So, they got around banning the gun by disallowing ammo for the AR15.

  13. diwataman says:

    Anyone else find it amusing that many of the same people who support arming people in other countries these past few years are also the same people who want to disarm this country? Why is that?

  14. jordan2222 says:

    I would never attempt to make an argument that citizens need the best and powerful weapons available to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government without adding that, in order for us to defend ourselves, we would need at least a significant segment of the military, if not all of it, to defect. Any successful revolution requires that.

    It just ain’t feasible without military cooperation. Could that happen? Would the military ever turn against our government? Well, it sure is happening now in other parts of the world and it has occurred often in world history.

    I have posted this before but just in case you do not know this, an officer’s oath is different than that of an enlisted man.

    Officers DO NOT swear allegiance to the President. They swear allegiance only to the Constitution. Here is the officer’s oath.

    “I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

    If you are an enlisted soldier, whose orders are you going to follow? 

    I have read arguments that it is a safeguard against a usurper commander-in-chief but I do believe it’s possible that the military can overthrow the government if We The People support it.

    To think that We the People could do it without the support of the military is just not feasible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s