Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (33 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Dec. 16, 2004 |
| Report Number |
RL32585 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
William J. Krouse, Domestic Social Policy Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
The 10-year ban on the manufacture, transfer or possession of "semiautomatic assault weapons" (SAWs) and "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" (LCAFDs) expired on September 13, 2004. In statute, "SAWs" were defined in two ways. First, certain firearms were defined as SAWs by make and model. Second, other firearms were defined as SAWs, if they included specified features. For example, a rifle was defined as a SAW if it was able to accept a detachable magazine and included at least two of the following features: (1) a folding/telescoping stock; (2) a protruding pistol grip; (3) a bayonet mount; (4) a muzzle flash suppressor or threaded barrel capable of accepting such a device; or (5) a grenade launcher. There were similar definitions for pistols and shotguns. Bills were introduced to extend the ban (S. 2190, S. 2498), make it permanent (S. 1034), or expand it to include other "military style" firearms (H.R. 2038/S. 1431).
A key consideration for Congress is whether violent gun crimes, particularly crimes involving multiple gunshot victims and gunshot wounds per victim, were reduced by the ban. Proponents of the ban maintain that firearm trace data strongly suggest that the use of SAWs in crime had declined since the ban took effect. Opponents of the ban contend that firearm trace data are unreliable indicators of criminal gun use based on statements by federal agencies and leading researchers. Proponents also cite data on law enforcement officers killed with firearms, which suggest that SAWs and other similar firearms have been used to kill a significant number of law enforcement officers. Opponents of the ban note that it is not possible to determine precisely whether these firearms were SAWs, nor is it known to what extent these firearms contributed to the ability of the criminals to outgun the police.
Proponents of the ban argue that assault weapons should be prohibited, because they were designed for military purposes; are firearms of choice for criminals; and are not suitable for hunting, competitive shooting, or self-defense. They assert that these weapons include all the "military features" that increase capacity and ease of firing. They underscore that the impetus for the ban was several mass murders committed with SAWs, and that these firearms are disproportionatelyâgiven their small numbersâused in crimes involving multiple shots fired, multiple victims, multiple gunshot wounds per victim, and police officers as victims. They note that, despite several legal challenges, the ban was upheld as constitutional by federal courts.
Opponents of the ban argue that SAWs were not designed for or used by military forces and that large numbers of law abiding gun owners use SAWs for self-defense, marksmanship, and hunting. They contend that SAWs are functionally no different from other semiautomatic firearms in that they fire only one round per pull of the trigger and that the statutorily defined features of a SAW were largely cosmetic. They also cite federal, state, and local data sources that suggest that SAWs have been used in a small fraction of violent crimes before and after the ban. They view the ban as part of a progressive intrusion on the right of citizens to own firearms. As noted above, the ban expired on September 13, 2004. This report will not be updated.
