Talk:Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act/Archive 1

Archive 1

Three Strikes and You're Out?

Everything I read on the web about this bill references the Three Strikes provision, yet Wikipedia does not. Why not? I found it in the bill, it is "TITLE VII—MANDATORY LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN FELONIES"... perhaps this is considered unimportant because later court rulings limited it? --Joelrosenblum (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Major focus

Reading this entry, you would think the gun regulations were the major focus of this bill. They aren't. Buried down at the end of this entry under "other provisions" is a mention of the COPS program funding 100,000 (or so) police officers. This was an $8.8 billion program, the single largest federal criminal justice subsidy ever. In dollar terms it dwarfs the VAWA, which has its own section in this entry. And the COPS program is arguably much more significant than the bans on a few uncommon weapons and even the death penalty provisions. Both of those provisions are symbolically important, and the death penalty provisions are of course immensely significant for the people directly affected. But at the end of the day they are a minor part of criminal justice policy, IMHO.

I'm sorry I don't have the time to edit the entry myself but someone ought to do so to make it more clear what the major provisions of this bill are.

---

Added a reference to the insurance provision, which generally prohibits convicted felons from working in the insurance business. This provision is a bit more radical than it sounds, as insurance is generally regulated by the states, not the federal government (and per McCarran-Ferguson, most federal laws don't even apply to insurance). Xrlq (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

---

---

This page is really a mess. Very strong pro-gun bias. I'm going to make a few changes now, but it's really in need of a complete rewrite before it is neutral. Katahon 22:26, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

A folding or telescoping stock A pistol grip A flash suppressor A grenade launcher A bayonet lug

It should be noted that these features are purely cosmetic; none increase the lethality of a weapon (grenades, being explosives, are already heavily regulated and restricted, and any long gun with a folding/telescoping stock still must have a minimum length of 26 inches). An AR-15, which is an "assault weapon," functions identically to any .223 hunting rifle.

For the sake of NPOV, lets take a look at these one by one. Obviously a bayonet lug ban is a cosmetic ban because they don't ban it in and of itself but only if one of the other banned elements applies. Grenade launcher too is obviously cosmetic since the grenades are illegal. What about flash suppresor? What about pistol grip? Pistol grip from my limited experience seems to suggets that you can hold the gun in like the rambo sort of way instead of up to your shoulder. This to me seems to be a more then cosmetic advantage. Did every gun you can hold that way get banned? It doesn't seem to say that because it doesn't say that feature was banned in and of itself, but only if the gun had another banned feature. A folding or telescoping stock also seems to be a more than cosmetic feature, but again why wasn't it banned simply. How do those two or more features work together in a way where the whole is greater then the sum of its parts?

Well, firstly, a flash suppressor does nothing towards hiding the flash of the gun against the vision of people in front of it, or even to the side of it. Rather, it is used to supress the amount of flash visible towards the person shooting the gun, and even then, it only really works at night.

Secondly, it is well-neigh impossible to actually aim a rifle, assault rifle, machinegun, etc., when it is fired from the hip, Rambo style. Doing so only leads to highly inaccurate fire, regardless of whether or not you are using an automatic weapon.

Thirdly, a grenade launcher is of questionable use, as most private citizens who own a weapon that was deemed an "Assault Weapon" are unable to acquire grenades, unless they are simply duds for display purposes.

Fourthly, a folding or telescoping stock IS more than cosmetic, but not exactly as much as a grenade launcher. A folding stock only really serves for greater ease in transporting or (although the length of the gun may negate this advantage) concealment. A telescoping stock, depending on the type, may provide aid to the shooter's comfort when aiming and firing the weapon, but only if it is adjustable. Otherwise, it serves more or less the same purpose as a folding stock.

Finally, if I am deemed to be incorrect in any of the above statments, please correct me. Arosaurer

Duplicate article

It has been suggested that this article be merged with Assault weapons ban. I deleted the merge tag from the article because I thik the appropriate place to suggest merging articles is on the talk page, where the pros and cons can be discussed, rather than in the article itself. While some content is duplicated, it's not obvious to me whether or not the articles should be merged, and I take no strong view either way. Enchanter 10:38, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

• I've done some of expansion to try to make this article more about the law in general (which has a lot of notable stuff in it besides the AWB). Quite a bit more is possible. BCoates 00:26, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It appears that someone added the word "butt" to a number of phrases. I'm going to eliminate those, since they appear to just be vandalization.

Joe Biden

Since the 1994 Crime Law has been called the Biden Crime Law, why isn't Joe Biden even mentioned? For that matter this law was widely criticized as a pork barrel bill when it was passed, but this is not mentioned. UNSIGNED

Joe Biden 2

The article mentions Joe Biden, but he was a Senator, and the bill was introduced through the house (as it needed to be due to its justification via the commerce clause) anyone know how that happened/sources? Gaijin42 (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted parts

I deleted the following text relating to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. It would be better at the AWB article. Neutrality^talk 07:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It must be noted that there is a distinct difference between an "assault weapon" and an "assault rifle". In brief, an assault rifle is a military shoulder-fired rifle that is designed as a compromise between the long-range (up to 500m/550 yards) accuracy of an high-powered single-shot service rifle such as the Mauser K98 or M1 Garand with the close-quarters (<100m/110 yards) fully-automatic firepower of a pistol-ammunition-shooting submachine gun such as the Tommy Gun or Uzi. These firearms fire ammunition midrange between the two extremes, such as the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO or the 7.62x39mm Russian, and are capable of fully-automatic fire.

The term "assault weapon" is commonly (albeit incorrectly) applied to firearms that contain certain capabilities that are military in origin, such as large-capacity magazines, bayonet mounting hardware, or pistol grips.

Many modern small capacity magazine civilian rifles sold for sporting purposes, such as bolt-action hunting rifles, are often chambered for more powerful ammunition than the cartridges the M16 or AK-47 shoot, in order to achieve greater distances for hunting purposes.

Request input/feedback please on 3+ articles that discuss assault weapons and federal assault weapons bans

Please see Federal Assault Weapons Ban talk page and respond there for Request input/feedback please on 3+ articles that discuss assault weapons and federal assault weapons bans

My apologies if I'm making this request wrong. Lightbreather (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Source for "Semi-automatic Firearms Ban"?

The first sentence of the federal assault weapons ban section has been edited to say that it was commonly known as the "Semi-automatic Firearms Ban." Does anyone have a source for this? Maybe it was just a mistake. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)