‘Assault’ Weapons Ban Likely to be Resurrected Under Obama

Remember how gun sales have jumped and concealed pistol licenses are up in Washington?

Here’s one reason why, according to gun owners and confirmed this week by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. President Obama plans to reinstate a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” one originally imposed by President Bill Clinton’s administration.

Here’s what Holder was quoted as saying on ABC News at a press conference:

“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder told reporters.

As we’ve previously reported, CPL — concealed pistol license — holders jumped from about 179,000 to 258,000, 43 percent, between 2003 and 2007, according to the state Department of Licensing. In Kitsap, applications jumped from 1,587 in 2004 to 3,339 in 2007.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban first passed the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate by slim margins. Signed into law by President Clinton, it had a “sunset provision,” and was not extended past 2004.

Will a renewal of such legislation see a new surge in weapons buying? Only time will tell.

7 thoughts on “‘Assault’ Weapons Ban Likely to be Resurrected Under Obama

  1. I doubt that President Obama would do this before the congressional Midterms or his re-election in 2012. Lest we forget the lessons 1994. I am sure Jay Inslee does not forget it.

    I doubt that the DNC wants another gun ban before an election.

  2. Since the ban could not be shown to have eliminated a single weapon from a criminals hands it was pointless and crafted by people who knew little to nothing about firearms–remember Chapa Ted holding up a 30-30 lever action in the Senate exclaiming it was “too powerful” to be in anyones hands. Hysteria about a short range,low power brush firearm. Holder wants to resurrect the ban to help the situation in Mexico, he must not know OUR crooks go the Mexico to buy cheap and currently illegal guns, not the other way around !
    Better idea– crush the crooks and gangs–then you don’t need to worry about which tool they use.

  3. It’s enough of an issue that several states, including Washington have sovereignty bills either submitted or pending, with regards to firearms restrictions by the federal government. I’d like to believe that after the last attempt by the democrats to squash gun owners and rights, they’d be afraid to attempt anything. However, with Polosi, Reid, and the others, I don’t think they care about it or the Constitution.

  4. Handguns and rifles are one thing for citizens to have – machine guns and assault weapons are another. They should be banned from private ownership…in my opinion..their only purpose is to kill people…masses of people.
    Sharon O’Hara

  5. The devil is in the details; it sounds logical and many more people will buy into a ban on ‘assault weapons’ because it conjurs up images of AK47s, Uzis and other nasty, fully automatic weapons. But the kicker can be found in California where the question is “what constitutes an ‘assault weapon’? When anti-gun liberals can’t outright ban your right to own a firearm, they get around it by passing what they can and then re-defining what fits under the law. In California, the definition of ‘assault weapon’ is changing and becoming more restrictive by the year. Magazine capacity, barrel length, type of breach, etc are all brought into the definition until it is becoming almost impossible for ANY firearm to NOT be classified as an ‘assault weapon’. Also, California has crafted laws that would require firearm manufacturers to spend millions re-tooling and casting new dies in order to meet California requirements that many have simply chosen to not sell firearms in that state…exactly what Pelosi and her ilk want. Now we see another strategy developing; using the ‘environmental’ argument to create back-door laws that could make it impossible or pointless to own a firearm. By banning any ammunition that contains lead (how much ammunition DOESN’T contain lead?) due to the ‘harm to the environment’, anti-gun nuts score a coup by sneaking in a law that has a much better chance of passing because of it’s deceitful nature.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Before you post, please complete the prompt below.

Is water a solid or a liquid at room temperature?