Note to Hugh Hewitt
By Mitch Berg
A couple of notes, so that you are able to speak credibly on the issue that so many conservatives are holding against Mitt Romney:
- A “machine gun” is an “automatic weapon” (fires like a machine gun – blasting away as long as one holds the trigger) – not a “semi-automatic” weapon (fires one and only one round every time you pull the trigger).
- It’s been illegal for citizens to own automatic weapons in the US since 1934 (one of my commenters noted the legislation: The National Firearms Act (NFA), cited as the Act of June 26, 1934, Ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, as amended, currently codified as Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 5801 through 26 U.S.C. § 5872) unless they get a “Class III” license from the BATFE; these require a stringent background check, equal in most respects to a “Top Secret” security clearance. In the 70 years this has been the case, there has been one crime committed by a Class III licensee. It was a cop.
- The 1994 Crime Bill, with the “Assault Weapon Ban” which Romney (and apparently you) support, had nothing to do with “machine guns” – but with “assault weapons”.
- Which are not to be mistaken for “Assault Rifles”. An “assault rifle” is a rifle capable of “selective fire” (full or semi-automatic), and fires either a small-caliber or low-power rifle round (so they don’t buck out of the shooter’s grasp when firing full-automatic).
- No, indeed, an “assault weapon” has no technical definition whatsoever recognizable to any gunsmith, armorer, or anyone else in the firearms industry. They are, for lack of a better definition, guns that someone in Congress thought looked like Army Guns back in 1994.
- You asked yesterday on your show – what would I think about my neighbors owning “machine guns” (apparently not knowing that “machine guns” were never part of the 1994 Crime Bill’s “assault weapon” ban. Simple answer – if my neighbor had my criminal, chemical or mental-illness record (i.e., none), I wouldn’t care if she had a machine gun, a flamethrower, or the keys to a nuclear submarine – because merely possessing a big nasty army gun doesn’t magically make a good person go bad.
Let’s try to bone up on this, Hugh.
UPDATE: A comenter corrected me on the National Firearms Act, of 1934).
May 17th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Maybe he needs to take some time off from his research of killer volcanoes in Yellowstone and focus on this issue for a bit… *shrug*
May 17th, 2007 at 9:02 am
So what exactly did the “Assault Weapons Ban” ban? And are “Assault Rifles” banned or not?
May 17th, 2007 at 9:10 am
I think the major “target” of the ban was multi-round clips.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Assault Rifles (field configurable from semi-automatic to fully automatic) were and are covered under the 1937 Firearms Act and require the “Class III” license Mitch mentioned.
The “Assault Weapons” banned were just “ugly guns” that looked like military or gang banger weapons – in all other respects they were identical technically to the prettiest Benelli or Glock or Ruger. It was purely a cosmetic/political ban.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:23 am
The “Assault Weapons Ban” banned a select group of semi-automatic rifles that differed from the semi-automatic rifles only in cosmetic features that bore no relationship to their function.
The best example I can think of is the G3/HK91/SL7.
The G3 was the German Army’s issue battle rifle. It was capable of full-auto fire, and thus was considered a machinegun under the National Firearms Act of 1934.
The HK91 was a semi-automatic version of the G3. It looked very much like the G3. But internally it was very different. It wasn’t capable of full-auto, so it wasn’t a machinegun. It was banned, under the AWB of 1994.
The SL7 was a version of the HK91 with an ordinary wooden stock, instead of the evil black plastic. Internally, it was identical to the HK91, but it lacked the cosmetic features, and so wasn’t covered under the AWB of 1994.
The HK91 was banned because it looked like the G3, despite the fact that it functioned in a very different way. The SL7 was not banned because it did not look like the G3, despite the fact that it functioned exactly the same as the HK91 that was banned.
Basically, the AWB of 1994 banned certain weapons because they looked scary.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:30 am
“Basically, the AWB of 1994 banned certain weapons because they looked scary.”
Yeah, that sounds like something congress would do.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:34 am
The ban basically banned scary looking things: bayonet mounts (always a concern for bank employees during a bank robbery), muzzle brakes (reduces recoil) flash suppressors and the like. It also limited NEW clips to ten rounds. Old clips (11+ rounds/clip) were still available.
When I was at the capitol (St. Paul) in 2003 for the final Senate debate on the Minnesota Personal Protection Act, I ran across some of the Code Pink (meaning not fully Commie Reds). They of course brought up Columbine. I asked them how many laws those murdering satanists broke in the course of their trip to hell. They didn’t know. I told them at least 18. I then asked them point blank (pun intended)-“Tell me what law you can think of that, if passed, would have had those two children of lucifer say ‘WHOA! We can’t go on this killing spree because of THAT law!!! Yikes! We’re idiots! How did we miss that one?’ What law would you pass that would have done that? If you can tell me, I pledge that I’ll personally pull myself to the polling place, on my elbows, to vote for the person who’ll author that bill after donating $1,000 to his or her campaign.”
Dead silence from the Code Pinky Winkies. And then they said, under their breath, “There won’t be a law like that.” But, I’ll bet that they then went right back to their lack-of-logic, lack-of-reason, lack-of-evidence screeds.
The lack-of-logic-loony left never learns. Ever.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Minor correction to my post above:
the controlling legislation for Assault Rifles (machine guns) is The National Firearms Act (NFA), cited as the Act of June 26, 1934, Ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, as amended, currently codified as Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 5801 through 26 U.S.C. § 5872
May 17th, 2007 at 10:21 am
I really like Hugh Hewitt, pinky swear, but his disdain for sf and ignorance of issues around gun rights is an ongoing irritation.
Jeff McA: the AWB banned the importation and sale of certain scary-looking rifles, and sale to civilians of magazines (for both rifles and handguns) with a capacity greater than ten rounds that were manufactured after a given date. Its main results were:
1. to generate a huge flurry of sales shortly before the ban went into effect, and
2. to raise the price of ‘pre-ban’ standard capacity magazines for some handguns. (Standard capacity Glock 17 and Glock 19 magazines, for example, tended to go for about $150 during the ban, rather than about $20 both before and after it. Go to http://www.google.com/products?q=glock+19+magazine&btnG=Search+Products&safe=off — you’ll find that the standard cap, 15-round, mags go for about twenty-five bucks now. Back when the AWB was in effect, the only ones generally available were the “pre-ban’ ones, and they ran into the three figures.)
May 17th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Kel,
Thanks for the correction.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
The best example I can think of is the G3/HK91/SL7.
And it’s a great example. I also lust after having an HK91 one of these days.
Also, the Norinco version of the SKS, which was either banned or not depending on whether or not it had a built-in folding bayonet. Not the awesome firepower of the ten-round fixed stripper-fed magazine, mind you, but a bayonet.
Without the bayonet, but WITH all that street-clearing 7.62x39mm power? Perfectly legal. With the archaic throwback designed for the era of human wave attacks? Illegal.
Like the G3 example, it just made no sense.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Another great example (if I recall it correctly – and feel free to set me straight):
The HK91 – the semiauto-only civilian version of the German G3 battle rifle (which, with its 7.62x51mm round is VASTLY more powerful than either the AK47 or the M16? Banned (except as noted above).
The Springfield Armories M-1A – a similarly downgraded version of the Army’s M-14 rifle from the 1960’s (and still in use in Iraq and by, among others, Delta today)? Legal.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Troy:
Cut Hugh some slack – venting self-righteous indignation and pretending to be unerringly knowledgeable without taking a breath, day in and out, imust be exhausting. The guy needs the change to forced levity for biological reasons, even if the loyal fumers don’t catch on.
On the other hand, “Hew’s wit’ needs to catch at least a couple % of his audience, or the dial changes.
“You can pretend to be educated, you can pretend to be serious, you can even pretend to be intelligent. But, you cannot pretend to be witty.”
May 18th, 2007 at 8:48 am
coldeye:
I will cut him some slack because I do imagine that it may be a difficult task to be a successful syndicated radio talk show host. I also find my opinions very much aligned with his on certain topics.
*fumes a bit* 😉
However, to quote an old Amoco commercial: “You expect more from a leader”.
May 18th, 2007 at 10:38 am
I will cut him some slack because I do imagine that it may be a difficult task to be a successful syndicated radio talk show host.
Don’t forget: In addition to a successful syndicated talk show host, he is also the author of multiple best sellers, a professor of constitutional law at Chapman university, and a practicing lawyer.
Hugh Hewitt, for as misguided on one topic as he might be, is far more capable and educated and eloquent than the vast majority of the rest of the country. He has never professed to being any kind of an expert in firearms and related issues.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:01 am
JB Doubtless,
I think I accidentally deleted your comments from the moderation queue. You commented about my using the term “.22 automatic” for what is a semiautomatic pistol.
You are technically correct; it was a “.22 semiautomatic” pistol. But common usage and even product naming can and does conflate the two; the .45 and .380 “Automatic Colt Pistol” rounds are fired from *semiautomatic* pistols (and fully-automatic submachine guns).
The “Browning Automatic” rifle is a semiautomatic hunting rifle (not to be mistaken for the WWII/Korean era “BAR” light machine gun).
“Automatic” does equal “semiautomatic” in plenty of instances of common usage. It’s not like if you walk into a gun shop and ask to see a “Colt .45 Automatic” they’re going to pull out an M1911 modified to full-automatic…
May 18th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Mitch,
The point is that this careless use of language is what helps enemies of the 2nd Amendment.
People think you can buy “automatic” weapons.
I’ll give you credit for a valiant try at saving face, but no sale.
Btw, the Browning Automatic Rifle IS the BAR. Any reference to “Browning Automatic Rifle” or BAR is a reference to the (actually WWI era if I have to get pedantic) same weapon.
May 18th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
“In addition to a successful syndicated talk show host, he is also the author of multiple best sellers” So are Howard Stern and Bill Oreilly -some club that goes even further downhill when you just look at best selling authors.
“…a practicing lawyer” Well, technically, but how much is he really practicing….
“Chapman U.” – well, if we’re gonna have too many lawyers I guess we need too many law schools.
Hewitt is a very intelligent idealogue* – my point was that he should not try to be too funny/clever, when he isn’t. Also, he should not hold forth on every subject just because he has a radio show, and others seem to agree.
(* he knows how he is going to interpret everything that happens before it does – the self-righteous have no need for reflection).
May 18th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
coldeye said “the self-righteous have no need for reflection”.
Really? Tell me more…
May 21st, 2007 at 12:33 am
Troy;
Just listen to his show – it only comes out about 10-20% of the time, when he is off the main message he studied up for. This is usually when a friendly guest surprises him with an opinion, or when he is attacking someone and cherry picking quotes to make his point.
There is no doubt that he is intelligent, well-read, articulate, passionate and self-righteous.