Michael Hertz
Twelve days before the Parkland school massacre, my friend and I were driving near Orlando, Florida, and saw a sign. It pictured a woman shooting a machine gun and said, “Live Life Full Auto” above the words “Machine Gun America.” A few miles later, we passed the store which sold semi-automatic guns and ammunition.
In the aftermath of the Parkland school shooting, Florida Gov. Rick Scott proposed a number of measures to improve safety, and on March 7 the state’s Republican-controlled legislature passed a bill to toughen gun laws. This included banning “bump stock” devices that turn semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic ones, raising the buying age for rifles to 21, and requiring a three-day waiting period for all firearm purchases. It is not known as of this writing whether Scott will sign it.
These are all good ideas. But why not go further and restore the ban on assault weapons? This was the type of weapon used to kill 17 people in Parkland. It was the kind used in Las Vegas, where a shooter was able to “live life full auto” and fire 1,100 rounds of ammunition in 10 minutes, killing 58 people and wounding 851.
Yes, getting rid of these weapons would take real political effort. The people who make money off of businesses like Machine Gun America, backed by the NRA, would fight this tooth and nail. But at this moment in our history, our country is ready for this.
The federal assault weapons ban was passed September 1994, following a close 52–48 vote in the Senate. President Bill Clinton signed it into law the same day. The ban didn’t apply to guns in existence at the time it was enacted, and it contained a sunset provision allowed it to expire after ten years, in 2004, which is what happened.
We need to revive this ban today. It should apply to all semi-automatic assault weapons, including the AR-15. It should also remove ammunition for such weapons from the market. It should apply to all persons in the United States except members of the military and police forces while they are on the job. There should be no sunset provision.
The government should offer to buy all such weapons in the year after the ban is enacted, given that the weapons could no longer be used.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already expressly affirmed the ability of government to ban certain weapons.
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” declared conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in a 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller. He noted prohibitions against concealed weapons, firearm possession by felons and the mentally ill, bringing firearms into schools and government buildings and “the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
An absolute ban on these weapons, coupled with an offer by the government to buy them, would be completely congruent with this decision. Putting a heavy punishment on possession would give police forces good reason to look for such weapons and get rid of any in illegal possession.
If we really want to end large-scale massacres, we cannot flinch at banning the means by which they are accomplished.
Michael Hertz
Michael T. Hertz, a retired lawyer and law professor, lives in Los Angeles. This column was written for the Progressive Media Project, affiliated with The Progressive magazine, and distributed by Tribune News Service.