Two weeks ago the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban ceased to be in effect. It should stay that way.
The ill-named and largely pointless law banned the sale of certain semi-automatic weapons due to their resemblance to assault rifles-rifle caliber weapons like the AK-47 and M16 with detachable box magazines and select-fire capability.
Like all material control laws, the Assault Weapons Ban suffered from two overwhelming flaws. First, it attempted to stop illegal acts by defining more illegal acts. Criminals break laws. Passing new ones does not stop them, it only increases the number of laws they break. Furthermore, in a free society, controlled substances are almost impossible to control. For example, cocaine and heroin are still common drugs, despite being heavily regulated since 1914.
Second, a materials control law that attempts to stop some action can only be effective if it actually eliminates access to all items that enable that action. For instance, claiming that a gun control law prevents murder is like saying that a ban on cocaine prevents driving under the influence. As long as an alternative is accessible-and illegal does not mean inaccessible-the act is possible. Since nearly anything from piano wire to automobiles to fertilizer can be used as weapons, the determining factor in whether a violent crime occurs is the criminal, not his or her tool.
The most commonly quoted statistic in favor of the assault weapons ban is that there is a “66 percent decrease in assault weapons used in crime.” This only shows how the ban is irrelevant. The statistic says nothing about violent crime as a whole, which could have easily risen during this time period. The effect of the assault weapons ban is apparently small. One source, the anti-ban Web site www.awbansunset.com, gives statistics showing that the banned weapons were used in only a small percent of violent crime.
Despite its ineffectiveness as a defense against violent crime, the assault weapons ban is a piece of outstanding legislation in at least one way. Its sunset provision, which caused the bill to expire and pass out of law 10 years after it came into effect, is an excellent idea.
Most laws remain on the books indefinitely once they are passed, regardless of effectiveness or relevance. As a result, laws in the United States are a morass so complex that they force lawyers to specialize to comprehend their field. Citizens have no chance of understanding the laws to any usable detail, and it is ridiculous to expect them to obey laws they cannot understand. Even laws that are understandable may be archaic, ineffective or ludicrous. One of the more extreme cases is a Tennessee law requires a man to walk ahead of any vehicle driven by a woman.
Sunset provisions force legislators to deal with the consequences of their actions. Ineffective or harmful laws, like the Assault Weapons Ban or the Patriot Act, are guaranteed a review of their benefits to society. They also open a middle ground between political polls. If a law is guaranteed to come up for review in a few years, its opponents may be more willing to test it, especially if they are confident in its ineffectiveness. Of course, such provisions should not be used as an excuse to pass laws which are definitely harmful.
Also, sunset provisions prevent laws from accumulating in complex or contradictory masses, making it easy for citizens to understand and obey the law. They recognize that the law’s effects are unknowable until it has been on the books for an extended amount of time. Most importantly, sunset provisions force Congress and voters to acknowledge the faults of our legal system and work to correct them.
Despite its ineffectiveness, the Assault Weapons Ban is exemplary law. The ban should be viewed as a landmark piece of legislation, not for its attempted purpose, but the built-in acknowledgement that it could be wrong. All new laws should include such provisions and most old laws should be rewritten to include them.
Nathan Alday is a senior aerospace engineering major. He can be reached at [email protected].