The "Assault Weapon Ban" expired last night at midnight. This was a bill written and passed during the Clinton administration which made certain features of semiautomatic weapons illegal for the people (but not for law enforcement or military). It had a 10 year built-in expiration date. Politically, this is a concession they made to get it passed. Ostensibly, the idea was that after 10 years we would evaluate the effect and decide whether to renew it.

The most significant impact the law had on gun owners was that it limited magazines to 10 round capacity. Most of its other aspects were minor or even purely cosmetic. Fully automatic machine guns have absolutely nothing to do with this law. They have been strictly regulated since 1934 and continue to be even after the AWB expires.

EMPIRICAL DATA

Now, 10 years later, the facts are in and we have made the intended assessment. Our most reliable sources of criminal statistics have completed their studies and given us the results. These include the Dept. of Justice, the National Institute for Justice (the research arm of the DOJ), the BATF, and the Center for Disease Control. All of these organizations have analyzed the data or conducted their own studies and concluded that this law had absolutely no measurable effect on crime.

This was to be expected, since long guns of any kind are used in about 3% of gun crimes, and so-called "assault weapons" make up only about 1% of guns used in crime.

From a pragmatic view, any law that costs millions in enforcement and compliance but produces no measureable result should be scrapped. But this line of reasoning, while correct, is incomplete and dangerous. Good public policy should not only be supported by empirical data but also be inspired by sound principles.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or sporting. These are useful pasttimes which help protect and preserve our natural resouces, but they are not the focus of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is about the right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and the state. The framers made this clear in the text of the amendment itself, and more explicitly clear in numerous other writings, for example Hamilton in Federalist # 29. This position is also overwhelmingly supported by constitutional scholars and by the Supreme Court of the United States.

In modern terms we would say it is a recognition of the most basic human right: that of self defense. This is what the framers meant when they said these were not privileges granted by governments, but rights which descend from God or nature.

MILITARY FIREARMS

In the Miller case the SCOTUS upheld the 2nd amendment as an individual right of the people, yet said that it did not apply to Miller's sawed off shotgun because that gun had no military purpose. This line of reasoning would suggest that military firearms are precisely the kind of guns that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear. Not surprisingly, that view is consistent with the written historical record of the framers of our Constitution.

History and tradition in our country supports this. The veterans who defended our nation during war often brought their service weapons home with them when they returned. They continued to use these weapons for hunting, sporting, self defense and other lawful purposes. These firearms were often passed from one generation to the next. We still see these weapons today at our local shooting clubs: '03 springfields, M1 garands and government .45s. In fact, these weapons are more accurate and powerful and most of them fire at the same rate as those banned in the AWB.

Thus the AWB not only fails to reduce crime, it violates our civil rights and breaks centuries of historical tradition. It is these military style weapons that the people as individual law abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear. And it is sporting firearms which have only an indirect 2nd amendment protection. This indirect protection is based on the common sense notion that it would be absurd to ban hunting rifles and shotguns while guaranteeing the right to own military firearms which are potentially more deadly.

CONCLUSION

When determining what firepower the 2nd amendment guarantees to the individual citizen, I would suggest the following guideline: the standard issue military firearms (rifle, shotgun and handgun). This establishes a clear unambiguous standard, yet one that changes with time and technology. It secures the intent of our framers, which was to provide immediate military readiness in time of need and to recognize the fundamental right of people to defend themselves. By direct implication it also supports the rights of sportsmen and hunters. Finally, it virtually eliminates political manipulation or pandering on the issue of banning guns based on actual or perceived firepower.