Letter Regarding WSJ Article

In last Friday's WSJ, there was an article regarding the Alabama shooting incident. There were several factual inaccuracies that I felt I had to write in about. To wit:

I'm sure you've already heard from a number of gun owners regarding the your article "Gun-Control Calls Are Renewed" in the March 13th edition of The Wall Street Journal. As a WSJ reader and a participant in the so-called "gun culture," I similarly felt that I should point out a few things, and correct where necessary.

First of all, I think the WSJ is an exceptional publication. However, it still tends to not report on firearm-related topics in an entirely neutral fashion. Case in point, this article made mention of the expired "Assault Weapons Ban" in connection with the shooting incident, leading the reader to conclude that a renewed AWB should follow. There wasn't much of a counter-argument presented, which was highly unfortunate.

The use of the term "semi-automatic assault rifle" is an oxymoron. "Assault rifle" has a specific definition, being a selective-fire rifle with detachable magazine that uses an intermediate cartridge between handgun rounds, which would be termed a "submachine gun," and full-fledged battle rifle rounds. Examples: Submachine gun - H&K MP5, IMI Uzi, Auto-Ordinance Thompson; assault rifle - Colt M16/M4, AK-47; battle rifle - M14, H&K G3, FN FAL. You meant to use "semi-automatic assault weapon," which is a political term used in legislation such as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (HR 3355, Sec. 110102) and has no meaning in weapons technology.

As already corrected in the online version of the article, "unlicensed dealer" is a misnomer. (Though it reminds me of the pithy remark, "Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist'.") The Gun Control Act of 1968 established the requirements of the current Federal Firearms License (FFL) system, requiring persons dealing in weapons for business obtain a license. Not doing so brings down the wrath of the ATF on one's head, which usually leads to imprisonment or death. Malum prohibitum, indeed. You meant "private sellers," not the politically charged and biased phrase used. Legally, I could sell any gun in my collection, since it doesn't (yet) include NFA weapons, to anyone not prohibited by law from possessing firearms, whether at a gun show or in a grocery store parking lot. (There are a few wrinkles in that, such as selling across state boundaries, and state laws mandating certain conditions for transfers.) The point is that "dealers" aim to make a profit, and such sales of firearms require a license.

Lastly, the article contained this statement: "Whether the expired federal law would have banned the particular semiautomatic assault rifles that Mr. McLendon is alleged to have used is unclear." This is in error. The text of the expired AWB specifically names the Colt AR-15 and clones. The typical SKS configuration is also banned, as it usually includes a detachable box magazine, bayonet, and grenade launcher mount. (SKSes with internal magazines are not affected.) However, regardless whether the AWB was in effect or not, transfer of affected items existing at the time of the ban was still legal. Such legislation simply makes guns more expensive, which is discrimination against low income individuals, who probably live in areas where they need weapons the most. Subsequent proposed AWB legislation specifically names the SKS in the ban list.

I find the mere prospect of a renewed AWB to be disgusting. Other than such legislation is in direct conflict with the Constitution, why truncate others' freedoms just because a few people can't handle it? Apparently, arrogance -- in certain legislators and their supporters presuming to know what's best for everybody -- knows no bounds.

Relevant links:

• Assault rifle
(Wikipedia)
• HR3355 (the expired AWB, Title XI, Sec 110102)
HR1022 (proposed in 2007)
• HR6257 (proposed in 2008)