7 April 1997
Source:
http://library.whitehouse.gov/
See links to assault weapons report
THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary ________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release April 6, 1998 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN The Rose Garden 10:55 A.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Secretary Rubin. Thank you for your efforts. Madam Attorney General, thank you. Mr. Vice President, thank you. And to the members of the law enforcement community and Secretary Kelly, Mr. McGaw, Attorney General Miller, Congressman Engel, to representatives of hand gun control and the victims of violent crime, and to all of you who have come here today, I thank you very much. As the Vice President and the Attorney General and the Secretary of Treasury have said, five years ago we made a commitment as an administration to recover our nation's streets from crime and violence, to provide security for our families and our children. It required a new determination by communities and by government. It took a new philosophy of law enforcement, based not on tough talk, which was always in ample supply, but on tough action and smart action, a philosophy based simply on what works -- community policing, strong anti-gang efforts, targeted deterrence, smarter, tougher penalties; a comprehensive strategy that includes all these elements and puts community policing at its core. We're well on our way to putting 100,000 new police officers on the street, ahead of schedule. And as the Vice President just told us, crime rates are dropping all across America to a 25-year low. Violent crime is down. Property crime is down. And murder is down dramatically. From the Crime Bill to the Brady Bill, from the assault weapons ban to the Violence Against Women Act, our strategy is showing results. And Americans should take both pride and comfort in this progress. But statistics tell only part of the story. The real measure of our progress is whether responsibility and respect for the law are on the rise. The real test of our resolve is whether parents can unlock their front doors with confidence and let their children play in the front yard without fear. And the fact remains that there are still far too many children in harm's way, too many families behind locked doors, too many guns in the hands of too many criminals. No statistics can measure the pain or the brave resilience of the families shattered by gun violence. Some of them are here with us today, and I would like to acknowledge them -- people like Dan Gross, Tawanna Matthews, Brian Miller, Byrl Phillips-Taylor. Byrl's 17-year-old son was killed with an AK 47. Tragedies like theirs are a brutal reminder of the task still before us. They are a challenge and a call to action that we as a nation cannot ignore, and I thank these people for being willing to continue the fight through their pain. Thank you very much, all of you. (Applause.) If we are going to move forward in building a safer, stronger America, all of us -- police and parents, communities and public officials -- must work together. We must remain vigilant. Last November, I asked the Treasury Department to conduct the thorough review Secretary Rubin has just presented. That is why our administration has concluded that the import of assault weapons that use large-capacity military magazines should be banned. As everyone knows, you don't need an Uzi to go deer hunting. You don't need an AK 47 to go skeet shooting. These are military weapons, weapons of war. They were never meant for a day in the country, and they are certainly not meant for a night on the streets. Today we are working to make sure they stay off our streets. Two successive administrations have acted on this principle. In 1989, President Bush banned the import of 43 semi-automatic assault rifles. In 1994, this administration banned the domestic manufacture of certain assault weapons. And in Congress, Senator Dianne Feinstein and the late Congressman Walter Capps led the fight against foreign gun manufacturers who evade the law. As long as those manufacturers can make minor cosmetic modifications to weapons of war, our work is not done. And we must act swiftly and strongly. That is what Secretary Rubin's announcement amounts to today. We are doing our best to say, you can read the fine print in our law and our regulations all you want, and you can keep making your minor changes, but we're going to do our best to keep our people alive and stop you from making a dollar in the wrong way. (Applause.) It is our sworn duty to uphold the law, but it is also our moral obligation -- our obligation to the children and families of law-abiding citizens, an obligation to stop the terrible scourge of gun violence. As parents, we teach our children every day to distinguish right from wrong. As a nation, we must also remember where to draw the line. Today, we draw it clearly and indelibly. If we do this, if we follow the recommendations set forth in this report, we chart the right course for America, toward a future more free of fear and a new century brimming with confidence and great promise. Again, to all of you who played any role in this important day, I thank you on behalf of the people and the children and the future of the United States. Thank you very much. (Applause.) END 11:03 A.M. EDT
THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary _____________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release April 6, 1998 BACKGROUND BRIEFING BY SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL The Briefing Room 1:03 P.M. EDT SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The event today in the Rose Garden was -- Q Can I ask a quick question? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. Q Why does this have to be a senior administration official as opposed to identifying you? You're a prominent, respected, knowledgeable person on this issue. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It was a decision made because I'm in the nomination process for Customs Commissioner, and it was decided that it would be best, tactically, to do this on background. Q But when you come back at Customs Commissioner, we're going to get you. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay. (Laughter.) I'll be ready, maybe. The event today was the notification by the Secretary of the Treasury to the President that he had accepted the findings of a panel concerning modified semiautomatic weapons. And the panel was put together at the direction of the President November 14, 1997, to examine the issue of whether or not guns that were banned in 1989 were in fact modified to circumvent the ban, and in fact whether or not they met the sporting purposes test. In 1968 the Gun Control Act set up a standard, a standard saying that firearms generally could not be imported into the country unless they were generally seen as being particularly suitable or readily adaptable to sporting purposes. In 1989 the findings were that some 43 guns did not meet that criteria. What happened is manufacturers of those same guns took off from the weapons the indicia of -- what were then decided to be indicia of military weapons -- bayonet studs, flash suppressors, night sights, folding stocks -- and in fact began to export to this country in essence the same weapon, the same functioning weapon. And what this study showed is, number one, that the weapons -- we did a fairly thorough analysis and examination of questionnaires, of hunting guides, of a literature search, of editors of hunting magazines. This study showed that the guns were not used for sporting purposes for the most part, and secondly, that they all had large-capacity military magazines -- magazines with a capacity of over 11 rounds. And this was seen to be a fundamental feature of military-style weapons. So what happened is the study looked at five design types which encompassed a total of 59 weapons, and all but one of those weapons were deemed to be inappropriate because they were, in effect, military-style weapons that were not used for sporting purposes. That's it in a nutshell. The report is out. I think it's a very well done report. It's available to you. It's also available on the Internet. It's a 38-page report, but it has lots of tabs in it and it has pictures of the weapons as they were and as they were modified, and you'll see that they look essentially the same. Q Do you know how many of these weapons -- had all of these weapons been licensed and the licenses were on hold, and how many weapons actually made it into the United States to be warehoused? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Since 1991, about 425,000 of these weapons have been imported. However, there are pending 600,000 -- permits for the importation of up to 600,000 of these weapons. And there are pending applications of about 1 million more for permits. When I say -- the numbers I'm using are the maximum numbers for weapons that may be imported. That's what they asked for; it doesn't necessarily mean they're going to import that number of weapons. Q Can you tell us, the M-1 replica that was used in Jonesboro is not included in any of this; is that correct? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's right. These only deal with imported weapons. The M-1 is a domestically produced weapon. Q So none of the weapons allegedly used by the two kids in Jonesboro would have been covered under any of these new bans. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's correct. Q Including the clip, the 30 -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, the clips, you have to go back to the 1994 assault weapons ban. That law prospectively banned the manufacture of clips of more than 10 rounds. I don't know -- Q You don't know whether -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Through the media I've learned that they may have had some 30-round clips in their possession. I don't know when they were manufactured. Q So what does this today do -- Attorney General Reno mentioned the tragedy of Jonesboro. What could Americans look at here and say, well, this makes them feel better, this is the right thing to do, considering what happened in Jonesboro? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, we have -- and you'll see it in the report -- indications that these weapons have been used in crimes, and the number of traces that these weapons are undergoing, or the number of these weapons involved in traces, has been increasing in the last three years. So I don't know if you can draw a direct correlation between the events in Jonesboro, but clearly we feel that these weapons have been used in crimes, will continue to be -- or would have continued to be used in crimes if in fact we didn't take this step. Q But weapons of these types can be manufactured here in the United States now. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, this ruling has to do with just imported weapons. Now, there are weapons -- of course, if you look at the 1994 assault weapons ban, that ban affects 19 specific weapons. So if they don't fit into -- they're not imported and they don't fit into this criteria and they don't fit into the ones specific enumerated in the 1994 law, yes. Q But, theoretically, if I'm a manufacturer of guns in the United States, I could manufacture a gun like the one that's been banned for import today. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No. Well, the large-capacity magazines have been banned in 1994. Q You can still build the same kind of gun in this country as the ones that you're banning as long as it's sports-modified, right? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. The sports provision really has to do only with the 1968 law. But again, you are limited as far as the magazine capacity in this country. Q But my point is, if there is a pent-up demand for these kinds of guns, which the 1.6 million applications would assume that there is, if there is still a demand, then for a domestic gun manufacturer, I mean, now is the time to step in and meet that demand, right? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I guess we'll have to see what the Congress's response is if, in fact, that happens. Q That would be allowed? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Again, that depends. If you look at the magazine capacity, which was prohibited by Congress in 1994, magazines of over 10 rounds, if, in fact, they manufactured a weapon that looked like this that had a magazine capacity less than 10 rounds, it could happen at this point in time. Q From a technical standpoint, the weapons that you're banning today, mechanically, with the exception of the magazines, are very little different from other semiautomatic weapons that are allowed on the market, correct? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Mechanically, yes. But the whole issue here is large capacity military magazines. I mean, mechanically, most guns work the same way, so the question is how many rounds can you put out in a short period of time. Our view is that these are in essence military weapons. You've just taken off some of the accoutrements of military weapons, but you still have the same type of functioning weapon, particularly if you have a large-capacity magazine. So if you put out 30 rounds in a very short period of time, you've got a military weapon. Q A semiautomatic weapon is a semiautomatic weapon is a semiautomatic weapon. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's correct. Q It's just the magazines that are different. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's right. And that's what we're focusing on with this decision. Q Some anti-gun groups say that this is just a band-aid, that you're not going far enough, and that within a few months or a year or two the same kind of loopholes and circumvention will occur that will make these kinds of guns available on the U.S. market. Is the administration planning any steps to prevent that from happening? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think we have to respond to the situations as they occur. What this decision does is add large-capacity magazines to the military characteristics that were used in the 1989 decision. Now, again, it's important to focus on the fact that we're only looking at the universe of weapons that we were directed to look at. We're not making this a larger ban than the 58 weapons that we looked at. If in fact something develops akin to what you're talking about, then I think we'd have to respond -- or we may respond in some fashion, or Congress may respond. But this decision, again, is only focused on 59 weapons. Q So you can have a weapon that takes a magazine. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: A weapon that takes a magazine, that's correct. Q As long as it's under 10. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. We're talking about these weapons now. These are imported weapons. So if you had an imported weapon -- again, the criteria here is, are they generally acceptable and used for sporting purposes. Q But I'm trying to distinguish the difference between the domestic variety and the imported variety. If you have a domestic weapon that takes a magazine, unless of course you control what magazines people have, then how would it be different from the imported weapons that you banned today? In other words, you're banning any weapon that can hold a magazine, or only weapons that have magazines of larger than 10 rounds, and that's not the weapon, that's the magazine. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's correct. That's right. Well, these weapons are configured to accept magazines of greater than 10 rounds, so that's what we're doing. We're banning these weapons because they can -- first of all, not used for sporting purposes based on our survey and, secondly, can accept a magazine greater than 10 rounds. Now, domestically, that's a whole other issue. Q So, in other words, if you were an exporter from somewhere else, you could send in a weapon here that would only take a magazine that would take 10 rounds, and that would be legal. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Correct. Q Do you know what the difference is between the -- what is it, whatever it is -- the one that was allowed and the 58 that were disallowed? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It doesn't -- it just doesn't have the capacity, the capability of taking a large-round magazine. I think it has to do with the aperture where you fit the magazine in. Q So can you give us some statistics on how often these kinds of weapons that are being banned today are used in homicides and other crimes? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't know how specific we can get. If you look in this report here, there are a couple of charts that talk about crime use and it talks about the fact that they're going up as far as the number of traces are concerned. In other words, traces take place when a gun is used in a crime -- the crime gun. You put it into ATF, for instance, and they trace the gun as to where it came from. Those numbers are going up. There is some anecdotal information in here about crimes that are taking place. I can't tell you specifically how many of them are used for homicides. Quite frankly, the information is not that refined. Q And if I understand you correctly, 425,000 of these got into the United States and were sold prior to the freeze you established. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. Q I'm a little unclear on the magazine issue. Take one of these weapons that's banned now under this order, can you make it legal for import simply by clipping a 10-round magazine on it? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The criteria really is the sporting purposes test. The Secretary of the Treasury has a lot of discretion. If you look again in this report, you will see a lot of legislative language and history from the 1968 report. So what we did was, we did a survey that, are these guns being used for sporting purposes. The answer came back: Certainly not -- some are, but a very small number. In addition to that, then you look at the magazine issue which is indicia to us that it is a military style weapon. So the criteria is the sporting purposes use and, in addition, the magazine. But the controlling is whether or not these are used for sporting purposes. Q So the answer is clearly no; putting a 10-round magazine on any one of these weapons will not make it legal for -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I wouldn't say it's clearly no. I think there is an appeals process here that will take place within the next 30 days, and that might be an argument that would be made by a particular manufacturer. I can't answer that question -- Q The position of the Treasury Department in that argument would be that putting a 10-round magazine on one of these weapons would not make it legal for import. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Correct. Q Are large-capacity magazines and smaller magazines the same size, or is it something about the mechanism in the weapon that makes it capable of taking more than 10 rounds in rapid fire? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It's something about the aperture and the mechanism of the weapon, because you have to be able to have enough power to pump out these number of rounds, is my understanding. Q In the appeals process, does the Treasury Secretary have the right to just move in unilaterally and say, "I'm going to do what I'm going to do," or can he be preempted by the courts or whatever? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Certainly there's always a possibility of litigation. The appeals process is for 30 days, but that would not forestall litigation moving forward on another front. Q So presumably, this could go on for a long time. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The decision has been made by the Secretary, we're going forward as of today, and the decision will be in place -- it's in place today. Now, whether someone goes forward in litigation and looks for some sort of injunctive relief, I can't predict that. But the decision is in effect today. Q How does the appeals process work? How does that move forward? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There's a 30-day period of time in which individuals who feel aggrieved can appeal directly to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. There is a kind of a standard process for these appeals. Q This is kind of -- would you characterize this as a low-level bureaucratic review that kind of got higher profile because of the President's interest in the case? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I wouldn't characterize it as that. I would say it's a relatively high-level review. There were two committees, as explained in the book here. There was a technical committee made up of ATF and people from the Treasury, and then there was a committee at a higher level that -- oversight. This is direction from the President to the Secretary of the Treasury to do a report under 20 days, and that's what we did. It's pretty high level for us. Q How long has the report been ready? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Oh, I would say perhaps a week, yes, about a week. Q Was it stepped up at all because of Jonesboro? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, sir. We had a 120-day time limit. As a matter of fact, we went over it a little bit. Q What happens to the guns -- they're what, about 500,000 or 600,000 guns that are actually warehoused now -- are they -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No. There are some guns that the Customs Service has, but it's not that large a number. It's smaller. They're in Customs warehouses. But the 600,000 and the million, those two numbers are permits and applications for permits. They don't represent guns that are in the country. Q Permits for importation? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. Q When you say 10 rounds are legal, how many bullets is that? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Ten bullets. Q Ten bullets, without reloading? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. Q If you had the authority, if the government had the authority to ban the weapons that are being banned today before now, why wasn't the authority used until now? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: This was a process. The weapons were, in essence, banned in 1989. What happened is the modifications took place. It's kind of an incremental basis. And then in 1994 Congress passed the Assault Weapons Ban, and in that ban was the recognition that large-capacity magazines are something that should be prohibited. So you take all of that together, moving over time, I think this is kind of a natural progression. I personally don't see it as being a problem. Q But why wouldn't these have been banned by Congress? Why wouldn't that have covered these weapons, if large-capacity magazines -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, Congress only banned the magazines and then they banned 19 specific weapons by model number. These weapons were not included. THE PRESS: Thank you. END 1:20 P.M. EDT
THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary _____________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release April 6, 1998 BACKGROUND BRIEFING BY SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL The Briefing Room 1:03 P.M. EDT SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The event today was the notification by the Secretary of the Treasury to the President that he had accepted the findings of a panel concerning modified semiautomatic weapons. And the panel was put together at the direction of the President November 14, 1997, to examine the issue of whether or not guns that were banned in 1989 were in fact modified to circumvent the ban, and in fact whether or not they met the sporting purposes test. In 1968 the Gun Control Act set up a standard, a standard saying that firearms generally could not be imported into the country unless they were generally seen as being particularly suitable or readily adaptable to sporting purposes. In 1989 the findings were that some 43 guns did not meet that criteria. What happened is manufacturers of those same guns took off from the weapons the indicia of -- what were then decided to be indicia of military weapons -- bayonet studs, flash suppressors, night sights, folding stocks -- and in fact began to export to this country in essence the same weapon, the same functioning weapon. And what this study showed is, number one, that the weapons -- we did a fairly thorough analysis and examination of questionnaires, of hunting guides, of a literature search, of editors of hunting magazines. This study showed that the guns were not used for sporting purposes for the most part, and secondly, that they all had large-capacity military magazines -- magazines with a capacity of over 11 rounds. And this was seen to be a fundamental feature of military-style weapons. So what happened is the study looked at five design types which encompassed a total of 59 weapons, and all but one of those weapons were deemed to be inappropriate because they were, in effect, military-style weapons that were not used for sporting purposes. That's it in a nutshell. The report is out. I think it's a very well done report. It's available to you. It's also available on the Internet. It's a 38-page report, but it has lots of tabs in it and it has pictures of the weapons as they were and as they were modified, and you'll see that they look essentially the same. Q Do you know how many of these weapons -- had all of these weapons been licensed and the licenses were on hold, and how many weapons actually made it into the United States to be warehoused? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Since 1991, about 425,000 of these weapons have been imported. However, there are pending 600,000 -- permits for the importation of up to 600,000 of these weapons. And there are pending applications of about 1 million more for permits. When I say -- the numbers I'm using are the maximum numbers for weapons that may be imported. That's what they asked for; it doesn't necessarily mean they're going to import that number of weapons. Q Can you tell us, the M-1 replica that was used in Jonesboro is not included in any of this; is that correct? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's right. These only deal with imported weapons. The M-1 is a domestically produced weapon. Q So none of the weapons allegedly used by the two kids in Jonesboro would have been covered under any of these new bans. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's correct. Q Including the clip, the 30 -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, the clips, you have to go back to the 1994 assault weapons ban. That law prospectively banned the manufacture of clips of more than 10 rounds. I don't know -- Q You don't know whether -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Through the media I've learned that they may have had some 30-round clips in their possession. I don't know when they were manufactured. Q So what does this today do -- Attorney General Reno mentioned the tragedy of Jonesboro. What could Americans look at here and say, well, this makes them feel better, this is the right thing to do, considering what happened in Jonesboro? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, we have -- and you'll see it in the report -- indications that these weapons have been used in crimes, and the number of traces that these weapons are undergoing, or the number of these weapons involved in traces, has been increasing in the last three years. So I don't know if you can draw a direct correlation between the events in Jonesboro, but clearly we feel that these weapons have been used in crimes, will continue to be -- or would have continued to be used in crimes if in fact we didn't take this step. Q But weapons of these types can be manufactured here in the United States now. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, this ruling has to do with just imported weapons. Now, there are weapons -- of course, if you look at the 1994 assault weapons ban, that ban affects 19 specific weapons. So if they don't fit into -- they're not imported and they don't fit into this criteria and they don't fit into the ones specific enumerated in the 1994 law, yes. Q But, theoretically, if I'm a manufacturer of guns in the United States, I could manufacture a gun like the one that's been banned for import today. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No. Well, the large-capacity magazines have been banned in 1994. Q You can still build the same kind of gun in this country as the ones that you're banning as long as it's sports-modified, right? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. The sports provision really has to do only with the 1968 law. But again, you are limited as far as the magazine capacity in this country. Q But my point is, if there is a pent-up demand for these kinds of guns, which the 1.6 million applications would assume that there is, if there is still a demand, then for a domestic gun manufacturer, I mean, now is the time to step in and meet that demand, right? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I guess we'll have to see what the Congress's response is if, in fact, that happens. Q That would be allowed? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Again, that depends. If you look at the magazine capacity, which was prohibited by Congress in 1994, magazines of over 10 rounds, if, in fact, they manufactured a weapon that looked like this that had a magazine capacity less than 10 rounds, it could happen at this point in time. Q From a technical standpoint, the weapons that you're banning today, mechanically, with the exception of the magazines, are very little different from other semiautomatic weapons that are allowed on the market, correct? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Mechanically, yes. But the whole issue here is large capacity military magazines. I mean, mechanically, most guns work the same way, so the question is how many rounds can you put out in a short period of time. Our view is that these are in essence military weapons. You've just taken off some of the accoutrements of military weapons, but you still have the same type of functioning weapon, particularly if you have a large-capacity magazine. So if you put out 30 rounds in a very short period of time, you've got a military weapon. Q A semiautomatic weapon is a semiautomatic weapon is a semiautomatic weapon. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's correct. Q It's just the magazines that are different. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's right. And that's what we're focusing on with this decision. Q Some anti-gun groups say that this is just a band-aid, that you're not going far enough, and that within a few months or a year or two the same kind of loopholes and circumvention will occur that will make these kinds of guns available on the U.S. market. Is the administration planning any steps to prevent that from happening? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think we have to respond to the situations as they occur. What this decision does is add large-capacity magazines to the military characteristics that were used in the 1989 decision. Now, again, it's important to focus on the fact that we're only looking at the universe of weapons that we were directed to look at. We're not making this a larger ban than the 58 weapons that we looked at. If in fact something develops akin to what you're talking about, then I think we'd have to respond -- or we may respond in some fashion, or Congress may respond. But this decision, again, is only focused on 59 weapons. Q So you can have a weapon that takes a magazine. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: A weapon that takes a magazine, that's correct. Q As long as it's under 10. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. We're talking about these weapons now. These are imported weapons. So if you had an imported weapon -- again, the criteria here is, are they generally acceptable and used for sporting purposes. Q But I'm trying to distinguish the difference between the domestic variety and the imported variety. If you have a domestic weapon that takes a magazine, unless of course you control what magazines people have, then how would it be different from the imported weapons that you banned today? In other words, you're banning any weapon that can hold a magazine, or only weapons that have magazines of larger than 10 rounds, and that's not the weapon, that's the magazine. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's correct. That's right. Well, these weapons are configured to accept magazines of greater than 10 rounds, so that's what we're doing. We're banning these weapons because they can -- first of all, not used for sporting purposes based on our survey and, secondly, can accept a magazine greater than 10 rounds. Now, domestically, that's a whole other issue. Q So, in other words, if you were an exporter from somewhere else, you could send in a weapon here that would only take a magazine that would take 10 rounds, and that would be legal. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Correct. Q Do you know what the difference is between the -- what is it, whatever it is -- the one that was allowed and the 58 that were disallowed? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It doesn't -- it just doesn't have the capacity, the capability of taking a large-round magazine. I think it has to do with the aperture where you fit the magazine in. Q So can you give us some statistics on how often these kinds of weapons that are being banned today are used in homicides and other crimes? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't know how specific we can get. If you look in this report here, there are a couple of charts that talk about crime use and it talks about the fact that they're going up as far as the number of traces are concerned. In other words, traces take place when a gun is used in a crime -- the crime gun. You put it into ATF, for instance, and they trace the gun as to where it came from. Those numbers are going up. There is some anecdotal information in here about crimes that are taking place. I can't tell you specifically how many of them are used for homicides. Quite frankly, the information is not that refined. Q And if I understand you correctly, 425,000 of these got into the United States and were sold prior to the freeze you established. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. Q I'm a little unclear on the magazine issue. Take one of these weapons that's banned now under this order, can you make it legal for import simply by clipping a 10-round magazine on it? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The criteria really is the sporting purposes test. The Secretary of the Treasury has a lot of discretion. If you look again in this report, you will see a lot of legislative language and history from the 1968 report. So what we did was, we did a survey that, are these guns being used for sporting purposes. The answer came back: Certainly not -- some are, but a very small number. In addition to that, then you look at the magazine issue which is indicia to us that it is a military style weapon. So the criteria is the sporting purposes use and, in addition, the magazine. But the controlling is whether or not these are used for sporting purposes. Q So the answer is clearly no; putting a 10-round magazine on any one of these weapons will not make it legal for -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I wouldn't say it's clearly no. I think there is an appeals process here that will take place within the next 30 days, and that might be an argument that would be made by a particular manufacturer. I can't answer that question -- Q The position of the Treasury Department in that argument would be that putting a 10-round magazine on one of these weapons would not make it legal for import. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Correct. Q Are large-capacity magazines and smaller magazines the same size, or is it something about the mechanism in the weapon that makes it capable of taking more than 10 rounds in rapid fire? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It's something about the aperture and the mechanism of the weapon, because you have to be able to have enough power to pump out these number of rounds, is my understanding. Q In the appeals process, does the Treasury Secretary have the right to just move in unilaterally and say, "I'm going to do what I'm going to do," or can he be preempted by the courts or whatever? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Certainly there's always a possibility of litigation. The appeals process is for 30 days, but that would not forestall litigation moving forward on another front. Q So presumably, this could go on for a long time. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The decision has been made by the Secretary, we're going forward as of today, and the decision will be in place -- it's in place today. Now, whether someone goes forward in litigation and looks for some sort of injunctive relief, I can't predict that. But the decision is in effect today. Q How does the appeals process work? How does that move forward? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There's a 30-day period of time in which individuals who feel aggrieved can appeal directly to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. There is a kind of a standard process for these appeals. Q This is kind of -- would you characterize this as a low-level bureaucratic review that kind of got higher profile because of the President's interest in the case? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I wouldn't characterize it as that. I would say it's a relatively high-level review. There were two committees, as explained in the book here. There was a technical committee made up of ATF and people from the Treasury, and then there was a committee at a higher level that -- oversight. This is direction from the President to the Secretary of the Treasury to do a report under 20 days, and that's what we did. It's pretty high level for us. Q How long has the report been ready? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Oh, I would say perhaps a week, yes, about a week. Q Was it stepped up at all because of Jonesboro? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, sir. We had a 120-day time limit. As a matter of fact, we went over it a little bit. Q What happens to the guns -- they're what, about 500,000 or 600,000 guns that are actually warehoused now -- are they -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No. There are some guns that the Customs Service has, but it's not that large a number. It's smaller. They're in Customs warehouses. But the 600,000 and the million, those two numbers are permits and applications for permits. They don't represent guns that are in the country. Q Permits for importation? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. Q When you say 10 rounds are legal, how many bullets is that? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Ten bullets. Q Ten bullets, without reloading? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. Q If you had the authority, if the government had the authority to ban the weapons that are being banned today before now, why wasn't the authority used until now? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: This was a process. The weapons were, in essence, banned in 1989. What happened is the modifications took place. It's kind of an incremental basis. And then in 1994 Congress passed the Assault Weapons Ban, and in that ban was the recognition that large-capacity magazines are something that should be prohibited. So you take all of that together, moving over time, I think this is kind of a natural progression. I personally don't see it as being a problem. Q But why wouldn't these have been banned by Congress? Why wouldn't that have covered these weapons, if large-capacity magazines -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, Congress only banned the magazines and then they banned 19 specific weapons by model number. These weapons were not included. THE PRESS: Thank you. END 1:20 P.M. EDT
[Excerpts on weapons ban]
THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary _____________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release April 6, 1998 PRESS BRIEFING BY MIKE MCCURRY The Briefing Room 1:25 P.M. EDT Q Mike, on the import gun ban, why hasn't the Administration asked Congress to stop domestic manufacturers from making these same type of weapons? MR. McCURRY: You had a good person who could have answered that question here a minute ago. I'm not aware that the issue we're facing today dealt with the import ban which arises out of the 1989 decision by President Bush, and in a way sort of follows up implementation under the '94 act, but I'd have to check and see what contact there has been with domestic manufacturers or what restrictions exist. I just don't know. Q I'll follow up on Dave's question in a different venue. For the cameras, the NRA says that this is just another way of going to the eventual total ban of guns. How does the White House respond? MR. McCURRY: I think the scope of this decision is quite clear and the existing statute is quite clear, and that's not something that has been advocated by the President or is under consideration.
http://www.usia.gov/current/news/latest/98040607.tlt.html?/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml
06 April 1998
(Another step to keep guns out of hands of criminals) (560) By Wendy S. Ross USIA White House Correspondent Washington -- The Treasury Department has determined that 58 types of modified semiautomatic assault rifles that accept large capacity military magazines cannot be imported into the United States, President Clinton announced April 6. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who oversees the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), made the determination following a 120-day review by the Treasury Department and ATF of import permit applications for foreign-made guns. President Clinton last November asked for the review to ensure that the foreign-made guns imported into the United States are used only for sporting purposes. "As everyone knows, you don't need an Uzi to go deer hunting," the President said. "You don't need an AK-47 to go skeet shooting. These are military weapons, weapons of war. They were never meant for a day in the country, and they are certainly not meant for a night on the streets. Today we are working to make sure they stay off our streets." Under the ban, about a million and a half of the weapons covered already were on order and will be affected by this decision, White House officials said. Also speaking at the Rose Garden event were Rubin and Attorney General Janet Reno. Rubin said that since taking office one of President Clinton's highest priorities has been to make America's streets and communities safer. "Great progress has been made on this score," he said, as evidenced by the reduction in the United States of violent crimes over the past five years. A key element of the President's strategy to fight crime has been his action to make it harder for criminals to get guns, particularly semi-automatic assault weapons, Rubin said. In 1989 ATF prohibited the importation into the United States of a series of semi-automatic assault rifles which had specified military features, he said. The 1989 decision along with the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban have made it harder for criminals to obtain semi-automatic assault weapons. "But neither measure prevented rifles with the ability to accept large capacity military magazines, which fire large numbers of bullets in a very short time frame without reloading, from entering our country," Rubin said. "Today we are taking steps to stop the flow of these deadly rapid firing weapons by prohibiting the importation of designated semi-automatic rifles that have the ability to accept large capacity military magazines." This decision, he added, will in no way affect the importation of true sporting firearms but will prohibit the importation of dangerous weapons that are attractive to criminals. "Mr. President, today you take another very, very important step for making this nation a safer place for all of its citizens," Reno said. She said the findings of the Treasury Department report titled "Department of the Treasury Study on the Sporting Suitability of Modified Semiautomatic Assault Rifles" released April 6 "are vitally important." A ban on the importation of assault weapons that have no legitimate sporting purpose will go a long way towards achieving a reduction in gun violence in the United States, Reno said. Attending the Rose Garden event were US law enforcement officials, members of gun control groups, and family members of victims of gun violence.
06 April 1998
(Clinton says Treasury concludes 50 kinds not importable) (470) (The following Fact Sheet on Banning the Importation of Modified Assault Weapons was issued by the White House on April 6, 1998) (begin White House Fact Sheet) THE WHITE HOUSE Banning the Importation of Modified Assault Weapons April 6, 1998 Announcement: Today, in response to a previously issued memorandum, the President announced that the Treasury Department has concluded that more than 50 kinds of modified assault weapons are generally not importable because they accept large capacity military magazines. Up to 1.5 million rifles whose importation had been temporarily suspended may be affected by this decision. -- On November 15, 1997, in his radio address to the nation, President Clinton announced that the Treasury Department would temporarily suspend the importation of certain modified assault weapons to review whether these weapons should be allowed to enter the country. Today, the Secretary of the Treasury informed the President that most of the weapons studied should be generally banned from importation. -- Under current law (the 1968 Gun Control Act), the Treasury Department has the obligation to restrict the importation of firearms unless they are determined to be "particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." After taking several months to review the weapons in question, the Treasury Department has concluded that modified semiautomatic assault rifles that accept large capacity military magazines -- or LCMM rifles -- do not meet the sporting purposes test and are generally not importable. -- Since passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act, Administrations of both parties have repeatedly invoked this authority to ensure that only legitimate sporting weapons are brought into the country. In 1968, the Act was used to ban the importation of Saturday Night Specials and other small and inexpensive handguns; in 1984 and 1986, it was used to ban the importation of the Striker-12 and USAS-12 riot control shotguns; in 1989, it was used to ban the importation of 43 semiautomatic assault rifles; and in 1993, its authority was invoked to propose a ban on the importation of certain assault pistols, though the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 made this executive action unnecessary. -- The more than 50 models of firearms affected by today's decision are modified versions of military assault weapons that were banned by the Bush Administration in 1989, or by the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. Most of these models are based on the AK 47 assault rifle, but some are variants of the Uzi, FN-FAL, HK 91 and 93, and SIG SG550. -- Up to 1.5 million firearms whose importation had been suspended during the review may be affected by this decision. Importers will be notified in writing and given an opportunity to respond. (end White House Fact Sheet)
Source: http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/assault_rifles/index.htm
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
Department of Treasury Press Release
Page
|
Executive
Summary Background Defining the Type of Weapon Under Review Scope of "Sporting Purposes" Method of Study Suitability for Sporting Purposes Determination |
1
4
16
16
19
21
36
|
Exhibits:White House Memorandum: Importation of Modified Semiautomatic Assault-type Rifles
Study Rifle Models
Study Rifles
ATF Form 4590, Factoring Criteria for Weapons
Military Configuration
Memorandum to File From First Meeting of Firearms Advisory Panel
State Fish and Game Commission ReviewAppendix:
Summary of Externally Gathered Information for the Study on the Sporting Suitability of Modified Semiautomatic Weapons
[End ATF page]