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]