Kamala Harris’ Import Ban Proposal is Nothing but Punitive
May 20, 2019
In case you hadn’t heard, the field of Democrat challengers for the 2020 presidential election is just a little crowded. It’s made up of previous has-rans like Bernie Sanders, wannabe senators like Robert O’Rourke, and there’s even a couple of mayors in the mix. This cornucopia of contenders has led some hopefuls to make increasingly ridiculous promises, particularly on the gun control front, to motivate the party’s fragmented, but energized base. This week’s example comes from California’s Kamala Harris, currently serving in the Senate, was at an event in New Hampshire on Wednesday when she promised to ban all imports of “AR-15 assault-style weapons” via executive order within the first 100 days of her (highly) theoretical presidency.
Harris’ threat is just another example of the willful ignorance and unseriousness of Democrats’ gun control stance. Her most recent remarks are especially stupid for a variety of reasons.
- AR-15s simply aren’t imported. By a massive margin, AR-15s (as a specific model of firearm) are produced domestically. What about other, similar semi-automatic rifles? About that…
- It is true that foreign semi-automatic rifles exist on the market. However, direct import of “assault weapons” has been banned since 1989. Non-sporting firearms as judged by the ATF are all (domestic and foreign alike) subject to 922(r) (a section of U.S. Code 18) requirements detailing the number of US-made parts that must be present to be sold on the commercial market. Foreign semi-automatic rifles that exist on the new market today come into the country in “neutered” form without characteristics that are traditionally associated with “assault weapons,” like threaded barrels, pistol grips, standard capacity magazines, etc. They are then sold as-is or aesthetically modified prior to sale. This is how firearms like the Tavor and AUG are sold in the U.S.
- Imported semi-automatic rifles are expensive and more appealing to collectors than criminals. The import requirements for foreign semi-automatic rifles drive prices on already-expensive firearms up even higher. The days of cheap Romanian AKs are long over. Now, a decent AK from someone like Arsenal in Bulgaria costs over $1,100. The Israeli Tavor is usually a $1,600+ proposition as is the Austrian AUG. These market factors have resulted in companies bringing more and more production to the U.S. or has given rise to American-made clones of popular foreign rifles.
- Given the above points, it’s clear that Harris’ goals are wholly punitive, directed at punishing lawful collectors an enthusiasts. The plan would have no impact on crime, and anyone who thinks it would is simply wrong.
Why is it, then, that these sorts of proposals are able to garner any sort of traction? There’s certainly the truth that to anti-gun folks, this sort of pandering sounds good. These are the types of people who often seem to think there are no gun laws at all. The other reason is the media complicity.
Take, for example, Alex Yablon. Alex is a firearms writer for Michael Bloomberg’s The Trace. Now, The Trace is Bloomberg’s pet anti-gun media project, but folks like Yablon often try to give the appearance of near-neutral reporting on these issues. His reporting on Harris’s comments started strong as he criticized the senator for the same point I note in item 1 above.
However, after talking to Harris’ campaign, Yablon’s story changed.
None of what he has said above is true. As I have noted, manufacturers must adhere to 922(r) regulations limiting the number of foreign parts on a rifle. These rules prohibit the direct import of foreign “assault rifles,” and they are enforced. The bans on Russian firearms mentioned by Yablon have nothing to do with prohibitions on foreign “assault rifles,” but are instead a product of sanctions levied against Russian companies with government ties.
Yablon, as a firearms writer, should know these things. The fact that he gets the details wrong suggests he isn’t well connected to the firearms world and doesn’t understand how laws play out in the marketplace. But what is more egregious and what motivates my ire is that he started down the right path only to make a 180-degree turn once he seemingly receives marching orders from his political allies. He, as a supposed journalist, is willing to uncritically take a Democrat’s presidential campaign staff at their word and never endeavors to assess the validity of the claim. As far as media goes, he’s far from alone, and that’s a major problem.
An information security professional by day and gun blogger by night, Nathan started his firearms journey at 16 years old as a collector of C&R rifles. These days, you’re likely to find him shooting something a bit more modern – and usually equipped with a suppressor – but his passion for firearms with military heritage has never waned. Over the last five years, Nathan has written about a variety of firearms topics, including Second Amendment politics and gun and gear reviews. When he isn’t shooting or writing, Nathan nerds out over computers, 3D printing, and Star Wars.