Don’t let definition fight derail assault weapons ban

When it comes to banning assault weapons, opponents say it can’t be done because, well, what’s an assault weapon?

The National Rifle Association says an assault weapon is “any weapon used in an assault,” whether it’s an AR-15 or a baseball bat. And try to find an American politician willing to ban baseball bats.

Sen. Marco Rubio says banning assault weapons can’t be done without also banning rifles popular for self-defense, sport shooting and hunting. And if you try to describe an assault rifle, he says manufacturers will simply make alterations to get around the ban.

Nothing is foolproof, we grant you that. But there’s a big difference between can’t and won’t. And seven states have somehow managed to overcome obstacles and pass an assault weapons ban. They did it mostly by mimicking a federal ban that expired in 2004. It listed guns by name and specific features, including a pistol grip, a folding or telescoping stock, and a “large capacity feeding device.”

Don’t know what those look like? Take a look at photos of the weapons used to kill 58 concertgoers in Las Vegas last year.

And 49 people killed at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando in 2016.

And 26 students and staffers killed at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012.

And 17 people killed on Valentine’s Day at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

On Friday, those who support an assault weapons ban scored a huge victory when a federal judge upheld Massachusetts’ 20-year ban, along with the state attorney general’s decision to crack down on dealers who sell copycat firearms slightly altered to sidestep the ban.

U.S. District Judge William Young cited a 2008 Supreme Court decision that found that “weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like” are not protected under the Second Amendment and “may be banned.”

“The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear Arms,’ ” the judge wrote. “In the absence of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large-capacity magazines. Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens.”

Sadly, Florida lawmakers and members of the state Constitution Review Commission favor keeping assault weapons and high-capacity magazines unregulated. They ignore the mounting body count. They also ignore that 62 percent of Florida voters support an assault weapons ban, according to a Quinnipiac University poll after the Parkland shooting.

And they ignore the call for action from tomorrow’s voters, who rightly call themselves the “mass-shooting generation.”

When Tallahassee refuses to listen to the people, the Florida Constitution allows for citizen-initiated amendments. And into the void, thankfully, has stepped Coral Springs Mayor Skip Campbell, U.S. Rep. Ted Deutch and Sunrise Mayor Mike Ryan, who are organizing a campaign for a constitutional amendment to ban assault weapons

“The Founding Fathers did not have the AR-15 in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment,” Campbell says. “But we are also not trying to take everybody’s gun away.”

They plan two amendments for the 2020 ballot, one that specifies which guns should be outlawed and the other to ban highcapacity ammunition magazines. But they face significant challenges. They will need more than 700,000 verified voter signatures for each amendment. That means raising serious money to hire signature gatherers — the only way to get the number needed in the narrow time frame allowed.

They’re also working with lawyers to get the wording right, to clarify the definition and to craft a ballot summary within the 75-word limit.

And for passage, they will need 60 percent of voters to approve.

Sixty percent may seem like a sure thing this year, but two years from now, the #NeverAgain fervor could fade.

If only today’s lawmakers listened harder to the majority of people they represent, rather than those influenced by the NRA’s email chain. But history says it’s not going to happen. So we will wait for our champions to do the work of defining an assault weapon, gathering the needed signatures and campaigning for 2020.

In the meantime, all we can do is hope some hateful person with an assault weapon doesn’t mow down more concertgoers, more club revelers and more school children.

For while state lawmakers can’t seem to define an assault weapon, we can all define the destruction they cause.