New Zealand Is Banning Assault Weapons. America Won’t Do That Anytime Soon.

Why Congress isn’t interested in outlawing semi-automatic firearms.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern addresses a briefing in Wellington, New Zealand on March 16, 2019.Xinhua via ZUMA Wire

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Less than a week after a deadly terrorist attack on two New Zealand mosques, New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern declared an immediate nationwide ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. While the New Zealand parliament is expected to quickly pass legislation to the same effect, Ardern relied on executive powers in order to halt any efforts to stockpile the weapons before they were forbidden.

New Zealand officials have singled out these firearms and accessories because they were the weapons of choice in last week’s massacre that left 50 people dead. They’ve also played a major role in America’s high-profile mass shootings: Their use in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School and 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School massacres enabled gunmen to rapidly shoot multiple lethal rounds without pause, abilities that contributed to the high casualty counts in both tragedies.

In 1994, a Democrat-controlled Congress passed legislation that banned 19 specific military-style assault weapons, as well as magazines that held more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The measure had bipartisan support, but when its 10-year sunset clause took effect in 2004, neither party was eager to extend it. Republican lawmakers sided with the National Rifle Association, which made overturning the ban a top legislative priority; Democrats, meanwhile, had partly blamed their 1994 midterm losses on their gun control efforts and were reluctant to once again take up the cause. Eighteen years later, firearms once again became a matter of national debate in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, and then-Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) left an assault weapons ban out of the gun reform package he put to the Senate for a vote. The bill failed anyway.

For Democrats and some vulnerable Republican lawmakers, the political calculus on gun control has changed. Democrats rode demands for stricter gun laws into office this past November, taking control of the House of Representatives while promising to pass firearms reforms. But even as the House has prioritized legislation to expand background checks and “red flag” laws—measure that keep guns out of the hands out people who pose a risk to themselves or others—an assault weapons ban has remained off the table. And it’s not just the federal lawmakers who have shied away from it: While national gun reform organizations such as Brady, Everytown for Gun Safety, Giffords, and the March for Our Lives student activists have all expressed support for banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines, they aren’t pushing it as a top item on their legislative agendas.

There are policy reasons for this, explains Robin Lloyd, the managing director of Giffords, which has put universal background checks at the top of its wish list. Lloyd says the background checks bill, which recently passed the House, is a “foundational policy” that puts broad protections in place to help prevent people who pose a danger from accessing weapons, regardless of make or model. “It doesn’t matter if we close other loopholes if we can’t address this,” she explains.

Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action, Everytown’s grassroots wing, tells Mother Jones that the prioritization also stems from America’s unique gun violence problem. More New Zealanders died from gun violence in last week’s massacre than the typical number of New Zealanders who die from gun violence in a given year—a bump attributable to the role assault weapons played. In America, meanwhile, more than 13,000 people die from gun violence each year, and the vast majority of those deaths involve handguns, not assault weapons. “Our priority is to work on the legislation that saves the most lives,” Watts says. “We know what will help stop the most deaths the quickest will be a background check law.”

But the biggest roadblock has been a political landscape that has been inhospitable to even modest gun reform measures. Democrats’ successes at the ballot box last fall have measurably changed few Republican minds: Only eight GOP House members voted for the universal background checks bill last month, and Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has declared that measure dead on arrival in the upper chamber.

While gun control activists have made some progress with the GOP-held Senate—Graham has agreed to hold a hearing on red flag laws next week—an assault weapons ban remains a non-starter. Existing measures sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), and Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) that attempt to ban or strictly regulate assault weapons have only attracted Democratic support, and there are no current plans to bring them up for hearings or markups.

Gun reform activists are supportive of these measures, but they don’t see a lot of opportunity for successful advocacy around them.“You can only work on the laws that come up,” Watts explains. “There isn’t an assault weapons ban that’s moving at the federal level.”

House Judiciary chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) has promised that his committee will take up more gun measures later this year. He has not said whether an assault weapons ban will be among them.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate