Soldier Systems
Silynx Communications
Categories About Us EmailArchives Home Tactical Fanboy Soldier Sytems Home

Why New Firearms Legislation Will Hurt The Military

Back in July, a Congressman proposed an amendment to the Cyber Security Act that would ban high capacity magazines. I made this argument based on the negative effects the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 commonly referred to as the Assault Weapons Ban or AWB had on the US military. Rarely do legislators consider the second and third order affects of laws and only later, like ripples in a pond do these implications manifest themselves. Now, we can look at the AWB and its affects not only on crime but also on national defense. Please review this article but remember that it was published in July and there is currently no proposed legislation in debate.

From 1994 until 2004 the American firearms industry suffered under a form of prohibition. The “Assault Weapons Ban” not only covered weapon features but also magazines over 10 rounds. This legislation did nothing to alter crime and, once lifted did not result in any increased gun violence. Overall, it was useless legislation.

These very magazines and weapon features that were banned under the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994″ have been crucial to the US Department of Defense’s and our Allies small modernization as part of operations in Iraq as well as globally against piracy, terror and general mayhem. During the 10-year period of the AWB, US businesses curtailed small arms innovation. The point of a business is to make money. When there is little market for a product (as was the case during the AWB), the business case is not there to service it. This was most definitely the situation with magazines for the M9 Beretta Handgun. Many who served early in the war will remember poorly produced high capacity magazines for that weapon. This is because there was no competition in the marketplace due to a lack of market. Rather, government contractors for that magazine were able to produce products that performed poorly on the battlefield. There was no competition. There was no innovation.

Since the ban was lifted, an entire industry has grown and flourished, producing innovative solutions for both law abiding citizens and our military alike. American troops are the best equipped in the world and other countries look to us for technical innovation in small arms.

On the heels of the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, opportunistic members of Congress have attached an amendment to (S.A. 2575) to the “Cybersecurity Act” (S. 3414) that would once again restrict these magazines that are critical to our military.

Contact your Congressional representation (switchboard 202-225-3121) and let them know how you feel about this proposed legislation and the hijacking of the Cybersecurity Act by opportunists. A strong American firearms industry contributes directly to our National Defense.

12 Responses to “Why New Firearms Legislation Will Hurt The Military”

  1. Stretch says:

    I think we have developed our own small arms innovations ourselves, we just keep the SF guys playing with M4s for commonality amongst nations and the depth of ancillaries.

    Can you explain it in a better way? If you want a mil contract supplying mags just tender dont you? Or is the US military awash with non issue weapons components an accessories that depend on small scale suppliers with innovative solutions.

    Is competition the only way to stop poorly produced components? Surely there are other ways to ensure good product.

    • SSD says:

      I don’t really understand your question but I hope this helps.

      During the AWB, companies that exist today, didn’t. There was zero small arms innovation, particularly for magazines and other ancillary items. Many of the companies that supplied magazines during this dark period just built magazines as cheaply as possible. Consequently, service members got junk built literally, by the lowest bidder. Worse yet, there was no option to buy a commercial alternative. They simply didn’t exist as they were illegal.

      • Fudman says:

        While I agree with the basic facts as you present them, I disagree with the rationale linking the facts. Concurrent to the AWB, the military was undergoing a signficant downsizing, post Desert Storm. This contraction reduced government spending which limited innovation and resulted in generally poor quality individual equipment across the entire military. 9/11, OEF and OIF (almost concurrent to lifting of the AWB) spawned the high degree of innovation that you see today in all areas. Hence, it was the downsizing, not the AWB legislation, that compromised capability and it was the market pull (from the increased spending) that was the actual driver for the current innovation we have seen.

        While these are all relevant issues, the 2d amendment is not in danger of repeal and I don’t see a major threat to gun ownership. I am much more concerned about the downsizing that will accompany our withdrawal from Afghanistan and the impact on the industry that you do such a great job in keeping us all abreast of.

        Thank you for a great commentary.

        • AJ says:

          The 2nd Amendment is not in danger of being infringed? That’s exactly what our Communist in Chief and the other pol’s are pushing for right now, following every massacre and this last one is going to be the tipping point for another AWB, which in itself already curtails our rights under teh 2nd amendment. This AWB wil lbe much harsher and they will not make the same mistakes they did the last time in letting the law lapse, and the restrictions will bu much worse with no grandfathering, increase gov’t spending with all of the added prosecution of previously law-abiding citizens, a negative or zero effect on gun violence, and the companies that have flourished since 04 will flounder and that revenue, in the billions of dollars, will be gone.

  2. james says:

    very good point Eric, as allways good information and postings that if nothing else make one think… Thank you

  3. james says:

    very good point Eric, as always good information and postings that if nothing else make one think… Thank you

  4. SSD says:

    What’s more, I would posit that the current range of US Army Carbine Improvements would be impossible under an AWB. The Army is leveraging technology developed and paid for by commercial sales.

  5. Matt says:

    The military should also consider the restriction on new machine guns for commercial sale, 18 US Code, Chapter 44, Section 922(o), is the reason for no major innovation by US companies since May 19, 1986.

  6. FormerSFMedic says:

    This is something that I’ve been telling people since all the AWB predictions started popping up after the election. An AWB would severely effect LE/MIL personnel in a serious way. A good example I’ve used is the Larue OBR platform. Some of my former teammates have used this platform with great success in combat. The OBR had become almost a standard item in the SF Sniper community saving lives and delivering reliable precision fire that legacy systems were/are not capable of. The SF Sniper community is an extremely small community and Larue Tactical could not make money back on their design with SF Sniper purchases alone. What do you think would have happened if the consumer market didn’t exist? The consumer market makes up a huge part of the pie when it comes to making money off of their design which they spent considerable RDT&E time on. This is just an example and Larue may have been able to make it work anyway. But my guess is that many of the evolutionary steps made by companies like this would have thought twice about embarking on any project that could not be sold to the consumer market.

  7. Ascetik says:

    Unfortunately these globalists in our government and the bankers that run them want to ban guns for citizens so they can seize control of our country and use the US Military as their pawn army. If the US Military does not wake up and realize that Al-Qaeda was created by the CIA and these false flags are psy-ops against the American people then this country is more than gone. Just look how quickly, Wal-Mart, Dicks and Cheaperthandirt cow-towed to the criminal government pressure on guns. If we don’t start reading our founding fathers and protecting our rights we’re going to be put into forced re-education camps by all the young guns in the army willing to do anything for a paycheck. True vets and senior military know better, at least some of them.

    This proposed gun ban is another massive dump taking on the constitution so that foreign banking interests can seize greater control of our puppet government and people.

  8. mike says:

    It’s the same with the gear industry. The civilian market pays the bills and keeps it rolling, not government contracts. Take away civilian sales and most of the companies disappear along with the innovation. Then you’re left with the Specialty Defense type operations pumping out cheap crap that was cutting edge a decade ago.