IT CAN FIRE 30 shots without reloading and is touted as a near clone of the military style M-16. In fact, a do-it-yourself disassembled version of the Bushmaster XM-15 is sold on the company's Web site under a section titled "Post Ban Rifle Kits," a reference to the congressional ban on so-called assault weapons and the gun's careful skirting of that law.
It's the gun that John Allen Muhammad allegedly proved can be as deadly as any gun manufactured, one that makes it relatively easy to engage in long-range, single-shot kills. And yet in many states (including Maryland), it's not subject to the same sales restrictions as a handgun.
As much as the D.C. sniper's killing spree inspires questions about what drives people to such violence and how society ought to punish them, it should also be sparking frank talk about how full of loopholes the nation's gun laws still are. No, tight gun laws might not have dissuaded Mr. Muhammad or anyone else from the acts that terrorized this region for a month. But why should they make it so easy?
Even though Mr. Muhammad, who had a domestic violence restraining order against him in Washington state, may have obtained his XM-15 illegally, he probably didn't have to. That's because the required background checks for people buying weapons are good at rooting out felons but not so good at determining who can't have a gun because of a locally issued restraining order.
The federal assault weapons ban is another leaky attempt to check the flow of guns in this country. That's because gun proponents were able to devolve discussion of the ban to semantic debates over what is or is not an assault weapon. The result was a law that prohibited a specific list of guns by name and other guns that combined certain characteristics. But any gun not on the list and without all of the required attributes stayed legal.
Many gun manufacturers then began introducing models such as the XM-15, which mimics a banned rifle but falls just short of qualifying for the ban. A clever ploy, but the legal result is just as potentially deadly as the banned one.
Even worse, the assault weapons ban is scheduled to expire in 2004, which would again legalize even more guns. Congress shouldn't let that happen, and it should close the loopholes that make assault-style weapons easy to procure.
Some local laws could also be tightened to make it harder for the criminally intended to get hold of powerful guns.
Maryland's gun laws, for example, require background checks on people who want handguns no matter where they are purchased. But you can buy a long gun or a rifle like the XM-15 in this state without having a background check performed, so long as that purchase is made privately. Unlicensed, private dealers can sell weapons at gun shows without determining whether the buyer is a felon. Neighbors can sell these guns to each other with no oversight.
Why the exceptions? Again, gun proponents have argued successfully that these guns are different -- less likely to be used in crimes, therefore less in need of regulation. But does that make sense in the wake of the D.C. sniper? Lawmakers should answer that question with a resounding "no," and close the loophole.
The truth is that the sniper gives a bad name to the many thousands of gun enthusiasts who follow the laws and honor safety. And that's why gun proponents should be in the forefront of efforts to close legal loopholes -- and help ensure that it's harder for criminals to use guns as deadly weapons rather than tools for sport or protection.