Why does Congress make laws that expire?

[netmouse]

This year we saw a lot of drama around whether or not Congress would renew an expiring ruling onthe interest rates for student loans. Then a line from an article on the recent Colorado Shooting caught my eye:

The AR-15 rife carried by Holmes, a civilian semi-automatic version of the military M-16, would have been defined as a “semiautomatic assault weapon” under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 — which expired in 2004. “The type of ammunition magazine Holmes is accused of using was banned for new production under the old federal assault weapon ban.” Though once it expired, “gun manufacturers flooded the market with the type of high-capacity magazines Holmes used Friday.”

If we at one point thought it made sense to ban assault weapons for private ownership, why was that ban part of a law set to expire? why not make laws and then, when and if someone decides they no longer make sense, let them repeal them or make new laws? Expiration dates on sseem rather arbitrary and therefore nonsensical.

Can anyone explain this to me?

Comments

[spacecrab.livejournal.com]

David:

I read your first sentence accusing people who might be in favor of limiting public sale of semi-automatic weapons of being stupidly afraid of an Evil Rifle.

That's it for me. I don't care much what you wrote after saying that, this time. I'll be frank with you, I've always felt a personal dislike for projectile weapons. Your sanity on the subject has, in the past, been a good exemplar to convince me that in the hands of trained, caring civilians, sometimes projectile weapons may be a deterrent to violence.

But you're never going to convince me to vote for you to be allowed to own and train with semi-automatic weapons if you start out by painting anyone opposed to their sale in the public marketplace as a superstitious fool. You haven't proved to me (sneaking a peak at what you said after your insult) that you need these things to defend your castle. You haven't convinced me that putting them in the hands of civilians instead of a regulated police force is a good idea. I don't think I need you to protect me from the use of semi-automatic weapons in criminal hands.

I anticipate one of your main arguments is along the lines that the world cannot and will not ever agree to a mutual de-escalation of the arms race. But I think the world just might.

If you want to enjoy the things for recreational purposes, I'm in favor of organized government controlling the distribution and renting them to you. Then you can check the thing back in. I'll take my chances with police forces and branches of the military going rogue -- by paying for better police and soldiers, who have an appreciation of the trust invested in them when they're given access to and training with those kinds of weapons,

For me, sense on this subject radiates from Teresa's posts and comments about Castle laws on Making Light.

Have a good day and see ya. If the people where we next meet have voted that concealed projectile weapons are legal, I'd rather that you hold one than anyone else I know.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

Writing is hard. My suggestion that perhaps your information was faulty was specifically added to raise that as a question -- that is, to remove the presumption that your information was faulty; to make it a possibility, not a certainty. Apparently that worked backwards on you (or maybe it was something else), but in any case, I apologize for that.

Well, my information was certainly faulty

[netmouse.livejournal.com]

I seem to have temporarily forgotten there's no law or rule requiring the names (or nicknames) of laws to be accurate. I appreciate the clarification.

There's further discussion about firearm laws over on Tom Smith's LJ (http://filkertom.livejournal.com/1579209.html) that you both might find interesting.