Talk:Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) thing(s).

United States: Presidents Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

Index 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Cosmetic features

The article describes the Assault Weapons Ban as banning:

the manufacture of 19 specific semi-automatic firearms, classified as "assault weapons" (a non-technical term), as well as any semi-automatic rifle, pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine, and which has two or more cosmetic features, such as a telescoping or folding stock, a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher, and a bayonet lug.

The term cosmetic does not meet Wikipedia's standards for WP:NPOV. A cosmetic feature affects the appearance of a product, not its functionality. These features either allowed the user to add additional functionality to the weapon (a bayonet lug, grenade launcher, or flash suppressor) or served an ergonomic or safety purpose (pistol grip, barrel shroud). Opponents of the law may have described these features as "cosmetic" as a means of deriding the law, but it is not a neutral term.GabrielF (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

upheld

GliderMaven To my knowledge, the ban itself was never challenged in court, and thus never upheld. (Other portions of the bill were, but not the ban). If you have a source for the ban itself being formally upheld though, I would be interested to see it. ResultingConstant (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GliderMaven A ruling, from a single court, about a different law, that is a state only law, decade after the federal law sunset, when almost 30 years of legislative and judicial changes says very little about the earlier law, and what it does say requires a hell of a lot of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to get there. However, we could probably link to and WP:SUMMARIZE Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Legal_challenges which does mention some unsuccessful challenges, but note that these challenges were not under the 2A, and were also pre-Heller - therefore are not directly applicable to the sentence/section you are trying to add to which is directly talking about 2A constitutionality. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're better off not mentioning the NRA's motivated speculation in this summary. The bill survived multiple legal attacks and all the evidence seems to point to it having been constitutional.GliderMaven (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Truth in Sentencing grants

This article should talk about how the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act provided funding and grants for the building of prisons and jails to enforce the Truth in Sentencing or mandatory sentencing. That is the main cause of the mass incarceration in usa prisons and jails since 1994 Crime Bill.

In response to prison crowding and public dismay with the early release of prisoners, the U.S. Congress authorized incentive grants to build or expand correctional facilities through the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants Program in the 1994 Crime Act (Pub.L.No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796 (1994)). To qualify for the truth-in-sentencing grants, States must require persons convicted of a Part 1 violent crime to serve not less than 85% of the prison sentence. Along with other exceptions,States may qualify by demonstrating that the average time served in prison is not less than 85% of the sentence.

( https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/tssp.pdf ) Ap4lmtree2 (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits

There are a couple recent edits that seem a tad dubious in my opinion as if they are intended to portray a skewed level of responsibility for this bill on former VP Biden for reasons related to the upcoming election and they do not add anything of value to the article itself, especially where they are located. 50.202.229.150 (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically edits on 13:30, 9 August 2020 and on at 13:08, 9 June 2020. Both of these edits make sure to mention Biden, however they leave out Jack Brooks involvement, which is where the Bill originated in the House, not the Senate, and these edits are most certainly not NPOV because of the POV they spin on the process of the bill creation and passing. 50.202.229.150 (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article lead has mentioned Biden's involvement in authoring the bill since 20 June 2010. Brooks is mentioned in the lead as well.

Pinging JLo-Watson and Carwil since your edits were called out specifically. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute this. Representative Jack Brooks is clearly mentioned in the lede. Joe Biden was originally in the lede - until you removed any mention of Biden - which I reverted and restored. Moreover, I also added NPOV by referencing the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act which received widespread acclaim and was tied into the 1994 Crime Bill - authored by Democrat Biden and former Republican Senator Orrin Hatch. I find it disappointing that you bring politics into this - indeed Biden's role in this act has been mentioned in many media outlets. Nowhere in the article does it criticise Biden. It would clearly be wrong to play politics with this - indeed this was one of the Presidency of Bill Clinton's signature achievements. I suggest you research this. JLo-Watson (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My referenced edit cites the origin of the bill in Clinton's 1992 campaign promises as well as Biden's description of the Senate drafting. Three sentences on Biden in this lengthy article is probably less than is due given his close connection with the bill, its colloquial naming with reference to him, and his future executive officeholding. I have no objection to deeper information on Brooks' drafting process to balance if you have it.--Carwil (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biden is not technically President-elect yet.

Vandalism on this page

Specific text to be removed: Revision 1074500791 by 137.83.19.148 (talk) at 15:58, 28 February 2022.

Reason for the change: That sentence describes an event which has not taken place and even if it had it would belong in a different article

Apologies if this isn't the best way to report this, I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines 2603:7080:F940:3B00:8089:6039:B671:FC5B (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ––FormalDude talk 00:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What Many People Don't Want To Acknowledge Is That It Is A Fact of Life That Incarceration Reduces Crime

I would like to see some sources included in this article which criticize criticism of the mass incarceration.2601:447:4100:1BE0:81BB:DC84:FD92:F1D7 (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strange phrases in legislative history section

I don't know how to format this correctly, but there are some really weird phrases in the legislative history section of the article. They almost sound like it was translated into another language and then translated back into English. I underlined an excerpt from the article and bolded the strange portions. I'm not sure how to edit the article myself.

The law was widely criticized by politicians themselves, pointing out that this law would increase the authority of the Federal government of the United States in matters of local law enforcement, which would greatly affect marginalized communities, especially African-American communities. Despite all the criticism that the law has gone through, it only received a great response, so the bill was passed by a majority of 235 votes to 195 votes in the House of Representatives, and we missed one vote to 38 votes in the Senate. It must be noted that one of the main reasons that supported the bill is the support it received from the Congressional Black Caucus due to their fear of rising crime rates in their areas, so I feel that this law should be legislated, but with the addition of some concepts that help criminals and prisoners after their rehabilitation so that they can return to society in a better way 64.188.185.220 (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]