It is too late to renew the 10-year federal ban on military-style assault weapons. The ban… It is too late to renew the 10-year federal ban on military-style assault weapons. The ban expired yesterday, and now, AK-47s, Uzis and TEC-9s can be bought legally.

The 1994 ban also regulated the removable “clip” that holds and feeds bullets through guns. The maximum capacity of these magazines — as the “clips” are formally called — was set at 10 rounds. That significantly increased the price of high-capacity magazines. With the ban gone, some gun manufacturers plan on giving away high-capacity magazines as bonuses for buying their weapons.

Gun manufacturers claim that the expiration of the ban will have little to no effect on the types of guns and accessories sold to the public. One gun manufacturer said that his clientele does not buy assault weapons. However, for 10 years his clientele couldn’t, so perhaps he’ll notice some new buying trends.

It’s arguable whether or not the ban had an effect on the reduction of crime over the past 10 years. The ban won’t affect the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which calls for federal background checks of all people who want to legally own firearms, either.

According to the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, 68 percent of Americans and one-third of National Rifle Association members supported renewing the assault weapons ban. And they feel this way for good reason.

Who needs an assault weapon? Those who do — military personnel, for example — already have legal access to them. Joe Schmoe doesn’t need an M-16 for hunting or self-defense, despite his secret desire to be Tony Montana. Considering that the ban led to the manufacturing and selling of civilian versions of assault weapons, Mr. Schmoe can substitute a Colt AR-15.

Critics of the ban argued that illegally obtained guns were the source of violence. Those critics — and supporters of the ban as well — should be concerned with ridding communities of those illegal firearms and rebuilding those communities, not making them legal.

The excuse that people who want illegal military-style weapons will find a way to get them is weak, too. Without the ban, it is just easier for those people to get dangerous guns because it’s legal. Certainly, the ban will not eliminate violence, but was it really hurting anyone to keep the ban in place? Should theft be legal because people will eventually steal? Should prostitution be legal because, inevitably, someone is going to want to pay for sex? Let’s legalize all types of drugs, too, because some people like to use them and will, even if they are illegal.

A secure homeland is one where the military has military-style weapons and the civilians bear arms they need — not the ones they want just because they can have them.