The New Assault Weapon Ban

With the new Democratic Congress, there is a new push to reenact the Assault Weapon Ban.  As a certified gun nut, I think the assault weapon ban is ridiculous.  It does nothing to prevent crime or anything else.  All it does is hamper the ability of honest people to own fun firearms.  But it occurs to me that many of you might not be gun nuts.  So, as a public service, I feel obliged to parse out a part of the newest bill to illustrate how ridiculous it is. 

Here is how the new bill defines an “assault rifle:”

(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has—

Let’s take this piece by piece.  What is a “semiautomatic rifle?”  The “automatic” part of the term means that the weapon automatically reloads after each round is fired.  The “semi” part means that it a person must depress the trigger one time for each round.  A “fully automatic” weapon is the kinds that continues to fire multiple rounds as long as the trigger is depressed.  Fully automatic weapons are already illegal for civilian use without a special permit. 

Semiautomatic rifles are among the most common rifles on the market.  Other options are pump, lever, bolt, single action, revolver, and a few more exotic actions. 

What is a “detachable magazine?”  A magazine is the receptacle for ammunition that feeds a weapon.  A detachable magazine is one that can be removed from the weapon.  Many people, including me, prefer detachable magazines because one can carry multiple magazines.  This makes it easier to reload without having to stop and push new cartridges into the magazine each time. 

At this point, we have a very typical rifle.  Here’s an example:

That’s a Ruger 10/22.  It’s semiautomatic with a detachable magazine. 

According to the bill, any rifle like the one above that includes any one of the following features is considered an “assault weapon:”

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

The stock of a rifle is the part that sticks out the back that one places against their shoulder when firing.  A folding stock is one that folds up when not in use.  A telescoping stopck is one that slides out like a telescope and locks into place.  Both are used to make the weapon fold up a little for easier transport.  Here’s an example of a rifle with a folding stock:

Folding stocks are nice because they make weapons easier to transport, but they come at a cost.  Since they introduce a movable part into the firing line, they generally make weapons less accurate at long ranges.  Does a folding stock make a weapon more deadly?  Not at all.  In fact, it makes a weapon less deadly at longer ranges. 

Here’s the next criteria:

(ii) a threaded barrel;

A threaded barrel is a barrel that has threads like a screw at the end of it.  A threaded barrel is needed for attaching a silencer.  Silencers are already illegal, so the only real point of a threaded barrel is cosmetic.  It looks kind of cool. 

Does a threaded barrel make a weapon more deadly?  Not at all.  It makes it quieter if coupled with a silencer, but by itself, a threaded barrel is meaningless.  Of course, if a crook is already willing to break the law to purchase a silencer, he is unlikely to be deterred by restrictions against threaded barrels. 

(iii) a pistol grip;

A pistol grip is a grip that extends down at an angle - like a pistol.  I know, it’s very confusing.  Here’s an example of a rifle with a pistol grip:

Some people like pistol grips because they make a weapon more comfortable to fire.  It is more ergonomically correct than a traditional rifle grip.  Does it make a rifle more deadly?  Not at all.  It just makes it more comfortable. 

(iv) a forward grip;

A forward grip is a vertical grip that is installed somewhere along the barrel of a rifle.  Here’s an example:

That’s an M4 Carbine with a telescoping stock, pistol grip, and a forward grip.  Again, does a forward grip make a weapon any more deadly?  No.  It makes it a bit easier to hold.  If you have a pump action weapon, a forward grip makes it a bit easier to pump (I want one for my shotgun), but for a semiautomatic weapon, it’s more for show than anything else. 

(v) a barrel shroud.

A barrel shroud is a metal shield that goes over a barrel.  Here’s an example:

All a barrel shroud does is dissipate heat from the barrel so that you don’t burn the crap out of your hand if you touch the barrel after firing it a few times.  Also, it looks cool. 

So… that’s it.  If you combine a semiautomatic rifle with a removable magazine with any of the above features, it would be banned under this bill.  Do any of the features make the weapon more deadly or more likely to be used in a crime?  No.  Not at all. 

Now you see why we refer to the assault weapon ban as the “scary looking gun ban.”

1. Wow!

   For a second I thought I had accidentally loaded the Gun Digest website.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2007 at 1651 hrs




2. Yeah…. you are right.  This is a “scary looking gun ban”  that has nothing to do with preventing crime.  In fact these guns are so far out of the criminals’ budget they could never afford one for the next “spree.”  Most people don’t realize the majority of “gun” crimes are done with the $100 or less Lorcin’s, Jennings, or Brycos, that people didn’t both to report lost or stolen.  This bill will do nothing to prevent crime.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2007 at 1733 hrs




3. This is pure speculation, but are those features you just described often associated with other features, or even particular brands of guns, that are typically used by bad guys?  Like maybe they’re trying to get a certain kind of gun off the street, maybe because it’s easy to modify into fully automatice or easy to buy or sell or whatever, and that gun also has these features so they try to ban the features rather than the particular model or something?  Not that that makes it okay.  I’m pretty much against banning things in general, I’m just trying to come up with what the proponents of the ban are thinking.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2007 at 1745 hrs




4. Yes.  The bill bans a list of specidic weapons:

   `(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

   `(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;

   `(ii) AR-10;

   `(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;

   `(iv) AR70;

   `(v) Calico Liberty;

   `(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;

   `(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;

   `(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;

   `(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;

   `(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

   `(xi) M1 Carbine;

   `(xii) Saiga;

   `(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;

   `(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;

   `(xv) SLG 95;

   `(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;

   `(xvii) Steyr AUG;

   `(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

   `(xix) Tavor;

   `(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or

   `(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

   And the tries to identify the weapons to ban duplicates.

   But again, it is not any specific features of a weapon that makes it more deadly or more likely to be used in a crime.  It is the person pulling the trigger.

   Posted by Owen on March 04, 2007 at 1750 hrs




5. Only criminals would be stupid enough to modify a non NFA firearm… its a felony and not easily done. Your average law abiding gun owner would never consider doing this.  It takes more than flipping a switch to make it work, specific parts and sometimes the help of a gunsmith.

   No, advocates of this bill say this will prevent crime, because these guns are used in crimes.  Not so! There has to be statistics on crime trace guns out there available to the general public.  I am almost certain the largest percentage of guns on that list (these are guns actually used in or found at the scene of a crime) are not even listed in this new assault weapons ban.  The issue here should be what to do about preventing crime and not making a law that will be a waste of taxpayers money trying to enfoce it.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2007 at 1801 hrs




6. So what does one do who owns one of the above listed firearms should the scary looking gun ban come back?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2007 at 1809 hrs




7. Invest in a hidden safe room.

   Posted by Owen on March 04, 2007 at 1918 hrs




8. Owen, you’re exactly right on this issue. It’s not often that I say that!

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2007 at 1923 hrs




9. This is nothin more than a PR stunt.  Just picture the press conference with Barbra Boxer holding an AR-15 saying does anyone *need* this for hunting?  Of course, the Second Amedment has nothing to do with hunting. 

   Even Fiengold gets it.  This what he said durng the debate regardingn the extension of the last assult weapons ban, which was pretty much the same as this one: “I have come to believe that it is a largely arbitrary and symbolic measure.”  He voted against extending it. 

   As far as I know, this was the only time I have ever agreed with this Russ.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2007 at 0817 hrs




10. Gun Control is not about guns.  It is about CONTROL.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2007 at 0854 hrs




11. This radical liberal agrees with you.  This is feel good legislation that will do nothing to keep folks safer.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2007 at 0948 hrs




12. Just a quick note, silencers are not illegal (well, in some states).  They are very heavily regulated as a title II (NFA) weapon that requires a BATFE and FBI background check that usually takes a month or more and a $200 tax stamp, as such the legal ones are usually in the hands of pretty good people.
    The logic of the ban could be applied to automobiles as follows:  many people die or get hurt in car accidents.  Corvettes and similar sports cars are fast and therefore potentially more dangerous, and must be banned.  Never mind that Corvettes and the like are a very small percentage of the total number of cars, or that they are usually cheaper to insure because they are involved in less accidents (compare Corvette insurance to Camaro insurance and you’ll see what I mean)
    Thanks for opportunity to throw around some facts and opinions!
    ~David P.
    (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2007 at 2129 hrs




13. It takes more than reading the Constitution, it takes some research as to the “intent” the Founding Fathers unfortunately took for granted. The the first Ten Articles were added because their intent was not clearly spelled out. What they intended, what they took for granted was being challenged by groups such as our ACLU, the Brady Bunch (or whatever they are called now), and several others even way back then.

    Everyone, without exception everyone owned at least one gun, usually more as they were only single shot, s-l-o-w loading weapons of hunting AND self defense.  It was an absolute given the PEOPLE would have the right to keep and bear arms - until the unimaginable happened. Someone, a group, history isn’t exactly clear but every little detail not being written down in the original Constitution left the door open for the those who would prefer to take OUR RIGHTS rather than LEAVE. No one ever wants to go where the gun laws are already just the way they want them. There are too many other
    “problems” in those places.

    What does all of this mean?  It means the Government has ZERO Constitutional authority to regulate the caliber, the mode of fire, the size of the magazine, or when and where any American can own or carry a weapon. If the manufacturer says it is a rifle/shotgun or a handgun it is legal for you and me to own and carry. Single shot, semi-automatic, full-automatic, bolt action, pump action, and on and on and on. And it is ILLEGAL for POLITICANS to interfere, however it will take your vote to throw them out of office and take back ALL of the rights most of you have no idea were stolen from you. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2007 at 0904 hrs




14. Yes another “prop-gun” ban. I’m surprised that they don’t mention various rotary guns by name just for show. (I guess they were just smart enough to figure out people wouldn’t buy that criminals were holding up 7-11’s with GE Miniguns)

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 14, 2007 at 1636 hrs




15. Definitely a scary looking weapons ban. There’s no such thing as a semi-automatic assault rifle. An assault rifle must be capable of firing in burst mode or fully automatic. As to why some of those guns are on the list, other than being scary looking, the Hi Point was used at Columbine. It’s a decent American made semi-automatic carbine ... must be dangerous. The Ruger mini-14 is a ranch rifle, but someone on the Representative’s staff must have seen the militia websites suggestion that members be armed with one because they’re inexpensive, accurate, and dependable. Some of the other ones, like the Dragunov, must have been pulled from video games, because it’s no more dangerous than any other rifle. This is sheer idiocy on a grand scale and I sincerely hope that it doesn’t pass.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 19, 2007 at 1836 hrs




16. This bill shows me the intelligence of the people running our country. This is truly scary. If this bill passes, then what’s next? I believe that if one rep proposed banning fatty foods, he/she would get support. This is ridiculous.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 06, 2007 at 0900 hrs




17. Next to come will be defining a revolver as a semi-auto since each pull of the trigger fires another round! Nothing in any of this has to do with anything but outlawing all firearms, one at a time.  It’s called “how to cook a frog”.  Bring up the heat slowly.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 06, 2007 at 1210 hrs




18. oops- “live frog”

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 06, 2007 at 1212 hrs




19. A. it’s not the rifle that is dangerous, it’s the operator. you can leave a loaded rifle sitting on the ground and it won’t go off.. add the human factor and then it’s dangerous.
    B. Hitmen actually prefer to use .22’s ( enters the skull bounces around and dosen’t exit.)
    C the Best marksman can use the Worst weapon and still be more dangerous than a inexperianced shooter with a psg-1.

    what i’m getting at is that it’s not the firearm that is dangerous it’s the people using them. and besides if someone really wanted to buy an assault rifle if the ban get’s passed(god forbid) they would find a way to buy one….....people do it right now….... the ban would be a useless waste of time and would be punishing the good citizens who enjoy shooting and enjoy firearms.

    the ban is complete lunacy

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2007 at 1933 hrs




20. I never held a firearm such as these above. I’m always afraid and I consider them to be the best representatives for violence. I wish I could live in a neighborhood where nobody comes out with a rifle in the middle of the night if they hear a noise in the garage.

    Posted by no medical term life Insurance on February 08, 2008 at 1713 hrs




21. The best solution to fear is to learn about what you fear and to learn to protect yourself and your loved ones.  There is no more effective method to accomlish that than a firearm in competent hands.  Find a responsible gun owner and LEARN, we are always happy and excited to explain and share our passion for firearms.

    I am looking forward to the SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd ammendment.  For anyone that listened to the testimony and questions from the bench, is appears pretty certain that they will rule in favor of an idividual right to bear arms.  To me the biggest question is whether or not they will apply the strict scrutiny standard to limits on the 2nd ammendment as they have on many other rights listed in the bill of rights.

    THAT would be a HUGE victory for our personal liberty!!!!

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2008 at 0714 hrs