Not going to comment on the content but it is informative and very well laid out.
It’s mostly focused on California laws, but kudos to them, they got most of the technical aspects of it right.
Very light on details, but not too bad.
Foolish claim. Semi-auto and machine guns are very distinguishable.
I guess the whole thing is just worthless fake information then, huh. :rolleyes:
I don’t think he was talking about how they look or the particulars of what comprises various mechanisms. I’m pretty sure he was talking about how they spit bullets out at a high rate.
N/M
That wasn’t asserted by the article. It was a quote from a court decision.
I had not heard of binary triggers before. Clearly a way to subvert the law and a good example of the problem facing lawmakers.
That’s a pretty good explainer.
I think the easiest way to pass a law that reduces the lethality of readily available guns would be to outlaw anything that can fire X bullets in Y seconds, values of X and Y to be determined. Certainly 30 rounds in 3.4 seconds seems bannable without getting into the weeds of gun anatomy or running afoul of the constitution as interpreted in the Heller decision.
Weren’t the military versions of the AR-15 made to fire two round bursts instead of full auto?
The ‘Assault Gun Ban’ of the 90’s just basically said, the rational part of it, you couldn’t sell large capacity box magazine semi-automatic rifles. Lots of people say colloquially ‘that’s unconstitutional’ but it was never found so nor have any state laws like it been found so. For the all the discussion of constitutional aspect of ‘assault gun’ restrictions it’s not clear it’s actually an obstacle. Lack of votes is the obstacle.
The irrational part was, and is, the bans on stuff like pistol grips and bayonet lugs. I’ve never been able to figure any sense in that, things which have a minuscule if any effect on the lethality of guns in the situation most feared, mass shootings. Focusing on ‘high powered’ makes some rational sense but is still mainly political/emotional since the cartridge fired by the most common ‘assault weapons’, 5.56mm NATO, isn’t particularly powerful. It’s powerful enough to not only kill people but shoot through at least certain kinds of obstacles and body armor. But the main reason those small caliber rounds were adopted for military use was for soldiers to carry many more rounds for a given total weight of gun and ammo as say compared to 7.62 NATO, since the gun would also be heavier as well as each round. Lots of larger caliber rifle cartridges are more powerful than 5.56mm.
The central public policy issue is rate of fire. Although it might be how many rounds can be fired in a couple/several minutes, or how long the pauses would be to reload. It wouldn’t necessarily be just the number of seconds it takes to empty the gun once. It doesn’t seem many mass shooters have been stopped from reloading at least once (or switching guns…there is no easy blanket solution on hardware side of things). Likewise though limiting semi-automatic rifles might be more politically practical than restricting pistols, it’s also not clear mass shooters would be significantly hampered if they had to use (actually also semi-automatic, but which have always been referred to as) automatic pistols with high capacity magazines. Those only help the defense at the margin where potential victims can get behind cover that will stop pistol but not rifle bullets, a handful of cases where shooters have fired at people not close enough to easily hit with a pistol, and that standard police body armor provides better protection from pistols once the police arrive.
I believe that there was interest in banning scary looking guns. Hence a ban on pistol grips and bayonet lugs.
Is part of the attraction that weapons resemble military arms?
It should be remembered that if it seems like the details of gun ban laws are overly detailed and specific, it’s because the pro-gun side wants it that way. A law that broadly bans “Assault Rifles” will be condemned by the NRA as too vague and therefore unenforceable or unconstitutional or both. The pro-gun crowd forces legislators to list specific designs, specific features and specific designs of features. And as the video demonstrates, this allows clever designers to get around the language of the law with new features and designs.
I’m not convinced they’re actually legal. Their existence seems to hinge on being compliant with an extremely specific interpretation of “one shot per trigger pull.” If bump stocks were banned, I don’t think it’ll be long before these are.
IIRC the settings are safe, single shot, and three round burst. handheld full-auto guns are typically said to be rather hard to control and in military use tend to be mostly for “suppressive fire,” i.e. putting lots of lead in the air to keep your enemy from advancing.
I’ve never had any interest in owning one, certainly not at the cost and hassle to do so.
These gunmakers just outwit the lawmakers each time don’t they?
Not that I’m in favor of assault weapons, but the lawmakers can’t seem to ban something that the gunmakers can’t find a way to circumvent.
I’ve never understood what’s so scary about pistol grips on rifles, and most people wouldn’t recognize a bayonet lug if it bit them. 
Yup. Just peruse a few gun forums and you’ll see lots of pictures of people all decked out in pseudo-military gear. They wanna be soldiers without actually having to, you know, be soldiers. Makes 'em feel tough.
Keep in mind that I have owned and operated firearms for 50 years, but I find some of the attitudes and activities of many people who share my hobby to be pretty silly.
Laws referencing an object SHOULD be specific. If you pass a law banning something with the caveat that you will describe it later, or not at all, (“I’ll know it when I see it.”) you will open it up to all kinds of legal challenges in future.
in theory, you can shorten the rifle by removing the buttstock and have a more concealable but still handle-able weapon, but that’s illegal as all hell.
harder to do on the AR-15 which uses the butt stock as part of the action; it’s built around a tube that the bolt and carrier recoil into as the action cycles.
I’m not particularly interested in defending gun ownership per se, but I will back you on this quote. This is a lesson we’ve had reinforced by the issue of breed-specific legislation (BSL) outlawing dog breeds (i.e., pit bull bans).
American Veterinary Medical Association Position on BSL
Quoting just the section relevant to my point:
BSL has frequently been written to “get around” the difficulty of identifying a given dog’s breed by permitting law enforcement officers (with no expertise or training) to make a determination of breed based on their own vague impressions of the dog’s appearance. It was quite literally a case of “police officers will know it when they see it” written into law.
Vague impressions by untrained people are an AWFUL way to conduct law enforcement and are a big part of the reason these laws have been highly controversial. But it was feared that veterinarians or the legal guardians of dogs might misrepresent a dog’s breed to protect their loved one from seizure or death.
That was a legitimate fear – it turns out people take a dim view of having family members seized and imprisoned or killed, particularly when that activity is the result of fearmongering and political posturing and the victims are innocent. This has held true from the time Jews painted blood on their doors to protect their first-born right up through Anne Frank and even today.
But apparently people think it’s a good idea to knowingly write vagueness into a bad law because they know it will be massively resisted.
I completely agree. But the pro-gun faction will take that reasonable view to all sorts of unreasonable extremes. Splitting hairs is a tactic of those opposing bans and subverting regulation. Especially in a society where anything not specifically banned is legal.
Clyde Barrow cut off as much of the stock of a BAR as he could.
Thanks.