I was speaking of the people I know anecdotally, 95% of the supporters of the AWB I know are the types who’d feel faint or freak out if you presented them with an open, unloaded, action-locked firearm.
On the other hand, I also don’t care one way or the other. Language issues being what they are, I am perfectly content to say that I’m against legislation that seeks merely to ban cosmetic features of weapons without banning any functionality, like the AWB. This by the way, Dan, is again why a lot of us hate the AWB–when a law bans the AR-15 and keeps the Ruger Mini-14 legal, it’s just plain bad law. That’s like banning the Ford Mustang but not the Dodge Charger, because the Mustang has a certain hubcap configuration.
Is there a practical way to define demilitarized semi-automatic weapons other than the provisions of the assault weapons ban? It’s an honest question - other than specifically banning individually designated firearm models, I can’t think of any method that wouldn’t have the same number of loopholes and illogical results.
Also, are you opposed to the limitation on magazine sizes?
Yeah the Mini-14 is way more lethal than the AR-15. Especially when you’re standing to the right of the shooter. Especially if you’re wearing short sleeves and get hit with hot brass.
The only way to effectively do so would be to ban weapons by their action (semi auto vs. lever action, etc) but in banning all semi auto rifles, a significant number of hunting and sporting firearms will get wrapped up in the ban as well. The point that we gun owners have made for years and years since 1994 is that there is no functional difference between an semi auto AR-15 a Ruger Mini 14, or a Browning .223 semi auto. They may look different, you can hang different accessories off of each of them, and they also have different names. Other than that, they are simply .223 semi auto rifles. Very few, and I mean very few “assault weapons” are ever used in crimes. This legislation was failed from the beginning. It has been expired for over 5 years now and no significant change in the use of said weapons can be cited.
I am a big believer in showing a need for restrictions prior to actually restricting anything. Just as assault weapons play a very small role in overall crime, the same must be true for the magazines that they employ. As an aside, between the AR-15 and AK-47 weapons platforms there have to be literally millions of the high cap mags in the US alone yet you just don’t see huge numbers of crimes being committed with them.
Yes, this gun owner is opposed to magazine size restrictions. It is a solution looking for a problem.
I’ve been trying to formulate a good response. I should first clarify that I’m generally in principle opposed to outright banning demilitarized firearms because of my belief that the second amendment seems to me to require that civilian ownership of militarily useful weaponry be legal.
I think that for a ban on weapons to make sense, it should focus on features that are things that impinge on the lethality of the weapon. Magazine size and the entire concept of detachable magazines are a decent start–these have direct effects on the firearm’s lethality as a firearm that things like flash hiders and pistol grips do not. Banning ammo by delivered energy or specific characteristics rather than simply by caliber or brand name would be another thing that would at least make sense.
The issue for enthusiasts is that there are no particular design features that really are unique to demilitarized rifles–for example, my mom’s bolt-action .22HV that she keeps to plink groundhogs and skunks that tear up her garden has a 10-round detachable magazine, and as I’ve mentioned before the Ruger Mini-14 shares these characteristics with the demilitarized Armalite AR-15–the only thing the Ruger really lacks is a pistol grip and rails (the mechanism is also inherently different, but that doesn’t affect firepower), when it comes right down to it, and both rifles can deliver the same type and amount of rounds downrange with the same shoulder accuracy–except the Mini-14 is marketed as a varmit/plinking rifle and the AR-15 is marketed as a demilitarized firearm for self-defense and target shooting.
But really, there’s nothing particularly scary about a Mini-14 and your average American is going to have a lot harder time voting for a law that bans something that looks like your grandpa should be shooting squirrels with it.
There is a concern that certain types of actions on demilitarized rifles are easier to convert to fully automatic operation, and I concur that this is a potential problem.
As I’ve said before, I think that a better approach is in the titling and licensing of guns similarly to cars, with similar affordability and availability of licensing. This, coupled with a law that says an owner of an unreported stolen gun or incorrectly secured stolen gun is a prima fascie accessory to any crimes committed with that gun, would go a way towards reducing the availability of untraceable firearms to the criminal element. I’d also be in favor of laws that didn’t BAN certain increased lethality features of firearms (specifically things like detachable magazines, actions easier to convert to automatic fire, and large-capacity magazines) but made those features require increased training and safe-storage/anti-theft requirements–but when I say this, in keeping with my car analogy, the requirements should be analogous to a motorcycle license addition (that is, harder than a standard car license, but within reach of the typical enthusiast). Again, this is because I believe that the 2nd Amendment requires that citizens willing to be “well-regulated” should be able to “keep and bear” military-grade infantry arms.
The Mini-14 is a great way to accidentally teach people why you wear eye protection at the range.
I think you may have lost me here. An AR-15 is an M-16 without the burst/auto fire capability, right? And the Mini-14 can fire the same NATO 5.56 round… so are you saying that the M-16 is only a more effective combat weapon because it can fire three round bursts and the other two can’t?
I own both an AR-15 and a Mini-14. I see no practical difference between the two whatsoever. The Mini-14 and AR-15 not only use the same ammunition, they can even use the same Ram-Line magazines. I guess the advantage of my Mini-14 is it’s MUCH lighter, and has a factory collapsible stock which makes it much easier to carry in close quarters.
In short, banning the AR-15 without banning the Mini-14, for better or for worse, is silly and ignorant as the two are absolutely functionally equivalent. The specific exemption for the Mini-14 in the AWB of 1994 was one of the glaringly obvious proofs that it was nothing more than an “ugly gun ban.”
What I’m saying (And what Una said above) is that a gun ban that bans the AR-15 but not the Mini-14 is nonsensical on the face of it, since they have the same lethality. I am saying that the M-16’s increased combat effectiveness comes from both the burstfire capabilities as well as specific militarily useful features like flash suppressor, rails, etc, but I’m ALSO saying that none of those specific features are of any use whatsoever to a gang-banger looking to deliver lead downrange except for the burst fire–since he’s not going to need to quick-change his scope, he’s not liable to want a flashlight on the barrel, etc.
In short, I’m saying the AWB banned things that are red herrings (flash suppressors, pistol grips, etc) because of the things that matter, burst-fire weapons are already incredibly difficult to get (and no such legal one has been used in a crime since…1938, I think?) and banning detachable or large-capacity magazines would ban things that your grandfather and dad hunt squirrels and varmints with–that is, the AWB is purely a political creation designed to make an issue of “scary-looking” guns while specifically not addressing any features that actually increase firearm lethality.
So a lot of us who know our firearms question what, specifically, the AWB was designed to accomplish, and the only conclusion was “ban what guns we can, without any real logic” and “increase the fear of guns by making an issue of scary-looking guns”.
The “stock” mini-14 (the “Ranch Rifle”) has a classic “rifle-style” wooden stock (as opposed to a “pistol-grip” style stock typically seen on the M-16/AR-15 family of rifles), lacks a flash suppressor (nothing at all like a sound suppressor, or “silencer” as they are more collquially known by), and has no bayonet lug; essentially, none of the “military-style,” largely cosmetic features that the '94 AWB targeted.
You can repeat this all you want, but you aren’t even close here. I have demonstrated over and over again why you are full of shit. Notice how the other people in the thread, who are willing to jump on me for the most pedantic bullshit, aren’t even backing you up on this one?
You have not demonstrated that. The cite you used said that weapons like shoulder-launched rocket launchers and flamethrowers were described that way by the military, and that some random book referred to bolt action rifles and revolvers this way.
Not even close.
It was a perception that they created in the first place due to lies! Yeah, drumming up hysteria over something that doesn’t exist, then solving this new “problem” you created with bad legislation - that’s something worthy of support! How noble of them.
No, I would be calling it a lie. Assault rifles are known qualities - pretty much everyone with any competance around the world knows exactly what is an assault rifle and what isn’t. So it is not an arbitrary, ambiguous term like “assault weapon” where you classify anything you want that way. And assault rifles were not affected by the AWB '94.
Nope, this is a stupid poke at what you seem to think is bravado. I have philosophical problems with the idea of the ban from pretty much every conceivable angle.
Not that I can think of - but isn’t that the point? Doesn’t it prove that it’s stupid? If you can’t come up with logical criteria under which a ban works, then you are solving a non-problem. If you cannot identify a functional characteristic which you want to ban, then what is it that you’re doing?
Yes.
This isn’t a concern, because there’s a seperate law that requires modification to guns sold on the US market to specifically prevent them from being converted in this fashion. For example, on AK type weapons, a hole must be drilled in the part of the receiver that would normally support the sear that controls automatic fire, preventing that receiver from ever being converted that way. This is an actual functional law that attacks what is a potential problem and is therefore logical.
There actually was a controversy and resentment around the Ruger company supporting magazine capacity bans. They were apparently trying to head off a complete ban on some of their rifles (there was concern that the mini-14/mini-30 and possibly even the 10/22 would be banned under this legislation - which is pretty funny, given that the 10/22 was just about the most innocuous rifle there is - it’s the sort of thing you’d give your kid when they turned 12 to teach them responsibility) and they thought maybe they could get a magazine ban that would satisfy those that wanted to solve the hysteria they created. A more cynical view is that Ruger was willing to collaborate (to give the law some sort of credibility) for special protection of their products.
But as to your exact question, I don’t know. I would have to look at a mini-14 to see if it had enough evil features … given that it has no pistol grip and probably not some of the other attachments like a bayonette lug, it may not have fallen under the AWB. It may have been specifically exempted in appreciation for Ruger’s selling out, or the law may have been tailored a bit so that the mini-14 specifically wouldn’t run afoul of it.
The Mini-14 in its stock configuration looks very tame, especially with a low capacity magazine. My uncle used to have one. There is an evil version of the Mini-14 with a pistol grip and folding stock, which looks much more sinister and terrorist-like. I think to a lot of people, curved magazine = terrorist.
The text of the AWB had a list of “exempted” weapons at the end of it, and I remember that the Mini-14 was on that list as specifically exempted.
Here’s the list from the website of Diane Feinstein, prominent backer of the AWB of 1994. Note that it also exempts the Mini-30, which is functionally identical to an AK-47 “child killer” in that it fires the same, exact round, semi-auto, with the ability to easily accept removable magazines or even 75-round drums.
It’s not the full text as it does not include Appendix A except for the headings. See this portion in your link:
I note there are no lists in there. I can’t explain why, other than I can affirm that Thomas sometimes does this.
See this from “From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 24, 2002]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 24, 2002 and December 19, 2002]”
Further, I have a hardcopy of the law as sent to me by the BATF in 1995 which shows the specific list.
The Mini-14 is a great way to accidentally teach people why you wear eye protection at the range.
