# What is an "assault weapon"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 11, 2009, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-assault-weapon/489076 "2009-03-11T14:11:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-assault-weapon/489076/61 "2009-03-12T13:42:36Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Isn’t standing another legal consideration for a SC case? My readings about the Heller case mentioned that time and again people tried to get DC’s gun ban to federal court and time and again the courts found some reason or another to deny that the plaintiffs had standing. Heller himself was the only person whose case **made** it to the Supreme Court. How could someone have standing to challenge the 1986 law? I’m pretty sure you don’t have to be involved a case to have standing. > [@GaryM](#): > > Well, yes and no. In my state, a person is required to have some kind of FFL to make or own any of the NFA items. The easiest FFL to obtain is a C&R FFL. But a trust can’t have a C&R, at least that’s what I’m told. So a trust is not a valid route to NFA ownership in my state. Different states, different rules of course. > > A corporation is a valid route, but it’s more trouble than it’s worth, unless your CLEO won’t sign off of course. NFA ownership via corporation or trust does NOT require photos, finger print cards, or CLEO sign off. > > Waiting for my approved Form 4 to come back so I can pick up my suppressor. 😃 Oh, you make me jealous! ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-assault-weapon/489076/62 "2009-03-12T13:52:33Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > I’m pretty sure you don’t have to be involved a case to have standing. Eh? If you aren’t involved in a case then you won’t be before the court, so whether or not you’ve got standing is immaterial. In order to challenge a law, though, you certainly have to have standing. It basically requires three things: 1) that you are or will be harmed in some way; 2) that the law in question is clearly responsible for the harm\*; and 3) that changing the law or doing whatever it is you’re asking the court to do will cancel or prevent your harm. \*In other words, you can’t challenge one gun law because you’re harmed by another. Being a DC resident (and wanting to own, or owning a handgun) would be the applicable factors for determining standing under (1) in Heller. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-assault-weapon/489076/63 "2009-03-12T14:14:56Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Eh? > > If you aren’t involved in a case then you won’t be before the court, so whether or not you’ve got standing is immaterial. In order to challenge a law, though, you certainly have to have standing. > > It basically requires three things: 1) that you are or will be harmed in some way; 2) that the law in question is clearly responsible for the harm\*; and 3) that changing the law or doing whatever it is you’re asking the court to do will cancel or prevent your harm. > > \*In other words, you can’t challenge one gun law because you’re harmed by another. > > Being a DC resident (and wanting to own, or owning a handgun) would be the applicable factors for determining standing under (1) in Heller. I was unclear. I meant that you didn’t have to be involved (charged) criminally. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-assault-weapon/489076/64 "2009-03-12T14:56:09Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > Second, you and I have a fundamental disagreement on the definition. In American law, they are **banned** , the ONLY reason the preexisting ones were not confiscated was because that would be a post de facto law, which the USA is specifically prohibited from passing. Assuming you meant “ex post facto” law, that doesn’t apply here. An ex post facto law is one that criminalizes behavior in the past. You can’t pass a law that says for example, owning widgets is now illegal, and anyone who owned one any time in the past 5 years is now a criminal. That’s an ex post facto law. It’s got nothing to do with making owning something illegal in the future. By your definition, you couldn’t make a law that makes a new dangerous drug illegal, unless you put in an exception for any quantities of the drug that currently exist, and that just isn’t true. I’m not a lawyer either, but I don’t see any _constitutional_ problem with making fully-auto weapons illegal, and requiring everyone who owns one turn it in within 90 days (with fair compensation, that would be required) or face prosecution. The political problems, of course, are enormous. And do you have a cite for it being illegal to repair a legally owned full-auto weapon? I know you can’t own the parts for one if you don’t have your Class 3 FFL and own a semi-auto version of the same weapon (e.g. not having a Class 3 FFL and possessing an auto-sear that could fit in your AR-15 is Very Bad, even if you haven’t drilled out the AR to receive it), but I’ve never heard you can’t repair one. Hell, here’s a [3 round burst set and auto-sear](http://www.bushmaster.com/products.asp?cat=501) for your legally owned machine gun. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-assault-weapon/489076/65 "2009-03-12T18:01:10Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > And do you have a cite for it being illegal to repair a legally owned full-auto weapon? I’d like to see one too. I don’t know why it would be illegal. During the AWB it was legal to repair “assault weap:rolleyes:ns”, including the pre-ban high capacity magazines. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-assault-weapon/489076/66 "2009-03-12T19:28:09Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > Assuming you meant “ex post facto” law, that doesn’t apply here. An ex post facto law is one that criminalizes behavior in the past. You can’t pass a law that says for example, owning widgets is now illegal, and anyone who owned one any time in the past 5 years is now a criminal. That’s an ex post facto law. It’s got nothing to do with making owning something illegal in the future. By your definition, you couldn’t make a law that makes a new dangerous drug illegal, unless you put in an exception for any quantities of the drug that currently exist, and that just isn’t true. I’m not a lawyer either, but I don’t see any _constitutional_ problem with making fully-auto weapons illegal, and requiring everyone who owns one turn it in within 90 days (with fair compensation, that would be required) or face prosecution. The political problems, of course, are enormous. Yeah, that’s the one. But the reason they were grandfathered was, specifically, to prevent > [@muldoonthief](#): > > And do you have a cite for it being illegal to repair a legally owned full-auto weapon? I know you can’t own the parts for one if you don’t have your Class 3 FFL and own a semi-auto version of the same weapon (e.g. not having a Class 3 FFL and possessing an auto-sear that could fit in your AR-15 is Very Bad, even if you haven’t drilled out the AR to receive it), but I’ve never heard you can’t repair one. Hell, here’s a [3 round burst set and auto-sear](http://www.bushmaster.com/products.asp?cat=501) for your legally owned machine gun. Then it’s not the sear, I was incorrect, but there is a specific part (that isn’t the receiver itself) that is irreparable. I was taking a shot, thinking it was the sear… I don’t have a cite, except having been around an FFL that sold them, and discussing the issue with him, and a few others. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-an-assault-weapon/489076.md?page=3)