What is an "assault weapon"?

Factual Questions
41

“Assault weapon” is a politically created term designed to sound like “assault rifle”. Since it’s political construct, it’s definition is subject to whatever a lawmaker proposes it to be - it has no practically useful definition.

The original attempts at “assault weapons” bans would ban the specific models that the law writers found objectionable. The companies could then change the name of the weapon or model number and resume selling it.

So they tried a different approach - what are the common features of weapons we want to ban? Because these weapons functioned similarly or identiically to weapons they didn’t have the political clout to ban, they could only identify them by features like bayonette lugs or threaded barrels. So they attempted to ban any weapon possessing a combination of these traits.

What ended up happening was again the manufacturers just worked around the ban - a weapon couldn’t have a threaded muzzle and a bayonette lug, so they sawed off the lug and didn’t thread the barrel. Result was a nearly identical gun, but legal.

Bans of this type are going to by their nature end up being relatively ineffective because they target things that aren’t part of the core function of the rifle. They can’t be - since these weapons function the same as other weapons they can’t manage to ban, they can’t ban on functional grounds. [edit: I mean ineffective in terms of actually banning the guns they intend to ban, not ineffective in some public good way, which is beyond the scope of a GQ thread.]

Since sometime in the 90s, a requirement was put on that any imported or manufactured weapon that had a counterpart capable of more than 1 round per trigger pull was required to be modified in such a way that you can’t drop in parts to replicate that functionality. Often the part of the receiver where the auto sear would engage is milled out - so you couldn’t convert it even with the required parts.

I agree that the word “banned” may not have the full nuance - but if they prevented the public from buying a certain book, for example, but didn’t make already existing copies illegal, would it be a banned book?

42

No, they’re banned.

Not confiscating them just qualifies the ban as not passing post de facto laws, which is unconstitutional. Of course, so is the ban.

43

The M4 is a task-built weapon, meant to be carried by personnel who would normally carry a pistol or who wouldn’t be able to maneuver (like in a vehicle) with a full sized M16, IIRC.

44

That was the original intent - to serve the roles submachine guns or carbines traditionally served in the past - personal defense weapons for vehicle crews, weapons for those who can be engaged in small arms combat but it’s not their primary job (officers, artillery observers, etc), and the like.

But it has been getting issued to general purpose infantry troops for a while now, primarily due to the greater emphasis on MOUT.

45

The problem with this analogy is that the public aren’t prevented from buying this hypothetical book- it’s just that no new copies are allowed to be printed, and a special (but still obtainable) permit is required to own one of the existing copies. That’s restricted, not banned.

No, they aren’t. If they were banned then it would be impossible to anyone to own one, regardless of when it was made or what permits they had. That’s clearly not the case.

I’m not a US Constitutional lawyer, but given that the current laws about machine-guns have been in place since 1986, and you’re not the first person to jump up and down and say “Unconstitutional!”, I’d say that these laws have been challenged in court and found to be Constitutional, otherwise they wouldn’t still be law- in theory, at least.

46

It is impossible in some areas. However, even though it’s not impossible everywhere, they’re still banned.

Simply because you’re able to own one of the few that were made before 1986 doesn’t mean they’re not banned. They’re still a banned good, much like Cuban products, despite the fact that you can still legally own things that were imported before the embargo.

AFAIK the Huges Amendment to the 1986 FOPA has never been challenged in court, especially the supreme court.

47

Would you care to explain the logic behind that statement?
If something’s banned, then no-one can have it. Machine-guns can be said to be banned in Australia because no-one except a handful of gun dealers, armourers, and movie prop guys can have a working one. No private person can own a functioning, live-fire machine-gun in this country. That’s banned.

Once the transfer of existing automatic weapons is prohibited and the only people allowed to own them are the current owners, then I think we can talk about machine-guns being “Banned” in the US as a whole. As long as it’s possible for people to legally purchase those existing automatic weapons (subject to local laws), then banned is not the correct word to apply to the situation, no matter how much you want to get worked up about the fact you can’t buy a Ma Deuce from Big 5.

In which case I think the correct tem is “Embargoed”, not “Banned”. They’d be “Banned” if the Government made possession and transfer of those goods illegal, but that’s not the case as far as I’m aware. Fortunately, there’s no issues with Cuban goods (regardless of when they were manufactured) here in Australia. so, if you’ll excuse me, I’m just going to pour myself a generous measure of Havana Club rum. :smiley:

That surprises me, to be honest. Any idea why it’s never been challenged?

48

See post #40. The M4 is rapidly becoming the standard weapon for the Army and Marines. All soldiers are expected to be able to conduct basic operations such as vehicle convoys and clearing rooms. This skills are now taught in basic training. M4s are better suited for that. I am in Iraq. I certainly have not been everywhere in Iraq. However, I see more M4s than M16s. I’m in a Guard unit. We received brand new M4s before we deployed. We are not a specialized unit. All those who have M4s were personnel that had M16s before, not pistols.

49

No disagreement. I’m just talking about what they were built for.

The airforce stopped issuing pistols to its officers in favor of M4’s, I believe?

I believe I did. You and I just have a disagreement on the fundamental definition.

So is what is currently in place in the USA.

First, buy a what from a who?

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.

Which is it, If they’re not transferable, or if they’ve all been confiscated?

It’s pretty easy to get in the USA too. You know that Cuba is like… 90 miles from Florida? I could get there in a paddle boat.

Aren’t stupid laws great? :smack:

A variety of possible reasons. First and foremost, I’m not sure it hasn’t.

Second, the NRA (the largest firearm lobby) probably hasn’t tried to back/field a case because it tries to create an image of hunting and sporting, and because Fully Automatic weapons have been so thoroughly demonized in the public media, that would ruin their political clout with undecideds.

Third, Supreme Court Cases (as this one would no doubt eventually be) are expensive. I seem to remember the minimum amount being 5 million in Lawyer Hours, transit, etc. And that’s only for the Supreme Court Case itself.

Fourth, fear that the ban would be upheld. If it is, it permanently and (almost) irrevocably damages the gun lobby, in that it legitimizes gun control laws to a far greater extent. For instance, had the ban been upheld (in the supreme court) there’s a possibility that it could have been used as a supportive case for DC v Heller, although I’m not a constitutional lawyer, so I’m probably wrong about the DC v Heller bit.

50

So you say, but I disagree, which is the crux of this whole argument, of course. :wink:

“Ma Deuce” is an affectionate nickname for the Browning M2 .50 calibre Heavy Machine Gun. Big 5 is a sporting goods store largely based in California but present elsewhere in the Western US; they sell guns and I hear their name mentioned fairly often on firearms discussion boards as a reputable dealer of guns and ammunition.

I understand you’re saying that the intent of the law is to create a situation where automatic weapons are banned because there aren’t any left that can legally be owned by people. The point I’m making is that, as the situation currently stands, there are still plenty of automatic weapons available for people with the money and the appropriate paperwork, and so the guns can’t be considered “banned” until such time as that’s no longer the case. Eventually, as you say, the guns will wear out and then there won’t be any, but that could be 200 years from now.

Either would do. If they can’t be transferred then there’s only a handful of people who can own them and eventually they’ll die, taking the items out of (legal) circulation (assuming the items haven’t been consumed or worn out/broken before then). Since the items are effectively out of circulation as soon as the law is passed, then they can be considered banned, even if there are a handful of people who can continue to own their existing items- those items can’t be acquired by anyone else, and are thus banned for all intents and purposes. As long as there are ways for other people to legally acquire those items, they’re not banned, IMHO.

If they’re confiscated, that’s pretty obviously a ban, so I don’t think any explanation is needed there.

The difference is I’m not breaking the law when I make a Cuba Libre with Havana Club rum and light up a Romeo y Julieta afterwards. I’m well aware Cuba is very close to the US and that the sizeable Ex-pat Cuban population in Florida is a large part of the reason the Embargo hasn’t been lifted.

You’re telling me. Try reading the various firearms laws in Australia and see if you don’t need a couple of Panadol afterwards.

Ah, that makes a disturbing amount of sense. Thanks for the clarification! :slight_smile:

51

If a company made a new, but accurate replica of a '69 Mustang, they couldn’t sell it. It wouldn’t pass modern emissions and probably safety standards.

Somebody better tell all classic car and motorcycle owners (and the whole industry devoted to them) their prized possessions have been banned. And somebody better investigate those want-ad magazines. They’re FULL of ads from people trying to sell banned items! Better shut down craigslist too…

52

In the USA at least, “pistols”, are not allowed to have shoulder stocks or forward hand grips. That would make them short barreled rifles (SBR) which are controlled by the 1935 National Firearms Act. They can be made or bought, but there’s paperwork and a $200 tax stamp involved. I’ve just built one (SBR) and it took over three months before my paper work was completed. The papers had to be signed by my local Sheriff and sent to the BATF along with fingerprint cards. All SBRs, machine guns, short barreled shotguns, silencers, and the like are registered with the federal government. Some states add additional restrictions or don’t permit them at all.

If I even had the short barreled part and the receiver at the same location I’d be in violation of the law.

In general terms, a rifle is anything with a rifled barrel longer than 16". There’s also an overall length requirement, but I don’t recall it right now.

53

If you fill out some paperwork, you can open a trust and streamline the process just a slight bit (that is, if you plan on making more than one SBR’d item), and skip the fingerprinting. Although I think that the local Sheriff still has to sign off.

26", I’m 99.999% on that.

Anytime.

54

You know very well, or you should know, that there’s a difference. However, yes, those are grandfathered in (from an emissions standpoint) too.

55

If I should know what the difference is, please tell me.

56

Look, there are lots of definitions of “banned”. There’s “no sale or import”, “no possession, sale or import”, or even something as simple as “no possession by public agencies”.

See “banned books” for an example of the last one.

Replicas of the firearms mentioned in the FAWB don’t have to be particularly accurate. There are lots of companies that make new-but-accurate replicas of classic cars, but use modern engines and emissions control systems.

57

Functionality. New cars are held to higher emission standards.

It would be like comparing a firearm legislation that banned all firearms which went off without the trigger being pulled (due to worn or insufficient sears, drop fires, etc) to one that outlawed fully automatic weapons.

A more accurate comparison would be if they banned all cars which could exceed 100MPH, or accelerate faster than 10mph/s, and the cars that were made before the ban were grandfathered in.
The difference is entirely in functionality.

58

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. :smiley:

59

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?

60

Lots of people would have standing to challenge a national rather than regional federal statute. Pretty much anyone who wants to buy or sell any of the restricted weapons.

The problem with standing in Heller is that none of the people trying to challenge the ordinance were DC residents.