What is an assault weapon? Is an AK-47 an assault weapon? Is a revolver an assault weapon? I hear many, many people who throw around the term “assault weapon” and I have to ask myself, do they even know what one is? Our own government hasn’t defined what an assault weapon is since 1994.
In 1994, Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed into law a ban on some semi-automatic rifles and handguns that were deemed “assault weapons.” Defining the term was tricky then and remains controversial today.
“If gun control actually did work, Washington, D.C. and Chicago would be the safest cities in your nation. But [they are] not, they have the toughest gun laws and the highest crime and murder rates,”
Under that now-expired law, some new guns were banned by name, including the Uzi, the AK-47 and the Colt AR-15, which is similar to the military’s standard issue M16.
The law also covered some other semi-automatic rifles that are used with detachable magazines — devices that hold ammunition and feed the bullets into the firing chamber automatically. Such rifles were banned only if they had two or more additional characteristics listed in the law, such as a folding stock or a pistol grip.
Guns already sold to buyers before the ban were exempt and could be resold. Meanwhile, manufacturers skirted the ban by producing similar guns under new names or making minor design changes, such as removing a bayonet mount.
Obama says he wants Congress to ban what he calls “military-style assault weapons,” but he hasn’t defined the term, so it’s unclear which guns would be covered. He describes his plan as reinstating and strengthening the 1994 assault weapon law. Without defining it, playing on your ignorance, he could pass the law, then define it to mean whatever he desires.
"No Gun zones" save lives (did you read the first quote in this article? Do bad guys come to rob you and see your "No gun zone and go next door?)
That 1994 law, however, wouldn’t have covered the military-looking Bushmaster .223 rifles used in the Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., shootings, had it still been in place in 2012. The old law did apply to another aspect of those shootings — high-capacity magazines.
Lets recall the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook. The killer used an “assault weapon” as that’s the only way he could have killed so many innocent people right? The news even said he used the scary “assault weapon. The governments main talking point was that Sandy Hook would not have been as bad if he didn’t use a “assault weapon”. Time, and time again it has been pushed that he used the semi automatic weapon (everyone is nodding their head yes, Major, what’s your point?) Well, he didn’t use the AR15. It was found in his car trunk after the fact. It was never fired. So, will the gov classify those guns he did use as “banned guns”? If so, you probably have the same guns at home. (Glock pistol and a Sig Sauer pistol)
Why would a person use an assault weapon? They are considered by some people to be fun to shoot; they can be used for hunting, depending on the weapon and the size of the animal; and because they resemble military rifles they can appear particularly menacing when used for personal defense or home protection. The fact is, it doesn’t matter “why” a person wants an“assault” weapon, it’s their right to own whatever gun they desire. Unless, you think, the government, knows better than you and knows what you do or don’t deserve to have, then the government will be like that of foreign countries where “they” say what you can or cannot do against your rights. Does the government know what’s better for you or do you know what’s better for you? Interesting question.
The term assault weapon, when used in the context of assault-weapon laws, refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic. Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', changes the classification from assault weapons to Title II weapons. Merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again. They do not fire automatically like a machine gun. Rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.
In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
A semi-automatic Yugoslavian M70AB2 rifle.
An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an Assault Weapon under Federal Law.
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
- Folding or telescoping stock
- Pistol grip
- Bayonet mount
- Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
- Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
- Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
- Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
- Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
- Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
- A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
- Folding or telescoping stock
- Pistol grip
- Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
- Detachable magazine.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 amended Section 921(a) of title 18 of the United States Code to define semiautomatic assault weapons and specifically named the following nineteen (19) semi-automatic firearm models and/or model types, as well as any copies or duplicates of these firearms, in any caliber, as assault weapons.
- Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies AK-47 (all models)
- Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI
- Action Arms Israeli Military Industries Galil
- Beretta AR-70 and
- Colt AR-15
- Fabriqué National FN FAL
- FN LAR and
- MAC-type handguns, including MAC-10
- MAC 11/9 and
- Steyr AUG
- INTRATEC TEC-9
- TEC-DC9 and
- Revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and
- Striker 12.
Ok, now that you know what the law was in 1994, but back up the train a minute. I love the argument how many believe the proposed “gun control” is only for those big scary AR 15 and the like scary “assault weapons”. Nope. If you look at the 1994 law, it included some semi-automatic pistols as well. That’s right, not just those big scary assault weapons but your pistol as well (i.e. semi automatic pistols that weigh over 50oz empty) that’s pretty much all of them.
The Gun Control issue. Is it about guns? If you say yes, think about this. Is it about guns or when it all settles down, is it about your rights as described in the Bill of Rights? What does it say in the Bill of Rights?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
For those that havent read that before (infringed) is defined by websters as: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.
With that defined, and looking at the current situations of ‘terror” that the media has been focusing on, what is the common element throughout? It’s not “assault weapons” we already debunked that above with Sandy Hook, guns are a common element but so is the continuous meadia headline that the “attacker” was mentally ill. Hmm, how many headlines have you seen where the government is addressing the real issue of mentally ill Americans? Why, because it costs a TON of money to aid the mentally ill, and a lot less to ban guns.
If you are for the government implementing a gun control then what you are saying is that you are in acceptance to forfeit your rights to the government. Now if you forfeit something, you don’t get them back. If you agree, to forfeiting your second amendment right, then why not your first or others? If the gov can tear apart the Constitution and rewrite your rights for the 2nd amendment, why wouldn’t they do it for the first?
Just a quick side bar pertaining to the first amendment. Currently there are a series of pictures of Obama holding a shot gun that the White House distributed to show how the president is familiar with guns. Now, the White House has come out and warned those “altering” the president photo that they could be held liable for altering it. Hmmm does that sound like a restriction on your first amendment rights?
Now, I know there are some out there saying, Major, the government isn’t going to use a building block approach over time and eventually take all of our guns away or to quote an emailer “Pro-gun folks portray control as taking away all your guns. You know that is not and never has been proposed by any rational person.” Has anyone, saying this asked Australia? Last time I checked they didn’t have a Hitler or ill rational person in charge, however only bad people in Australia, have guns.
Its not about guns people, its about your rights.............
Time for a C-Gar
Data taken from other sources for this article