Posts Tagged so-called assault weapons

“Semiautomatic rifles a ‘hazard’; seizures are up”

Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Government and Law, Self-Defense on May 12th, 2009

I came across this article from the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel.

They can kill from more than four football fields away, shred police officers’ vests, fire up to 75 bullets at a time – and they’re increasingly showing up in criminals’ hands.

Last year, Fort Wayne Police seized 31 semiautomatic rifles, compared with two in 2003, the last year of the federal assault weapons ban that limited the sale of the rifles. The seizure increase and more reports of criminals using the rifles concerns Fort Wayne Police Chief Rusty York.

Here we are in the second paragraph, and the author has already mixed his terminology. A semiautomatic rifle fires a single shot for every pull of the trigger, and loads the next round without any manual operation of the gun, such as working a lever. There is absolutely nothing sinister about semiautomatic rifles. They have the word “automatic” in their name, which conjures up images of fully automatic rifles, but they are not the same thing. Full-autos continue to fire as long as the trigger is held down. Semi-autos fire a single shot for every pull of the trigger.

The author continually refers to “semiautomatic rifles” as if they are some special thing, but really, he might as well just be saying, “rifles” and leave it at that. It would be like complaining about problems with “fuel injected cars”.

The author then refers to the federal assault weapons ban (AWB) that “limited the sale of the rifles.” Actually, no it didn’t. The AWB specifically limited rifles that had certain cosmetic features. It is true that all of the rifles banned by the AWB were semiautomatic. That’s because fully automatic rifles are already heavily-regulated and nearly-completley banned for civilian ownership by a different law. But the AWB did not apply to semiautomatic rifles in general; only to some specific models and to guns having certain cosmetic features.

So, the police seized 31 “semiautomatic rifles”. This could be nearly any rifle, from a target-plinking .22 caliber to a deer rifle.

“The fact that we have these relatively cheap, assault weapon-type firearms out there, it’s not only a hazard to the public, but in particular to police officers,” said York, who supports renewing the ban. “It’s proof that they continue to get into the hands of irresponsible people.”

Then take them away from the “irresponsible people” and leave me the fuck alone, please.

“It’s a weapon of war, not of sport,” York said. “I’m sure it will be a political battle, but the officers are out in the street fighting that battle every day.”

Actually, semiautomatic rifles are not weapons of war. Not even a little bit. Every state-run military in the entire world issues full-auto or select-fire battle rifles to their infantry. Not a single one uses semiautomatic rifles. Semiautomatic rifles are explicitly civilian in every way.

  • Share/Bookmark

, ,

No Comments

“Circumventing the law”?

Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Government and Law, Self-Defense on January 26th, 2009

While reading the Wikipedia page on “assault weapons”, I came across this quote:

In March 2004, Kristen Rand, the legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, criticized the soon-to-expire ban by stating, “The 1994 law in theory banned AK-47s, MAC-10s, UZIs, AR-15s and other assault weapons. Yet the gun industry easily found ways around the law and most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress sought to ban in 1994.”

I’ve heard that phrase used before. In a case right here in Georgia, a man was found to be in possession of an AK-47-style rifle receiver that had been converted into a pistol by removing the shoulder stock and shortening the barrel. Because of the weirdness of the laws, rifle-receivers that have been converted into pistols are legal, but short-barreled rifles (with barrels less than 16″) are illegal. The primary difference between the two is the presence or absence of a shoulder stock.

The prosecutor argued that the man was attempting to circumvent the law. The defense attorney stated, quite rightly, that the man was attempting to comply with the law (and was, in fact, in compliance with the law). Jury found for the defense.

When the Assault Weapons Ban made rifles fitting certain descriptions illegal and manufacturers modified their rifles to omit those features, they were attempting to comply with the law, not circumvent it. If I take the shoulder stock off my AK-47-style rifle so as to allow me to legally cut the barrel down below 16″, I’m attempting to comply with the law, not circumvent it.

Watch for this shitty semantic trick. Law enforcement, legislators, and prosecutors do it very often. You made the laws, you assholes! Don’t blame us when we comply with them and you don’t get what you thought you were going to get!

  • Share/Bookmark

No Comments

Assault Weapons Ban

Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Self-Defense on January 9th, 2009

What with the new administration, I have started getting mail from the Bradys pushing for another assault weapons ban. The previous assault weapons ban expired in 2004. This video clarifies the confusion and misunderstanding about firearms that is brought about by the inaccurate term, “assault weapon”.

For those who don’t want to spend ten minutes watching the video: “Assault weapon” is a made-up term for rifles that have certain cosmetic features, such as a collapsible stock or barrel shroud. Some of these features do have functional effects–for example, a collapsible stock makes it easier to store and transport a rifle, by shortening its overall length and a barrel shroud protects the user of the rifle from burns if the barrel gets hot from firing–but these functional effects do not change the overall deadliness of the weapon. Guns without a barrel shroud, collapsible stock, and other prohibited cosmetic features, function in exactly the same manner as those with prohibited cosmetic features.

Rifles that have these “evil” features were illegal under the old assault weapons ban. Other rifles that were functionally completely identical to banned rifles were completely legal, as long as they did not have the prohibited cosmetic features. This is demonstrated very vividly at about 7:00 into the video, where the author takes a legal “hunting-style” rifle and converts it to a would-be-illegal-under-the-AWB “assault weapon” simply by changing out the stock.

When you start hearing about the “assault weapons” ban or laws banning “military-style” weapons, keep in mind that these laws are analogous to banning a car based on whether it has a spoiler or not. Functionally, the guns that would be banned are completely identical to “hunting” or “sporting” weapons in every way except for cosmetic features, and these cosmetic features do not fundamentally increase the deadliness of the weapons. So-called “assault weapons” are not fully automatic and they are not used by any military force in the world. (Fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated under other laws that are not related to “assault weapons” bans.) “Assault weapons” bans arbitrarily make certain guns illegal solely based on the fact that they look scary or look like military weapons, and that is a bad criteria for which to limit the legal rights of the people.

  • Share/Bookmark

,

No Comments