Defining an Assault Rifle

You may be surprised, but I do support some regulation of firearms (e.g. instant background checks, prohibition for felons). One area of regulation that is very murky and provides a good example of how politicians pass ineffectual laws and stir up a lot of unnecessary hand-wringing with mis-led constituents is the battle against so-called "Assault Rifles."

Just hearing the name makes us shiver from images of ski-masked gangs beating down our doors and spraying thousands of rounds a minute from speeding, shiny-rimmed Impalas.

The truth of the matter is that every single Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) or related legislation concerns itself only with the appearance of the firearm and not with how it functions. When most people hear "assault weapon" they invariably think of a fully automatic machine gun where multiple bullets can be expelled with a single pull of the trigger. AWBs do not address these firearms, as they have been severely restricted since the 1934 National Firearms Act. Notice that I said "restricted" as citizens can obtain them by undergoing a multi-year full cavity search and paying thousands of dollars to the ATF for registration.

No, AWBs arbitrarily decide that some cosmetic modifications are taboo because it makes the gun look more dangerous, while never explaining it has no impact on how the firearm functions. The AWB I am most familiar with is the one still active in Columbus, OH. Coincidentally, it is almost exactly the same as the federal AWB enacted under the Clinton Administration. Let's take a look:

(L) "Assault weapon" means any:

(1) Semi-automatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
(a) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the receiver of the weapon;
(b) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
(c) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;
(d) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or
(e) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;

As for item (1), this addresses 99% of semi-automatic rifles, as they all have a detachable magazine. We're talking run-of-the-mill hunting rifles here. Semi-automatic means that only one bullet can be fired for every pull of the trigger. These are not "rapid fire" or "military oriented" weapons. It's the rest of the sub-conditions that define an assault rifle, and every single one only talks about cosmetics:

(a) A pistol grip -- where your trigger hand holds the rifle
(b) Protruding Grip -- I have no idea... sounds like a reiteration of item (a)
(c) A different stock (the part you hold against your shoulder) -- that can either be adjusted in size for those with longer/shorter arms or has a hole cut in it for your thumb
(d) A barrel shroud -- so you can't directly touch the barrel, having no effect on operation
(e) A muzzle brake -- now this would minimally affect function for fully automatic machine guns as a brake will help reduce recoil. Semi-autos can't fire fast enough to notice any effect, so all it does is make it look cooler.

None of these accessories fundamentally change the way the rifle shoots. It still only fires one bullet at a time. The bullet goes just as fast. The bullet goes just as far. If you were to take off the pistol grip, barrel shroud, and muzzle brake, the gun would function exactly the same.

The AWB goes on to describe semi-automatic pistols and shotguns, which you're welcome to read about in the link I provided above as they also only describe arbitrary, cosmetic differences. But I just wanted to comment on rifles due to our recent discussion involving the SKS. By the way, even using the arbitrary definition of the Columbus AWB, the SKS is not an "assault rifle" in their eyes.

So to sum up, what are we talking about here? Let's put it to the test. There are two rifles shown below. One is the Ruger 10/22, perhaps one of the greatest selling semi-automatic rifles of all time. A rifle that most people would never think twice about. The other is a semi-automatic Bushmaster AR-15. Because some people think it looks scarier, it could be illegal where you live, although it functions exactly the same as the Ruger and is no more dangerous in how it operates.


Ruger 10/22

Bushmaster AR-15


Do we really need to have legislation in place that outlaws mere objects based on looks? Or do you think maybe some politicians and all anti-gun activists use mis-leading information to influence the public with unfounded claims of making them safer...



And just for continuity, here's a picture of the SKS that "tactical officer" Faust severely misinformed us about in the previous article. Perhaps I'll do a review of my slightly different version, the Yugoslavian SKS 59/66. I'm sure that will be an audience pleaser. :)


Thanks for reading.