Show me a MD law that is NOT poorly crafted.
What IS the definition of "assault weapon", officially?
- Thread starter E.Shell
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Jan 30, 2013
- 34,301
Good point.
Well maybe we should leave it up to SCOTUS. They are 1/9...
MattFinals718
Active Member
"In your heart, you know he's right." - Barry Goldwater
How so? If you have many people in one area, without much distance between them, it seems pretty clear that if the shooter has a weapon that is equipped with a magazine that holds many rounds, and is using controlled but rapid semi-auto fire, and the weapon is controllable when fired rapidly, he's at least going to hit a lot of people. Whether they die is another question; a valid argument from our side is that the gun controllers tend to ignore that some of their least favorite weapons, like the AR, fire cartridges that are more likely to wound than kill (which is also by design).
Wouldn't characterize this type of fire as "mag dumping", BTW.
That's kinda my point. I'd rather that our side didn't play the definitions game. There are objective IRL criteria for defining what makes a woman, just as there are criteria for defining what makes an assault rifle. The disagreement in this thread is over which specific criteria = assault rifle, or assault weapon, or whatever.
Haven't heard that before, but I'd appreciate it if you posted a link to back up this claim. At any rate, I've seen a number of books and magazines from the 1980s, not to mention ads by gun manufacturers themselves, which suggest otherwise.
You're also still holding me to a higher standard of proof than you're holding yourself, or anyone else on this thread who disagrees with me. I also can't help but note that you're citing one example (Brady Foundation), but then saying that this is proof that "anti-gun groups" (plural) admitted it - by your standards, aren't you also stretching the truth a little bit here?
Not relevant to the point that I was making with the ad. You asked me to demonstrate that the gun industry/2A community used the term "assault weapon" (or variations, such as "assault pistol") in the 1980s, so I gave you an ad created by Intratec to promote the TEC-9 as an example.
You also didn't answer my question RE how many examples you need.
Got it, I haven't been an MDS member long enough to know all of the different acronyms that this community uses. I wasn't sure if you made a typo and meant to say "MGA" or "MDGA."
Right, but you're citing his opinion to demonstrate how MDAG distinguishes between Title I firearms ("banned" assault weapons vs. copycats vs. non-banned semi-automatic weapons), in the context of a discussion where we're shifting focus to distinguishing between select-fire weapons and their semi-auto-only counterparts. So it's hard for me not to regard this as a distraction.
I am aware of the origin of the "HBAR" exemption on the Regulated list (later the Banned list). But let's ignore what a bunch of ignorant legislators decided for the moment, and instead focus on good old fashioned common sense. Yes, a regular Colt 6920 is considered a banned "assault weapon" in MD, while the heavy-barreled Colt 6920 SOCOM is not (fortunately for us). Does that make any sense in practical terms to you? I'm also pretty sure that certain folks in MGA are aware that they got it wrong by not addressing HBAR ARs; there have already been proposals to add them to the banned list (none of which went anywhere); I've seen old posts about those proposed laws.
I should point out that, IMHO, if MGA's goal was to clamp down on "mass shooter weapons," a heavy-barreled AR like the Colt 6920 SOCOM would appear more useful than its lighter-barreled counterparts. The M.O. of a mass shooter is to fire a lot of rounds at the most people in the shortest time possible, and the SOCOM barrel will heat up slower than a regular M4 GOV barrel over the course of sustained rapid fire.
Thank you for your service. Not that I am doubting that you have a DD-214 in hand, but I also have to ask: How long ago were you in, and what was your MOS? As I am sure you are aware, times do change, and so does training.
I don't deny that yes, the U.S. military requires service rifles to have semi- and full-auto fire control settings, but for the sake of our discussion - the question is how useful it proves to be in actual combat. I've seen a lot of videos of combat from the GWOT that was posted to YouTube over the past 15+ years, and it's hard for me not to notice that many of the service members in those videos are only seen using semi-auto on their issued service weapons when they come under the fire. (Recently: I've noticed that Marines using the M27 IAR do seem to use auto regularly, but then again, that's by design.) Is that anecdotal evidence? Yes, but a lot of videos/anecdotes starts to feel like a trend.
Also have to ask - why is the use of FA/burst not concentrated on during Basic training? Some of the folks I've seen that served with have told me that it was their unit commanders and/or team/squad leaders who discouraged their use of burst or auto.
I'd also like to point out that some of our community's experts who served in SOF units have also claimed (in public) that full-auto had few uses. Please see Forgotten Weapons' interview with Larry Vickers about the Colt 723 carbine that he used early in his SFOD-D career, where he said exactly this (want me to send link?)
This is probably true. I certainly acknowledge that, legally speaking, I see no simple way to distinguish "assault weapons" from semi-autos. Doesn't mean that there's no actual, functional/performance difference that is not observable, just that those differences don't easily translate into legal-speak.
I should also point out that the gun controllers in the United Kingdom make no distinction, saying that all semi-automatic weapons with detachable mags are "mass casualty" weapons. One of their current efforts is to ban rimfire semi-automatic rifles (which are still legal to own there).
Not really sure. I certainly imagine that most of them (not all, though) are at least practical enough to know that will never happen.
This is definitely a misleading and disingenuous statement on their part, given that (1.) Glocks are clearly not banned almost anywhere in the U.S., and (2.) no Glock model ever made features less than 3.7 oz of metal.
Not that I've ever done this myself, but what they're saying about the difference in rate of fire is probably true (for most weapons).
So now you are acknowledging - unlike Dblas - that "assault weapon" was at one time used as a gun industry marketing term, before it became controversial?
BTW, as much as I don't like our opponents, trying to equate them with Nazis is a cheap tactic, IMO. Your analogy doesn't work, any better than that other guy who equated comparisons between guns with a comparison between humans and chimps.
How so? If you have many people in one area, without much distance between them, it seems pretty clear that if the shooter has a weapon that is equipped with a magazine that holds many rounds, and is using controlled but rapid semi-auto fire, and the weapon is controllable when fired rapidly, he's at least going to hit a lot of people. Whether they die is another question; a valid argument from our side is that the gun controllers tend to ignore that some of their least favorite weapons, like the AR, fire cartridges that are more likely to wound than kill (which is also by design).
Wouldn't characterize this type of fire as "mag dumping", BTW.
That's kinda my point. I'd rather that our side didn't play the definitions game. There are objective IRL criteria for defining what makes a woman, just as there are criteria for defining what makes an assault rifle. The disagreement in this thread is over which specific criteria = assault rifle, or assault weapon, or whatever.
Haven't heard that before, but I'd appreciate it if you posted a link to back up this claim. At any rate, I've seen a number of books and magazines from the 1980s, not to mention ads by gun manufacturers themselves, which suggest otherwise.
You're also still holding me to a higher standard of proof than you're holding yourself, or anyone else on this thread who disagrees with me. I also can't help but note that you're citing one example (Brady Foundation), but then saying that this is proof that "anti-gun groups" (plural) admitted it - by your standards, aren't you also stretching the truth a little bit here?
Not relevant to the point that I was making with the ad. You asked me to demonstrate that the gun industry/2A community used the term "assault weapon" (or variations, such as "assault pistol") in the 1980s, so I gave you an ad created by Intratec to promote the TEC-9 as an example.
You also didn't answer my question RE how many examples you need.
Got it, I haven't been an MDS member long enough to know all of the different acronyms that this community uses. I wasn't sure if you made a typo and meant to say "MGA" or "MDGA."
Right, but you're citing his opinion to demonstrate how MDAG distinguishes between Title I firearms ("banned" assault weapons vs. copycats vs. non-banned semi-automatic weapons), in the context of a discussion where we're shifting focus to distinguishing between select-fire weapons and their semi-auto-only counterparts. So it's hard for me not to regard this as a distraction.
I am aware of the origin of the "HBAR" exemption on the Regulated list (later the Banned list). But let's ignore what a bunch of ignorant legislators decided for the moment, and instead focus on good old fashioned common sense. Yes, a regular Colt 6920 is considered a banned "assault weapon" in MD, while the heavy-barreled Colt 6920 SOCOM is not (fortunately for us). Does that make any sense in practical terms to you? I'm also pretty sure that certain folks in MGA are aware that they got it wrong by not addressing HBAR ARs; there have already been proposals to add them to the banned list (none of which went anywhere); I've seen old posts about those proposed laws.
I should point out that, IMHO, if MGA's goal was to clamp down on "mass shooter weapons," a heavy-barreled AR like the Colt 6920 SOCOM would appear more useful than its lighter-barreled counterparts. The M.O. of a mass shooter is to fire a lot of rounds at the most people in the shortest time possible, and the SOCOM barrel will heat up slower than a regular M4 GOV barrel over the course of sustained rapid fire.
Thank you for your service. Not that I am doubting that you have a DD-214 in hand, but I also have to ask: How long ago were you in, and what was your MOS? As I am sure you are aware, times do change, and so does training.
I don't deny that yes, the U.S. military requires service rifles to have semi- and full-auto fire control settings, but for the sake of our discussion - the question is how useful it proves to be in actual combat. I've seen a lot of videos of combat from the GWOT that was posted to YouTube over the past 15+ years, and it's hard for me not to notice that many of the service members in those videos are only seen using semi-auto on their issued service weapons when they come under the fire. (Recently: I've noticed that Marines using the M27 IAR do seem to use auto regularly, but then again, that's by design.) Is that anecdotal evidence? Yes, but a lot of videos/anecdotes starts to feel like a trend.
Also have to ask - why is the use of FA/burst not concentrated on during Basic training? Some of the folks I've seen that served with have told me that it was their unit commanders and/or team/squad leaders who discouraged their use of burst or auto.
I'd also like to point out that some of our community's experts who served in SOF units have also claimed (in public) that full-auto had few uses. Please see Forgotten Weapons' interview with Larry Vickers about the Colt 723 carbine that he used early in his SFOD-D career, where he said exactly this (want me to send link?)
This is probably true. I certainly acknowledge that, legally speaking, I see no simple way to distinguish "assault weapons" from semi-autos. Doesn't mean that there's no actual, functional/performance difference that is not observable, just that those differences don't easily translate into legal-speak.
I should also point out that the gun controllers in the United Kingdom make no distinction, saying that all semi-automatic weapons with detachable mags are "mass casualty" weapons. One of their current efforts is to ban rimfire semi-automatic rifles (which are still legal to own there).
Not really sure. I certainly imagine that most of them (not all, though) are at least practical enough to know that will never happen.
This is definitely a misleading and disingenuous statement on their part, given that (1.) Glocks are clearly not banned almost anywhere in the U.S., and (2.) no Glock model ever made features less than 3.7 oz of metal.
Not that I've ever done this myself, but what they're saying about the difference in rate of fire is probably true (for most weapons).
So now you are acknowledging - unlike Dblas - that "assault weapon" was at one time used as a gun industry marketing term, before it became controversial?
BTW, as much as I don't like our opponents, trying to equate them with Nazis is a cheap tactic, IMO. Your analogy doesn't work, any better than that other guy who equated comparisons between guns with a comparison between humans and chimps.
Last edited:
It was actually VPC (Violence Policy Center) not Brady:
A very good resource on the creation of the term "assault weapon" and how the anti-gun groups use it interchangeably with assault rifle.
Not really when an organization actually admits that it created the term to create misunderstanding to advance their goals. At that point, I only need one source and one proof. You on the other hand, started out with one book cover. I would also contend that the items on the cover and the TEC-9 are defined as "assault pistols" since none of them are long arms.
It actually is since we are discussing Maryland laws and lawsuits.
I would also contend that the items on the cover and the TEC-9 are defined as "assault pistols" since none of them are long arms.
More than the one you posted and related to long guns, not pistol caliber handguns/firearms since if you want to continue to support your argument, you at least need to stick with an intermediate rifle round like the gun grabbers.
I saw that, hence why I wrote it out to make sure you understood.
How can you use the definition to distinguish between a copy or not and what is an "assault weapon" or not. Replace "copy" with "assault weapon" and that is exactly what you are doing with your discussion. You, yourself, mentioned above thread that the only difference between your 9620 and an M4 is s trigger and a sear. We both agree that they are not 100% parts compatible. Using the MD AG's opinion then, your 6920 is not a copy of an M4 and thus is not an "assault rifle". How is that a distraction from the conversation?
The legistaors didn't ignore anything in 1989, we busted our asses to get the HBAR exempted from the "regulated Firearms" list.
If you understand how the HBAR got the exemption, and the legislature simply change the list from "regulated" to "banned", it makes perfect sense.
Yep, and we beat them back the same way we got the original HBAR exemption 30+ years ago.
While true, they simply look at the firearm used, not the make-up of it, and neither does the FBI when collecting the numbers for the UCR.
Eight years back in the late 80's and mid 90's. Times change, but the firearms training course hasn't. I was in a comms MOS and I'll leave it at that, but did quite a bit of close support for the those in combat arms MOSs. And before you think a comms guys has little clue about weapons and combat arms tactics, you would be very wrong in this case, and I will leave it at that.
It depends on the situation and the environment, but it can be very useful initially for establishing firing lanes for each individual in a fire team, or taking back the initiative in a fight. At which point, in both cases, you got back to semi and aimed, directed shots.
I'm betting all of those videos showed the service members in basically the same situations in all of them. More than likely not being overrun or ambushed, and without the need for FA?
It's a select fire rifle designed for higher sustained rates of fire with upgraded components to do so. It is also currently been issued to pretty much every Marine, replacing their M4. But for those used to replace the M249, it could be seen as a trend.
FA/Burst gets used maybe twice in Basic. The goal of the firearms portion of basic (3 weeks worth by the way) to create a soldier (regardless of MOS) that can effectively shoot their rifle and hit their targets at an acceptable rate. (passing is 24 of 40 hits based on 20 rounds prone supported and 20 rounds from a foxhole supported position. At targets ranging from 50M to 300M that are presented from any where for 3 seconds (50M) to 8 seconds (300M).
It is then up to the team/squad/company level to teach the use of FA/burst and it was something that was gone over in PLDC (Primary Leadership Development Course) when I served.
Yep, most of the SOF type units try to stay away from FA/burst simply for the reason of the amount of personal ammo they carry for each mission. They really don't want to blow through their ammo at all unless they have to. They concentrate even more on aimed shot placement than basic/fire teams/etc. to the point that the do live fire training with their entire team sitting in a shoot house/walk through as non combantents to make it more difficult and make sure they get the mission pararmeters right.
Sirex
Powered by natural gas
It's a trap. It's a purposely vague term meant to encompass anything the left doesn't want you to have. Shotguns with rotating cylinders. Spa 12 with a folding stock. SKS with a detachable magazine. Mini 14 with a folding stock. None more or less deadly, but scary to them. And then who will be the judge of what is an assault weapon? Those who wish you not to have them.
A high-lift jack? I’m not getting this one.
Boats
Broken Member
@MattFinals718: Same. Except Im a fat ugly Swede. You ARE kind of all over the map here.
So what? What makes your opinion so special?
Ok lets substitute "appropriated" for "invented". The etymology is irrelevant. Currently "assault weapon" is an undefined term meant to reference any weapon the speaker of that term deems scary to rally support for their unconstitutional ban.
Of course. Because assault weapon is not a set definition. Battle rifle, light machine gun, heavy machine gun, Assault rifle, Submachine gun, Pistol caliber carbine, pistol, revolver, shotgun, all have universally definable characteristics. Assault weapon does not.
No, it isn't. It really isnt.
Try to buy a .50BMG in Commiefornia. Or google the .50 BMG regulation act of 2004
IDGAF what our (2A) enemies are concerned about. They are the insane ones using their first amendment rights to attack our second amendment rights.
That, right there, is the scary part. You're arguing FOR the antis. I haven't heard a single fact from them in 4 decades. Before that I was in diapers. Wish there were more vocal pro-2a types in 1934. And 1968. Just sayin.
Do, please, tell us what that truths that our opponents speak. You said it, I challenge you to back it up, but with facts, not your amateur opinion. At this point you're like, 1 for 12, i think.
You also believe that your definition of assault weapon is important. Whelp, in lieu of being good at something, just enjoy being bad at it, i guess. Believe away but Id recommend another hobby, you're not very good at opinions.
See my previous post about swastikas. Who cares who invented it.
But here you are using them to support your argument. What does that say about your argument?
Happily, rights dont operate via pecking order. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I didn't see the part that said "Most not infringeable are slightly neutered versions of military weapons". Not even on the original. Are you reading the King James version or something?
The Maxim machine gun was invented in 1884. Now look closely at WWII. See the II?
Now ask yourself: Was there a market for the type of weapons we are talking about?
Why are you so concerned with assigning a label to these firearms? Seriously, youre either writing a paper, running for office, or youre the new guy at Everytown who has to go into the lions den.
So why do you keep playing it?
That hasn't worked out well so far. When our constitutional argument is literally the constitution but still gets argued with ....I will absolutely NOT let it stand at that. Not. one. more. inch.
Didnt you berate mpollan1 for comparing guns to humans? And then you compare guns to humans? To use your phrase "That's such an apples and oranges comparison"
That is a black-or-white fallacy. There are many other possibilities.
Again, what makes your definition so special? Why do you think the rest of the world thinks like you? I can say that I have NEVER referred to a firearm of any type as an assault weapon BECAUSE the definition is too broad. So I can say, you're definitely not referring to the weapons that I am referring to. So I guess not everyone.
Are you speaking as a representative of the left? You didn't quote a source.
No source cited
or possibly correctly. Or possibly incorrectly. or not correctly. But make no mistake, MattFinals possibly maybe knows what others would maybe possibly say. Bandwagon fallacy
Ignoring things that contraindicate your argument is a special pleading fallacy.
Says you. Begging the question fallacy. Your opinion is correct as proven by gun digest. Gun digest is the ultimate resource because you say so.
So an UZI with an non-functional barrel in an assault weapon.
I mean, there is a picture of exactly that under the title "The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons". It would be embarrassing and misleading if the picture on the cover wasn't a great example of the information in a published work. If I were publishing such a book, I would place the BEST example of what I was talking about on the cover.
Could it be that: Gun Digest wanted to sell books, and the UZI was hugely popular in the mid 80s? Probably a coincidence.
The cover. On the picture that you posted. Lower right side. Just to the right of the micro UZI and under the red text. Do you need a map? Fine:
I owe you? Go and get your shinebox.
This was already settled. You think a Steyr SPP is an assault weapon but a Glock isnt because you shoot the Steyr faster and more accurately. Ok, lets use your logic: I shoot a Glock faster and more accurately than a Steyr SPP, so a Glock must be an assault weapon. My opinion means as much as yours with regard to this argument. See how personal opinion gets in the way of objective fact?
Yes, I would say that. Subjective = opinion. Objective = fact.
By what measure? Weight? Part count? Or are you making numbers up?
The definition of an assault rifle is a select fire, magazine fed, intermediate cartridge carbine. C. Taylor, The Fighting Rifle: A Complete Study of the Rifle in Combat. Also F.A. Moyer Special Forces Foreign Weapons Handbook.
The Colt 6920 is not select fire, hence not an assault rifle. There, now you see.
Based on your "experience" of watching TV, reading, the internet, and your survey size of "a few acquaintances."
We are overlooking your argument because it is a bad one. You have very little if any hands on experience with full auto, so you certainly aren't an expert. Your survey of your veteran acquaintances is dubious, as their experience cannot be verified. You havent quoted any sources of what you have read, or seen. This is an appeal to authority fallacy.
This argument continues. It would seem you care a lot.
Words have meaning. Words are used to make laws. Laws are a binary construct: Something is illegal, or it isnt. Vague laws due to vague or improper definitions can have catastrophic outcomes.
I agree, they shouldnt be banned. That said, functionally, a Ruger mini-14 is almost the same as an AR. Both are: Magazine fed, gas-operated, semi-automatic, locked breech, .223 rifles.
That is an excellent analogy...gonna use it with or without your permission!
Something being missed regarding “assault” weapons is the entertainment industry. Prior to tv shows like Miami Vice and movies such as the Rambo franchise…rifles like AR-15s and others were relegated to survivalist magazines of the day and were considered the red-headed step-child of the gun world.
Once those tv shows, movies and video games became popular it seemed no self-respecting gang-banger or drug lord could be seen without his AR, Uzi, Steyr AUG or high capacity pistol anymore. The drug wars began in our cities and the media built it up and the politicians rode that horse to enact bans on inanimate objects rather than address the criminal behavior itself In any meaningful form.
I don’t want censorship and I’ve enjoyed much of the media I’m complaining about…but I also believe we need to be realistic about the issue. The gun community had its part…promoting the term for book sales and firearms sales…the politicians for their own nefarious purposes…the media for ratings…and on and on.
I’m not claiming I have the answer but I do think we need to keep being honest and truthful where the gun banners have not been and will not be. It’s difficult to get truth through the Kultursmog as I’ve seen it referred to.
Arguing amongst ourselves over small things only helps the other side. None of us is perfect…but as the old saying goes…we need to hang together or we will most assuredly hang separately.
Boats
Broken Member
No, I am saying it is irrelevant where a term came from. What is relevant is what it means now. Hence the swastika comparison.
Its not a cheap tactic when it is 100% true. You saying the analogy doesn't work just because, does not invalidate it.
Given: words and symbols have meaning.
Fact: The swastika was an indian/tibetan symbol for well-being. The swastika was used as a symbol of the Nazi party.
Fact: The term "assault weapon" may have had a positive (albeit vague) connotation, historically. It is now used most often by anti-2a advocates.
If you dont think that is a good analogy, then I am sorry. I am unable to simplify the concept to your level of understanding.
Boats
Broken Member
Lets do a thought experiment @MattFinals718:
Youre at a gun range. There is a table with an AR15, A full size UZI carbine, and A Steyr SPP pistol.
I ask you to hand me the Assault weapon. Which one do you hand me?
Now, I ask you to hand me the SMG, or the pistol, or the rifle.
See the vagueness (and uselessness) of the term "Assault weapon" now?
Youre at a gun range. There is a table with an AR15, A full size UZI carbine, and A Steyr SPP pistol.
I ask you to hand me the Assault weapon. Which one do you hand me?
Now, I ask you to hand me the SMG, or the pistol, or the rifle.
See the vagueness (and uselessness) of the term "Assault weapon" now?
You could also put a rock on the table.
Thank you for the acknowledgement Boats, but for the record, I did not compare guns to humans. My analogy was to illustrate the absurdity of the comparison made in the article.
My post, in it's entirety, that brought Matt out swinging:
"From the linked drivel: "Assault weapons manufactured for the civilian market, equipped with detachable high-capacity ammunition magazines, are virtually identical to their military counterparts..."
Human genetics are virtually identical to that of a chimp. Guess that makes me a chimp. Maybe even an assault chimp."
I intentionally did not enter the definition game because one does not exist. Stay loony tuned though, Matt will be providing a brief to all States and the SCOTUS with said definition.
A geode? Details matter...
If you want to go higher end…
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Anyone know of any places in southern/central PA that stocks Beretta 92 mags? (1 Viewer)- Started by Sirex
- Replies: 4