An assault weapon ban that would actually work

[jmowreader]

Any workable ban on these guns must get away from what doomed the last one. There was a long list of appearance things: if it has a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug it's illegal, but no bayonet lug and it is. It didn't address functionality.

Simply write the ban to eliminate:
Semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines
Shotguns with detachable magazines
Pistol magazines that when seated protrude from the base of the grip more than the diameter of one cartridge

...from being manufactured or imported 30 days after the date of enactment.

Prohibit ammunition sales over the Internet.

Prohibit non-Federal Firearms License holders from ordering guns online.

[ManiacJoe]

1. Nice to see that some folks finally get it.

The easiest way to accurately write the legislation is to not use the term "assault weapon" in it.

[Recursion]

2. Thank you! That makes much more sense

It also polls better, per Pew.

The more activists who "get" this, the better.

[Duckhunter935]

3. yep, keep it simple

if you get away from being short and simple, it usually goes off the deep end and does not what is intended.

the last two, I would just say have to be completed in person at an FFL to verify identity of purchaser. Have to do this with internet purchases of weapons anyway.

[Still Sensible]

4. Absolutely the right approach

and much harder to attack IMO

[Travis_0004]

5. I have a question

Some pistols take different magazines. A glock 26 is a very small gun, when you insert a glock 17 magazine into it, it protrudes out of the gun quite a bit.

When that same magazine is inserted into a glock 17, it doesn't protrude at all.

[Recursion]

7. Unfortunately nobody cares about handguns

Despite the fact that they are used in almost all murders by firearm.

As a practical matter, it would be illegal to insert the 17 clip into the 26.

[Duckhunter935]

9. same with my Rugar

I would assume the smaller 10 round would be legal and the longer SR40 15 round magazine would would not as it is longer than the grip and has a hand-grip extension cover. even though both magazines would fit the weapon.

[Recursion]

10. And I'm sure some jackass will make a handgun with a 3 foot long grip

Corner cases make bad law. Though maybe it makes more sense to say handgun magazines can have capacity X for some value of X (10?). Longer magazines would have to be pinned.

[jmowreader]

29. That is an interesting observation

Okay, let's amend this: a magazine that protrudes from the pistol it was designed for by more than one cartridge diameter will be considered an "extended magazine" and therefore illegal.

They would probably have to also add a maximum length for the handgrip on a pistol. They could measure the length of the handgrips on thirty or forty different "full size" automatic pistols made by long-established manufacturers in stock condition, like the Colt M1911, Browning Hi-Power, Beretta 92, the big Glocks and H&Ks and so on, then add one cartridge diameter to the longest one and call it "the maximum" handgrip length. Because you know if you don't, some dumbass is going to invent a pistol with a handgrip two feet long and claim it's legal because the mag doesn't protrude.

[rrneck]

6. It makes much more sense

but the legislation would be doomed from the start. That's why the whole "assault weapons" nomenclature was invented, to hide the fact that the objective is to do exactly what you just said.

[Recursion]

8. Right; the goal was this but it was politically impossible

At least 20 years ago; it actually polls better than an AWB today.

[Crepuscular]

11. grandfathered?

Unless you are suggesting some means of confiscating the tens of millions of rifles that meet your criteria that are already in private ownership, not sure why you think it will have any impact?

Is taking away my Ruger 10-22, really going to reduce the potential for gun violence? It holds 10 rounds in the standard detachable magazine. I have a Winchester model 1906 that holds 18 rounds in the magazine but the 10-22 is more of a threat because it's a semi-auto?

In order for a law to be effective, it can't be arbitrary. The criteria you listed are arbitrary, there is no logic involved in crafting them. They may be less arbitrary than the previous attempts to ban "assault weapons" but they are arbitrary, nonetheless.

Btw, it's already illegal to order guns online without the transfer going through a licensed FFL holder.

[immoderate]

15. It works for guns that go beyond 20 rounds.

Alas most murders probably could be done with three rounds.

--imm

[Recursion]

19. It's infinitely less arbitrary than the AWB

This is progress.

[Crepuscular]

21. slightly

I'd say slightly less arbitrary, not infinitely.

For example, a Beretta 92 with a 15 round mag fits the legal criteria detailed above, (handgun without protruding magazine) yet the 9mm carbine that I own that uses the exact same 15 round Beretta 92 mags is illegal because it has a pistol grip? Sorry, that's a totally arbitrary and meaningless distinction. If anything, the Beretta 92 pistol is more of a threat due to the ease of concealment and the fact that it's faster and easier to change mags.

An arbitrary distinction based on appearance, not on functionality or on any measurable increase in threat potential.

[Recursion]

22. Oh, the handgun part

That could probably use some work.

Bans aren't my preference, but this one at least does what it claims to.

[jmowreader]

30. It's not arbitrary at all

They would have to define what a handgun, a rifle and a shotgun are.

This is the gun you have, correct?



Under the law I envision, that would be considered a rifle with a detachable magazine.

[Crepuscular]

36. No

No, that's not the carbine that I have , this is.

[IMG][/IMG]

The proposed rules are arbitrary in the sense that one weapon, a Beretta 92 pistol is deemed legal under the aforementioned guidelines yet another weapon, the one pictured above, using the same caliber and the same magazine, is deemed illegal. Both have detachable magazines (in fact they use the exact same magazines). One is easier to conceal, easier to drop the mag and reload, yet that is the one that is legal under the rules proposed above. There is no logic used in differentiating between the two, if anything, the pistol would pose a greater threat to the public. Laws have to have some common sense if you expect the public to embrace them. The previous incarnation of the assault weapons ban lacked any modicum of common sense.

[jmowreader]

32. It says "manufacture and import"

It says nothing about sales of existing guns. That would have to be dealt with separately, in large part because confiscating guns turns this into an ex post facto law and those are definitely unconstitutional.

Please explain how "a semiautomatic rifle (let us define "rifle" as a firearm that is designed to fire ammunition, whether loaded as a cartridge or as separate components, that contains a single projectile*, and that is designed to be fired with the end of the stock resting against the operator's shoulder) with a detachable magazine" is an arbitrary thing. If you can manipulate a latching device on the rifle, remove the ammunition magazine, and insert a different magazine in its place, the rifle falls under this statute.

* I know about "shotgun" rounds for rifles. We can go into angels-on-pinheads mode all day long but if you go to the gun store and buy a box of ordinary .30-06 cartridges, take the cartridges home and dismantle one of them into its various components, you will find one bullet.

[immoderate]

12. Mostly agree, but ...

banning rifles with magazines kicks the issue down the road. They have to store the rounds somewhere, and there will be a cheap clip or loader.

I like your grip limit for handguns, though. Maybe it's because my gun loads 13 rounds, and don't see a redeeming effect to dropping the limit.

I should also confess that I bought some high capacity magazines long ago. And I couldn't get comfortable with a magazine that extended much beyond the grip. In action, I think they interfere with aiming.

--imm

[jmg257]

13. Minor changes:

ban all repeating longarms with detachable mags - not just semis, or 'tactical pumps' will have to be addressed next.
(allow some C&R exemptions).

Limit fixed magazine capacity, and detachable pistol mag capacity (7, 8 or 10) (i.e. 15+ rounds of 9mm is a crap-load of shots).
Limit possession of number of magazines (3).

[1-Old-Man]

14. Very good. I would like to ask one question and also comment on how I'd address 1 item above

On the pistol magazine not protruding more than the diameter of one round (a little over 1/2 inch tops) it seems to me that just because of the way they stack 'em the requirement should not only include a maximum length (handle plus 1-diameter) but also some maximum width of the magazine. Having said that I'll tell you why. A friend has a Beretta Model 9 and when he got it the thing had a limited clip from the old gun laws days. When the old gun laws expired he bought himself two additional clips that held some greater number of bullets. I'm not sure about this but I think the old ones held 9 rounds and the new ones held 13, or something very similar to that. At any rate the only visible difference in the magazines was indentations in the sides of the small-capacity which effectively made them thinner. Now I do not know enough about this to say what the right number is, but possibly along with your restriction on the depth of the magazine there might need to be one that said that the maximum width must be, for example 1.5 bullet diameters.

[jmg257]

17. Chances are he had a Beretta 92. 15+1 standard capacity.

10 round mags available during the AWB.

Some points..

Legal 15 round mags were readily available during the ban due to military usage (mags made before 1994) - grandfathering.
10 round mags readily produced during then ban; so carry 5 10rnd mags instead of 3 15rnd mags (Cho at VT with Glocks)

There is no reason not to limit magazine capacity period - 16 rounds of 9mm without reloading is a shitload of shots; except that manufactures may not produce new mags for 'pre-ban' firearms (which pisses the owners off). NY attempts to deal with this by allowing 10round mags, but they cannot CONTAIN more the 7; all 11+ round mags are now illegal to possess (also pisses off existing owners), but atleast they can dump them out of state.

Anyway, a federal ban with grandfathering - doesn't accomplish much in the shorter term but can affect future sales/designs/habits, a complete ban while more effective would piss off a lot of people.

[jmowreader]

33. The width is pretty much self-limiting

Eventually some maniac will think of making a mag three or four bullets wide in order to skirt the ban. That's fine, but since this gun won't fit in a typical shooter's hand no one will buy it and the problem will be solved.

I know, I know..."but what happens if someone invents a stock for this pistol?" A pistol so equipped then becomes a "semiautomatic rifle with detachable magazine."

[Sherman A1]

16. I think you are off to a great start, I do have a question

What would be the thought on banning body armor to the general public such as that purchased by the Colorado Shooter? I think it would be a good idea in general and I can think of no way that it is covered by the 2A.

[jmowreader]

31. How about making buying it as hard as buying a gun?

Current law in most places has no restrictions on the purchase of body armor and there are legitimate civilian uses for it - when I worked night shift in a hotel in Fayettenam I thought about buying some.

I don't have a problem with people buying body armor, but you should have to fill out the same forms for it and undergo the same background checks for it as you do for guns.

[TheKentuckian]

18. Logically coherent. Probably would have some impact, over time.

Probably not in the immediate term, there are many tens of millions of semi-auto rifles with a detachable magazine, no few are not set up for or intended for tactical, which seems to be the point of previous restrictions.

Which brings us to the common use hurdle is high though, these isn't like machine guns in 34 which impacted very few common citizens.

I also don't really don't understand the concern with internet sales. If you buy online you still have to go to a FFL and go through background. If the sale goes through a FFL, what difference does the mode of shopping make?

Thinking function makes sense though and the push for adverse selection on pistol grips is wrongheaded. If a person has a weapon, increased control should never be discouraged. I don't think it is ever rational, on balance, to encourage inaccuracy because you can only logically increase accidents both in discharge and what and who is hit.

[aikoaiko]

20. But now you are including venerable hunting rifles.

...like the Remington 750 woodsmaster with a detachable magazine.
[IMG][/IMG]

I see the NRA ad now.

[Recursion]

23. Yep. And I'd rather defend doing that...

... than defend banning equally capable rifles based on their grip shape.

[Deep13]

27. And the Ruger 10/22 and other rimfire models. nt

Not to be poking anyone with a stick, but in the movie Targets, the serial killer used that exact model with a scope to kill people at random.

[jmowreader]

38. They will have to redesign it

The M-1 Garand and SKS are semiautos with fixed magazines. It's doable.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

24. I'd say Semiauto rifle & shotguns that with magazines more then TEN rounds.

I think that to be assaule weapon, it should have to have a magazine bigger than 10 rounds being used. There are quite a few semiauto long guns that use magazines that pretty much just for hunting. The Remington 750 springs to mind, pictured below. IMO, any legislation calling these an assault weapon is not common sense. I think the pistol magazine limit is incredibly sensible. Banning internet ammo sales solves nothing... a mass shooter only needs a few dozen bullets, which are sold in boxes of 50 or so at every Walmart. Why waste time ordering ammo off the internet, paying shipping and then waiting for it to show up?

[jmowreader]

34. No, we tried that shit before, remember?

If you start talking about magazine limits and pistol grips, you are talking about writing a ban based on aesthetics rather than functionality. And yes, I know there are plenty of classic hunting rifles with detachable mags...they're going to have to stop making those too.

And don't ask ME why people "waste time ordering ammo off the internet"...maybe it's the same reason people "waste time ordering shoes off the internet"? The thing is that they do it.

[loyalsister]

25. Simple stated goal

limit access to guns that are designed to kill a lot of people quickly

[Deep13]

26. Agree on functionality.

Although, I would exempt .22 rimfire models. There are a lot of them in semi-auto with detachable magazines, usually ten rounds. (Of course if your idea went into effect, Ruger might bring back its cool level-action .22 with detachable magazine. )

Okay with the flush-magazine pistol idea. Since .22 rimfire models usually only hold 10 anyway, for me it would not be onerous.

Honestly, I would rather have a quantity limit than a prohibition on internet ammunition sales. There's a far greater variety on the web than there is at any store. As a .22 target shooter, I've been able to try all kinds of .22 target ammunition that is simply not available in stores.

[Deep13]

28. One concern over the concept...

Your idea is a lot harder on rifles than it is on handguns. By far most gun injuries are the result of hand guns, not rifles. It's something like 3/4 of all gun injuries are from pistols. Of course, about the same proportion of them are survivable because pistol bullets are so underpowered. Rifles make a small fraction of those remaining, but they are almost always fatal or at least permanently disabling.

I saw video of a trauma surgeon show an xray of a cop who managed to shoot his own leg with an AR15. The extreme speed of the the round shattered his tibia like it had been made of glass. The doctor did not mention the treatment, but I have to assume the cop lost his leg.

Also, that last point you made would be covered by imposing universal background checks.

[Bay Boy]

35. After this is enacted...

...and another insane person does something crazy what will you propose next?

[jmowreader]

39. I do not know

I do know this: Solving this problem has to come from two directions.

The first issue is significantly reducing the number of the guns mass murderers like. That means stopping the manufacture for civilians. It probably means buybacks. Getting Hollywood to start having the heroes carry bolt action rifles might work too...let the villain spray lead all over the place and hit nothing, then have the hero kill him with one well-aimed shot.

Next will come mental health screening.

But I think the biggest thing we can do long term is to criminalize bullying. Most of your shooters were bullied. The Columbine shooters were, the Aurora guy was as far as I know and I believe the Sandy Hook guy was bullied. A few months back a guy who was bullied in school 50 years ago killed his main bully. And if you get deep into it, most bullies play football well enough to be scouted by colleges. My recommendation is to ship proven bullies, after their first offenses, to military schools without football programs, and keep them there until they graduate. It's your choice: treat people with respect or find your hair on the floor and your dreams in the trash.

[Bay Boy]

41. I agree...

...that bullying is part of the problem. I just don't know why people who have been bullied in recent times react in such a more deadly way than they used to when I was a kid.

I was bullied in junior high and never considered killing anyone. Today the bullied not only kill their tormentor but innocent victims too.

[JoeyT]

37. For rifles I'd rather see

a requirement that magazines be held in place by screws and limit the magazine to five bullets. Agree on handguns and shotguns and buying ammo off the internet. I'd add "From catalogs" to that too. I suspect a lot more is sold that way, anyway.

Edited to add: The reason I'd rather see a limit on magazine capacity rather than banning detachable magazines is because to circumvent it they'd just make fixed 30 round magazines you can load with a stripper or bring back en bloc clips.

We're on the same page. I want to get rid of overly lethal, not overly lethal looking.

[stultusporcos]

40. Any ban on guns, ammo, clips would only work at the Federal Level

Sates can easily get around the federal laws

Montana Firearms Freedom Act

The law declares that firearms manufactured in the state of Montana after October 1, 2009, and which remain in the state, are exempt from United States federal firearms regulations, provided that these items are clearly stamped "Made in Montana" on a central metallic part.

It applies to all firearms other than fully automatic weapons, firearms that cannot be carried and used by one person, and firearms with a bore diameter greater than 1½ inch which use smokeless powder. It also applies to ammunition (except exploding projectiles), and accessories such as suppressors.

The law has no requirements for registration, background checks or dealer licensing.

The bill was introduced January 13, 2009 by Joel Boniek, Gerald Bennett, Edward Butcher, Aubyn Curtiss, Lee Randall and Wendy Warburton. It was signed in to law by Governor Brian Schweitzer on April 15, 2009 and became effective on October 1, 2009.

This law has been assigned Chapter 205 in Title 30, of the Montana Code Annotated.

This is the future of gun laws.