I'm asking: What are the practical effects of the assault weapons ban?

[JohnLocke]

Could someone explain to me what exactly it is, what it bans, and how enforcement is done? Thanks.

-- From one ignorant, but interested, in gun issues ;)

[Ready4Change]

1. Does very little.

Keeps weapons that meet a very narrow set of specifications from being sold. It's quite easy for a manufacturer to design a weapon that is outside the specifications, and thus sell a weapon that is just as lethal.

If you go to just about any gunshop they can show you just how small the differences are.

The assault weapons ban is false security.

[Redneck Socialist]

2. practical effects? Cause Democrats to lose elections

Sorry for the smart ass reply. (Though I believe it to be true.)

Anyway here is the text of the law

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html

And here is an explanation of its effects. This site is against the ban so keep that in mind as you read their propaganda.

http://www.awbansunset.com/whatis.html

And just to be fair and balanced here is some propaganda from the brady folks.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb

Hope that helps.

On edit: tired fingers, sloppy typing

[necso]

3. The assault weapon ban (which is both federal and in some states)

keeps certain semi-automatic weapons from being sold.

These weapons can be specified either by being named or as meeting certain criteria. Something as simple as changing the stock can make an otherwise banned weapon permissible (for example, one might drop the pistol grip in front of the trigger).

But understanding just how flawed the various bills (and the idea itself) are, you need to know something about guns.

Assault rifles were designed in WWII to enable troops to lay down suppressive fire, using rifle ammunition and while maintaining something of the accuracy of rifles (whether they do or not is another matter). Assault rifles are always fully automatic (capable), although later ones may only support a burst fire, say three rounds. This was implemented because only the first few rounds were considered to be reasonably well aimed. But then again suppressive fire does not need to be particularly well aimed and burst mode seems to be derived as well from the desire to conserve ammunition.

Generally assault rifles are lighter and smaller than conventional rifles. They use clips or drums for feeding ammunition, but the use of belt fed ammunition would make the weapon more properly a machine gun. The assault rifle was been widely adopted by armies all over the globe, and the various AKs and the M16 are prominent examples.

In short the assault rifle is for most armies the personal weapon of choice for its soldiery. However, assault rifles per se were not and are not available to the general public. Semi-automatic replicas of assault weapons were at one time widely available, but similar weapons were discarded by all serious armed forces way back in the (relative) dark ages and these replica versions are not actual "assault rifles". Nevertheless they have been widely so called.

An earlier development that tends to get lumped in with assault rifles is that of the sub-machine gun. Designed as an automatic fire, relatively low accuracy/short distance, personal weapon, these weapons typically use pistol ammunition and are clip or drum fed. The "Tommy Gun" and the Uzi are good examples of sub-machine guns. Again it was only the semi-automatic replicas of these weapons that were available to the general public.

There is certainly some overlap between these two categories and there are other weapons like the BAR which fall neatly into neither one. The BAR, however, does illuminate another issue --- that there are other military weapons that could be so replicated in semi-automatic versions and, more importantly, that it is certain characteristics of these "assault" weapons that are the real issue.

So we have the torturous rendering of words in the various bills, that is clearly intended to deprive Americans of anything even remotely resembling a "toy version" of a military weapon, or of any weapon useful in a (close) combat situation. I suppose that the next step will be outlawing the civilian use of military or "military style" ammunition.

Anyway, banning assault weapons means banning "civilian" versions of military weapons (many hopelessly outdated or downright crappy) along with a lot of other things that happen to fall into the net. But there are also weapons that match many of the characteristics of an assault weapon (although, sadly, not automatic fire) that are not banned.

To cast a net big enough to catch all "assault weapons" in it, you would need to ban all semi-automatic weapons. This would leave us just one step away from having to use powder and ball.

Personally, I do not think that this is what the founders had in mind. Indeed, our freedom owes much to the fact that many of the citizenry were as well, if not better, armed than the forces facing them. The founders knew this as well as anyone and I am sure that they took the point, no matter how deep their disappointment was with the militias' performance in the First Civil War.

In any event, there are state and federal bills. There are specific weapons that are banned and there are "classes" of weapons that are banned. Enforcement is mainly done on a basis of stopping open, large scale distribution. Various registration requirements, the banning of "private" sales and some actual (but very little) field enforcement combine to make the banned weapons harder to find and more expensive. (Which is good in a way for the owners of pre-ban weapons!) But "assault" weapons are still to be found, along with fully automatic weapons and a whole variety of accessories and kits to make all manner of fun. Moreover, some of what are essentially "assault weapons" can still be legally bought. You just can't call them that.

Has the flow of these weapons under the ban slowed --- yes. It is a good idea to strip American civilians of these weapons --- only if you are willing to bet your freedom that you, or they, will never need them. And this is a matter of personal choice, personal ethics and personal taste.

Personally I believe that civilians should be able to own the same weapons that soldiers carry as personal arms. I can live with being restricted to semi-automatic weapons. However seeing all semi-automatic weapons banned would cause me a great deal of worry --- I would not leave the Democratic Party over it --- but I would wonder at the wisdom and vision of those pursuing this end. Knowing where to draw the line in between these two extremes is most difficult and this is an issue that we might do well to leave aside for the moment --- at least until our liberties are a little more secure.

[Zynx]

4. Excellent Post

However, you forgot one very important aspect of the Federal law that makes it basically toothless.

The Grandfather clause.

As long as a weapon or high-capacity magazine existed prior to September 13th, 1994, it is still legal no matter what. Since most of the "assault weapons" use military magazines, and there was a little something called the Cold War, there is no shortage whatsoever of magazines. The only thing that has been effected by the high capacity magazine ban are magazines that aren't compatable with Cold War military weapons-such as the large magazines for Glock pistols.

In addition to all the weapons that could still be sold because they were around prior to 1994, you have the little fact that not a signel feature listed in the ban has any effect whatsoever on the practical operation of a semi-automatic firearm. Consequently, as companies designed ban "complient" weapons, the only change was in the cosmetics of it. Civilians don't need all that military crap that is listed as features. For that matter, most soldiers don't either.

Not surprisingly, this had had no statistically evident impact whatsoever on overall crime. It *has*, as one would expect, disrupted the markets for the banned guns and high capacity magazines that don't have tens of millions of military surplus copies.

[necso]

5. Thanks for the important additions.

I had thought about attacking various specific features of the "ban" and its consequences for weapons that cannot by any means be considered "assault" weapons, but I thought the post overlong as it was... and I am extraordinarily slow in my compositions. (I got tired!)

Leaving out any specific discussion of the grandfather clause was, however, a mistake.

Thanks for remedying it.

[Zister]

6. The AWB has nothing to do with FULL AUTO

The 1994 AWB has NOTHING to do with Full Auto weapons. Fully auto weapons are already regulated by other laws. AR-15's and AK variant rifles are not and have never been FULL AUTO. They were developed for civilian use and are semi auto only. Just like a dozen deer rifles I know of.

[Endangered Specie]

7. It really only bans guns based on cosmoligical features...

and if they were made after 1994.

For pro gun people, its a pain in the side not being able to deck out their toys.

and

For anti gun people, it makes us think its actually working for us but it really does pratically nothing.