Nutter Gets Slapped Down in Court

[TPaine7]

The well-named mayor who thinks he can enforce illegal laws (a gun control tradition) got his well deserved legal spanking:

Judge strikes down some Philadelphia gun laws

By Andrew Maykuth

INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
A Philadelphia judge today sided with the National Rifle Association and struck down city ordinances banning assault weapons and limiting handgun purchases to one a month.

In a blow to the city's attempt to write its own gun laws, Common Pleas Court Judge Jane Cutler-Greenspan ruled that Philadelphia should be permanently prevented from enforcing the laws that the City Council passed unanimously in April.

But Greenspan gave city officials a consolation prize by declining to strike down three other laws on procedural grounds, indicating that the NRA and other plaintiffs did not have legal standing to challenge those laws.

They escaped a total defeat on a technicality, but only temporarily:

Shields said it was only a matter of time, as the city attempted to enforce the laws, that the NRA would locate aggrieved parties who could act as plaintiffs.

I may not agree with every tactic of the NRA, but thank goodness someone stands up to anti-gun thugs who would trample state law, state constitutions and the federal Constitution in their unprincipled and dishonest quest to get what they want. (If we wait on the ACLU to defend the Second Amendment, we'll be waiting a long time.)

Source: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/breaking/news_breaking/20080603_Judge_strikes_down_some_Philadelphia_gun_laws.html

[brucefan]

1. "well named mayor"?

I stopped reading right there.

[TPaine7]

5. So what?

Yes, we can all tell how little you care--you even took the time to tell us.

[pipoman]

109. ..

[truebrit71]

2. Yeah that makes sense...everyone needs to buy a handgun per week at a minimum, right?

Riiiiiiiiiiiight....

:eyes:

[Hangingon]

3. Law abiding citizens should have the right ...

whether exercised or not.

[SteveM]

4. Why do you fight a prohibitionist culture war which you have lost? (nt)

[TPaine7]

6. I missed that part of the story.

Would you quote the passage you based that comment on?

It would facilitate intelligent, adult discussion.

Thanks in advance.

[truebrit71]

9. "limiting handgun purchases to one a month"....what, once a month isn't enough?

:crazy:

[TPaine7]

12. Ok, mea culpa. You were on point.

My problem is that, restrictions on rights should be as mild and as narrowly tailored as possible. Broad, arbitrary prohibitions on rights are not Constitutional.

If the issue is straw purchases, narrow and targeted policies should be developed to nail and severely punish straw purchasers.

My other problem is that if you trample the federal Constitution, state laws and the state constitution in order to enforce illegal laws, you are actually a criminal yourself. Or are laws for ordinary people only and not for big city mayors?

[truebrit71]

13. Sure rights shouldn't be trampled on...but limiting people to one hand gun A MONTH doesn't strike me

..as much of an infringement...

But hey, that's just me...I mean, the most you can shot at once would be two....why would you need more than that?

[TPaine7]

14. Rights need not be justified.

Only restrictions need justification.

How many books can you read at a time? What kind of justification should the government have to tell you how many books you could buy at a time?

My point is, of course, not to imply that books and guns are identical--they are very different--but to demonstrate the unreasonableness of asking that rights be justified. It's comparable to asking that you prove your innocence in a trial.

The government must justify its constraint of rights. Have narrowly tailored means of stopping straw purchases been considered? Is there a direct connection between legal purchases and death that cannot possibly be addressed in less restrictive ways? I think it is fair to say that the mayor has not in good faith considered the Second Amendment and state constitutional and legal rights of his citizens, as evidenced by the fact that he has defied, at the very least, state law.

[truebrit71]

25. The government limits the speed we drive, the amount of alcohol we may drink before driving...

..we not limit the number of guns?

It's like owning more than one car...why on earth would you need two...you can only drive one at a time...

[TPaine7]

27. If we talk about roughly analogous limits, I think we largely agree.

For example,

"The government limits the speed we drive"--driving 70 in a residential district directly, substantially, and immediately endangers lives.


The government forbids target shooting in your back yard in New York City, which also directly, substantially, and immediately endangers lives.


"The government limits... the amount of alcohol we may drink before driving"--drunk driving directly, substantially, and immediately endangers lives.


Many state governments forbid the carrying of arms in public while inebriated, as well they should--drunk bearing of arms directly, substantially, and immediately endangers lives.


You lost me on the cars. I can think of many reasons to own more than one car, but I don't need to. The burden is on the government to justify such a restriction. The naked argument that I don't "need" multiple cars doesn't cut it. Legitimate government is a servant entity that exists to protect rights (see the Declaration of Independence--"to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men" I think it says.) Arbitrarily deciding what one's master needs and imposing that will on one's master is not the place of a servant.

[SteveM]

134. Your "speed" and "alcohol" examples are presumably tied to social consequence...

like increased likelihood of accident, severe injury/death by exceeding speed limits, or because one is impaired. But the same cannot be said for purchasing in excess of one gun per month. Where has this been shown a cause of crime, shootings, homicides or other maladies?

[iverglas]

30. "why would you need more than that?"

There actually is an answer, not that you'd get it around here.

To traffic.

Limits on numbers of purchases are intended to make it difficult to engage in gun trafficking, by making it difficult for any individual to engage in bulk purchases of firearms for resale -- to people who are ineligible to make the purchases themselves. People like, oh, criminals.

But limiting the number of guns that gun traffickers would buy is just not an important enough goal, and the public interest in inhibiting gun trafficking and keeping as many guns as possible out of the hands of criminals isn't an important enough interest, to persuade a gun militant that his/her ability to do whatever the hell s/he wants should be limited.

Actually, there is no public interest that a gun militant would agree is important enough to warrant restrictions on anything having to do with firearms acquisition and possession (other than the ones some decide they have to agree to in order not to look completely insane).

That's because it really has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with ensuring that favourable conditions for right-wing governments to flourish are maintained.

"Gun rights" is a handy hook for riling up people who revel in being suspicious and distrustful of government (and yet consistently vote for the right-wing governments any normal person would be suspicious and distrustful of).

And it has various outcroppings that are useful for recruiting people outside that natural constituency.

Like how women need gunz to protect themselves from bad men -- a nice, simplistic solution to the problem of misogyny in society and the failure to protect women from sexual and other violence at the hands of men, whether men in their intimate circles, the people women and girls are actually most at risk of harm from and extremely unlikely to use firearms against, or strangers who might do them harm in a dark alley or their dark bedrooms.

Like how everybody needs gunz to protect themselves from subhuman home invaders with no respect for human life, or better, subhuman looters in times of disaster -- nicely dovetailing with the right-wing interest in keeping racial hatred alive and certain racial groups down. (The racial aspect is seldom made explicit, although it sometimes is; but we really do all know that people living in a society that denies them the opportunities and benefits of inclusion in the society, and marginalizes them in every possible way, are more likely to commit, and do commit, disproportionate numbers of crimes, and that that's who we're really talking about.)


They may look loony, those gun militants. But they're really dumb like foxes.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. If only trafficking was that easy to detect.

I consider the one-a-month limit an inconvienience, for a practical reason. Last time I was shopping for a target pistol, my wife came along, and showed great interest in a particular pistol on display. Her birthday was less than a month away, and I was having trouble finding something nice and preferably something useful she didn't already have.

Had this limit been in place, on that occasion I would have had two options, either wait to purchase mine for later, so I could purchase one for her, or continue my search for a birthday present. Fortunately, since Washington State has no current limit, I was able to purchase both, in time for her birthday. You might think it a present in poor taste, but she did approve, so good to go on that one.


I would prefer something other than a one-a-month limit. Criminals tend to be not too bright. Put this limit in, and they'll just work together to circumvent the limit, because the helpful sales clerk will simply tell them 'you can only buy one'. I'd rather the BATFE simply spot check people who legally purchase X number of weapons per month (X being some reasonable number, maybe as low as 2, thats fine with me), knock on their door and find out what they are doing with them. Probably catch a lot more illegal straw purchases that way. Even if they aren't reselling to criminals, you could then nail them for distributing without a FFL, or following paperwork requirements.

A limit seems like a half-hearted suppression of the behavior to me, not a fix. I would rather they audited 'high volume' private purchases.

[iverglas]

53. don't get me wrong!

I certainly would not advocate the limit in question as the way to deal with straw purchases / trafficking.

But what you're proposing involves record-keeping, and that's not something a gun militant will go for.

It's how it's done in Canada. The only instance I'm aware of in which the Firearms Registry flagged questionable bulk purchases was an odd bit of gun-running, a whole lot of some sort of Garand things that apparently were being exported (illegally) into the US, not likely to biker gangs or the mob, I gather.

The mere existence of the registry, of course, is virtually sufficient deterrent in itself to attempts at bulk purchases for trafficking. That's why gangs and thugs here have to get theirs by stealing them from those law-abidin' types or getting them run across the border -- and why they have so relatively few: with a registry, nobody in his/her right mind is going to engage in straw purchases and resale. Gun renting is a profitable little gang sideline here, apparently.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Well, that's done here in a way.

The original sale record is kept on file at the point of sale forever, and if they go out of business or whatever, all the paperwork is transferred to the BATFE.

But it's literally a paper trail, and not accessible to just anyone. I'm not in favor of registration at all, BUT, it does seem like this paperwork could be put to more timely use, than to do a trace on the gun AFTER it's been found in connection to a crime.

But yeah, right now, if one of my pistols was stolen, and used in a crime, then recovered, it would take a while, but they would come knocking to find out where the gun went after it left my hands. In theory anyway.

[bossy22]

113. Garands!!!!!

who the hell would want to use a garand for crime

[iverglas]

114. "who the hell would want to use a garand for crime"

Uh ... nobody that I know of. That would be why I referred to a whole lot of some sort of Garand things that apparently were being exported (illegally) into the US, not likely to biker gangs or the mob, I gather.


Did you have some sort of point in response to what I did say?

[bossy22]

117. i was just surprised someone would be doing that

i mean there are so many parts on the legal market that there seems to be very little reason

though i do remember a garand being used once in a police shootout like 5 years ago....yeeks...i would not want to be on the recieving end of one though

[iverglas]

123. there was discussion of it here back when it happened

The feeling seemed to be that there was money to be made on the US market because of restrictions on importing them legally, not that they were in demand by people wanting firearms for use in crime.

My point had just been that the Firearms Registry works to flag anomalous transactions.

[AtheistCrusader]

120. I can't imagine it was actually Garands

They are perfectly legal for anyone here over 18 with no criminal record. If accurate, they must have been from a stolen source, or being imported without any paperwork/taxes being paid.

[maxidivine]

121. Probably were planning on

selling them through private face-to-face transactions in the states, after all, if a weapon is legal to possess without extra procedures there is no way for a buyer to know where the weapon originated.

[michreject]

127. All legal

As it should be.

[maxidivine]

132. oh I know

And I'm glad it would be legal, that would be a great way to get more garands!

[maxidivine]

119. I wish a Canadian

would come give me a bundle of Garands, it would make my day.

[iverglas]

124. the original story

As I said, my point was that the Firearms Registry will flag anomalous transactions, regardless of what the nature of the transactions is.


http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2000/05/02/gun_ring000502.html

A joint police effort between Canada and the U.S. broke up a gun smuggling ring Tuesday. Officers seized almost 2,000 M1 Garand rifles, guns that date back to the Second World War. They also found three machine guns, and a large number of gun parts.

The guns and the parts are all perfectly legal in Canada. It's also legal to sell them in the U.S. The illegal part is that they were being shipped there labelled as auto parts. It's illegal to ship them at all.

Supt. Ron Taverner of Toronto police described it as a type of "gun laundering."

Taverner says a large number of gun registrations in Canada caught the attention of authorities. They began their investigation a year ago.

Search warrants were issued last month. Police then made arrests in Toronto and Reno, Nevada. Two men face charges, and another man is being sought. Taverner says it's not clear where the weapons would have ended up.

It appears something of interest was going on.

[maxidivine]

126. too bad the rifles didn't make it over

be some slightly cheaper, and hopefully excellent condition, Garands in circulation.

[iverglas]

56. by the way

I have absolutely nothing against target shooting, let alone target pistols. I have said more than once that if I weren't a lazy workaholic, and I were looking for a recreational activity to take up, that would be on the short list, competing with archery. For me, both would involve getting from the downtown core to a recreational facility in another end of the city, scheduling time for it, etc. etc. I don't even play the piano in my living room, and my watercolours have gone untouched for some years now.

But I would not keep a handgun in my house, or want to be permitted to keep a handgun in my house.

The twice my house was broken into a few years ago -- well, the twice one of the local loser cokeheads walked in through my unlocked front door when I was upstairs -- I just lost my purse. A securely stored firearm would have been safe.

The one time my house was thoroughly and efficiently ransacked by a dealer friend of the loser cokehead I was living with (trust me, I didn't know at the time) who knew we were out of town, it wouldn't have mattered how locked and hidden a firearm was, he would have found it. And then there would have been a well-organized criminal in town (he was good; he'd got a gig as a live-in caretaker at a socially conscious church near where his customers lived, where he had free rein outside church hours) with a gun. Not my first choice of the contribution I'd like to make to my community.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. I won't disclose specifics

because security through obscurity is just one line of defense, but I have taken... strong measures to secure my firearms. Including taking into account the tools in my garage that could potentially be used to defeat secure storage, and securing THOSE.

Not Fort Knox by any means, but even heavy ransacking isn't going to turn up much someone can use. It's a risk, but one I have mitigated as best as I can, since I don't ever want to find out one of my guns was used in a crime. Ever.

[lancer78]

106. Limiting abortions

to the first 2 trimesters is not much of an infringement either.

[iverglas]

115. really?

How's that?

[Tejas]

128. "How's that?" - Why not?

I mean, anyone (including you and the Zanne-wannabe) can come along and claim whatever they feel when it comes to other persons rights, so.......

[rdenney]

107. The one gun per month law prevents straw buying by gun nuts who sell the

gun to prohibited felons and other persons who cant buy guns. Of course the "law abiding gun owners" cant have that now can they?

[pipoman]

108. It doesn't prevent shit...

now prosecution of straw purchasers might prevent something but nary a word, ever, from the rabid antifreedom brigade of clowns about that. No demands on law enforcement to engage on even felons who are attempting to buy firearms illegally, just calls for more laws which will not be enforced on those inclined to break them.

Hey, I have an idea, maybe we should quit calling names and concentrate on discussion. Too much to ask of the hate filled purveyors of immoderate opinions on this board.

Now your definition of 'gun nuts'? Most asswipes who use that term are referring to gun enthusiasts who are the least likely to 'sell the gun to prohibited felons', now girl friends and family members of the said felons who likely don't know which end the round comes out...

[iverglas]

116. lordy jayzus

now prosecution of straw purchasers might prevent something but nary a word, ever, from the rabid antifreedom brigade of clowns about that. No demands on law enforcement to engage on even felons who are attempting to buy firearms illegally, just calls for more laws which will not be enforced on those inclined to break them.


My, my, my.

Now who is it around here who pitch fits when "law enforcement" attempts to investigate dealers engaging in straw sale transactions?

Hmmmm ... I wonder ....

The hook they hung their hat on was that the law enforcement in question was operating outside its geographic jurisdiction.

Now, where were the cries for the law enforcement authorities of the jurisdiction in question to do their own job? I listened, and I did not hear.


Hey, I have an idea, maybe we should quit calling names and concentrate on discussion. Too much to ask of the hate filled purveyors of immoderate opinions on this board.

Okay, that was funny.

[Tejas]

129. baby jaysus cries when you lie

"The hook they hung their hat on was that the law enforcement in question was operating outside its geographic jurisdiction."

The hook was that by doing straw purchases, "the law enforcement in question" (Bloomberg's keystone brigade) were commiting a federal crime.

[AtheistCrusader]

122. Well, they really need

increased access to gun transaction records, to identify people who are moving very large quantities of guns. Currently there is no proactive access in this area.

Part of the reason, is what the data was initially used for, to support lawsuits against gun distributors that sold to straw purchasers. At least some of them are probably not knowingly doing anything wrong, so there was a backlash.

We need something where the purchasers who are doing 'unusual things' can be flagged, just like we have local tracking here in the Northwest for people who buy large quantities of OTC pseudo ephedrine and other crap used to make meth.

Edit for drug spelling.

[iverglas]

125. see post 124 n/t

[rdenney]

130. Prove it! As someone has a clean NICS record they can by guns every day and sell them. nt

[pipoman]

133. The justification for restricting any right

is on the restrictor, so it is on you to prove that waiting periods and limits on purchases have had any effect on anything but commerce.You do know that there are jurisdictions which already have purchase limits don't you? Can it be shown any crime reduction in those jurisdictions which correlates with the restriction? I didn't think so.

OTOH there are large collections of collectible handguns which are auctioned off to collectors and enthusiasts every week. Just for example a collectible handgun isn't necessarily a blunderbuss, Smith and Wesson pre-1991? revolvers are collectible because of engineering changes made in 1991 as are several of their semi auto models like the model 39. Colt revolvers are very collectible, I'm not talking about just their single action cowboy guns, their double action revolvers and semi auto 1911 style pistols are sought by collectors. At these auctions it is not uncommon at all for collectors/enthusiasts to buy several.

I will offer this:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

* a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
* a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
* family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

These categories are broken down even farther on table 8 here:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf



This also sort of hurts the meme of gun shows being the source of choice for the criminal element, huh..

Then there is this:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf





So 273 charges were brought against attempted illegal purchasers who numbered 77,233, most of whom lied on the NICS form (a prosecutable offense). The question remains how many of the 77k+ acquired a gun through the illegal sources cited in table 8 and committed a crime which could have been averted through enforcement of the laws broken at the attempted purchase.

Edit: Now it's your turn. Demonstrate how limits on purchases by legal purchasers have been shown to reduce anything in any jurisdiction which currently or has had purchase limits.

[Tejas]

131. How about 'one post per month' ? How about one twinkie per month? n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. You totally miss the point.

It's not about the individual laws it's about the fact that they are local laws in sharp contrast to the state laws. Nutter has ever right to lobby the state legislature to give cities the authority to enact their own gun laws or lobby the state legislature to pass the laws that nutter proposes statewide. If he gets that passed then he has the right to have the city council pass whatever local gun laws they want. He didn't do that. He and city council just passed the laws that they saw fit. They could pass a law making unwarranted searches okay, it would stop some crime. It would also violate the Bill of Rights.

David

[slackmaster]

17. Your assessment of need has nothing to do with anything

The issue is rule of law, and the preemption of certain powers by the state over municipalities.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. Can you clarify something for me?

What exactly falls under the category of "assault weapons"? I'm envisioning Uzis and machine guns. Are these what they are talking about or something else? What exactly are assault weapons used for? Hunting? Target practice? Thanks for the clarification.

[TPaine7]

10. I am not a gun expert by any means.

My interest is rights.

However, an assault weapon is defined typically as a semiautomatic rifle with certain feature such as folding stock, flash suppressor, certain types of grip, etc. Definitions vary, but the guns being spoken of here definitely do not include machine guns.

Semi-automatic weapons that fire one bullet per trigger pull and are less powerful than ordinary hunting rifles are labeled "assault weapons" in a cynical and intentional attempt to create exactly the impression you are raising. There is a famous quote by a anti-gun activist planning to use this confusion to outlaw ordinary guns. I can look it up if you want (provided no one else does first).

If any gun experts want to correct or elaborate on anything above, please feel free with my thanks.

When I say that gun control is dishonest, it is not hyperbole or bluster. (That is not to say that everyone who supports gun control is dishonest, of course. Many noble people do.)

"Assault weapons" are collected, used for hunting and target weapons, and kept for self-defense. They are relatively rarely used in crime.

Thank you for an honest, civil exchange.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. This is exactly the kind of information I was looking for

You are correct that the way things have been framed, a person like me thinks assault weapons are machine gun type arms that are only used to kill people. That's why I wanted to ascertain the facts on the matter. I really appreciate this, and hope others see your reply.

[iverglas]

31. what a fun little dialogue that was

You two should take your show on the road.

I'm sorry, but anyone reading the utter bullshit served up by Master Paine and not having any questions at the end ... I dunno. Just odd, to my mind.

[TPaine7]

35. I was just thinking how peacful and rational things were around here.

Unfortunately, honest, civil exchanges piss some people off.

I would ask you to point out the bullshit, but I've been there and done that. It's neither challenging or fun.

Yawn.

[iverglas]

36. yeah, and I'd expose the bullshit for bullshit

But I've been here longer, and done it more often. I win.

[TPaine7]

40. iverglas. . .

that is funny in a pathetic, tragic way.

I almost left this place because I couldn't find reasoned debate. There was always someone gumming up the works. I still might leave if I can't avoid encountering severe stupidity, paranoia and sophistry, but I was happy to find an oasis of reasoned discussion today.

Were I a loser who had self worth wrapped up in my tenure on DU, a "sensitive" bully who whined when my arguments were repeatedly and systematically trashed by a newcomer, a desperately dishonest sophist, I don't know how I could find the will to live another day. But that's just me. I'm a decent human being.

You've been here longer. You "win," LOL.

Revel in it.

You've probably convinced more people over your years that you had legitimately defeated their arguments. Or at least they couldn't find the flaws and gave up. I can find them, but I can no longer justify the wasted time. And I have given up expecting reasonable conversation with you.

I reserve the right to refute your better sophistries, but I will never address you personally again.

[iverglas]

43. Aw, Master TP

Were you a jumped-up, self-impressed, self-absorbed little twit ... well, you would be behaving pretty much the way you are.


I would ask you to point out the bullshit, but I've been there and done that.
and I'd expose the bullshit for bullshit - But I've been here longer, and done it more often.


The only appropriate reply to your bullshit.


I will never address you personally again.

And I am crying in my beer.

[Tejas]

51. civil conversation just gets on your last nerve that easily? n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

62. Huh?

I asked for an explanation because I truly and sincerely did not know what type of weapons are defined as an assault weapon. The only weapons I am even vaguely familiar with are black powder muzzle loaders and my late step-father's 22, which to me looked like a cowboy gun. It is the only one I've ever shot, and it kicked back and hurt my ears. I've been around muzzle loaders at historical re-enactments and appreciate the detail and also the skill it takes in being able to make them shoot accurately (and they don't hurt my ears when they go off). I don't know that I would ever want to have a gun myself--I've got poor eyesight so target practice would be no fun, and I think I would be a menace during hunting season. I think there should be thorough background checks before anyone is allowed to purchase a gun, and also that before purchase a person should show proof that they've taken a gun safety course, something that I don't think any state requires.

If you have any information about what assault weapons are and what they are used for, I'll be glad to read it.

[iverglas]

67. well here you go

Just a quick google, and this appears to be a reasonable summary of the provisions of the now-defunct US federal legislation. I'm sure someone here will dispute anything that looks bad.

As has been noted, the term is one of art, and may be defined differently in different legislation that uses it, for the purposes of that legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_assault_weapons_ban

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Conspicuous pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
* Detachable magazine

Doesn't resemble anything you were told here, to my eyes.


Now, google found me Philadelphia's home page: http://www.phila.gov

where I searched for "assault weapon".

http://www.phila.gov/philacode/html/_data/title10/chapter_10_800_safety/10_821_contraband_weapons_acce.html

I won't reproduce the whole thing here, but it's very easy to click and read. Even easier than it was to find, despite the apparently inability of anyone else here to do it. Some illustrative highlights:

(2) Definitions.

(a) Assault Weapons. All semi-automatic weapons, or weapon parts, designated as assault weapons herein. Such term shall include all versions of the following, including weapons sold under the designation provided in this subsection and weapons which are determined by the Philadelphia Police Commissioner by regulation to be substantially similar in function and design to such weapons sold under any designation:

... (.2) any shotgun with a revolving cylinder such as the "Street Sweeper" or "Striker 12";

<numerous firearms/types by name>

(.37) A semi-automatic shotgun with either a magazine capacity exceeding six rounds, a pistol grip, or a folding stock;

(.38) A semi-automatic weapon with a magazine capacity exceeding ten (10) rounds;

(.39) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a weapon into an assault weapon, or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

... (c) Weapon Silencer. Any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver pistol or other weapon to be silent, or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other weapon.

... (e) Large Capacity Magazine. Any box, drum or other container which holds more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly therefrom into a semi-automatic weapon, or a magazine which can be readily converted into such a device.

... (g) Pistol Grip. A well-defined handle, similar to that found on a handgun, that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, and which permits the shotgun to be held and fired with one hand.

(h) Semi-Automatic. A weapon which fires a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger and its self-reloading or automatically chambers a round, cartridge, or bullet without additional slide, bolt or other manual action.

That really should help you considerably, I think.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

69. Thank you!

I really appreciate you finding this information and citing sources. I wished to express my appreciation immediately upon finding this--now I shall go back and read it. It is good to find more than one point of view on a discussion thread like this!

[iverglas]

71. all I can say

is that what I posted is the only thing that should have been posted in response to your initial question. Had there not been other replies to your question, and your replies to them, by the time I saw any of it, I would simply have done that.

The fact that no one did it -- none of the self-described (and very condescending, btw) experts on gunz who hang out here even attempted to provide an actual answer -- is the point worth taking from this.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

73. Now to comment on what you gave me

As I read the descriptions for these types of weapons, two things jumped to my mind:

Why wouldn't the Pennsylvania legislature want to regulate these types of weapons, especially the silencer? I can maybe see where some of the other features of assault weapons might be construed to be a part of the sport of shooting at a range, but a silencer I see as only having one use--to be able to shoot another person stealthily.

What, truly, are the use of having all these features on a weapon? The last time I ventured here, I wound up in a firestorm over the term "automatic weapon" because I stated that I felt that using an automatic weapon in hunting wasn't as skillful as using a muzzle loader or a bow and arrow. I do realize that hunters and target shooters like to have different types of gadgets, but it would be interesting to find out how many of the features listed are really most useful to shoot another person.

And I still say that I feel it takes far more skill to use a muzzle loader or black powder pistol to hunt or shoot targets. And I wish more folks would use them rather than more modern weapons.

[beevul]

78. The silencer is a red herring.

Silencers are regulated heavily on a federal level, and have been since 1934, by the National Firearms Act of the same year.

Thats something that got thrown in by someone for scary associative value, I'm sure. Just like the original assault weapons ban, covered weapons that were already what are commonly refered to as "nfa weapons". Same thing, scary associative value likely aimed at people that don't know theres a such thing as the NFA.


OT:A few years back, I had a 1851 colt navy revolver - a percussion cap pistol - and it was fun to shoot, the flame that thing used to shoot out the barrel was amazing.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

79. You've shown me

that the whole topic is rather complicated and also nuanced.

Yep, the old type weapons--muzzle loaders and percussion caps--are really neat, I think.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. Silencers

Each State generally has laws already on the books forbidding the use, and in some cases, the possession of a silencer. Manufacturing and sales are controlled. Also, many states, such as Washington where I live, automatic weapons are not legal, even if I get an FFL and the $200 tax stamp to transfer an automatic weapon, from the BATFE.

So these items are already tightly controlled, and in most cases, forbidden. A threaded barrel allows you to switch a rifle between a compensator, or a flash suppressor. Yes, potentially, you could also put on a silencer, but in many states, you would already be breaking the law in doing so, and in yet other states, you would be breaking the law just by possessing one. I'd have to verify, but I think the 1934 NFA also spoke to silencers, but I'd have to go re-read it.


As for non-criminal/assassin like uses for these components:

A flash hider reduces the fireball at the end of the barrel, so the user can shoot in low light conditions without blinding him or her self. It does not actually 'hide' the user from other points of view, people down range will still see you. It's about protecting the user from temporary blindness, which is a safety issue. Very useful for hunters, who will sometimes engage game at certain times of day, such as early morning or twilight.

A silencer, or more appropriately named, a suppressor, is useful indoors, in ranges, and outdoors, allowing the user to discharge the weapon without necessarily wearing hearing protection. Again, a safety issue, allowing the user more situational awareness, without compromising their hearing.

A compensator deflects gasses backwards, from the end of the barrel, 'pulling' the weapon in the direction it was fired, reducing recoil.

At any time, you might want to switch between the two legal devices, the compensator, and the flash hider, and in cases where it is allowed and legal, even the suppressor.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

81. thanks for this information

I've only fired a gun once--a .22 "cowboy pistol" of my step-father's. He didn't warn me of the kick back nor the fact that the high pitched noise would hurt my ears. I could see where folks would want a compensator or a suppressor.

[AtheistCrusader]

82. Well, a compensator

wouldn't be needed much on a .22, I doubt it would have much effect at all. MAYBE porting the top of the barrel, but that increases the risk of eating some debris, and whatnot.. (ALWAYS wear your safety glasses! :) )

Generally the flash suppressor and compensator would be used on bigger calibers, such as .30 or .223 (or bigger).

[maxidivine]

104. Actually, sound reduction devices are safety devices

They don't "silence" a weapon like the cans in movies do, the shots are still quite loud, but the noise and concussion is reduced enough that it makes firing more comfortable, and reduces the noise pollution somewhat. As far as shooting someone stealthily, someone using a suppressor would be just as likely to be caught in the act as someone who wasn't, and they would have to conceal the long bulky supressor as well as the pistol.

And none of the features make a gun 'more useful to shoot another person', any more than the number of speakers in your car make it more useful to run someone over.

Bayonet lug- interesting, neat little historical object, does not make the gun any more or less deadly. almost exclusively found on rifles, which are used as murder weapons incredibly rarely. To date I have never heard of a civilian bayonetting anyone. Interesting object, not any real reason to include them in any legislation though.

Barrel shroud- A decoration. it is not "the shoulder thing that goes up", and it does not make the weapon it is either attached to or part of any more or less deadly, or any more or less useful for shooting people. Barrel shrouds on crew-served machine guns serve a purpose, enabling the soldiers to remove the hot barrel without seriously burning their hands. Does not alter the firearm or enhance its deadliness in any way, does nothing really except change the appearance of the weapon. Makes no sense to include them in legislation, because they do nothing.

Pistol grips- I think the wording speaks for itself here. "... (g) Pistol Grip. A well-defined handle, similar to that found on a handgun, that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, and which permits the shotgun to be held and fired with one hand."
It is silly to claim that a pistol grip allows a long gun to be fired with one hand, especially a high-recoil firearm like a shotgun. Pistol grips are an ergonomic enhancer, not a feature which magically allows a class of weapon which requires both hands and good stance to fire to suddenly become suitable for use like a handgun. What does it matter how a firearm is held? do people who are shot with proper form recieve lesser wounds than people who are shot by someone who looks like a clown? I know if I were ever in the unlikely situation of being fired at, I would certainly hope that my attacker is trying to shoot me with his pistol grip pump one handed, give me plenty of time to escape or return fire.

Grenade launchers- Because rifle grenades are used in drive bys all the time :tinfoilhat:
Grenades are classified as destructive devices and are highly regulated and expensive. They also require a $200 tax stamp. again why regulate something like a grenade launcher on a barrel, it makes no difference to anyone but people who own rifles with grenade launchers. Why regulate something if there will be absolutely NO public benefit whatsoever? The only thing that benefits from that is the career of the politician who sticks his or her name on it.

Flash supressor- along with muzzle brakes, these devices redirect muzzle blast in a way that reduces recoil or concussion away from the shooter, so the weapon is more comfortable to fire. Apparently heavy-hitter rifle calibers are no fun to shoot without a device like these. Another cosmetic feature which does nothing to enhance or diminish the deadliness of a weapon, what would the public gain from regulating these devices?

Unloaded weight of 50 oz or more handguns- This is ridiculous. This would affect hunting handguns almost exclusively. Such as the Freedom Arms revolvers, the Thompson-Center Encore and Contender handguns, the new S&W .460 and .500 revolvers and similiar weapons in calibers and configurations which make them excellent for hunting and silhouette competition shooting. When was the last time you heard of anyone being shot with a .480 Ruger or .500 Linebaugh?

"* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm" In other words, any legal civilian firearm which is similiar in basic design to a regulated FA firearm.

[SteveM]

110. Silencers required for hunting in some European countries (nt)

[maxidivine]

112. Like they should be nt

[beevul]

11. I haven't actually read the legislation...

I haven't actually read the legislation, but presumably, they're talking about auto-loading rifles - that is, semi-automatic weapons - which have a less than traditional appearance.

They're talking about weapons that have a military "look" but function the same way as many traditional "wooden stock - hunting look" rifles.

Machineguns aren't an issue. They're very tightly controlled under federal law, and have been since 1934.


I have too much blood in my caffeine stream at the moment to coherently say much more, and I imagine Benezra or someone else will explain it better than I have.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

20. Thank you

it was short and sweet and understandable to me. I appreciate it.

[beevul]

26. YW.

You're welcome.

[iverglas]

32. I'm curious

what is it about "They're talking about weapons that have a military 'look' but function the same way as many traditional 'wooden stock - hunting look" rifles'" that was "understandable" to you?

The part where nothing was said about pistol grips (i.e. providing the ability to shoot from other than the shoulder) being one element of that "look"?

The part where nothing was said about magazine size (i.e. capacity to keep shooting for longer periods without reloading) being one element of that "look"?

I haven't read the legislation either, but those elements are common to most "assault weapon" definitions.

The part where, actually, nothing at all was said about anything?

Like I say, just curious.

[beevul]

37. Nothing like the taste of misinformation...

"The part where nothing was said about pistol grips (i.e. providing the ability to shoot from other than the shoulder) being one element of that "look"?"

What about it? traditional stocks are no less better suited than pistol grips, for shooting from other than the shoulder, and are in fact less ergonomic for shooting from the shoulder. What was your point? Misinformation, is what that was. Yeah, it was "part of that look", but its meaningless and arbitrary.




"The part where nothing was said about magazine size (i.e. capacity to keep shooting for longer periods without reloading) being one element of that "look"?

What about it? Magazine size, unless someone is talking about weapons as they existed before the 19th century, generally hasn't changed by leaps and bounds. If you're talking about restricting magazine capacity to pre-1900's levels, whats the point? Yeah, a magazine that holds some more ammunition could possibly be "part of that look", but again, thats arbitrary UNLESS one is talking about reducing capacity on all weapons, without respect to "look". There are tens of millions of "traditional looking"
"high capacity" weapons out there, that would not have been considered "assault weapons" by the original ban.

Number one, nobody is trying to do such a thing...yet.

Number two, the attempting of such a thing, would be like the plunging of a dagger into the heart of the party that attempted such a thing. Its not politically feasable, or acceptable to the public at large.

And number 3, those 2 things alone on a rifle, did not an assault weapon make, under the original ban.




I'm sure someone will come along and explain it better than I have.


If you have points to make about those features, by all means try to make them.

[iverglas]

39. Oh, I so much prefer opinion, don't you?

What about it? traditional stocks are no less better suited than pistol grips, for shooting from other than the shoulder, and are in fact less ergonomic for shooting from the shoulder. What was your point? Misinformation, is what that was. Yeah, it was "part of that look", but its meaningless and arbitrary.

Opinion being what that all was.

If someone wants your opinion, I'm sure s/he will ask for it. I didn't notice anyone doing that.

Generally speaking, intelligent people prefer to have the facts first, so they are in a position to evaluate opinions.


The basic question asked was: "What exactly falls under the category of 'assault weapons'?"

I didn't see that as being a request for an opinion. Did you?

You chose to "answer" the question by saying: "I haven't actually read the legislation, but presumably ...". And offering a characterization. Not information. And now we have your fascinating opinion.


If you have points to make about those features, by all means try to make them.

Why would I? The question was what they are. You're the one trying to avoid the question and substitute agitprop for an answer. Your game, if you want to play it; not mine.

[beevul]

45. Opinions...someone said something about them...what was it?

"Generally speaking, intelligent people prefer to have the facts first, so they are in a position to evaluate opinions."

And yet when someone attempted to have the facts first, you happily added mistruth to meaningless fact, served up on the plate you handed them.

"Your game, if you want to play it; not mine."


Yeah, you didn't play the misinformation game, or repeat proven falsehoods - and then try to cloak the falsehood as your opinion. :eyes: Nice to know that at least we have established that your opinion doesn't quite mesh with reality, and have it highlighted for the world to see, and recorded for posterity, yes indeed.

I'll leave you with some wise words:



It's deeply saddening that someone would consider his/her opinions about an important public policy issue to be worth spewing in public when s/he is so totally ignorant of the subject matter, and so deeply uninterested in learning the minimum necessary to have an opinion of even minimal value.

[iverglas]

48. I'd like you to substantiate your vicious allegations

Yeah, you didn't play the misinformation game, or repeat proven falsehoods - and then try to cloak the falsehood as your opinion.


Here's what I said:

The part where nothing was said about pistol grips (i.e. providing the ability to shoot from other than the shoulder) being one element of that "look"?

Here's what you said, with helpful emphasis:

What about it? traditional stocks are no less better suited than pistol grips, for shooting from other than the shoulder, and are in fact less ergonomic for shooting from the shoulder. What was your point? Misinformation, is what that was. Yeah, it was "part of that look", but its meaningless and arbitrary.

So, per you, a traditional stock (what lovely phraseology all this "tradition this" and "traditional that" is, I must say) is less ergonomic for shooting from the shoulder. So. So the fuck what? A pistol grip is what's in issue, not a traditional stock. Who cares what's ergonomic or not about a "traditional stock"?

Whatever. Do identify the "misinformation" in what I said, will you?


And yet when someone attempted to have the facts first, you happily added mistruth to meaningless fact, served up on the plate you handed them.

I can't even parse that. Who's this "someone"? The person who asked for facts and was given opinions instead? Where were facts offered? In your post? Certainly not in your post.

"Meaningless fact". Oh. You mean "meaningless in my opinion fact". Chase your own tail much?

Whatever. Do identify the "mistruth" in what I said, will you?


It's deeply saddening that someone would consider his/her opinions about an important public policy issue to be worth spewing in public when s/he is so totally ignorant of the subject matter, and so deeply uninterested in learning the minimum necessary to have an opinion of even minimal value.

Yeah. And it breaks my heart that when an, er, innocent bystander wanders into the Guns forum and asks a question about a matter of fact, several people who acknowledged not having bothered to ascertain the facts would respond with ... oh look: opinions.

Kind of illustrates the problem I was talking about there, doesn't it?

I hope your library shelves aren't sagging under the weight of my accumulated wisdom you have stored up.

[beevul]

61. Awww, poor you. Do your own words suck that bad when turned against you?

"So, per you, a traditional stock (what lovely phraseology all this "tradition this" and "traditional that" is, I must say) is less ergonomic for shooting from the shoulder. So. So the fuck what? A pistol grip is what's in issue, not a traditional stock. Who cares what's ergonomic or not about a "traditional stock"?"

Ok, a pistol grip is whats at issue. Lets talk about it. Its about the least conducive grip type, for shooting other than "from the shoulder", that I have ever had the opportunity to use. It is MOST conducive for shooting from the shoulder. It is in fact designed for that. You said "i.e. providing the ability to shoot from other than the shoulder" as if it provides something that some other type of grip doesn't, or as if it were better suited for shooting other than "from the shoulder", which it isn't.

Thats not opinion, thats verifiable fact, and nobody whos been around these parts and has been involved with the discussions over assault weapons would deny it, unless they were trying to be dishonest or deceptive. The fact that it is fact, means by definition, that concentrating on something like a grip style which is no better suited for shooting "from other than the shoulder" , is arbitrary.


""Meaningless fact". Oh. You mean "meaningless in my opinion fact". Chase your own tail much?"


No, meaningless fact, as a matter of fact. That my opinion happens to agree with those facts is besides the point.


Heres where the rubber meets the road:

You are not demonstrating that you know enough about the subject matter to differentiate between fact and opinion where this subject is concerned. You have demonstrated the contrary by saying the things you have said.


"Yeah. And it breaks my heart that when an, er, innocent bystander wanders into the Guns forum and asks a question about a matter of fact, several people who acknowledged not having bothered to ascertain the facts would respond with ... oh look: opinions."


Yeah, I'm sure it does. It breaks MY heart how poor your reading skills are:

"I have too much blood in my caffeine stream at the moment to coherently say much more, and I imagine Benezra or someone else will explain it better than I have. - Beevul - (from the post in question)

On edit: To most people, that means "this is most definitely NOT a complete or whole description of
what assault weapons are, its just a general description - I'm not quite awake enough to discuss the issue in a technical manner yet", but to others I guess it means "I'm being deceptive because I don't want you to know its all about meaningless arbitrary features such as a pistol grip or a muzzlebreak".

I guess you just aren't "most people" where thats concerned, eh.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

57. this is what was understandable

Weapons that have a military 'look' but function the same way as many traditional 'wooden stock-hunting look' rifles do. That I understand. I don't know how I could understand when "nothing" was said--you are really confusing me there.

All I wanted to know was what kind of weapon is an assault weapon, and several DUers help me to better understand.

[iverglas]

59. if I tell you the fairies at the bottom of my yard are dancing

I guess that will be "understandable" too. Not actually a depiction of reality, but understandable.

Mutatis mutandis.


All I wanted to know was what kind of weapon is an assault weapon, and several DUers help me to better understand.

I'm sure they're glad to have been of service. I wonder, could you tell us the answer in your own words now? Sometimes it helps to clarify things in one's own mind if one does that.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

65. I think I can,

but first a question--why the condescending tone? I have endeavored to be polite to everyone here, including you.

What I have found out is that assault weapons are weapons that can look like military weapons but can be used for hunting and target practice. They are not machine guns or other types of guns that in the minds of the general public are used strictly to kill people.

[iverglas]

66. let me try it again

What I have found out is that assault weapons are weapons that can look like military weapons but can be used for hunting and target practice.

No. What you have found out is that there are people on this site who are very eager to persuade you that this and only this is what assault weapons are.

I wonder whether you're acquainted with the Google concept? This can be a tough one, since there are thousands of people on the internet who are just as eager to persuade you that this and only this is what assault weapons are, but you might strike it lucky and find some actual information.

I'm afraid that I find it difficult to be much other than impatient with someone who is so willing to treat such bad faith as is on display here with as little scepticism as you have displayed. The sincerity of your avowed search for information is made suspect by your eagerness to swallow disinformation.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

68. I'm still waiting for you to give me information

I hoped and expected to get varying viewpoints when I posted the question. If you have another viewpoint, I'm ready and willing to hear it. One reason to ask here rather than go to google is that that source offers too much information. What is factual and what might be biased? I have an idea where posters here are coming from, and what biases they may have--an easy thing to ascertain from a check of their posts. My "eagerness to swallow information" is actually what I term basic politeness. Apparently your definition of the latter is quite different from mine.

[iverglas]

70. there's no "viewpoint" involved

You asked a factual question, and you got garbage in reply, and you repeatedly expressed thanks for the enlightenment you had been given, when all you were given was talking points from a well-known agenda.

I guess I just find it difficult to distinguish between "basic politeness" and "credulity and absence of critical thought to the point of looking a whole lot like disingenuousness".

You have your answers now, in my other post. I did the work. I'm used to it. Preference for avoiding facts is rather rampant in these parts, and I find I often have to import them.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

77. Kindly note my appreciation

But I really didn't know anything about this subject. When one is lacking knowledge, one can only hope that those who reply will give a full answer. Thanks to your work, I have it. I do appreciate it.

[Tejas]

92. welcome to the world of inuendos

Glad you figured out what's been going on in this tangent, never doubted that you would. I think you'll find most antis/gungrabbers here in the Gungeon won't get so frustrated when they can't get your dander up and you'll wind up being able to have an actual dialogue with them.

Then again, some totally lose it and do damage control by attacking character instead of offering information, much less facts, contrary to your argument. The main problem is those type of antis/gungrabbers just simply don't know the subject matter.

Welcome to the Gungeon.

[AtheistCrusader]

In fairness,

Any source, especially on the internet, no matter how cloaked in professionalism, is going to have some bias one way or another. Even Wikipedia, which avows neutral point of view as much as possible, has some serious concerns raised on the discussion pages of Assault Weapons and Assault Rifles, in both the 'for' and 'against' directions.

Your point about existing legislation would be good, the 1994 ban would be a good place to get a starting understanding of what 'Assault Weapon' means in the public (Non-military) sector, but it's still an arbitrary meaning. For instance, High Capacity magazines. 10 rounds seems arbitrary to me. High Capacity by whos standards? Legislation through history has introduced many different limits, such as anything over 20, all the way down to, I think, three. (Certainly three for some hunting seasons in shotguns)

There is unfortunately no one-stop-shop for a clear understanding, because even recently proposed legislation has already moved the goal posts on what constitutes an assault weapon, over what was limited in 1994. This is one reason I cling to the military terms, but that leaves me at odds with political terms, and can make it harder for me to communicate with 'joe on the street'.


In any case, Ayeshahaqqiqa, what you have gotten here is probably an incomplete, readers digest version of what 'assault weapon' means, and a healthy dose of bias. I do encourage you to seek more information on the subject. What you've gotten so far may function reasonably well, but may not hold up in court, if you take my meaning.

[Irreverend IX]

76. Shoot from other than the shoulder!?

I can't believe what I'm reading. You actually think that pistol grips somehow make rifles more dangerous? Here, I'll give you two _facts_ about pistol grips and hip firing:

1. A pistol grip is less comfortable for hip-firing or other "unorthodox" firing positions than a straight stock. This is because if you fire a pistol gripped rifle from hip, you have to bend your wrist at a near 90-degree angle in order to hold the grip and pull the trigger, which isn't comfortable or stable. With a straight stock, you can just grasp the stock

2. Whatever type of grip your rifle has, hip firing is extremely inaccurate. Even if the target's just 20 feet away, you'll have trouble hitting it from the hip. No firearms training program teaches hip firing, because there is no situation in which it isn't vastly inferior to a conventional grip. I should hope that future mass murderers fire rifles from the hip, because it will ensure that they don't rack up many victims.

[iverglas]

83. you actually think I'll fall for this shit?

You actually think that pistol grips somehow make rifles more dangerous?

You actually haven't stopped beating your dog???


Don't know what your fixation on hips is, but enjoy it.

[Irreverend IX]

86. You said...

That pistol grips provide "the ability to shoot from other than the shoulder." Can you provide any information to back up that assertion? Because all my knowledge and experience tells me that the exact opposite is true. As my above post explained, pistol grips make it _easier_ to fire a rifle from the shoulder and harder to fire in any other way. If you can't back up the assertion that pistol grips provide "the ability to shoot from other than the shoulder," I'll have to chalk that up as a blatant lie on your part.

[iverglas]

87. ah, so you're retracting

this particular bit of dishonest rhetoric:

You actually think that pistol grips somehow make rifles more dangerous?

?

Good, then.

[iverglas]

90. if only every gunhead in the world were as clever as you

http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/shotguns/22265-pistol-grip-shotgun-advice.html

All I can say is I see no need to shoulder the firearm...no need for a folding stock. In the event the shotgun is fired in self defense the range could not possibly be more than 15-18 feet. More likely 10-12 feet. Hardly need to shoulder the firearm.
I have no need for storage as it will never leave the rack in the bedroom except for practise. Maneuvering is why i want the pistol grip in the first place and I have no need whatsoever to shoulder the shotgun.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-10078.html

Macoute
10-10-1998, 11:18 AM
I am considering putting a pistol grip on my home defense shotgun. My reasons are to decrease it's length and increase its maneuverability in my house - when checking suspicious noises and such, before I commit to the barricade and 911 call. Do you guys have any experience/opinoins on this before I invest the money, install, and head to the range to test it out? Thanks.

Keith Jones
10-14-1998, 10:59 PM
... Having said all this, I own and frequently carry a pistol-grip shotgun with a 12.5-inch barrel on the job as a metro police officer. Like all short-barrelled shotguns, it excels as a 'threat management' tool when you're attempting to gain control over a situation. But I practice with it, because it's much different to shoot than a handgun or a shoulder-fired gun.
Attaching a pistol grip reduces the shotgun's utility and makes it a 'special-purpose' weapon. Just be sure that doing so would truly fit your 'special needs'.

SpitRhyma
01-20-2007, 05:27 AM
Pistol grip changes your hands access to the guns mechanics like safety and action release lever. Consider these changes.
-STD Stock is decent for average people
-Stock+Pistol grip is like STD Stock but better and can be fired rambo style (w/o pressing stock to shoulder)
-Pistol grip is good for home defense and close up action only... You can't aim as good and shoot steadily but it won't matter if someone's accross ur living room.
-Pistol grip w/ foldout stock is GREAT if you like firing the gun rambo style AND occasional normal style but usually the stock is hard and kills your shoulder over time

Not to mention the manufacturers ...

http://www.knoxx.com/technology/SpecOps/SpecOps_FAQs.php

What makes this stock reduce recoil better than other stocks?

The SpecOps incorporates two separate recoil-reduction devices. One system in the pistol grip that absorbs the majority of the recoil energy and a second one in the butt stock handles the rest. Similar pistol grip adjustable style stocks that attempt recoil reduction just from the rear portion of the stock are limited in their ability to reduce recoil. When a pistol grip shotgun is fired with the “rear only” recoil reduction method, the stock collapses in the rear and all the movement and corresponding recoil is transferred into the palm of the shooters hand grasping the pistol grip (Ouch!). With the SpecOps Stock the majority of the recoil is removed by the mechanism located inside the pistol grip, so there is no pain to the shooters hand or shoulder. The SpecOps Stock can be comfortably shot from the shoulder, from the hip and even one handed (Recoil NADA!).

[beevul]

91. Wow, confirmation...

"All I can say is I see no need to shoulder the firearm...no need for a folding stock. In the event the shotgun is fired in self defense the range could not possibly be more than 15-18 feet. More likely 10-12 feet. Hardly need to shoulder the firearm.
I have no need for storage as it will never leave the rack in the bedroom except for practise. Maneuvering is why i want the pistol grip in the first place and I have no need whatsoever to shoulder the shotgun."


Making a weapon easier to maneuver. Sounds like thats a facet of controlling the weapon, as has been stated as one of the reasons a pistol grip is a good thing. And you pick a weapon that doesn't need to be shouldered or aimed in the first place - a shotgun - to make your point.

Then you go on and post an excerpt about recoil reduction...



You fail.


It still stands unrefuted that a pistol grip is less conducive for any other kind of firing than from the shoulder and more conducive to shoulder firing, than a traditional grip which is part of the stock.

[iverglas]

94. if only everybody were as smart as you

and if only you would acknowledge that not everybody is planning to use a firearm for the purposes and in the manner that you want to narrow the discussion to ... well, hell would have frozen over.


inserted omitted word

[beevul]

95. Don't be bitter.

"if only you would acknowledge that not everybody is planning to use a firearm for the purposes and in the manner that you want to narrow the discussion to"


If only you would accept that I have never denied such a thing.

And if you would acknowledge that what you would rather keep yammering on about is the exception, and that you don't want to have anything to do with discussing the rule, we could avoid all this needless time wasted having to point it out.

[AtheistCrusader]

100. I agree with the ergonomics issue, but

I take issue with

"And you pick a weapon that doesn't need to be shouldered or aimed in the first place - a shotgun"

Even at 20 feet, with a radical choke, you still need to aim. A shotgun isn't a death ray, especially firing heavy shot at those ranges. Spread will be a couple inches, max, based on everything I've ever shot. Unless you are doing some crazy tacticlol shit like shooting around corners, a pistol grip with a stock, shouldered, is by far the best way to shoot, from an accuracy or ergonomics standpoint.

I point out the aiming thing, because for those that aren't familiar with shotguns, etc, the 'you don't have to aim' misconception is dangerous, and damn near impossible to eradicate.

I'm not a fan of a pistol grip on the foregrip though. In fact, I hate that.

[beevul]

101. Strictly speaking...

"Even at 20 feet, with a radical choke, you still need to aim. A shotgun isn't a death ray, especially firing heavy shot at those ranges. Spread will be a couple inches, max, based on everything I've ever shot. Unless you are doing some crazy tacticlol shit like shooting around corners, a pistol grip with a stock, shouldered, is by far the best way to shoot, from an accuracy or ergonomics standpoint."

"I point out the aiming thing, because for those that aren't familiar with shotguns, etc, the 'you don't have to aim' misconception is dangerous, and damn near impossible to eradicate."



With a shottie its more "pointing it" than aiming it. yeah, you "kinda" aim it, but its more point, than it is aim. You definitely don't line any sights up in a home defense scenario with a shottie, like you would with a rifle. My point, is that a home-defense type shotgun, thats likely to have a pistolgrip, and be as short as is legally allowed in overall length and barrel length - the particular setup such bans go after - is a weapon that is in fact much more pointed than aimed, and thereby not really a weapon that needs to be shouldered. And those cites seem to support that.




But yeah, I understand what you're saying.

[Irreverend IX]

99. Spin, spin, spin...

Can you find any sources discussing hip-shooting with rifles? Because rifles, not shotguns, are the primary targets of most AWBs.

On the subject of shotguns, the stuff you're citing discusses the use of shotguns with a pistol grip and no stock that makes contact with the shoulder. The reason people use shotguns like this is for maneuvering in close quarters. A shotgun with a stock can be too long to comfortably carry through narrow hallways in a house, which can cause problems when you're investigating a noise late at night. A shotgun with only a pistol grip can be fired below the shoulder, although shooting it from all the way down at the hip is awkward. Hip firing is still easier with a straight stock, but the people talking in the forums above want a gun with less overall length.

In any case, shooting off the shoulder makes it considerably less likely that you'll hit your target, and with pistol-gripped shotguns it's only done in situations where the shooter comes under surprise attack. With rifles, it's practically never done. But all of this is irrelevant to gun crime, because criminals overwhelmingly prefer handguns, and of the few that use shotguns not many are going to want to bother equipping them with pistol grips and folding stocks, which are usually aftermarket parts. As the forum posters you quoted said, the stockless pistol grip is a special purpose configuration that sacrifices comfort and ease of use for maneuverability in cramped spaces.

I don't retract anything I've said and I challenge you to find information indicating that hip shooting is any kind of significant factor in gun crime.

[benEzra]

103. Ah, the perils of crossposting...

Ah, the perils of crossposting...

That's Exhibit A, showing the perils of crossposting the results of a Google search without first taking the time to understand what the hell you are crossposting.

Some people in that thread are discussing STOCKLESS PUMP SHOTGUNS with pistol grips only (not "assault weapons," not semiautomatics, not shoulder stocked guns with protruding handgrips) and some are discussing STOCKED PISTOL GRIP SHOTGUNS. You think that this somehow proves that protruding handgrips on shoulder-stocked rifles are made for firing from "other than the shoulder"?

I'm a member of the Firing Line. Almost everyone on that thread says pistol-grip-only shotguns are useless beyond across-the-room distance, and that shoulder-stocked guns with pistol grips are much more suited for aimed fire from the shoulder. Do I need to quote them, or can you read it for yourself?

Hell, I'll quote one, that you seem to have conveniently missed:

At my usual range I saw a shooter firing a pistol grip only 12 gauge from "the hip", I noted how much the gun twisted in his hands and how difficult follow up shots were. I tried a 12 gauge with a pistol grip and stock, it was more comfortable from the shoulder, but much less so at waist level.

Protruding handgrips, thumbhole stocks, and extreme Monte Carlo stocks (biathlon style) on rifles are ergonomically the same, and are, in fact, designed to be more ergonomic for firing from the shoulder. That's why most serious target rifles have either pistol grip stocks, thumbhole stocks, or extreme Monte Carlo stocks, because a vertical hand position is more natural when shoulder firing. Hip-firing is more natural with a traditional straight stock; hold a dowel in your hand at hip level and see if it's vertical or horizontal, if you don't believe me.


Anschutz, bolt-action European target rifle


Olympic style target rifle

For the record, stockless shotguns are arguably the hardest guns on the planet to hit anything with; their effective range is shorter than that of a handgun. Like all shotguns, they are far more lethal than a handgun (.729 caliber, after all), but can't be effectively aimed, and are universally derided by serious shooters. Their only advantage is ease of storage (one reason they are popular on boats), but a stock that folds for storage gives you the ability to store folded in a boat locker AND aim with the stock extended, so pistol-grip-only shotguns aren't common anymore.

Not to mention the manufacturers ...

http://www.knoxx.com/technology/SpecOps/SpecOps_FAQs.ph...

What makes this stock reduce recoil better than other stocks?

The SpecOps incorporates two separate recoil-reduction devices. One system in the pistol grip that absorbs the majority of the recoil energy and a second one in the butt stock handles the rest. Similar pistol grip adjustable style stocks that attempt recoil reduction just from the rear portion of the stock are limited in their ability to reduce recoil. When a pistol grip shotgun is fired with the “rear only” recoil reduction method, the stock collapses in the rear and all the movement and corresponding recoil is transferred into the palm of the shooters hand grasping the pistol grip (Ouch!). With the SpecOps Stock the majority of the recoil is removed by the mechanism located inside the pistol grip, so there is no pain to the shooters hand or shoulder. The SpecOps Stock can be comfortably shot from the shoulder, from the hip and even one handed (Recoil NADA!).

So an Internet salesman says that his expensive spring-loaded "SpecOps" stock he wants to sell you---which special operations forces probably don't actually use, but which sounds badass---magically makes a shotgun not recoil when you fire it one-handed (which can be done with any shotgun, pistol grip or not, FWIW). This is Lesson B, the pitfalls of citing Internet hucksters.

Give me 5 minutes with Google, and I can "prove" to you, using your own methodology, that you can get HEI "Raufuss" (sic) ammunition for .223 Remington, that shooting a handgun with your middle (swearing) finger makes it magically hit what you want, that Aimpoint sights are supposed to be installed on rifles backwards, that "Extreme Shock" ammunition is used by Air Marshals and ninjas with sparks coming out of their derrieres and is the next best thing to a death ray, and that bottles of pills can (1) make your car get 100 mpg or (2) transform you into a model with implants, for only $29.95.

There are indeed recoil-reducing shotgun stocks; they work. The stock shortens under recoil, damping the impulse via a spring and hydraulic damper. They have to have pistol grips because if they didn't, it would put your wrist into an anatomically difficult position during the recoil cycle. But they are made to be fired from the shoulder, not the hip. (Question: If the stock isn't made for firing from the shoulder, why do most recoil-reducing stocks put the damping mechanism in the shoulder stock?)

FWIW, here is how a pistol-gripped rifle is designed to be used:



Notice the natural wrist position. Visualize how she'd have to bend her wrist to get her hand around the straight buttstock (in front of her ear), and you'll understand why shooters are transitioning to pistol-grip-style stocks.

[SteveM]

111. Too much Hollywood? Even Thompson sub-machine guns are fired from shoulder (nt)

[beevul]

72. ayeshahaqqiqa, a question...

Are you wanting to know what constitutes an "assault weapon" under the federal ban that expired, under the proposed HR 1022, or under state regulations, or maybe "some of those"?

The ban that sunset covered a certain subset of weapons, and HR1022 for example would cover a much larger subset, and some of the states have thier own patchwork like the CA example upthread.

Hard to get beyond any general description, without knowing that.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

74. Until I started getting answers to my question

I didn't even realize that there was more than one definition for the term "assault weapon". Although I have been around guns for a good part of my life (my stepfather was an avid hunter and target shooter and I enjoy going to historical re-enactments), I have very limited understanding of different types of firearms. You could say that I'm like the average American who doesn't own guns themselves and has limited understanding about the controversy involved. And I certainly didn't realize that there is a patchwork of regulations on the matter, differing from state to state. Like most non-gun owning folks, I knew that laws for selling guns differ from state to state, but I had no clue that the definitions of what constituted an assault weapon were also different.

[beevul]

88. well...

Yeah, there are lots of definitions.

If one sums up which weapons that have characteristics that would make them qualify to fit the definition of the term, generally, at least under the original AWB, it points toward guns with a military appearance in general. Many of the features that qualify as "AW" characteristics can only be found (unless one has their barrel threaded by a gunsmith or replaces thier traditional wooden stock with a synthetic folding stock) on that type of weapon - flash hider, bayonette lug, folding stock, threaded barrel, etc.

Other characteristics such as large magazine capacity - under the original ban - are shared by many weapons dating back to the 1800s.

Pistol grip, is just a more ergonomic way of fireing the gun from ones shoulder, and aids in control of the weapon when firing it.

Put a rifle to your shoulder like you are going to fire it, and look at how the wrist on your triggerhand is bent, then imagine your hand on a pistolgrip underneath instead.

Its a far more natural way to position your hand, and gives superior controll of the rifle.


The new AWB (hr1022), which is not law, and will not likely become law, is much more inclusive, would ban tens of millions of privately owned firearms.

The devil, as always is in the details:

HR 1022 IH


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1022
To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


February 13, 2007

Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007'.


SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT FOR 10 YEARS OF REPEALED CRIMINAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) Reinstatement of Provisions Wholly Repealed- Paragraphs (30) and (31) of section 921(a), subsections (v) and (w) and Appendix A of section 922, and the last 2 sentences of section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into law.

(b) Reinstatement of Provisions Partially Repealed- Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:

`(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), (r), (v), or (w) of section 922;'; and

(2) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:

`(i) is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years; or'.


SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended to read as follows:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;

`(ii) AR-10;

`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;

`(iv) AR70;

`(v) Calico Liberty;

`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;

`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;

`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;

`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;

`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

`(xi) M1 Carbine;

`(xii) Saiga;

`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;

`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;

`(xv) SLG 95;

`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;

`(xvii) Steyr AUG;

`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

`(xix) Tavor;

`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or

`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

`(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Calico M-110;

`(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;

`(iii) Olympic Arms OA;

`(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or

`(v) Uzi.

`(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Armscor 30 BG;

`(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;

`(iii) Striker 12; or

`(iv) Streetsweeper.

`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.

`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--

`(i) a second pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a barrel shroud; or

`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip;

`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

`(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

`(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).

`(K) A conversion kit.

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

(b) Related Definitions- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36) Barrel Shroud- The term `barrel shroud' means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.

`(37) Conversion Kit- The term `conversion kit' means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into a semiautomatic assault weapon, and any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

`(38) Detachable Magazine- The term `detachable magazine' means an ammunition feeding device that can readily be inserted into a firearm.

`(39) Fixed Magazine- The term `fixed magazine' means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm.

`(40) Folding or Telescoping Stock- The term `folding or telescoping stock' means a stock that folds, telescopes, or otherwise operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of a firearm.

`(41) Forward Grip- The term `forward grip' means a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.

`(42) Pistol Grip- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.

`(43) Threaded Barrel- The term `threaded barrel' means a feature or characteristic that is designed in such a manner to allow for the attachment of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(a)).'.


SEC. 4. GRANDFATHER PROVISION.

Section 922(v)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(A)' after `(2)'; and

(2) by adding after and below the end the following:

`(B) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm the possession or transfer of which would (but for this subparagraph) be unlawful by reason of this subsection, and which is otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.'.


SEC. 5. REPEAL OF CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS.

Section 922(v)(3) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by striking `(3)' and all that follows through the 1st sentence and inserting the following:

`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm that--

`(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, level, or slide action;

`(B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

`(C) is an antique firearm.'.


SEC. 6. REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR THE TRANSFER OF LAWFULLY POSSESSED SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

Section 922(v) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon to which paragraph (1) does not apply, except through--

`(A) a licensed dealer, and for purposes of subsection (t) in the case of such a transfer, the weapon shall be considered to be transferred from the business inventory of the licensed dealer and the dealer shall be considered to be the transferor; or

`(B) a State or local law enforcement agency if the transfer is made in accordance with the procedures provided for in subsection (t) of this section and section 923(g).

`(6) The Attorney General shall establish and maintain, in a timely manner, a record of the make, model, and date of manufacture of any semiautomatic assault weapon which the Attorney General is made aware has been used in relation to a crime under Federal or State law, and the nature and circumstances of the crime involved, including the outcome of relevant criminal investigations and proceedings. The Attorney General shall annually submit the record to the Congress and make the record available to the general public.'.


SEC. 7. STRENGTHENING THE BAN ON THE POSSESSION OR TRANSFER OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.

(a) Ban on Transfer of Semiautomatic Assault Weapon With Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (y) the following:

`(z) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(z) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.

(b) Certification Requirement-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922(w) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(A) in paragraph (3)--

(i) by adding `or' at the end of subparagraph (B); and

(ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C); and

(B) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:

`(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer who transfers a large capacity ammunition feeding device that was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection, to fail to certify to the Attorney General before the end of the 60-day period that begins with the date of the transfer, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, that the device was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.'.

(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title, as amended by subsection (a)(2) of this section, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(9) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(w)(4) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.'.


SEC. 8. UNLAWFUL WEAPONS TRANSFERS TO JUVENILES.

Section 922(x) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)--

(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or

`(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'; and

(2) in paragraph (2)--

(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or

`(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.


SEC. 9. BAN ON IMPORTATION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.

(a) In General- Section 922(w) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2)' and inserting `(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B)';

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking `(2) Paragraph (1)' and inserting `(B) Subparagraph (A)'; and

(3) by inserting before paragraph (3) the following:

`(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import or bring into the United States a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 921(a)(31)(A) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by striking `manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994'.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022

Its noteworthy to mention, that the "barrel shroud" mentioned in HR1022, is a safety device to keep one from burning ones self on a hot barrel, as well as a utilitarian device that helps to keep the barrel cooler. When target shooting or plinking through a lot of rounds, the usefulness of such a thing for both reasons becomes clear.

Most people that state their support for HR1022 - in my experience, have no idea what a barrel shroud is or does, and know about as much about the other features in question, or refuse to discuss the issue. Tis frustrating.



Also worth mentioning, is that Mrs. McCarthy doesn't even know what a barrel shroud is, even though she introduced the bill that would control weapons with that feature:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

At the risk of someone saying I'm unfairly slamming a Democrat, I posted that link as an example, of why this issue made so many people so mad, and still does.

Heres a link to a video that is somewhat applicable to the issue:



http://youtube.com/watch?v=X9cDbA8O9-c

Its a 10 minute vid of a san jose police officer talking about the guns in question, and I strongly urge you to watch it. If you do, notice his grip on the so called pistol grip versus his grip on the so called "hunting rifle" grip, and how much more natural it is which the so called pistol grip.










I appreciate you coming into this open minded and no matter what side of the issue you decide that you fall on I will respect you no less, because you show genuine interest and intent to understand it all.

Its a breath of fresh air to actually discuss this issue with someone that doesn't stick their fingers in their ears and chant "ban them, ban them, ban them", or make thinly veiled inferences that one who opposes such bans is a repuke, repuke dupe, gun lover, or gun nut.

[iverglas]

93. if you want to see what gunheads say about it

when they're talking amongst themselves and not trying to lead you astray, see post 90.

Then read the previous reply to your post and consider the words carefully.

"a military appearance in general" -- what does that mean? What is a "military appearance"? Could it be the way something appears because of the funcionality of it, which is what gives it its appearance?

"Other characteristics such as large magazine capacity - under the original ban - are shared by many weapons dating back to the 1800s." -- what were those weapons? How rapidly did they fire? How manoeuvrable were they?

"Pistol grip, is just a more ergonomic way of fireing the gun from ones shoulder" -- why do they persist in saying this when gun enthusiasts all over the internet say otherwise?

"Its noteworthy to mention, that the 'barrel shroud' mentioned in HR1022, is a safety device to keep one from burning ones self on a hot barrel, as well as a utilitarian device that helps to keep the barrel cooler. When target shooting or plinking through a lot of rounds, the usefulness of such a thing for both reasons becomes clear." -- and I could find many handy uses for a switchblade knife, but because switchblade knives are also handy for more nefarious reasons than mine would be, they're still illegal to carry around.


The tricks are many and devious, and it can take a while to catch on.

[Tejas]

96. "The tricks are many and devious, and it can take a while to catch on."

"Pistol grip, is just a more ergonomic way of fireing the gun from ones shoulder" -- why do they persist in saying this when gun enthusiasts all over the internet say otherwise?



links from all-over-the-internet, please?





The tricks are many and devious, and it can take a while to catch on.


can't...........



.........breathe.......

[AtheistCrusader]

97. I can help with the 1800's rifle bit.

In 1791, the Austrian army began fielding the Girandoni repeating air rifle. It might sound like a daisy airgun at a glance, but it had a 20 to 22 round magazine depending on the model, it bit under the weight and dimensions of the Garand, just a hair over 9lbs, which is not too bad. Air rifle or no, it could kill a man. No problem. Coincidentally, it was a .477 caliber rifle, very close to today's .50, and the .50 muskets of the timeperiod.

Meriwether Lewis depended on the same gun 12 years later, on the 'Lewis and Clark' expedition.
Austria had mixed results. Lots of mechanical problems, which makes sense, since it's a complex instrument, and was rather unique at the time, essentially a prototype. They did have good success with it in two small wars.

They are very rare antiques today. I am not aware of any repeating black powder weapons from that timeperiod, but the mode of propellant was fairly unimportant. It had a drastically higher volume of fire than anything else on the battlefield. There was an early 22 shot revolver, but I think it was around the later 1800's.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Depends on who you ask.

The military and 'civilian' definitions vary greatly. Wikipedia has hashed this out quite a bit, and focuses on the military definition, with call-outs for civilian misconceptions:

An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and battle rifle ammunition. Assault rifles are categorized between light machine guns, intended more for sustained automatic fire in a support role, and submachine guns, which fire a handgun cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armies, having largely replaced or supplemented larger, more powerful battle rifles, such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and Tokarev SVT. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47 and the M16 rifle. Semi-automatic rifles, including commercial versions of the AR-15, and "automatic" rifles limited to firing single shots, even though incorrectly classified in the United States as assault rifles by the now defunct 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, are not assault rifles as they are not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with very limited capacity fixed magazines are also generally not considered assault rifles.

I'm going to generalize a bit here, but this might give you an idea of the design concepts behind the Assault Rifle:

1. Shorter, and lighter overall, soldiers can carry the rifle further and maneuver the weapon better in tight quarters such as jungles or urban environments.
2. The ammunition weighs less, so the soldier can carry more of it, greater distances.
3. Engage targets from 0-600 meters, select fire without massive recoil.

A Battle Rifle generally has a longer barrel, greater muzzle velocity, larger, heavier bullet, allows reasonable engagement from 0-900 yards and beyond. However, military studies have shown that that increased range and power is often wasted, and a lighter weapon with more ready ammunition is generally more useful in a fight.

Civilian versions of either type are not select-fire, and if a rifle is readily converted from semi-automatic to fully automatic by maybe bending a piece of metal, or filing off a tab, something simple like that, the BATFE does not generally allow importation or manufacture. This limitation is entirely separate from the expired Assault Weapons Ban.

Assault Rifles vary on whether they can be used for hunting certain game. The .223 caliber AR-15 is generally not allowed for the hunting of deer, because it is too anemic, and will not reliably kill a deer. The 7.62x39mm AK-47 generally is allowed however, as are most .30 caliber rifles. On the flip-side, an AR-15 is generally more desirable for target shooting than that same AK-47 that is used for hunting, because at longer distances, the AR-15 is inherently more accurate.

Lots and lots of good information in the Wikipedia piece on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifles

Edit: Screwed up the quote tags.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

16. Thank you

especially for your explanation. I was leery of wikipedia, knowing how controversial assault weapons are--didn't know if it would really be factual or not.

[iverglas]

33. factual it may have been

Unfortunately, "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are not the same thing, so it was kinda irrelevant.

Both are terms of art, used to describe objects with certain characteristics.

One has been in long use to describe a set of things with particular characteristics, in what one might call common parlance, originating in specialized military parlance, presumably.

One has been in use for less time to describe a different set of things with particular characteristics, as described in legislation defining the term.

It is really quite common to designate a class of things that share certain characteristics, in legislation, by a term that can then be used to refer to them collectively. The term "firearm" itself would be an example.

The example of "assault weapon" just riles some people up ... even though they haven't read the legislation in which it is defined for the present purpose.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Well, the terms are largely interchangable

in most conversation, as most of the time people are talking about rifles, but you make a good point, I did overlook greater than 10 round capacity pistol magazines, which was a 'flag' used in the last Assault Weapons ban to denote a pistol as an Assault Weapon as well, or round magazines for shotguns, as in the old banned Street Sweepers.

(along with a couple other 'features' like a threaded barrel, or having the mag well outside the pistol grip, like the old 'broomhandle mauser', which makes no sense to me at all)


I'll be more careful not to overlook that kind of wording in the future. My apologies.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

75. Welcome to DU!

:hi:
I like your user name! Brought a smile to my face--but then I'm a veteran of the believer/atheist wars in a forum known as Religion/Theology. :)

[AtheistCrusader]

98. Thank you!

A co-worker gave me it as a nickname, and it's stuck for a long time. I haven't ventured much into the other folders here, just reading the recommended threads, and this one for now.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

102. It may sound funny,

but a lot of atheists hang out at the Religion/Theology Forum. It has made for some very interesting discussions!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

63. The term did give me concern

I was envisioning a machine gun used strictly for killing people. I'm sure that there are many folks who think the same thing when they hear the term.

[SteveM]

118. More on "pistol grips"...

From Standard Catalog of Firearms, 5th Ed., 1995, Krause Publications:

Model 55 (Winchester)

"This model was a continuation of the Model 1894 except in a simplified version. Available in the same calibers as the Model 1894, this rifle could be ordered only with a 24" round barrel, plain walnut STRAIGHT-GRIP stock with plain foreend..." (my emphasis)

Model 64 (Winchester)

"An improved version of the Model 55, this gun featured a larger magazine, PISTOL GRIP stock, and forged front-sight ramp..."

-----

The Model 55 was produced first in 1924; the Model 64 in 1933. The important thing to remember is that these rifles are old walnut & blue steel hunting rifles with grip types using the same expressions argued about in the posts above. The straight is arguably the oldest form; the pistol a more recent design employed by most manufacturers of traditional long guns. The pistol or curved grip just behind the action & trigger is generally a more ergonomically comfortable and effective (re: control) design. It borrows from the old single-shot pistol (flint, percussion).

[slackmaster]

19. In Pennsylvania the term has no legal meaning

There is no state law that defines what an "assault weapon" is. There used to be a federal law, from 1994 to 2004. That definition is now moot.

So in Pennsylvania the term is really meaningless.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

23. Interesting

so it is each state that defines the term "assault weapon". Didn't realize that. Thanks.

[slackmaster]

24. Only a handful of states do

Most don't distinguish AWs as a separate class of weapons from pistols, rifles, and shotguns.

[iverglas]

34. isn't it just?

Kinda how like each state defines the term "marriage". What a surprise to find that different states have different laws with different definitions ...

[slackmaster]

38. Which states don't have a definition of marriage?

:shrug:

[iverglas]

41. who the fuck cares?

Does a state have to have a definition of marriage?

Did you have a point?

[slackmaster]

42. Yes, a state does have to have a definition of marriage otherwise there is no marriage in that state

If a state has no definition of "assault weapon", then there are no assault weapons in that state.

Did you have a point?

It seems perfectly clear to me. What's your problem? Is it because I am a man?

[iverglas]

44. really?

What would all those churches be doing then?

There would be no law defining marriage, but you can bet your ass there would still be couples engaging in the activities that constitute the features of a marriage. That package just wouldn't be called "marriage" in any legislation.

Getting it?

If you don't, is it because you are a man?

Sounds silly to me, but it must make sense to you.

[slackmaster]

46. I think you are completely out to lunch, not making any sense at all

:shrug:

[iverglas]

49. I'm afraid I beat you to that one

You apparently spun off into the stratosphere some time ago, and I've just been a little too polite to make an issue of it.

[Tejas]

54. Yep, F-bombs are building up

Probably gonna explode like Nutter's head will when they put the cuffs on him. Funny that antis get so hot-headed enough to lose their cool like that.



Excuse me, off-topic but gotta go check my calendar, been keeping track of certain hostiles here in the Gungeon and not sure if it's been 3-1/2 weeks or not. Could explain a lot of things.

[iverglas]

58. you're just so confused, aren't you?

Not my job to fix you though.

I'd better be careful with my words. Some slacker will be having visions of those "castrating" things ...

[Tejas]

64. No surprise at all, it's almost expected of antis - n/t

[maxidivine]

105. Very few states do that

Massachussetts, Illinois, California, New York, New Jersey, and I think Maryland all feel the need to spend taxpayer money defining "assault weapons", while the rest of the states don't bother because it is practically meaningless, except to the people who own and enjoy shooting firearms which happen to fall under one of the various definitions of assault weapon. And to people who just don't know, and are misled to believe the legislation is about machine guns.

[JustinBuist]

21. Sure.

You can find the PDF of the law here: http://webapps.phila.gov/council/attachments/4748.pdf

I'll try and give a short version here.

Rifles: Nothing with a pistol grip, thumbhole stock, telescoping or folding stock if it's a semi-automatic or a pump action gun.

So, this one's out:


Pistols: Any pistol with a muzzle compensator, barrel shroud, or the ability to accept a magazine outside the grip.

Welp, there goes Olympic grade target pistols:


Shotguns: Anything that takes a detachable magazine or uses a revolving cylinder.

I'm a bit surprised to see that this one included pump action rifles. That's a new spin on things.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

22. thanks for the illustrations

Personally, I prefer black powder guns, which is why I don't know about such things.

[krispos42]

28. The beauty of it is that it means anything you want it to mean

Under the 1993 ban (now expired) it applied to rifle, shotguns, and pistols if they were semi-automatic (one and only one shot per trigger pull) and has too many cosmetic features.

California has their own assault weapons ban right now. In Califoria, this AR-15 semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine is not an "assault weapon" because it does not have a protruding pistol grip.




But this one is, because it DOES have a protruding pistol grip and a detachable magazine.




However, if on the second rifle I remove the push-botton release for the magazine and replace it with one that requires a tool (such as a bullet or pen tip), it, technically, no longer has a "detachable magazine" but a "fixed magazine", and is no longer an "assault weapon".


:crazy:


This is very informative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_assault_weapons_ban

[benEzra]

29. "Assault weapons" are the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in America.

They are non-automatic, NFA Title 1 (civilian) rifles, plus a few shotguns and a few pistols. The most popular centerfire target rifles are "assault weapons" by most definitions, as are a fair number of semiautomatic hunting rifles. ("Semiautomatic" meaning a gun that fires once and only once when the trigger is pulled, and will not fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time; machineguns are "automatic" as opposed to "semiautomatic.")


Competitive shooter using civilian AR-15 target rifle (non-automatic, not an M16)

All automatic weapons (including actual Uzi's, machineguns, actual assault rifles, etc.) are very tightly controlled by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and possession by anyone outside of police/military/government duty is a 10-year Federal felony, unless you first jump through a bunch of hoops to obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4) to own one. Civilians can own non-automatic civilian guns that look like Uzi's and AK-47's, but they fire only once when the trigger is pulled, just like any other civilian gun. I shoot a non-automatic civilian AK lookalike, a Romanian SAR-1, recreationally and competitively, FWIW.

Taking H.R.1022 as the working definition of "assault weapon," more Americans own "assault weapons" than hunt.

[Tejas]

52. and the good people of Philly

have to pay the $. Shame the cost doesn't come straight out've Nutter's pocket.

[iverglas]

84. ... elected this Democratic mayor

[Tejas]

85. ...that is now making fools of them.

[beevul]

89. And himself. N/T