Reply #149: Because...

[benEzra]

U posted; Does he, or does he not, quote ANY examples of the term "assault weapon" prior to 1988? No.

What does this question about a specific time frame, have to do with my post, his article or your claim? ?????

Because it was in 1988 that Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center started a media blitz about "assault weapons" (as he termed them), intentionally conflating them with NFA Title 2/Class III restricted assault rifles in order to take advantage of public confusion over machineguns vs. non-automatic civilian guns.

If the term was not in widespread circulation prior to Sugarmann's screed, then Tartaro is incorrect.

No he doesn’t conflate assault weapon with either NFA Title 2/Class III restricted automatic weapons or assault rifle.

U posted; National Firearms Act restricts assault rifles, not "assault weapons."

I don’t claim to know all the weaponry restricted or covered under the NFA but to say it restricts assault rifles, not “assault weapons” is at the very least lacking in clarity.

It lacks clarity only if you forget what an "assault rifle" is. An assault rifle is a Title II "machinegun" under the NFA, by definition. An "assault weapon" is a Title I civilian gun, by definition.

Look again at Tartaro's own definition:

"Assault weapons are by military procurement definition 'selective, fire (full auto continuous or burst fire plus autoloading) arms of sub caliber.'"

ALL assault rifles are selective-fire, by definition, and as such all are "machineguns" as defined in the National Firearms Act.

NO "assault weapons" are selective-fire, by definition; they are non-automatic, NFA Title I civilian arms. They are neither Title II Machineguns, nor Title II Destructive Devices, nor Title II Any Other Weapons. They are Title I civilian guns.

Tartaro recognized that distinction very clearly, and then conflated the terms.

The terms assault rifle nor assault weapon even exists in their general information as to the types of firearms that must be “registered”.

That's because "assault rifle" is a historical and DoD definition, not a NFA legal designation. The NFA calls them "machineguns," which are indeed listed in the act. The only definitions of "assault weapon" that have ever been included in Federal law referred exclusively to Title I civilian weapons, and specifically excluded Title II firearms.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt

FYI, the pistols restricted as Title II under the NFA are Destructive Devices if over .50 caliber, Any Other Weapon if smoothbore, or Machineguns if selective-fire or easily converted to full auto. None of these are "assault weapons."