What IS the definition of "assault weapon", officially?

[Bob A]

@MattFinals718 it's hard to comprehend why you would continue wasting so much time and effort unless your intention is to waste ours as well. Respond or not; I'm no longer bothering to read your postings in this thread.

No offense intended.

If you have all this time and verbiage to spare, you should consider applying it where it might do some good. If, of course, that is your actual intention. Obviously I have my doubts.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Cool, but the Brown Bess is not a belt-fed machine gun. Machine guns were designed (at the outset) to lay down a high volume of fire against many targets, while the Brown Bess was not. Isn't that pretty intuitive?

The Bess ( and similar weapons) Were the high fire volume individual weapons of the Era. They were general issue precisely because they did have sustained rate of fire 3x or more than the Rifled weapons of the day . Platoon fire by well trained troops was used against enemy formations , or as area denial , in a precursor to early belt feds .

 

[MattFinals718]

In this case, BOTH of the recent Oral Arguments in Richmond are worth listening to- in their entirety. Neither has a single "aHa" moment. (Bianchi and HQL)

Cool, when I can make an hour and a half to listen, I will do so. I still need to listen to Mark Smith's latest podcast (which is my primary source for following 2A-related court proceedings).

Historical ignorance. The Brown Bess was designed and deployed as an ASSAULT weapon (minus rifling).

Understand that the Brown Bess was the standard issue infantry weapon of its day, which means that it once served the same role that assault rifles do in modern combat. But a Browning M2 is not an "assault rifle," and so that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which I understood to be the comparison of a Brown Bess to an M2.

I do agree, if this is the point you are making, that historically, there was no difference between infantry weapons and those used for hunting, and that there was no legal distinction between them. That is (I would think) the test of history that the Bruen decision aimed to establish, and that is why I think that the antis' arguments for banning "assault weapons" fall apart. Their belief seems to be that militaries should get personal weapons that are a generation in firepower ahead of what civilians can own - even though historically, that's never how any modern government has approached gun control. It's also clearly contrary to the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

The modern machinegun (Maxim and beyond) emulated the demoralizing effect of MASSED fires.

Right, but made the firepower of a battalion available to a small crew of 2-3 soldiers operating a single weapon. Belt-fed machine guns represented a revolution in military affairs, and untold scholars have characterized them as such. When you can achieve the same field of fire and effects on the battlefield with one weapon that previously took dozens or hundreds, that is a capability difference.

@MattFinals718 it's hard to comprehend why you would continue wasting so much time and effort unless your intention is to waste ours as well. Respond or not; I'm no longer bothering to read your postings in this thread.

No offense intended.

If you have all this time and verbiage to spare, you should consider applying it where it might do some good. If, of course, that is your actual intention. Obviously I have my doubts.

I told you why. I reacted to an article with my opinion, and a number of other posters on this board attacked me. So yes, I defended my position. I could not have foreseen that it would become a protracted debate with a 10-page topic unto itself.

I don't see myself as wasting anyone's time; I see myself as presenting a legitimate debate about whether we are using the best arguments to make our case against assault weapons bans. I started this discussion in response to an article that (ostensibly) supports my perspective. I am sorry that people have such vehement reactions to my sentiments, but IMO, I am presenting perfectly reasonable objections that are informed by my experience with AR-15s and other weapons (over many years now). I acknowledge that I do not have military experience, as Dblas does. The "good" that I am doing is that I am trying to improve the strength of our arguments and intellectual credibility.

Whereas folks like you do us "bad" by attempting to suppress such discussion. I understand why you’re doing it: You are afraid that we’re going to give the other side enough rope to hang us. Is that a risk? Perhaps. But sometimes, you have to accept risks that certain information will be misused by those who wish ill upon our rights. Doesn’t mean that we have to suppress it.

If you perceive this discussion is a waste of time, walk the walk and leave the discussion. Your attempts to write off this discussion as a waste of time, however, come across as distraction tactics more than anything else.

 

[MattFinals718]

The Bess ( and similar weapons) Were the high fire volume individual weapons of the Era. They were general issue precisely because they did have sustained rate of fire 3x or more than the Rifled weapons of the day . Platoon fire by well trained troops was used against enemy formations , or as area denial , in a precursor to early belt feds .

Understand. That being said, in the present day, a person armed with an AR-15 is clearly going to be able to fire a lot more rounds and reload much faster than a person armed with a Bess.

If I ever find myself hunkered down in my home worried about facing a mob of BLM rioters, I'm going to reach for one of my ARs (and probably my 60-round Surefire mag) as a first resort. Any weapon I own that shoots more slowly and has a lower capacity is just going to sit in the safe.

 

[outrider58]

If your main point, Matt, is/was that the SCOTUS tip-toed around the 2A in the Heller decision, where they regarded the 2nd Amendment as mostly pertaining to self defense and not a protection for "the people" against tyranny, then I don't think there are many here who disagree with you on that point. It seems to me, they were considering the Heller case and not the broader aspect(s) of the 2A. I think they did that, intentionally. You may disagree, which is your right.

On the whole, it is my opinion, the term assault weapon and assault rifle were made up terms that were perhaps, intentionally vague, for obvious reasons.

When I posted, "an assault weapon is anything used to assault someone" was not meant as a chide(well, maybe just a little). I meant that to be as vague and far reaching a statement as the combination of those two words imply.

I have always held, and you may have read my saying so, that the AR-15 is the modern day musket(a point many here have also tried to make), in that it is a modern day weapon. A weapon that can be used for many things, including hunting, self defense, and most importantly, protection for (We)the people against a tyrannical government.

I don't think we needed 10 pages to get here though.

As for the Heller decision, I think the SCOTUS decided to not allow the perfect be the enemy of the good.

ETA: As far as I'm concerned, no official definition exists.

 

[smokey]

Understand. That being said, in the present day, a person armed with an AR-15 is clearly going to be able to fire a lot more rounds and reload much faster than a person armed with a Bess.

If I ever find myself hunkered down in my home worried about facing a mob of BLM rioters, I'm going to reach for one of my ARs (and probably my 60-round Surefire mag) as a first resort. Any weapon I own that shoots more slowly and has a lower capacity is just going to sit in the safe.

Which of these are "Assault weapons"? Which aren't? Why?

 

[Boats]

On the whole, it is my opinion, the term assault weapon and assault rifle were made up terms that were perhaps, intentionally vague, for obvious reasons.

ETA: As far as I'm concerned, no official definition exists.

To a certain extent, all terms are made up. And I partially agree.

Assault weapon, yes. No official definition.

Where I disagree is the same disagreement I had with the village mouthpiece:

Assault rifle, Battle Rifle, DMR, Sniper or precision rifle, submachine gun, PCC, riot or combat shotgun, revolver, pistol, all have district defineable traits instead of vague concepts.

 

[Pale Ryder]

Just legislate the action not an item. Assault with an AR15, or one using a single shot shotgun, treat them the same.

 

[MattFinals718]

If your main point, Matt, is/was that the SCOTUS tip-toed around the 2A in the Heller decision, where they regarded the 2nd Amendment as mostly pertaining to self defense and not a protection for "the people" against tyranny, then I don't think there are many here who disagree with you on that point. It seems to me, they were considering the Heller case and not the broader aspect(s) of the 2A. I think they did that, intentionally. You may disagree, which is your right.

I would say that what you've said above is exactly what I said in my post in the other topic, in response to the scholarly article that someone else posted. I think that SCOTUS did indeed tip-toe around the notion of the 2A being the people's check against tyranny, though I'm not sure whether they did it intentionally or not. I suspect that, just as the Heller ruling itself was split, the justices' sentiments on that issue were split, so they consciously stuck to considering (as you put it) the immediate question in the case, which concerned an individual right to self-defense.

My bigger problem, which I've said repeatedly, has to do with the fact that we're trying to shift the debate about the legality of these weapons by focusing on definitions and trying to downplay the suitability of these weapons for enabling the militia. When, in fact, what we should be doing is shifting the debate to tell the gun controllers that weapons that are similar (albeit not identical) in function to current service weapons are the most constitutionally protected of all. I understand why so many in this thread are hesitant to do so, but they're also being intellectually dishonest and ultimately doing our cause a disservice by sidestepping the "defense against tyranny" intent of the 2A.

On the whole, it is my opinion, the term assault weapon and assault rifle were made up terms that were perhaps, intentionally vague, for obvious reasons.

As I've mentioned elsewhere: Yes, the term is vague and often abused. It is, unfortunately, also a term that saw at least some use in our community in the 1980s, so we can't blame the anti-gunners for inventing it, which seems to be the claim of many in this thread.

I have always held, and you may have read my saying so, that the AR-15 is the modern day musket(a point many here have also tried to make), in that it is a modern day weapon. A weapon that can be used for many things, including hunting, self defense, and most importantly, protection for (We)the people against a tyrannical government.

This is true. I think it's also true that an AR-15 is a more suitable weapon for defense against tyranny that weapons that were designed for an aimed, slower rate of fire. Again: I've got a semi-automatic Remington 7400 in my safe that has been in my family for a long time. While it's not useless for defending against tyranny, it's hard for me not to see it as less suitable than any of my ARs.

I don't think we needed 10 pages to get here though.

Not my fault exclusively. Your buddies took part in this discussion, too.

ETA: As far as I'm concerned, no official definition exists.

True. I've observed that while no official definition exists, our opponents seem to be most concerned with semi-automatic versions of assault rifles and submachine guns. They also frequently lump in semi-automatic versions of battle rifles and shotguns, which I think demonstrates ignorance on their part (those types of weapons seem less suitable for engaging many targets quickly than intermediate-caliber and pistol-caliber semi-automatic rifles or carbines).

View attachment 461998
Which of these are "Assault weapons"? Which aren't? Why?

The last one is a semi-automatic version of an assault rifle. I'm happy to add the qualifier "semi-automatic version" if that makes a difference (it's certainly a more accurate description of the weapon's capabilities).

Assault rifle, Battle Rifle, DMR, Sniper or precision rifle, submachine gun, PCC, riot or combat shotgun, revolver, pistol, all have district defineable traits instead of vague concepts.

I didn't give you "vague concepts;" I actually gave you some definable traits. You still have yet to comment on the differences that I pointed out to you between my Glock 34 and my Steyr SPP.

 

[smokey]

The last one is a semi-automatic version of an assault rifle. I'm happy to add the qualifier "semi-automatic version" if that makes a difference (it's certainly a more accurate description of the weapon's capabilities).

Why is a g17 not an assault weapon when a g18 exists, but an ar15 is an "Assault weapon"? The Browning BAR is also a magazine fed, semiautomatic rifle, chambered in the military cartridge 30-06. Why is it not an assault weapon?

 

[MattFinals718]

Why is a g17 not an assault weapon when a g18 exists, but an ar15 is an "Assault weapon"? The Browning BAR is also a magazine fed, semiautomatic rifle, chambered in the military cartridge 30-06. Why is it not an assault weapon?

I've discussed the G17/G18 issue in another post. The G18 was developed from the G17, not the other way around. It is a machine pistol version of a semi-automatic service pistol, while something like a Steyr SPP (which I own) is a semi-automatic derivative of an SMG (the TMP). Go back and read my post about the differences between Glocks and "assault pistols."

As for the Browning BAR: Supposedly, even the "legitimate" definition of an "assault rifle" quoted by many folks in this thread says that it must be an intermediate caliber weapon, and .30-.06 is not an intermediate caliber (even though it was once a standard military caliber). While the BAR was originally an automatic rifle designed for military use, it was used more as a support weapon (same as the M249 SAW today), and is still better-suited to that role. And as I've said before, I at least agree with Boats that "battle rifles" (and the BAR is closer to meeting that definition than the "assault rifle" definition) have distinct, definable characteristics - mostly centered upon caliber - and should not be conflated with "assault rifles."

The real discussion point here is whether select-fire capability is an important discriminator in capability between something like an M4 vs. a civilian AR-15. I'd argue that it's not.

 

[smokey]

I've discussed the G17/G18 issue in another post. The G18 was developed from the G17, not the other way around. It is a machine pistol version of a semi-automatic service pistol, while something like a Steyr SPP (which I own) is a semi-automatic derivative of an SMG (the TMP). Go back and read my post about the differences between Glocks and "assault pistols."

As for the Browning BAR: Supposedly, even the "legitimate" definition of an "assault rifle" quoted by many folks in this thread says that it must be an intermediate caliber weapon, and .30-.06 is not an intermediate caliber (even though it was once a standard military caliber). While the BAR was originally an automatic rifle designed for military use, it was used more as a support weapon (same as the M249 SAW today), and is still better-suited to that role. And as I've said before, I at least agree with Boats that "battle rifles" (and the BAR is closer to meeting that definition than the "assault rifle" definition) have distinct, definable characteristics - mostly centered upon caliber - and should not be conflated with "assault rifles."

The real discussion point here is whether select-fire capability is an important discriminator in capability between something like an M4 vs. a civilian AR-15. I'd argue that it's not.

The full auto m4s and m16s were developed from the civilian ar15, not the other way around.

 

[TheOriginalMexicanBob]

The original AR-15 was select-fire made for the military trials during the 1950s. It wasn't type classified as the M16, M16A1 or any other designation until after acceptance in the early '60s. The civilian AR-15 wasn't released for commercial sale by Colt until the 1960s.

 

[MattFinals718]

The full auto m4s and m16s were developed from the civilian ar15, not the other way around.

The original AR-15 was select-fire made for the military trials during the 1950s. It wasn't type classified as the M16, M16A1 or any other designation until after acceptance in the early '60s. The civilian AR-15 wasn't released for commercial sale by Colt until the 1960s.

Bob: Thanks for responding to this point before I did.

It's been a hot minute since I read The Black Rifle, but my recollection of the history recounted in the book is that Armalite as a company was a lot more focused on competing for military contracts after they won the competition for the USAF's .22 survival rifle (early/mid-1950s). The AR-10 (from which the AR-15 was developed) was created specifically to compete in the new service rifle competition that was eventually won by the M14. I also recall that a factor in the company's decision to downsize the AR-10 to make the AR-15 was the consideration that a smaller caliber was expected to be more controllable and recoil less in full-auto.

EDIT: I also recall Ian McCollum making the point in a Forgotten Weapons video that the company's designs starting in the 1950s usually had both military and civilian uses in mind (slightly different take than what The Black Rifle claimed). However, I don't think any account of the AR-15's development disputes that it was developed with select-fire use in mind (hence the lower caliber compared to the AR-10) - as I've argued, that means that it was at least designed to be fired rapidly and controllably. Those design considerations are going to have an influence on its function even when it's being used in semi-auto only (or has a semi-only FCG).

 

[Boats]

I didn't give you "vague concepts;" I actually gave you some definable traits. You still have yet to comment on the differences that I pointed out to you between my Glock 34 and my Steyr SPP.

I addressed that a while ago in the other thread, and you communicated that you were incapable of differentiating facts from your opinion.

And you keep coming back to that example like it is actually relevant of something. Like it somehow proves your point that the definition of an assault weapon is irrelevant and we need to argue that assault weapons are MORE protected than other weapons.

They are both 9mm handguns. They can both accept extended magazines. One is recoil operated, one is locked-breech blowback. Neither is used by the US military. They have similar barrel lengths. There are other weapons similar to the SPP and Glock 34 that are select fire. Those are facts.

You shoot the SPP faster with better accuracy. You believe that an inexperienced shooter would shoot the SPP better as well. You believe that because the SPP is a semi-auto version of a select-fire smg it is not a sporting firearm, much like because the AR15 is a semi-auto version of a select fire assault rifle, it too isn't a sporting weapon. You would feel better armed to deal with a threat with an AR than a semi-automatic hunting rifle. Those are opinions.

My contention is that: firearms do one thing. They use an explosive chemical reaction to propel a projectile. The second amendment enshrines the right of the people to keep and bear those devices, regardless of terminology. The argument of "assault weapons are MORE protected" is a fallacy, they are already all protected. It is the same argument that the antis present that some weapons are LESS deserving of 2A inclusion because of public safety concerns but phrased differently.

The pushback you have gotten is because of this. The concept that some weapons are extra protected by 2A rights must mean that some are less protected. You have presented a zero sum argument, which doesn't apply because the 2nd Amendment is universally inclusive.

 

[BurkeM]

The real discussion point here is whether select-fire capability is an important discriminator in capability between something like an M4 vs. a civilian AR-15.

It's THE critical difference.

Also irrelevant to 'perception,' because Bloomberg and Brady believe the AR-15 is fully automatic.

 

[E.Shell]

It's THE critical difference.

Also irrelevant to 'perception,' because Bloomberg and Brady believe the AR-15 is fully automatic.

I don't think they actually believe that themselves. We must remind ourselves that these people are NOT as stupid as they act and that they are clearly gaming the system.

They WANT the sheep to believe it and be duly terrified, thus the benefit of perpetuating the lies and misinformation (full auto and super-powerful).

 

[outrider58]

I don't think they actually believe that themselves. We must remind ourselves that these people are NOT as stupid as they act and that they are clearly gaming the system.

They WANT the sheep to believe it and be duly terrified, thus the benefit of perpetuating the lies and misinformation (full auto and super-powerful).

They intentionally build in ambiguity. It keeps the goal line movable.

I always laugh when people juxtapose an AR next to a wood stocked semi-auto hunting rifle and say they are functionally the same. I think to myself; oh great, they'll target those next...

 

[Slhaney]

You clearly haven't read my posts, but to summarize: (1.) I care less about the term, than I do the fact that the 2A community keeps trying to define its way out of its PR problems with defending ownership of certain guns (which I regard as intellectually dishonest), and (2.) I've posted plenty of evidence that the antis did NOT create the term "assault weapon" (nor were they the first to use terms like "assault rifle" and "assault pistol" to describe military-style semi-auto firearms).

The FCG may make a difference legally, but that's not where I'm coming from. I'm considering what practical difference it makes to a person - especially one of minimal skill and training - who is using the weapon. And despite what Dblas would argue, most people are not buying AR-15s with the expectation that they'll ever need to use break contact tactics in firefights.

Obviously this thread has been around for a while but this is the first time Ive seen it and I obviously have not read every comment. But I'll offer my perspective anyway. I dont really see what difference it makes where the term " assault weapon " came from. Its how its used that is the issue. Its a term with no real definition that the media and the anti 2a crowd have hijacked in an effort to make it mean whatever they want it to mean to meet their objective. Its not uncommon to highjack a word or phrase and if its used enough in that way than people just start associating with that automatically. God, for instance, created rainbows with beauty for all to enjoy. We all know what rainbows have come to mean in recent years. So, be it intellectually correct or not to say the anti 2a crowd coined that particular phrase, they definitely hijacked it and use there own self serving definitions to instill fear of a common object in an effort to gain support for their inevitable goal.

 

[remrug]

They intentionally build in ambiguity. It keeps the goal line movable.

I always laugh when people juxtapose an AR next to a wood stocked semi-auto hunting rifle and say they are functionally the same. I think to myself; oh great, they'll target those next...

That does help the common use argument tho