Questions for the DU

[oneshooter]

I have two questions for the forum. These are just to satisfy my own curiosity.

#1. What is an "assault rifle" to you?

#2. If you could change any one gun law in the US. Or add one gun law, what would it be?

#3. Why would you change/add that law.

Thanks in advance, I'm sure the answers will be enlightening.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeatleBoot]

2. "The DU" is on "The Internets"

Isn't it?

[peace13]

12. Funny how * is playing with his wedding ring...

while staring int Puti-putz eyes. I have seen the picture before but never noticed. Nice.

[iverglas]

39. mmmmmmm, poutine!

[BeatleBoot]

54. J'aime la poutine

avec une Molson!

Okay, trois Molsons!

[iverglas]

58. Putin vs poutine

Bien sur, on dit "Vladimir Poutine" en français. ;)


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/29/195049/837/379/614916

on Sarah Palin and poutine ... er, Putin ...

[KitchenWitch]

3. This should be good.

:popcorn:

Oh, and concern is duly noted.

[Pierre.Suave]

5. Pass the popcorn

I brought some beer.

:beer:

[KitchenWitch]

7. Here you go.

[Pierre.Suave]

8. Sweet

thanks.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. OK.

An assault rifle is a rifle you assault people with.
I'd like to suggest a gun law that required all guns owned by stupid people to be made of cardboard.

[KitchenWitch]

6. With spitball ammo.

[Pierre.Suave]

9. How about just a pile of paper

and they have to make their own spitballs?

[KitchenWitch]

11. That works.

[TZ]

10. LOL---Ding, Ding, Ding...

We have a winnah!
:rofl:

[KitchenWitch]

13. Oh, and isn't that THREE questions?

FREEPER TROLL

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

14. Those are three questions

:rofl:

[KitchenWitch]

15. See above.

:D

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. 2 answers because answer #2 includes the answer to #3

1. All rifles could be loosely defined as an assault weapon. I could bash you over the head with the butt of any rifle and that would be charged as an assault, right?

2. Enough with the laws, already. Let your morals and your ethics be your guide. If you do harm then justice should prevail.

now then let me get my ass quickly out of the gungeon.

[ZombieHorde]

17. Answers to your two questions (sorry, I couldn't resist.)

#1 If the video game says its an assault rifle, I don't question it.

#2 I don't know.

#3 For good reasons.

[benEzra]

67. LOL (n/t)

[.... callchet ....]

18. Let me try

1. The sports-car model of guns.
2. Require every licensed driver to carry a gun.
3. Reduce the load on law enforcement officers.

[rangersmith82]

19. Ok

1. A NFA controlled/registered Machine gun
2. Get rid of the 1986 ban on the registering of new Machine guns.
3. This will make the machine guns affordable once again.

[rangersmith82]

20. link to show the difference

between a Assault rifle/Machine gun and a regular old semi auto rifle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

[spin]

21. One of the best videos out there...

I recommend both pro-gun and anti-gun individuals watch the video. I everyone were to do this, we could possibly elevate the level of discussion on this forum.

[X_Digger]

38. another good video..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgr3kTU68uw&feature=related

[MichaelHarris]

22. The entity

known as DU is on vacation the entire month of January. That's the month he/she grabs everyone's guns.

[rrneck]

23. That's disappointing. Ask an honest question

and get a bunch of smart ass replies.

An assault rifle has three characteristics:
Fed by a box magazine.
Fires a medium power cartridge.
Is selective fire.

I would add a mandatory requirement that all owners of firearms undergo a comprehensive safety and combat course of instruction.

Since most firearms are owned for self defense, people should know what they are up against when they have a firearm for that purpose. Too many people buy a gun, put it in a drawer and forget about it until they have to defend themselves with it or their kid finds it and kills somebody.

[Joe Steel]

24. Statutory Definition

An assault rifle has three characteristics:
Fed by a box magazine.
Fires a medium power cartridge.
Is selective fire.

Under that definition, the M2 modification of the M1 carbine is an assault rife yet it's not considered one. Most statutory definitions of "assault weapon" include a pistol grip.

[rrneck]

26. There 'ysee. Now I'm learning something. Thanks.

[guntard]

29. Actually, you were right the first time

The OP asked for a definition of an "assault rifle," and you supplied the generally-accepted (among gun nuts) definition.

An "assault weapon" is a whole nuther thing. An "assault weapon" is essentially a statutory definition, and therefore is whatever the law says it is.

For example, here in California, an SKS with a detachable magazine is an "assault weapon" by law, yet since the SKS was never select-fire, most purists would never consider it an "assault rifle."

So the OP's original question is really best answered by gun nuts and gun historians who are best equipped to discussed the technical aspects of this or that firearm. But asking about "assault weapons" is a surefire way to open up cans of worms and provide an entertaining time for all.

BTW, I'm not sure whether the M2 Carbine is usually considered an assault rifle, since .30 Carbine is really not much more than a very powerful handgun round. But that's the starting point for the sort of senseless debate gun nuts enjoy so much.

But more to the original point, while the M1 Carbine is not an "assault weapon" under California law, the M1A1 Carbine is, because while it's essentially the same as the M1 Carbine it has a pistol grip (to say nothing of the folding stock). That makes it a prohibited "assault weapon" under California law.

M1 Carbine:


M1A1 Carbine:


The select-fire M2 Carbine is entirely prohibited in California, though it is legal to possess in most other states.

[guntard]

31. Taking this further, note that there are no "assault weapons" in, say, Nevada

. . . since it's entirely a statutory definition and Nevada doesn't have an "assault weapon" law.

[Joe Steel]

34. So you're saying...

The OP asked for a definition of an "assault rifle," and you supplied the generally-accepted (among gun nuts) definition.

An "assault weapon" is a whole nuther thing. An "assault weapon" is essentially a statutory definition, and therefore is whatever the law says it is.

So you're saying the M2 is not a rifle?

[guntard]

35. Um, no, I'm not; is there something unclear about what I posted?

Assault rifles are so categorized partially based on their power, chambering mid-level cartridges. An M14 is usually not classified as an assault rifle because the .308 is generally considered a high powered "battle rifle" cartridge. At the other extreme, I'm not sure whether an M2 Carbine would be considered an assault rifle because the .30 Carbine cartridge is relatively underpowered, for a rifle. After all, no one considers Thompsons or Mac-10s assault rifles, since they chamber handgun cartridges; they are referred to as submachine guns.

Whether the M2 Carbine is or isn't an assault rifle is the subject for a meaty - and ultimately pointless - debate. I have no opinion of my own, except that I never really considered .30 Carbine a proper rifle power cartridge.

I think I write pretty clearly.

You were saying something about the M2 Carbine and pistol grips, which confuses me a bit since the M2 Carbine did not have a pistol grip.

[Joe Steel]

40. Um, no, you don't.

I think I write pretty clearly.

Um, no, you don't.

You didn't make clear your reason for creating an "assault rifle, assault weapon" issue. In fact, I still don't understand why you went-off on M2s.

The original poster set standards for his understanding of assault rifles. The M2 fits those standards but doesn't include the pistol grip some definitions say it must have to be called an assault weapon.

So which is it?

[benEzra]

68. Latest iterations of the "assault weapon" fraud ban the M1 carbine and mini-14 by name

even though they both have traditional straight wooden stocks.

[oneshooter]

25. It seems that

my inquiry has not been taken seriously. From my reading in the forums I expected the answers I got. Apparently being new to this forum makes me an idiot, moron and/or not worth a proper answer. I have seen so many definitions of an "assault rifle" on these forums that I thought, perhaps wrongly, that there were several floating around. As per the question on the law, I was fairly certain that it would allow the free flow of beliefs both pro and con.
I guess that I was wrong and that the members of the Democratic Underground have shown there true colors. If these are the "Progressive" attitudes, then I fear for the future of this country.
Goodbye

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[spin]

27. Did you watch the video mentioned in post # 19?

that video covered your question and was easy to understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

We've spent a lot a time discussing this issue in the Gungeon. The pro-gun people tend to use the true definition of an assault rifle:

An assault rifle is a selective fire (automatic and semi-automatic) rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and high-powered rifle ammunition. 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 SVT-40. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47, the M16 rifle, and the Steyr AUG.

Semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and civilian versions of the AK-47 are not assault rifles, as they are not selective fire. Nor do belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines meet the definition of an assault rifle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

The anti-gun people like this definition:

The term "assault weapon" in the context of civilian rifles has been attributed to gun-control activist Josh Sugarmann. Assault weapon refers to semi-automatic firearms (that is, firearms that, when fired, automatically extract the spent casing and load the next round into the chamber, ready to fire again and not fire automatically like a machine gun) that were developed from earlier fully-automatic weapons. By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, H&K G36E, TEC-9, all non-automatic AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of features from the following list of features:
A semi-automatic AK-47 rifle.



An Intratec AB-10 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an Assault Weapon under Federal Law.

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

* Folding 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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

[Joe Steel]

28. What's the point?

that video covered your question and was easy to understand.

The pro-gun people tend to use the true definition of an assault rifle:

...

The anti-gun people like this definition:

...

So now that we have that settled, what's the point?

Do we really have to know if a bullet-riddled body was made that way by a technically well-described assault rifle or will a less accurate description do?

[rrneck]

32. Proper legislation

depends on accuracy and clarity if something is to be regulated. If the legislation is poorly written, the way is opened for legislative malfeasance and the people who have to obey the poorly written law will not know what to do for fear of violating it. They give the poorly written legislation a wide berth and don't acquire anything they might think will violate the law. Also, since manufacturers aren't entirely sure exactly what is being regulated they may not produce anything at all for fear of losing the capital investment. It is a way of regulating something out of existence without actually admitting that's what you are trying to do.

[SteveM]

79. And there you have it. Please take note, Joe. (nt)

[X_Digger]

80. Joe's toes up..

.. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=198621

[spin]

33. Rifles are rarely used in crime...

The ban, championed by California's formidable Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D.) was sold on a singularly false, if well-intentioned, premise-that the semi-automatic (one shot for each trigger pull), civilian versions of certain military-type rifles were major contributors to crime. These firearms, we were typically told by ban advocates, were the "guns of choice for gang bangers, drug dealers and street criminals." Wrong, wrong, wrong.

In fact, the truth was exactly opposite. The U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), the FBI, the law enforcement statistics of every state bothering to count and the careful research of criminolpgists all told the same story: Rifles of any type are used in only a tiny fraction of gun crimes-the preferred firearm for nearly all criminals being the easily concealed handgun. The criminal use of rifles dubbed assault weapons is rarer still. Indeed, so-called assault rifles are the least likely firearms to be used in crime.

FBI statistics show that rifles of any description are used in only about 3% of homicides each year. Data compiled by criminologist Gary Kleck put the frequency of assault weapons use in all violent crime at 0.5%.

In California, a statewide survey of law enforcement agencies by the state Department of Justice found that a mere 3.7% of firearms used in homicides and assaults were assault weapons. A Trenton, N.J., deputy police chief said his officers "are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200306/ai_n9241101

[uppityperson]

37. people joke around, and no, if someone thought you an idiot or moron, they'd call you a moran

or outright an idiot. Or ignored you. But then they would be bad for ignoring you, right?

Since the true colors of those here in the gungeon are not "progressive" enough for you, why don't you try the Health forum, or Anime? There are lots of other forums here. Or maybe even General Discussion? Or one of the political forums?

[SteveM]

78. Yeah, well, the kind of answer is the only thing the "controllers" have left...

assuming the responses at the top were by controllers, and not some fly-by-wire Jackelope who thinks he/she kind re-define intelligence by snotty troll comments.

Once you take economic justice out of a your political philosophy, it's all culture war from there. And "progs" are bad at that.

Don't worry too much: most DUers are armed.

[NewMoonTherian]

42. That's something I think we can all agree to.

Your proposed law, that is. Being strongly pro-gun rights, I still feel there needs to be more education(alright, SOME education) for gun owners. Simply legally owning and understanding the functions of a gun doesn't make one responsible gun owner.

On the other hand, such required education would need to be free or very inexpensive, and that translates to an expensive new taxpayer-funded program. Then we start talking about taxing gun and ammo sales to cover the cost of the education program, and people respond with knee-jerk reactions, and the whole conversation goes pearshaped. Still, it's an idea with possibilities.

[rrneck]

43. Yeah, money's always

a problem. Some ways to mitigate it would be a qualification process for those who show proficiency with the weapon. Lots of shooters, cops, ex-military could sort of CLEP their way out of it.

In these troubled economic times a lot of veterans could qualify as instructors and make a few bucks training people.

How about firearms training by ROTC at colleges and universities? That's my bias talking of course, since I'm always for getting more people onto college campuses to friggin' learn something even if it's just to shoot straight.

But that's only a partial solution, and taxing firearms and ammunition would have to happen. Shooting a .45ACP is already like throwing quarters downrange. And I guess we wouldn't have much luck getting gun reduction advocates to pay more taxes for training. Although the proposal might cause an entertaining shitstorm. :) Actually, I had expected some sort of rise out of the term "combat training", but I didn't hear a thing.

[Statistical]

44. Why does taxing firearms HAVE to happen?

I think there should be no taxes (other than normal sales taxes) on firearms & ammunition.

At one time in this country it was considered acceptable to tax (pay fees) in order to register to vote.
The SCOTUS ruled that taxing a RIGHT is unconstitutional.

Even if that right costs the states money. Think about how much it costs to run elections. Voters aren't taxed. Cost for the programs are paid out of general funds. There are many who pay taxes yet never vote however their tax money supports voter programs.

Now that SCOTUS via Heller has ruled that RKBA is a Right eventually we will see a lawsuit against some sort of tax. Either fees for permits/licenses or federal excise tax (11%) on firearms & ammunition.

If voting is a RIGHT and can't be taxed and RKBA is a right, should states have the ability to tax that right?

[rrneck]

45. In principle

I agree with you, and maybe for the reasons you stated, but certainly for different reasons.

My expectation of increased taxes for firearms and ammunition referred more to political realities than than constitutional law. It's hard enough to make it legal to carry a weapon at all, never mind get the public to help pay for it. (I consider training part of the price of firearms ownership)

Lets face it, the gun genie is a piece of technology that is out of the bottle and not likely to be put back in, no matter how anybody feels about it. And as a piece of technology our only choice is to learn how to deal with it personally, socially, legally, and ethically.

It appears to me that the expansion of CCW is a cultural response to a piece of technology. We are learning, slowly and surely, how to codify an understanding of the role of this piece of technology in our culture. It has been argued over and over that CCW holders are the most upstanding citizens around. That's not because they have CCW's. It's because they are the most responsible and trainable gun owners in the country. Responsibility and education - now there's something this country could always use more of. There are many ways to make good citizens. As far as I am concerned education is the best one.

So having said all that, I have been driven by my own reasoning to agree with you for the reasons you stated as well. We use taxpayer dollars for public schools. And in the long run maybe if we taught people just how powerful and dangerous guns are they might not be so willing to kick the shit out of third world countries out of unfocused fear and greed. That is an education that would certainly be worth an investment by all taxpayers.

[Statistical]

46. I agree it is a big step and likely not a political reality

I do think that will be a major fight in the courts within next 5 years.

Alan Gura (lead counsel for Heller vs DC) alluded to that as a possible followup.

Since I think you are correct there is no political support it will have to come from the courts.

However in the meantime any education programs can be paid with EXISTING federal excise tax.

Currently there is a federal excise tax of 10% of ALL firearms and ALL ammunition.

Firearms are a $2 billion dollar industry so that is somewhere in the $200 million range in terms of taxes already on firearms.
Ammunition is a $800 million dollar industry so there is another $80 million or so.

Add to that all the licensing fees. Just one example on that. In VA a "shall-issue" CCW permit is $50 for 5 years. I talked to the guy while he fingerprinted and he said the the police dept gets $6 to conduct background & fingerprint check. The city simply keeps the remaining $42. So current "prices" for fees & licensing tack in a substantial amount of revenue for the cities.

If all firearm related taxes & fees were directed to a fund used for education we would have $300-$400 million to work with. No new tax is needed.

Eventually I think the idea of taxing the 2nd will make about as much sense a a tax on voting, a tax on free speech, or a tax to avoid warrentless searches. The wheels of justice move slow though so I am not expecting a change anytime soon. Poll taxes existed in one form or another in this country for well over 150 years before being struck down by POTUS.

[iverglas]

47. why would that be?

On the other hand, such required education would need to be free or very inexpensive, and that translates to an expensive new taxpayer-funded program.

If someone chooses to acquire a firearm, that's a personal choice. Why should someone else pay for the training that the society might require the person undergo in order to exercise that choice legally?

Nobody paid for my driving lessons, and nobody pays for my driver's licence or vehicle registration or the insurance I am required to carry in order to get that registration.

And yes, I do have an absolute right to have the driver's licence and vehicle registration issued once I have met all the requirements and if I am not otherwise disqualified. Unless and until my society decides that no one may have those things -- which, barring some utterly non-believable event occurring, would be a complete violation of my constitutional liberty and mobility rights -- I have a right to have them.

Just like someone would presumably have a right to a firearms licence once proof of the requisite training and non-disqualification were presented.

But for another example, there's always marriage -- something that your Supreme Court has held is a fundamental right, again, as long as you meet requirements (e.g. age) and are not disqualified (e.g. by existing marriage, consanguinity, and of course sex of partner, in your country). And yet you have to pay for a marriage licence, and if you want to be married by a state agent, you have to pay for that service.


Canada requires proof of completion of a training course (or the exam can be taken without training, for experienced people) before a firearms licence is issued (and provinces require something separate for a hunting licence, I believe).

On a quick google:

http://www.firearmstraining.ca/main.htm

Firearms Training affiliated instructors conduct Canadian Firearms Safety Courses (CFSC) and Exams. After the course, students will be able to comfortably and safely handle a wide variety of firearms, and will be familiar with current laws. In most provinces the Canadian Firearms Safety Course Exam(s) must be passed in order to get a Possession and Acquisition Licence - the actual training course is optional.

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/info_for-renseignement/Licensing/default_e.asp

* The Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) is the only licence currently available to new applicants. It is renewable every five years. The fee to renew a licence is waived until May 16, 2009. As a general rule, applicants must have passed the Canadian Firearms Safety Course.
* Firearms Acquisition Certificates (FAC) issued under the former law are considered to be licences. They need to be replaced with a PAL before they expire.

Training is delivered under provincial authority. An example:

http://london.kijiji.ca/c-events-Firearms-Safety-and-Hunting-Course-W0QQAdIdZ70957822

Firearms Safety and Hunting Course
Price: $160.00

Firearms Safety and Hunting Course
Firearms Safety training on Mar. 28 & 29, 2009
Hunter training on April 4 & 5, 2009
Low class size, (max 6 students) excellent learning environment.
Includes Firearms Licence photo, and application.
Lowest prices in the area!
Textbooks, if you do not already have them are $15.00 for the firearms text and $20.00 for the Hunter text.
visit our website for more details: www.firearmsafetycanada.com
or Call: 519-473-3134

One-time lifetime expense. Big whup.

[Statistical]

48. You seem to forget that unlike Canada owning a firearm is a RIGHT

Driving is not a right. It never has been. It never will be.
Owning a firearm has been affirmed a RIGHT by SCOTUS in Heller vs DC.

It being a right changes things. Rights can not be taxed in US.

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) is a good place to start.

Despite VA showing that elections are expensive, and tax is applied to all voters, and funds were used to pay for election costs the state lost the case.
An equal argument could be made that since a fixed licensing cost & training costs disproportionately affects the poor then it hinders their ability to excercise their right.
An important fact to note is that Mrs. Harper never had to prove that the tax was impossible to pay, if fact it likely wasn't ($5 per voter) the mere fact that it is a hinderence to the poor was enough to make it unconstitutional.

Regarding marriage; the wheels of justice are slow. Since marriage has only recently been affirmed as a RIGHT the precedent hasn't existed till recently to sue that a marriage fee/tax is unconstitutional.

One-time lifetime expense. Big whup.
Would you favor a one-time lifetime expense (and time) for voters. Lifetime voter registration: $165 + $15 for book + 4 hour course?

[iverglas]

49. The usual nonsense noise

Driving is not a right. It never has been. It never will be.

So what will you do if someone at the local motor vehicles offices doesn't like the cut of your jib and denies you a licence?

The voting analogy is poor, and I'm sure you know that.


Regarding marriage; the wheels of justice are slow. Since marriage has only recently been affirmed as a RIGHT the precedent hasn't existed till recently to sue that a marriage fee/tax is unconstitutional.

Don't really know your constitutional law at all, do you? Allow a poor foreigner to assist.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/388/1/case.html (my emphases)

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

Want to guess the case and date?

You'd think that if you were correct about that licence/fee business, someone would have done something about it, even in the last 30+ years since the principle was restated in Loving there.

On the state's ability to regulate the exercise of the right, the 1888 case says:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/125/190/case.html

Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature. That body prescribes the age at which parties may contract to marry, the procedure or form essential to constitute marriage, the duties and obligations it creates, its effects upon the property rights of both, present and prospective, and the acts which may constitute grounds for its dissolution.

Getting the drift? It is a right, but the exercise of the right MAY be regulated by the state. (Note that when I say "the state" I do not mean the individual state of your union, just to head off confusion and pointless jurisdictional references.)

No express right to marry in your Constitution, as I understand it. Kinda like driving. You have heard of "liberty", I assume?



The "right" to possess a firearm is already burdened by all sorts of restrictions in the US, in case you hadn't noticed. If you have an actual argument against requiring training/licensing, feel free to make it.

[Statistical]

50. Once again your opinions not based on any legal foundation.

I agree that Marriage license shouldn't be taxed. Just because nobody filed suit doesn't mean it isn't wrong.
Apathy can be a powerful de-motivator. The married isn't exactly a class that is considered oppressed.
Not many civil rights groups looking to remove that <$20 burden from the oppressed masses of married people.

Still various poll taxes stood as valid in this country for 150+ years.
So on year 149 by your logic since nobody had yet challenged it they never will and poll tax is just and legal.
Luckily US legal system doesn't use time as a metric to judge how just a regulation is.

You claim driving is a right but the courts have routinely enforced that it is NOT.
Driving on public roads is a privileged issued by the state.
The DUI "exception" (which really isn't an exception) as routinely argued in the general discussion forum comes about explicitly because driving is a privilege and NOT a right.
Maybe you feel driving should be a right and are welcome to lobby to change that but current that is not the case in the US.
Willing to find ANY cite from ANY court ANYWHERE in the US reporting that driving is a civil right?

You say voting is different than owning firearm but that is jut your opinion.
How is it different? In Heller SCOTUS found RKBA to be a civil right.
Heller lawyer successfully sued DC for costs under a provision that allows the state (in this case DC) to be required to pay cost of successful CIVIL RIGHT violation.

You use the term regulated in place of taxation.
Voting is REGULATED. Taxing voters is not constitutional.
It is possible to REGULATE firearms without taxing them.

Somehow you imply that if firearms (purchase, possession, use) aren't taxed they can't be regulated.

It would be entirely possible to have licensing, registration, training, education and testing without requiring a fee.
You may argue that would be a substantial burden to the states.

Cost of running elections is a substantial burden to states.
SCOTUS ruled that states can not tax the right to vote even if the funds are used exclusively to fund cost of running an election.

[iverglas]

52. and more noise

You claim driving is a right but the courts have routinely enforced that it is NOT.
Driving on public roads is a privileged issued by the state.

Why don't you answer my question?

If someone is denied a driver's licence (or vehicle registration), even though s/he meets all the requirements and is not disqualified, s/he has no recourse?

If s/he HAS RECOURSE, and you can bet your boots s/he does, it is because s/he has a RIGHT to enforce. For the love of everything.


Apathy can be a powerful de-motivator. The married isn't exactly a class that is considered oppressed.
Not many civil rights groups looking to remove that <$20 burden from the oppressed masses of married people.

Are you actually saying that if someone challenged the marriage licence fee, the courts would, in your opinion, strike it down?

What of all the fees associated with firearms possession in the US? Is there no fee for a permit to carry a concealed weapon? If there is, why has someone not challenged it?

And of course, how can a permit be required if there is a RIGHT? Eh eh eh??


Still various poll taxes stood as valid in this country for 150+ years.
So on year 149 by your logic since nobody had yet challenged it they never will and poll tax is just and legal.
Luckily US legal system doesn't use time as a metric to judge how just a regulation is.

No, actually, luckily the human species and its systems and institutions evolve to provide for broader exercise of rights.

None of that means that there may be no restrictions on the exercise of rights, and that fees may not be charged for the process of investigating whether someone is qualified/disqualified to exercise the right.


You use the term regulated in place of taxation.

Fooking jayzus.

Requiring a permit for the doing of something is regulation. Charging a fee for the permit-issuing process is not fucking taxation.


Somehow you imply that if firearms (purchase, possession, use) aren't taxed they can't be regulated.

Actually-how, I haven't said a bleeding word about taxation. Once again: charging a fee for a permit-issuing process IS NOT TAXATION. Lordy.


It would be entirely possible to have licensing, registration, training, education and testing without requiring a fee.
You may argue that would be a substantial burden to the states.
Cost of running elections is a substantial burden to states.

And once again -- YOU MUST KNOW how piss-poor this voting analogy is.

There is a public interest in individuals exercising the right to vote, as an exercise of the state's collective right to self-determination and the individual's right to participate in that process.

Driving and marrying and possessing firearms are matters of INDIVIDUAL interest, not state interest. They are entirely matters of personal preference in which the state has no interest, other than its interest in ensuring that they are not done willy-nilly in manners contrary to the public interest.

The state does the same thing for voting -- regulates it, provides for orderly rather than willy-nilly exercise of the right -- by allowing individuals to vote only in regularly constituted elections. Or did you imagine you could just assert your right to vote whenever and wherever you felt like it? Surely you don't put up with the state telling you when and where you may vote ...


SCOTUS ruled that states can not tax the right to vote even if the funds are used exclusively to fund cost of running an election.

Well you let me know when your Supreme Court rules that marriage licence fees and driver's licence fees and concealed weapon permit fees are "taxes", 'k?

[rusty_rebar]

86. Let me take a shake at a few of these:

If someone is denied a driver's licence (or vehicle registration), even though s/he meets all the requirements and is not disqualified, s/he has no recourse?

If s/he HAS RECOURSE, and you can bet your boots s/he does, it is because s/he has a RIGHT to enforce. For the love of everything.

Driving is not a right. With fundamental rights the courts apply Strict Scrutiny. That means that if a law or regulation involving a Fundamental right, or equal protection issue then it is assumed by the court to be unconstitutional, and the state (I use the term state to mean government, be it city, county, State or Federal) has the burden of showing three things.

1. The law or regulation must be justified by a "compelling government interest".

2. The law or regulation must be "narrowly tailored" to achieve the result.

3. The law or regulation must be the "least restrictive means" to achieve the result.

The example you gave is a bit misleading, as you are really talking about an equal protection issue. If I meet all of the lawful requirements, but I am denied a drivers license (you did not state why) I probably have an equal protection case.

A more appropriate example would be if there were some insane regulation to get a drivers license. Lets say you had to pay $500 and pass an advanced combat driving course, but everyone has to do this to get a license.

In this case, since driving is not a fundamental right, the courts would not apply this scrutiny level to the case. I am not sure if any type of scrutiny would be applied. Since it is not a fundamental right, and it likely does not affect interstate commerce (which may be debatable), the state can pretty much make any law it wants. If anything it might get a rational basis test. That would require that the state prove that the law or regulation is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest. So the state could say, that completion of a combat driving course is rationally related to the legitimate government interest of reducing traffic accidents.

---

What of all the fees associated with firearms possession in the US? Is there no fee for a permit to carry a concealed weapon? If there is, why has someone not challenged it?

And of course, how can a permit be required if there is a RIGHT? Eh eh eh??

To answer this, we must first understand where we are at legally right now.

In the Heller decision SCOTUS ruled that the second amendment refers to an individual right. This is now the law of the land as far as the federal government is concerned. The federal government cannot enact any legislation that would infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

However, the second amendment has not been incorporated. This means that even though the FEDERAL government is not able to make any legislation, this does not apply to the STATES. The states can make any firearms regulations that they see fit at this point.

Soon (March 2 I believe) the Supreme court is set to hear another case (McDonald vs Chicago) that is going to determine if the second amendment is in fact incorporated. Meaning that the states cannot make any laws infringing on this right. The first amendment, third amendment, fourth amendment, most of the fifth amendment, sixth amendment have been incorporated. This means that the state cannot make a law establishing religion, or abridging free speech, cannot quarter troops in your house, must not infringe on your right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure, cannot force you to confess to a crime etc...

So, with that under our belt.

What of all the fees associated with firearms possession in the US? Is there no fee for a permit to carry a concealed weapon? If there is, why has someone not challenged it?

And of course, how can a permit be required if there is a RIGHT? Eh eh eh??

I think you will see this change if the second amendment is incorporated. If the government can craft a law that will pass the strict scrutiny test, then they would be fine with charging these fees. Passing strict scrutiny is not an easy thing to do though, so don't hold your breath.

---

No, actually, luckily the human species and its systems and institutions evolve to provide for broader exercise of rights.

None of that means that there may be no restrictions on the exercise of rights, and that fees may not be charged for the process of investigating whether someone is qualified/disqualified to exercise the right.

Not really sure what you are saying here. The constitution was framed in such a way as to tell the government what they CAN do, not what they CANNOT do. The Bill of Rights is a bit of an exception to this, as the founders thought it wise to actually explicitly state some things that the government cannot do.

The constitution is the only authority our government holds, there is nothing more authoritative then that document. So when you say "None of that means that there may be no restrictions on the exercise of rights" I have to refer you to that document, which is pretty clear about that.

Going back to the strict scrutiny test I mentioned above, if they want to restrict a right, they must do so in accordance with that strict scrutiny test for it to be constitutional. Short of that there cannot be any restrictions on fundamental rights.

---

The permit fees I agree with you. Charging a nominal fee to issue a permit seems reasonable.

However, since it is a fundamental right, the government cannot make you get a permit for it. You don't have to get a free speech permit to go protest something, you don't have to have a non-incrimination permit to decide not to talk to law enforcement. You don't need a speedy trial permit to get the rights enumerated in the sixth amendment. What would make you think that you would need a permit to exercise any of your rights?


---


There is a public interest in individuals exercising the right to vote, as an exercise of the state's collective right to self-determination and the individual's right to participate in that process.

Driving and marrying and possessing firearms are matters of INDIVIDUAL interest, not state interest. They are entirely matters of personal preference in which the state has no interest, other than its interest in ensuring that they are not done willy-nilly in manners contrary to the public interest.

The state does the same thing for voting -- regulates it, provides for orderly rather than willy-nilly exercise of the right -- by allowing individuals to vote only in regularly constituted elections. Or did you imagine you could just assert your right to vote whenever and wherever you felt like it? Surely you don't put up with the state telling you when and where you may vote ...

Okay, the second paragraph contradicts itself. First you state that these are matters on individual interest, but then you go on to say that they must be done in a manner that is not contrary to public interest. I suspect you added that last part because you realized that you were arguing that the state has no interest in gun control. If there is a public interest, then that is in fact a state interest. So the voting analogy is really not off base at all.


---

Well you let me know when your Supreme Court rules that marriage licence fees and driver's licence fees and concealed weapon permit fees are "taxes", 'k?

If you are curious about what the Supreme Court is doing, you can always go check out this really cool site:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

[NewMoonTherian]

51. Good information, thanks for the links.

In saying that firearms education would need to be cheap or free, I was talking about the practical issue of getting the law passed. What came to mind first was "junk gun" controversies, wherein the RKBA side argued that removing those inexpensive weapons was essentially a way to price the lower-income citizens out of gun ownership(some tried waving the race card in the midst of it all, which I though was a little over the top, but what do I know?).

Education is required for CCW permits, the price varying usually near $50, and hunting permits in my state require a safety training course(I forget the price).

As for you, rrneck, I noticed that combat training provision and I couldn't be more in agreement with you. Combat training does get expensive though - several hundred dollars a day I've heard - and that was my main concern regarding expense. But if you really wanted an effective education program, CCW courses could include a 1/2 mg shot of adrenaline before the shooting portion. Let's see how many of those rounds find center mass NOW.

[rrneck]

53. LOL! That's

exactly what I'm talking about.

I like shoot 'em up movies as much as the next guy, but they ain't real. There are too many yahoos out there who think they can clear a building because they have seen a few reruns of Miami Vice.

I would like to think there would be a happy medium. Something more than a twenty minute dialog about how to shoot a gun and a week at Thunder Ranch. We don't necessarily need to turn every gun owner into SWAT material, just enough to show them what they are really up against when they have to use the weapon and how their skill and judgment (or lack of it) will have reverberations long after the event itself.

[rrneck]

55. I think a distinction

can be made between the right to freedom of mobility and the privilege of operating a motor vehicle. Or a tractor trailer. Or an airplane.

Here in the U.S. we can travel from state to state without papers, I assume it is the same between provinces in Canada. Operating the technology in the exercise of that right requires more skill than just putting one foot in front of the other, so the education and bureaucratic paperwork begins. I daresay that extensive training in the operation of motor vehicles would be considered an enhancement of the public good. Would that everyone that got behind the wheel had extensive training in the operation of that car. Think of the accidents that would be avoided. Classes are given to educate people about the dangers of not wearing seat belts and driving under the influence of alcohol. I've been to the seatbelt class, and they show you the ugliest images they can find to scare people into wearing them.

Good or bad, right or wrong, no matter what anyone thinks about them, guns are a part of life in the United States. They are technology that requires training to own and operate. Requiring people to go to school to learn to use them, and make sure they understand the ramifications of their use, would also enhance the public good. If nothing else, it gives the powers that be another look at you before you get the gun in the first place. That makes it worth the taxpayers investment.

[iverglas]

56. just a caveat

If nothing else, it gives the powers that be another look at you before you get the gun in the first place.

Would that it were so ...

Here, where training is privately delivered (exams are administered by the public authority for those who don't present proof of training), it's no guarantee. To obtain a permit for a restricted weapon, which includes handguns, membership in a shooting club is also required. Those are private operations, and while I'm sure most of them take their responsibility seriously, they're not public agents.

Kimveer Gill, who killed one person at a Montreal college and seriously injured others before his efforts were interrupted by police, was a member of a club where he practised, and had the necessary restricted firearms permit. The guy who killed a bystander on a Toronto sidewalk outside a nightclub, after taking his gun to town (not permitted, handguns are for sports shooting only, and only at the facility) and aiming it at a bouncer and missing, also had the necessary club membership and permit.

And those were here, where permit issuance is discretionary. (That does mean something specific, not arbitrary whim: properly exercised administrative discretion, after having regard to all the factors the authority is directed in the legislation to consider.)

But risk management is about reducing rather than eliminating risk, and the training process is one way of reducing risk.

In my own opinion, it is inadequate, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be effective - both because of the training itself and because of the greater transparency you mention - to some extent.

[rrneck]

57. Well taken. I wouldn't trust

a private outfit to do much of anything in this country nowadays. Unless it is to pick my pocket and fuck up.

[SteveM]

81. Various taxes and tests were used in the Jim Crow South...

to discriminate against blacks who wanted to own a fire... no, no, wait ...wanted to vote. No wait, to own firearms. No wait...

Both.

[Vini_Vidivici]

61. Requiring that...........

.....is unConstitutional, I believe. Getting good training is, of course, highly recommended, and should be done, but it is the personal responsibility of the individual.

"...........or their kid finds it and kills somebody." That right there, is NEGLIGENCE, and the negligent fool that left a loaded firearm where an unauthorized person could get access to it should be punished severely, to the fullest extent of the law.

[Statistical]

30. Please clarify

Assault rifle is a clearly defined term. By def assault rifles are capable of select fire (automatic or burst fire).

An assault rifle is a selective fire (automatic and semi-automatic) rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and high-powered rifle ammunition. 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 SVT-40. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47, the M16 rifle, and the Steyr AUG.

Semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and civilian versions of the AK-47 are not assault rifles, as they are not selective fire. Nor do belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines meet the definition of an assault rifle.

Assault WEAPON is a gun grabber term that has never been defined formally except in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Its def changes from situation to situation to scare and intimidate the public.

You asked about Assault RIFLE however on this forum and in all forms of media the term usually used is Assault WEAPON.

Why?

True Assault Rifles have been regulated since 1934. Brady and other gun grabbing supporters NEVER want to use that term because it opens up a dialog that might educate the public that Assault Rifles haven't been readily accessible by the general public for 7 decades.

Assault Rifle is a somewhat antiquated term anyways. Virtually all militaries use a select fire rifle as their standard infantry weapon. The US ARMY calls the M-16 a "RIFLE". Period. It calls the M-4 a "carbine". Nowhere does the US military define either as a "assault rifle" or "assault carbine". It is redundant to call it an Assault Rifle just as it would be redundant to call a 9mm Pistol a "9mm handportable Pistol capable of expelling 9mm rounds".

Assault Weapon is routinely used to mislead the public. Many people think an AR-15 purchased today from a gunshop (and commonly defined as an "assault weapon") is somehow more dangerous than a medium caliber hunting rifle. It isn't. It just looks different. It actually uses a smaller caliber round and is NOT capable of automatic fire.

It is the same reason Brady likes the term SEMI-auto. As in SEMI-AUTO pistols. To the uniformed semi-auto sounds close to automatic so it must be very dangerous. Many people are confused when you explain that virtually ALL pistols sold today are "semi-auto" with the exceptions of maybe derringers, bolt action hunting pistols, and muzzle loaders used by enthusiasts.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. My take

#1. What is an "assault rifle" to you?

selective fire (semi auto/auto)
Box magazine fed (vice belt)
medium power cartridge

#2. If you could change any one gun law in the US. Or add one gun law, what would it be?

Shall issue for concealed weapons permits respected in all 50 states

#3. Why would you change/add that law.

Make it safer for everyone and insure that localities like NYC under Bloomie can't persecute gun owners

[Vini_Vidivici]

60. This is.........

....sensible and logical. I agree 100%.

[slackmaster]

41. 1. Assault rifle = selective-fire military rifle that fires a medium-power cartridge

Legally a machinegun.

2. Repeal 1986 closure of the NFA registry, and mandate that states permit qualified people to own automatic firearms.

3. Because I collect firearms, and would like to add legal automatics to my collection.

[rangersmith82]

59. In Florida it only cost $5 to do the background check

I'm fine with the $5 fee.

$189 is out of control, you can buy a good 22 rifle for that.

It only cost me a little over $100 to get my concealed carry permit.

Any fee should be under $100, this will allow the working person to exercise their Rights.

[yay]

62. Answer

#1: A selective fire rifle, shooting an intermediate powered cartridge

2: Just one? hmm... I'd repeal the Hughes amendment to the 1986 FOPA. If I could choose a second I'd get rid of our current over zealous import regulations.

3: The hughes amendment has done, well nothing. Only 3 or 4 times since 1934 has a legally owned and registered full auto weapon been used in a crime.

The import bans... again, are doing nothing. Just making it increasingly difficult or impossible to get certain kinds of weapons for no real reason.

[TheWraith]

63. The dictionary definition is a select-fire or auto weapon using a med/low power cartridge.

2. I'd ditch the Sullivan Act in New York State.

3. Because as it stands, you can be put through an absurd number of hoops--including arbitrary rejection--to even own a handgun, even if you don't intend to carry it ever. New York City already has its own firearms laws to police their area, but everyone else in the state is still held hostage to a law originally designed--I kid you not--to keep guns out of the hands of "dangerous immigrants" like the Irish.

[SteveM]

82. "I jump Jim Crow!" (nt)

[Furyataurus]

64. Here I go

1. Something that was mislabled.
2. I would change the 86 or 89 law on machine guns
3. The 2nd Amendment was written so that "the People" would NOT be outguned by ANY military/police force, foreign or domestic. All restrictions are UNconstitutional as they stand.

[yay]

65. '86

The hughes amendment to the 1986 Firearms Protection Act... So much good, yet they still managed to fuck it up. :(

[benEzra]

66. An assault rifle is a NFA Title 2/Class III restricted selective-fire weapon

capable of being switched between semiauto and full-auto/burst at the flick of a switch, and firing reduced-power rifle ammunition. They are as tightly controlled as bombs, tank cannons, and howitzers in the United States, and possession without a BATFE Form 4 is a 10-year Federal felony.

Assault weapon, on the other hand, is VPC/Bradyite scare-speak for a small- to intermediate caliber, non-automatic civilian rifle with modern styling; a civilian pistol with a forward-mounted magazine; a civilian shotgun with a detachable magazine or that holds more than 5 shells; or any other gun the repubs at the Brady Campaign want to ban at the moment.

What U.S. gun law would I change? I would repeal the idiotic "sporting purposes" import test (18 USC 922 and such), because the sporting criteria they use was obsolete 20 years ago (the most popular sporting rifles in the nation are not considered sporting under those rules).

[doc03]

69. My answers

1. It would be a fully automatic weapon.

2 and 3. The ridiculous law that makes you have to pay a gun dealer to transfer a gun across state lines. I live across the Ohio River from WV and if I buy a gun in WV I can't take it with me I have to pay a dealer $40 or $50 to carry it across the bridge.

[yay]

70. sence when?

I've never heard that before. You don't need to transfer the weapon to a dealer if you're just passing through.

[doc03]

71. I said (buy). It's been the law for decades 1964? n/t

[yay]

72. Reading comprehension ftw

Helps sometimes...

I'd find a new FFL if I were you. I only pay $20-$25 around here.

[slackmaster]

73. Answers

1. A shoulder-fired firearm with a rifled barrel, that fires a medium-power cartridge and is capable of multi-round burst or fully automatic fire.

2. Incorporate the Second Amendment.

3. Provide a common legal framework that treats people equally and does away with the confusing proliferation of state laws.

[dogsmycopilot]

74. Questions for the DU

1. Assault Rifle to me means a gun that is by it's very nature far beyond anything the normal sport shooter would need or want. That is a huge round capability or a massive caliber, for example.

2. I would change the laws that allow gun shows to sell to people with little or no information about them.

3. I go to effort to know how to use my weapons safely, however, not everyone does. I can't imagine the frustration and anger families of crime victims up north feel when they find out how easy it is to get a gun here in say, Mississippi, and transport that weapon up north where the same person may not have qualified for a weapon. The gun show crowd has changed over the years. They are very clearly selling to gang members and criminals now. I used to see people I know with their families. Now it's out of towners with lots of cash.

[TheWraith]

76. A couple corrections.

"1. Assault Rifle to me means a gun that is by it's very nature far beyond anything the normal sport shooter would need or want. That is a huge round capability or a massive caliber, for example."

The most popular rifle for sport shooters in America is the AR-15, which comes standard with a 30 round magazine. However, "assault rifle" is a technical definition which means a fully-automatic weapon firing a low to medium power round. The M-16 and AK-47 qualify, but their civilian knockoffs--the AR-15 and various AK clones--do not.

"2. I would change the laws that allow gun shows to sell to people with little or no information about them."

Gun shows do not sell guns to people. Attendees can sell guns to other attendees, and a background check isn't needed if the seller isn't a dealer. But that's also true of the classified ads in your standard newspaper.

"3. I go to effort to know how to use my weapons safely, however, not everyone does. I can't imagine the frustration and anger families of crime victims up north feel when they find out how easy it is to get a gun here in say, Mississippi, and transport that weapon up north where the same person may not have qualified for a weapon. The gun show crowd has changed over the years. They are very clearly selling to gang members and criminals now. I used to see people I know with their families. Now it's out of towners with lots of cash."

Actually according to the FBI only about 1% of weapons used in crimes originated at gun shows.

[benEzra]

84. The irony of that perception, assuming you are speaking of civilian "assault weapons"...

is that so-called "assault weapons" are at the extreme low end of the centerfire rifle power spectrum, not the high end. The most popular "assault weapon" calibers are the .223 Remington, a centerfire .22 that is the least powerful of all common centerfire rifle rounds (used in the AR-15, Ruger mini-14, Kel-Tec SU-16, Ruger SR-556, Sig 556, etc., and in some bolt-actions used for small game hunting) and 7.62x39mm, the least powerful of common .30 caliber rifle cartridges, slightly less powerful than .30-30 Winchester (used in most civilian AK's, the SKS, and the Ruger Mini Thirty).

FWIW, the AR-15 is the most popular centerfire sporting rifle in the United States and dominates competitive and recreational centerfire rifle shooting in this country, so I think it passes your "normal sport shooter" test, too.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/benEzra/52

[Endangered Specie]

75. My answers

#1. What is an "assault rifle" to you?

A selective fire, intermediate caliber, carbine length firearm with detachable magazines, the preferred individual small arm of the infantry/rifleman of most modernized armies. Its actually a rather narrow term alot of things are not covered (namely, ANYTHING semi-auto only).

#2. If you could change any one gun law in the US. Or add one gun law, what would it be?

National Florida-style shall issue concealed carry and castle doctrine self defense laws with the following caveats:

1 - Any business or establishment that bans CCW MUST have adequate security provided, for purposes of protecting the public (like metal detectors, REAL security guards etc...). This covers most federal/sensitive government property, sporting events, places of hi risk of attack (nuclear plants), etc as they already have that. If schools wish to ban CCW they must provide the same type of security.
The philosophy behind this law is if you take the means of protecting myself away, you must provide adequate protection for me. If you are going to create a "GUN FREE" zone you have to ENSURE that everyone is disarmed, especially the people who tend to ignore those rules.
2 - Employers may not deny employees carrying guns in their cars, cars shall be treated like a home (its your personal property no license reqd), if they wish to ban CCW on work premesis, see 1.
3 - places that provide for 1 will also require Texas style no-CCW signs so there is no confusion.
4 - I have no qualm with a no open carry as a compromise. IMO, police carry open, citizens carry concealed.


#3. Why would you change/add that law

Fairness, much like driver licenses are granted and recognized in all 50 states, so should conceal carry permits. We have the fundamental right to life and liberty, and the police are NOT required (nor could they ever hope to) to provide for your own self-defense.

[Francis Marion]

77. The foxes should be conditioned to dislike chicken stealing

1) Assault rifle. A select-fire, detachable magazine fed, intermediate cartridge chambered rifle or carbine, as exemplified by the Sturmgewehr weapon series of WW2.

2) Add a Fairness Law- Legislators who infringe the rights protected by the Second Amendment- such as gun bans, magazine bans- will be imprisoned for life. A legislator may vote in a gun ban, but they'll have to die in prison for doing so. What's the infringement test? If you vote, pay taxes, have a clean record, and STILL CAN'T legally obtain the same firearms you can find in the inventory of the community PD, or the standard military service rifle, then your 2A rights have been infringed. (Why can't you just shut up and be happy in the back of the bus? After all, you don't NEED to sit up front, and you enjoy a semblance of what's proper.)

3) Because Liberty is that valuable. Those who take OUR Liberty should pay a heavy penalty; to be fair, should forfeit THEIR liberty.

[ManiacJoe]

83. An important note regarding the original question #1

is that "assault rifle" does not equal "assault weapon".

"Assault rifle" has a specific, real-world definition (noted many times above) while "assault weapon" is an artificial phrase used to mean anything any one wants purposely chosen to cause confusion with "assault rifle".

[Euromutt]

85. That was probably the point of the question

I.e. to point out that there is a distinction between "assault rifle" and "assault weapon."

Originally, the term "assault weapon" appears to have been coined to encompass any semi-auto-only version of an existing selective-fire weapon; e.g. AR-15s, semi-auto-only Kalashnikov derivatives, Uzi pistols and carbine, TEC-9 pistols, etc. But because the term was never explicitly defined (indeed, it would have defeated the purpose to define it, as it is intended to appeal to the emotion by use of the word "assault," and defining it might make this too evident), it has morphed into--as MniacJoe rightly notes--anything the user wants it to encompass. The Chicago Tribune once described a military-surplus Mauser as a "bolt-action assault rifle."

The term "assault weapon" gave rise to "assault pistol," generally meaning a (for legal purposes) handgun developed from an SMG design (e.g. Uzi pistol, Cobray/SWD M-11/9, Intratec TEC-9). From there, the logical progression was to dub "assault weapons" that were legally rifles as "assault rifles," even though the conflicted with the pre-existing definition.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. That appears to be the point.

OP is trying to gauge the FUD that has people like the Brady Coalition intentionally muddying the definitions, in the hopes that the weapons we civilians have access to are perceived to be their fully-automatic (or burst) military ancestors with no sporting or competitive purpose.

(not that the 2nd is about competition or sporting purposes)