the military has defined assault rifles as firearms used in teams to
'assault' a defended position. They
have universally been capable of fully-automatic firing, selective firing
of bursts of two or three rounds, and single shots.
they have used cartridges of moderate size so that the individual soldier
could carry more ammunition than was typical during the First World War or
Second World War. Another
consideration was that if an enemy were killed, only one soldier was put
out of commission. If an enemy were
wounded, then three or more were put out of commission as the wounded
person was cared for. So,
full-metal jacket bullets with moderate kinetic energy (except notably the
US M-16) are typical of a true assault weapon designed to wound instead of
muzzle-brake to reduce recoil and upward barrel movement (especially in
full-automatic mode) is typical. Usually,
the muzzle-brake also incidentally served to reduce the flash during night
firing. However, a device that
functions only as a flash suppressor would disperse the incandescent gases
uniformly, unlike a muzzle brake.
accouterments that the military finds necessary, such as a lug for
mounting a bayonet or attaching a grenade launcher, are typical of most
military weapons, not just assault rifles.
However, it would be ludicrous to attempt to use a bayonet on many
of the smaller assault pistols.
on the basic design may include the use of a folding stock for
paratroopers or tank personnel.
of the first true "assault rifles" was the Russian AK-47, first
made in 1947. Although, one might
consider the US M-1 Carbine (WWII) a prototype assault rifle because of
its size, caliber, and magazine capacity.
should be no great surprise that when society requires large numbers of
young men to learn to use (and consequently come to respect) modern
firearms in defending the interests of their country, they often want to
own something similar to what they used in the military.
Money-making movies like Rambo also glorify the use of modern
firearms and create consumer demand.
since the possession of automatic weapons has been strictly regulated and
taxed by the federal government for decades, and outright banned by some
states such as California, the firearms industry has reacted in a good
capitalistic way by providing firearms that appear similar to the true
assault rifles and pistols used by the military.
military look-alikes make fine hunting guns.
Many of the qualities required of a firearm under combat conditions
translate well to hunting conditions. For
example, one wants a rifle that will function reliably whether it is hot,
snowing, raining, or it has just been dropped in the mud.
It must maintain its point of impact despite harsh treatment, and
if hunting in heavy brush, a short-barreled rifle is easier to point
quickly. The gas-actuated
semiautomatic action, along with the common muzzle brake, reduces the
punishing recoil considerably, making it more useable for older men, and
women and men of small stature. The
typically smaller caliber (than what was used in trench warfare) can be
quite effective on animals such as deer with the proper choice of bullet
weight and construction. One of the
most popular deer rifles for decades has been a lever-action 30-30
carbine. Contrary to popular
belief, the AK-47 has ballistics almost identical to it.
people just enjoy 'plinking' or target practice with weapons they have
used in the military or have seen their movie heroes use.
Surely people who do not have a criminal record should be trusted
to use their firearms responsibly. To
not do so is a loss of freedom-of-choice through prior restraint.
never was any compelling evidence that the so-called (and then as yet
legally undefined) 'assault weapons' were any particular problem other
than in some extraordinary instances such as the Stockton school yard
shootings. In fact, a study done by
the California Department of Justice was suppressed until after the
passage of the original assault weapons law because it did not support the
extravagant claims made by those pushing for the law.
California legislature decided to legally define an "assault
weapon" in 1989 as something different from the military usage.
They selected a group of military firearms look-alikes that had
many of the above mentioned military features, which were difficult to
politically defend for any socially redeeming purpose, except perhaps
self-defense. Some of the military
look-alike rifles that were used more commonly for hunting and competitive
shooting events were purposely excluded. The
courts have repeatedly opined that the original law was ill-conceived and
poorly written though.
decade later, as the proportion of young males who commit most crimes of
violence declined along with the homicide rate, some legislators and a
governor who campaigned on a non-issue, decided it was time to correct
some flaws in the original poorly written, unconstitutional law.
author of the recently passed California law (SB 23), Don Perata, has
zealously pursued the eradication of so-called assault weapons for over a
decade. When he was an Alameda
County supervisor, he used his office and staff to distribute Handgun
Control Incorporated (HCI) literature in support of the then pending state
assault weapons law. This was
discovered accidentally by myself and independently confirmed by a friend,
Leroy Pyle. Perata can not even
make the claim that he didn't know what he was doing was illegal, because
he and his secretary went to the extent of lying to a Channel 7 reporter
when she called to verify my revelation. So
what kind of a man (who used to be a teacher) would knowingly break the
law to promote his personal crusade? Should
we be concerned that a man who has little respect for the law should be in
the position of writing laws? At
the very least, it appears he is the kind of a man who believes the end
justifies the means, and acts accordingly.
little of the preliminary notoriety that accompanied the passage of the
first law, SB 23 was recently quietly passed.
Governor Davis, however, used the opportunity of the signing into
law of SB 23 on July 19th, 1999, to let the public know he had
kept his campaign promise of "getting assault weapons off the
streets." The law has been
promoted as closing the loopholes in the original law.
The media has dutifully been reporting it as such.
However, I suspect that none of the reporters have read the law, of
if they did, did not understand it.
the law has potentially
accomplished is to add to the list of originally banned firearms, firearms
that have been manufactured with different names and features -- commonly
called copycat weapons. I say
"potentially," because all one has to do is remove the
feature(s) from the firearm that were used to broaden the definition.
The law has also potentially added the rifles that were originally
specifically excluded. Again, at
the cost of reducing their value and perhaps affecting their utility as
hunting or competitive target rifles, one can avoid having the firearm
registered as an 'assault weapon' by removing the largely cosmetic
features used to newly define an assault weapon.
Therefore, what Senator Perata, Governor Davis, and their
supporters in the legislature have really accomplished is a de
facto banning of the cosmetic features such as a "conspicuously
protruding" (undefined) pistol grip, a flash suppressor (undefined),
and a grenade or flare launcher (usually a separate device attached to the
bayonet lug). It is clear that we
don't elect our best and brightest to public office.
Maybe this is what the electorate really wants.
Really bright people with that much power would be dangerous.
As Mark Twain observed, no one is safe while the legislature is in
session. In any event, for those
with only a casual or passing interest in the subject, it would appear
that our 'leaders' have made the state safer for everyone, and guaranteed
it seems unlikely that any gang member who owns a firearm with any of the
features newly defining it as an assault weapon will be overly concerned
about violating the registration when he may well use it to kill someone.
There may even be some cachet in retaining the banned features.
In any event, with or without the military-like cosmetic features,
it is still a firearm with all the attendant dangers and potential for
the legislature has accomplished though, is to create ill will among
those, like myself, who will be inconvenienced by this miscarriage of the
legislation process. They will keep
the courts busy for years dealing with questions of prior restraint,
taking of property, infringement of Second Amendment rights, whether a
muzzle brake is a "flash suppressor," whether a folding bipod is
a "second handgrip," and what "conspicuously
protruding" means. (While May
West might have provided some insight on that last topic, it would have no
legal standing.) If there is an
adjustable buttplate to accommodate shooters with different length arms,
is it a telescoping stock? These
are all questions that beg to be answered since the legislature did not
will find themselves arrested because they will unknowingly violate the
law when they otherwise legitimately use firearms they have owned and used
for years. Bench-rest target
shooters and varmint hunters using thumbhole stocks on semiautomatic
actions should be particularly upset with this new law.
have been saddled with yet another ill-conceived, ineffective law by
zealots who think with their hormones instead of their heads.
It is poorly crafted legislation addressing a relatively minor
summary, I would define a civilian assault weapon as anything that is used
to assault another human being. That
could be a baseball bat (currently in favor among gangs), an automobile, a
kitchen knife, or a zip gun. What
it looks like is not important. What
is important is how it is used. We
have had laws dating to biblical times prohibiting murder and robbery.
We need the courage to enforce the fundamental laws against harming
another human being and not try to sidestep the problem with laws of
prohibition of objects. They just
create additional problems and create a new class of criminal.
Permission to Republish Articles & Editorials
We receive numerous requests to forward Gunnery Network News articles and editorials to other news outlets, or for permission to publish them on other websites. Permission is granted, as long as the articles remain in tact and unedited and you include the name of our site, the author and a link to our Web URL: www.GunneryNetwork.com.
Copyright © and ownership of guest writers submissions published on Gunnery Network are retained by the author or the originating news agency. Gunnery Network is noncommercial and authorized to republish copyright material under title 18 U.S.C.