| Definition of an Assault Rifle |
|
|
|
| Written by Mike Kinsey | |
| Friday, 25 August 2006 | |
|
While waiting patiently for the Ohio Senate to act on the necessary legislation that is House Bill 347, this OFCC member decided to look at one of the more asinine restrictions that will be made null and void when those elected to serve their constituency find time to do so. I have been aware of the Columbus Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) since its inception and understood its implications, but have never dug into the actual legal code that defines it. If ever one sought a perfect example of an ineffectual law passed by politicians and anti-gun advocates in order to stir up a lot of unnecessary hand-wringing with well-meaning, but misled, citizens... this would be it. Just hearing the phrase “assault weapon” makes us shiver from images of ski-masked gangs beating down our doors after spraying thousands of rounds a minute from speeding, shiny-rimmed Impalas. As is often the case, the truth is far less dramatic. When asked to picture one, your common non-firearm enthusiast will invariably think of a fully automatic machine gun where multiple bullets are expelled with a single pull of the trigger. The Columbus AWB has nothing to do with these firearms, as they have been severely restricted since the 1934 National Firearms Act. Notice that I said "restricted", as citizens can legally acquire them only after undergoing a stringent and expensive procedure dictated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. No, AWBs arbitrarily decide that a few cosmetic modifications are taboo because some people think they make the gun look scarier. No one ever stops to explain that these modifications have absolutely no impact on how the firearm functions. Let’s look at the legal definition of an “assault rifle” as defined by Columbus law. (L) "Assault weapon" means any:For the benefit of those that may not be familiar with firearm terminology, allow me to give my interpretation of these attributes as they are defined: Item (1) addresses a lot of rifles, as many have a detachable magazine. We're talking run-of-the-mill firearms here. Nothing exotic. A detachable magazine does not affect the “deadliness” of the ammunition. It is only a manner of holding that ammunition. Who knew some packages could be more dangerous than others? Now let’s look at the sub-conditions: (a) A pistol grip -- Where your trigger hand may grasp the rifle (b) Protruding Grip –- Even though I know a good bit about rifles, this one still eludes me as it sounds like a reiteration of item (a) (c) A different stock (the part you hold against your shoulder) -- That can either be adjusted in size for those with longer/shorter arms or has a hole cut in it for one’s thumb (d) A barrel shroud -- So you can not directly touch the hot barrel and burn your hand (e) A muzzle brake -- This stipulation would certainly affect the functionality of fully automatic machine guns as a brake will help reduce recoil. Too bad the AWB has nothing to do with full auto. I am of the opinion that a muzzle brake won’t do much to alter the function of a semi-auto because the rate of fire is too slow. None of these cosmetic accessories change the way the rifle shoots. It will still only fire one cartridge at a time. The bullet will go just as fast. The bullet will go just as far. If one were to remove the pistol grip, barrel shroud, and muzzle brake from a banned firearm, it would function exactly the same. How can someone argue that this is a necessary law? Has it had an effect on the crime rate of Columbus? Actual statistics say that it has not. Emotional outbursts void of logic and common sense claim that it has. Which do you believe? |