Nobody doubts the M4 is an assault weapon. Are there any material differences between an M4 and an AR15?

[BlackSand]

​

I'll double check, but I'm pretty sure that ATF definition is of an assault weapon. I'm not aware of an ATF definition of an assault rifle. The military does define assault rifle though, and it is different than the definition you gave.

.

I would try to help you out ... But I was listening to a Congressional hearing while driving.
They mentioned the specific name and origins of the documents, but I obviously couldn't grab a pen and write it down.

However ... They covered the definition back and forth several times.
With a decent understanding of firearms, it wasn't hard to remember.

Sorry I couldn't provide a better location.
If I knew exactly where it was, I would have told you.

I would be more concerned about the way the ATF defines it than the Military.
The ATF will be responsible for enforcing the law should one be written.
.​

 

[BULLDOG]

​

I'll double check, but I'm pretty sure that ATF definition is of an assault weapon. I'm not aware of an ATF definition of an assault rifle. The military does define assault rifle though, and it is different than the definition you gave.

.

I would try to help you out ... But I was listening to a Congressional hearing while driving.
They mentioned the specific name and origins of the documents, but I obviously couldn't grab a pen and write it down.

However ... They covered the definition back and forth several times.
With a decent understanding of firearms, it wasn't hard to remember.

Sorry I couldn't provide a better location.
If I knew exactly where it was, I would have told you.

I would be more concerned about the way the ATF defines it than the Military.
The ATF will be responsible for enforcing the law should one be written.
.​

Thanks for a reasoned reply. I even made the mistake in the OP, but within the first few posts I acknowledged that mistake, and made it clear that I was using the military definition of assault rifle throughout the thread.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

 

[BULLDOG]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

All true, but that has nothing to do with the OP. It still will not have anything to do with the OP the next several times you post that too.

 

[BlackSand]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

 

[BULLDOG]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

 

[BlackSand]

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

.

Yeah, and?

The ATF is currently approving upwards of 3 million Background Checks for new firearms purchases a month ...
And has been for quite some time ... They know what we have.

There are more firearms than people in the United States at this point.
It seems as though a lot of armed American Citizens also want to exercise their Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

 

[2aguy]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

No......they don't know what universal background checks are or why people like you actually want them.

If they knew that the only reason people like you want universal background checks is so that you can then demand universal gun registration, so that you can then ban and confiscate guns, they would not support universal background checks....

But you guys lie to them and don't tell them why you want universal background checks....

Then you have this on top of what you guys want...........and if they knew this, they would doubly oppose universal background checks.....but you won't tell them about this...

Textual analysis of HR8, bill to "To require a background check for every firearm sale"

Summary

HR8 requires that loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a gun store. The same fees, paperwork, and permanent record-keeping apply as to buying a new gun from the store.
If you loan a gun to a friend without going to the gun store, the penalty is the same as for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted violent felon.

Likewise, when the friend returns the gun, another trip to the gun store is necessary, upon pain of felony.

A clever trick in HR8 effectively bans handguns for persons 18-to20.

The bill has some narrow exemptions. The minuscule exemption for self-defense does not cover stalking victims. None of the exemptions cover farming and ranching, sharing guns on almost all public and private lands, or storing guns with friends while on vacation. The limited exemption for family excludes first cousins and in-laws.
And this......they love this...

The bill authorizes unlimited fees to be imposed by
regulation.
-----
The narrowness of the self-defense exemption endangers domestic violence victims. For example, a former domestic partner threatens a woman and her children. An attack might come in the next hour, or the next month, or never. The victim and her children cannot know. Because the attack is uncertain—and is certainly not "immediate"—the woman cannot borrow a handgun from a neighbor for her defense. Many domestic violence victims do not have several hundred spare dollars so that they can buy their own gun. Sometimes, threats are manifested at night, when gun stores are not open.
-------

HR8 requires almost all firearms sales and loans to be conducted by a federally-licensed dealer. Because federal law prohibits licensed dealers from transferring handguns to persons under 21 years, HR8 prevents young adults from acquiring handguns. This is a clever way to enact a handgun ban indirectly.

HR8 would prohibit a 20-year-old woman who lives on her own from acquiring a handgun for self-defense in her home, such as by buying it from a relative or borrowing it from a friend.
-----

Exorbitant fees may be imposed by regulation

"(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this sub-section with regulations."

"(D) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1)."

Regulators may set a minimum fee, but not "a cap on a fee." The Attorney General is allowed to require that every gun store charge a fee of $30, $50, $150, or more. Even a $20 fee can be a hard burden to a poor person.

------
Family members

You can make a "a loan or bona fide gift" to some family members. In-laws and cousins are excluded.

The family exemption vanishes if one family member pays the other in any way. If a brother trades an extra shotgun to his sister in exchange for her extra television, both of them have to go to a gun store. Their exchange will have all the fees and paperwork as if she were buying a gun from the store.

 

[2aguy]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

And you don't tell them this.....

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge. The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation. Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations. Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

 

[2aguy]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

You guys don't care about Universal Background checks...but you need them to get gun registration...

Hearing In Vermont To Be Held On Universal Background Checks

While Baruth can say his bill works without a registry, anyone with half a brain knows that what you put down on paper in the form of a bill and what actually happens aren’t necessarily the same. Prohibition was supposed to stop people from drinking, for example. How did that work?

Saying the bill works without registration is an easy statement to make, but it’s also bull.

If I have a gun in Vermont, and it’s not registered, but I sell it to my buddy in a face-to-face sale, how is the state supposed to know that? Even if he’s found with that gun, how does anyone know I didn’t sell that to him prior to the law going into effect? You don’t.

While many will follow even the dumbest laws, those who are inclined to break the law simply won’t. If someone wants to arm their buddy the felon, they’ll still sell him a gun without going through the background check. No one will know.

Without a registration, the state of Vermont won’t know who owns what when the law takes effect. That means people can continue to sell and trade firearms without background checks and the state will be oblivious. They simply won’t have the information to know otherwise.

And that, I think, is the point. I think people like Baruth know this. I think they know it and are counting on it so they can push through registration which really is the Holy Grail for gun grabbers.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That also has nothing to do with the OP. Do as I say; not as I do?

 

[CremeBrulee]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That's because the term "universal background check" is incredibly broad and vague. Most likely support plummets when you drill down on what that means in terms of policy. Much like abortion, universal healthcare, anti-racism, etc...

 

[BULLDOG]

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

.

Yeah, and?

The ATF is currently approving upwards of 3 million Background Checks for new firearms purchases a month ...
And has been for quite some time ... They know what we have.

There are more firearms than people in the United States at this point.
It seems as though a lot of armed American Citizens also want to exercise their Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

Yes, lots of new guns are being sold. Lots of used guns being sold too. No obligation for a used seller to even care if the purchaser is a felon, or otherwise not legal to even be near a gun. You got the money, you get the gun. Don't tell me bad guys only steal guns or have a straw buyer. No need to steal or have a straw buyer, when they can buy them themselves.

 

[BULLDOG]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That also has nothing to do with the OP. Do as I say; not as I do?

True. I'm the only one who even attempted to stay on subject anyway, so **** it. I found what I expected to find. All you are going to do is spout a handful of gun nut quotes anyway.

 

[BULLDOG]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

No......they don't know what universal background checks are or why people like you actually want them.

If they knew that the only reason people like you want universal background checks is so that you can then demand universal gun registration, so that you can then ban and confiscate guns, they would not support universal background checks....

But you guys lie to them and don't tell them why you want universal background checks....

Then you have this on top of what you guys want...........and if they knew this, they would doubly oppose universal background checks.....but you won't tell them about this...

Textual analysis of HR8, bill to "To require a background check for every firearm sale"

Summary

HR8 requires that loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a gun store. The same fees, paperwork, and permanent record-keeping apply as to buying a new gun from the store.
If you loan a gun to a friend without going to the gun store, the penalty is the same as for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted violent felon.

Likewise, when the friend returns the gun, another trip to the gun store is necessary, upon pain of felony.

A clever trick in HR8 effectively bans handguns for persons 18-to20.

The bill has some narrow exemptions. The minuscule exemption for self-defense does not cover stalking victims. None of the exemptions cover farming and ranching, sharing guns on almost all public and private lands, or storing guns with friends while on vacation. The limited exemption for family excludes first cousins and in-laws.
And this......they love this...

The bill authorizes unlimited fees to be imposed by
regulation.
-----
The narrowness of the self-defense exemption endangers domestic violence victims. For example, a former domestic partner threatens a woman and her children. An attack might come in the next hour, or the next month, or never. The victim and her children cannot know. Because the attack is uncertain—and is certainly not "immediate"—the woman cannot borrow a handgun from a neighbor for her defense. Many domestic violence victims do not have several hundred spare dollars so that they can buy their own gun. Sometimes, threats are manifested at night, when gun stores are not open.
-------

HR8 requires almost all firearms sales and loans to be conducted by a federally-licensed dealer. Because federal law prohibits licensed dealers from transferring handguns to persons under 21 years, HR8 prevents young adults from acquiring handguns. This is a clever way to enact a handgun ban indirectly.

HR8 would prohibit a 20-year-old woman who lives on her own from acquiring a handgun for self-defense in her home, such as by buying it from a relative or borrowing it from a friend.
-----

Exorbitant fees may be imposed by regulation

"(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this sub-section with regulations."

"(D) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1)."

Regulators may set a minimum fee, but not "a cap on a fee." The Attorney General is allowed to require that every gun store charge a fee of $30, $50, $150, or more. Even a $20 fee can be a hard burden to a poor person.

------
Family members

You can make a "a loan or bona fide gift" to some family members. In-laws and cousins are excluded.

The family exemption vanishes if one family member pays the other in any way. If a brother trades an extra shotgun to his sister in exchange for her extra television, both of them have to go to a gun store. Their exchange will have all the fees and paperwork as if she were buying a gun from the store.

You should number your gun nut rants. That way, you could just post a number, and save all that cutting and pasting. If you ever come up with something other than your same old rants, you could just add another number.

 

[BULLDOG]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That's because the term "universal background check" is incredibly broad and vague. Most likely support plummets when you drill down on what that means in terms of policy. Much like abortion, universal healthcare, anti-racism, etc...

What is so complicated? You sell a gun, you do a background check, just like dealers do now. Of course, you would have to go to a dealer to do it, and it might cost 3 or 4 dollars. Do you prefer felons buying guns without even having to tell the seller their name, or even caring if the purchaser can legally have a gun?

 

[progressive hunter]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That's because the term "universal background check" is incredibly broad and vague. Most likely support plummets when you drill down on what that means in terms of policy. Much like abortion, universal healthcare, anti-racism, etc...

What is so complicated? You sell a gun, you do a background check, just like dealers do now. Of course, you would have to go to a dealer to do it, and it might cost 3 or 4 dollars. Do you prefer felons buying guns without even having to tell the seller their name, or even caring if the purchaser can legally have a gun?

what makes you think thats going to stop a felon from getting a gun??

 

[BULLDOG]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That's because the term "universal background check" is incredibly broad and vague. Most likely support plummets when you drill down on what that means in terms of policy. Much like abortion, universal healthcare, anti-racism, etc...

What is so complicated? You sell a gun, you do a background check, just like dealers do now. Of course, you would have to go to a dealer to do it, and it might cost 3 or 4 dollars. Do you prefer felons buying guns without even having to tell the seller their name, or even caring if the purchaser can legally have a gun?

what makes you think thats going to stop a felon from getting a gun??

It won't stop all of them any more than wearing a seat belt stops all car deaths. You can't get 100% success from any program.

 

[progressive hunter]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That's because the term "universal background check" is incredibly broad and vague. Most likely support plummets when you drill down on what that means in terms of policy. Much like abortion, universal healthcare, anti-racism, etc...

What is so complicated? You sell a gun, you do a background check, just like dealers do now. Of course, you would have to go to a dealer to do it, and it might cost 3 or 4 dollars. Do you prefer felons buying guns without even having to tell the seller their name, or even caring if the purchaser can legally have a gun?

what makes you think thats going to stop a felon from getting a gun??

It won't stop all of them any more than wearing a seat belt stops all car deaths. You can't get 100% success from any program.

I wont give up my rights for something that is a guaranteed failure,,

 

[BlackSand]

Yes, lots of new guns are being sold. Lots of used guns being sold too. No obligation for a used seller to even care if the purchaser is a felon, or otherwise not legal to even be near a gun. You got the money, you get the gun. Don't tell me bad guys only steal guns or have a straw buyer. No need to steal or have a straw buyer, when they can buy them themselves.

.

Well, that's not at all what I said, nor is it the point I was trying to make.
Forgive me for being a poor communicator, and I'll take the opportunity to clarify ...

I couldn't care less about Universal Background Checks, and there is no need to even discuss the issue with me.
I have no desire whatsoever to convince you whether or not Universal Background Checks are Constitutional,
Reasonable, or even who buys what for whatever reasons.

However ... I will discuss other matters with you,
but we really don't need to beat each other over the head with something as useless as Universal Background Checks.

.​