7 ms·
"Assault weapon" doesn't mean anything outside of New York and New Jersey. For New York it's an arbitrary combination of "features". For instance, threaded barr
by oooyay 2y ago
"Assault weapon" doesn't mean anything outside of New York and New Jersey. For New York it's an arbitrary combination of "features". For instance, threaded barrel + removable magazine. The M1A I'm looking to buy, a modern garand, is considered an assault weapon under the SAFE act. I want it as a ranch rifle, but because threaded barrels are a no-no I'll have to store it in another state when and if I have to move to NY.
Statistically speaking, based on shootings and crime, pistols are much more "dangerous". For whatever reason we've made laws solely on long gun features though.
- llamaimperative 2y ago> For whatever reason we've made laws solely on long gun features though. You must be well-aware that handguns are much more tightly controlled than long guns pretty much across the board, totally aside from the fuzziness of "assault weapon" designation.
- oooyay 2y agoAh, let's be specific about what you're talking about: Handgun modifications are more tightly controlled. For instance if I try to turn a hand gun into a long gun. That was always true of federal law. What I'm pointing out is that a stock long rifle is arbitrarily made a felony only in New York and New Jersey law, which logically leads to a more dangerous outcome: I have to store said gun somewhere else while I live there for work.
- llamaimperative 2y agoNo, handguns are more tightly controlled than long guns.
- kasey_junk 2y agoIllinois law makes many stock rifles, some of them by name, a felony.
- JoeAltmaier 2y agoWorse, I think. Federal law says you can transport a firearm in a locked case in a vehicle, in every state. But Illinois interprets that to mean, you can pass through Illinois (say on the freeway) and they respect the law. But if you go off the route, say a couple miles off the freeway to visit a cousin as long as you are in Illinois, then a highway patrol stop can mean arrest and imprisonment.
- kasey_junk 2y agoIt’s not where you are traveling it’s how long. You have 24 hours to move your awb through Illinois. No one has been arrested just for traveling through Illinois yet.
- tptacek 2y agoThe courtly dance begins. We can talk about the Sturmgewehr 44 and Eugene Stoner's design goals for the AR, if you like, or we can just accept that reasonable people can call all semi-automatic or select-fire long guns with detachable magazines "assault weapons" regardless of whether the Ruger Mini-14 does or does not look like an AK-47.
- oooyay 2y agoIf detachable magazines are your issue then New York still allows them with 10 rounds or less on both pistols and long rifles. Phrasing that as "reasonable people" is a bit of a trap. I'm a leftist, have been all my life, that likes gun control in the form of: - finger printing - background checks - no sale registries - psych evals - closing private sale (non FFL) and gun convention loopholes New Yorks style of gun control is not what I think is effective or reasonable. It's just making the process more arduous and arbitrary without effecting the illegal sale market, where most of these crimes statistically occur. Edit: Throwing a point in post edit: Detachable magazines are actually not the deciding factor in the SAFE act. You can have a detachable magazine, just not when combined with a muzzle device (eg: a muzzle break or compensator).
- tptacek 2y agoThe question here isn't whether existing gun control measures are effective (they are not, for multiple reasons). If I was elected emperor, my first step would not be to "ban assault weapons". The question here is whether there exists a meaningful category of weapons called "assault weapons" (yes: the semi-automatic and select-fire long guns with detachable magazines, which were designed as weapons of war) and whether they are more dangerous than other legal firearms (yes).
- gruez 2y ago>The question here is whether there exists a meaningful category of weapons called "assault weapons" (yes: the semi-automatic and select-fire long guns with detachable magazines, which were designed as weapons of war) and whether they are more dangerous than other legal firearms (yes). No. Both you and the people you're arguing against think that the category of "assault weapons" exist, but you're using your own definition whereas others are using the legal definition. Why are you clinging so hard to the phrase "assault weapons" specifically? People who are using the legal definition have a pretty strong claim to that definition, because it's literally enshrined in law. Why not say "guns with detachable magazines" or whatever and save everyone from pointless word lawyering?