Understanding Assault Weapon Bans

by Ben Small

Many folks don't understand the 1994 Clinton Assault Weapons Ban, nor do they understand what are meant by the terms "Assault Weapons" or "pre-ban," nor do they understand what risks still await one who wants to add some cosmetic touches to their so-called Assault Weapon, even though the 1994 ban expired on September 13, 2004. I'll try to explain the basics here. But before I begin, please pardon the complexity and idiotic nature of these measures. Congress passed them, not me. And these laws have done just about nothing to stop crime.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban pushed by Clinton and enacted by Congress banned specific guns made by specific manufacturers. These weapons, all semi-automatic in nature - meaning they fire one shot with one trigger pull - included the specific models and manufacturers' names, and it included a catch-all for any other weapons which carried characteristics of those weapons. So, the definition of weapons included those specifically named and any others which fit this language:

A semi-automatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

1) a folding or telescoping stock;
2) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
3) a bayonet mount;
4) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor,, and
5) a grenade launcher.

All but the grenade launcher are regarded by gunners as cosmetic issues. But having a grenade launcher itself, as long as your rifle didn't have one of the other listed cosmetic parts, was not banned.

Oh goodie! I could use a grenade launcher on my rifles, and Congress doesn't seem to think that, alone, is a bad thing...

Similarly, the ban with respect to pistols covered a semi-automatic that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

1) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
2) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer. (Nevermind that silencers are regulated anyway by the National Firearms Act);
3) a shroud that is attached to, or partial or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned;
4) a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded,; and
5) a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm (popularly called a "machine gun")

These definitions were taken directly from the Act. Additionally, magazines were banned if they could hold more than ten rounds, but of course, there was no limit to the number of ten-round magazines one could buy or carry.

There were also provisions covering certain kinds of shotguns, but enough is enough. You'll get the picture without adding the restrictions on shotguns.

The ban prohibited manufacture, transfer, or possession of a "semi-automatic assault weapon." But there were some exceptions to this part. It was legal to possess a weapon owned prior to the date of enactment, and it was legal to purchase a weapon made before October 1, 1993.

The legislation was largely regarded as a joke. So much notice was provided of these provisions, and the Act took so long to pass that manufacturers ramped up production of banned weapons prior to October 1, 1993 such that weapons covered by the act and manufactured before that date are still easy to find in new, unfired condition even now. Indeed, I bought a new pre-ban Bushmaster AR-15 legally in 2000. And the gun store from which I bought it had a huge collection of new, unfired pre-ban weapons for sale.

Interpretation of the Act is tricky. For instance, if you bought a kit, pre-October 1, 1993, which if assembled before that date would be a legal Semi-automatic Assault Weapon, but waited until after that date to assemble the kit into a weapon, your completed weapon assembly would violate federal law, because the law covered complete weapons, not kits or parts for them.

So, your perp or protag has a kit for an imported AK-47, or already has one and wants to add some cosmetic features. Is he going to violate federal law if he does so, now that the infamous Clinton Assault Weapons Ban has expired?

Well, gee, he'd better be damn careful, or the ATF (remember Waco?) will come knocking on his door. Why? Because of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and BATFE regulations thereunder, which make criminal the assembly of a rifle or shotgun using more than ten of the following imported parts:

(1) Frames, receivers, receiver
castings, forgings, or castings.
(2) Barrels.
(3) Barrel extensions.
(4) Mounting blocks (trunnions).
(5) Muzzle attachments.
(6) Bolts.
(7) Bolt carriers.
(8) Operating rods.
(9) Gas pistons.
(10) Trigger housings.
(11) Triggers.
(12) Hammers.
(13) Sears.
(14) Disconnectors.
(15) Buttstocks.
(16) Pistol grips.
(17) Forearms, handguards.
(18) Magazine bodies.
(19) Followers.
(20) Floor plates.

Understand, it's perfectly legal to add these parts or build a kit, as long as they're U.S.-made parts, which of course, are identical or better than the foreign parts. You just can't build or modify any semi-automatic assault weapon if doing so will mean you then have more than ten of these imported parts on your weapon. You can buy a completely assembled imported new pre-ban AK-47; you just can't build or assemble one with more than ten of these parts imported.

How much sense does this make? How would you like to do ten years in federal prison and pay an enormous fine just because you decided to replace your U.S.-made unfinished wood stock on your AK-47 with a nice laminated foreign stock? Or, as reflected in this picture, you wanted to match your fore-ends to your stock, and replaced one or the other (or maybe both) with a foreign-made part?


How's that for Buy America enforcement?

Got Gas...?

by Ben Small

Lately, I've been seeing articles, ads and television programs on the Sportsman Channel (DirecTV) and others about new gas systems for AR style rifles, both the AR-15 and AR-10, and of course, their military counterparts, the M-16, the M4 and the M14.

While AR-style rifles are considered much more accurate than the AK rifles most insurgents and third world bad guys use, they're also more fallible, i.e. they fail a lot. ARs are notorious for two aspects: They must be clean and they must be wet. If these two criteria aren't met, the guns may not fire, especially when it's hot outside or the rifle's fired a number of rounds between cleanings.

If a rifle doesn't fire, the shooter may die.

Contrast this with the AK-47, a simplistic design that will fire every time, even if the rifle's never been cleaned. The AK-47's design is so simple -- intended to be so -- that a kid can assemble and operate one.

Why the difference? Two reasons, really. ARs have tight tolerances and a direct gas impingement system, whereas the AKs have loose tolerances and are gas-piston driven.

Big deal? You betcha.

The problem with ARs is fouling. There's a small hole in the barrel which directs some of the gases from a fired round all the way back through the rifle's upper, forcing the bolt back into battery so it's ready for the next shot. But when the gases come back to the receiver and bolt, they bring unburned powder and other contaminants, thereby fouling the bolt. Over time, due to the tight tolerances of the ARs, the gun will cease to operate. Sprinkling some gun oil into the bolt and receiver area will free it up for more rounds, but the receiver and bolt chamber will be filthy, and each round fired will make them more so. Eventually, the gun will malfunction again unless cleaned and re-oiled, a messy proposition.

In the AK, however, a hole in the barrel directs the gases and contaminants to a spring loaded piston, which drives the bolt back. No contaminants reach the receiver or the bolt, and because of that and the loose tolerances, the bolt doesn't need oil. Some AKs, fired for years, may never have been cleaned and oiled.

Top end manufacturers have caught on to this AR issue, and now they're starting to produce ARs that are gas-piston driven, much like the AKs. FNH is now making ARs with gas-piston uppers, as is Les Baer. Same with Sig Sauer, with its new 556 line of rifles.

When Sig first came out with its 556 line -- a version of its war-proven 55X rifles -- many internet gun bullies corrected those who called the 556 an AR-style rifle, saying the 556 was more of an AK design than an AR design. Because of the gas-piston system. But now other AR manufacturers are releasing gas-piston driven AR rifles, so the nomenclature bullies are being driven back into their internet holes.

The beauty of an AR with a gas-piston system should be self-evident: The gun is accurate and clean. Tolerances remain tight, but contaminants can't reach the receiver and bolt. Less chance of a malfunction. And the Sig has an added benefit; you can adjust the gas system. Say, for instance, you've shot many mags through your rifle and due to heat and maybe some burned oil, and the rifle is acting sluggish, maybe not slipping fully into battery. Just turn the nozzle at the end of the upper and increase the gas level. Position one to position two. Problem solved. Shoot three hundred more bad guys.

So... why tell you all this? Because for a novelist, the devil is in the details. And some of these details may just give you an important plot point.

For a good discussion of this important and developing design change in military and commercial "black" rifles, see Direct Gas Impingement vs. Gas Piston Driven

Clinging To Our Guns

by Ben Small



In anticipation of an Obama swearing-in ceremony, America has been buying guns in unprecedented numbers. Of course, Obama-phobia isn’t fully the explanation. Americans feel threatened; they’re afraid. Gang and drug warfare are on the rise, as are home invasions, and in some cities, like Chicago, which is setting murder records, only the cops and bad guys have guns. (Ordinary people aren’t supposed to defend themselves in Chicago. Mayor Daley won’t permit it.)

But there’s no denying the Obama effect. Overnight, prices of AK-47s skyrocketed, in some places as high as 200%. Same with AR-15s and other weapons carrying more than ten rounds. You may remember the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban. That didn’t do much to stop the proliferation of serious weaponry. It was a joke. Yes, magazines were limited to ten rounds. But there were no limits on how many magazines one could carry.

Several articles have appeared about surging guns and ammo sales across the nation, and the gun stores I’ve visited have been packed full of purchasers eager to beat expected new anti-gun measures. Barack Obama has said he supports gun control, and his legislative record backs him up. Yes, there was the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, but that victory for Second Amendment gun rights was by a one vote margin. Change a judge, and it’s a new ballgame.

But something else, too is driving the buys. A different fear.

Mexican drug gangs are storming our border, shooting up border towns and killing police officers and border guards from El Paso to Tucson to San Diego, and of course, their Mexican counterpart cities. And the Latino gangs that support these drug lords, like MS-13, are spreading across our lands like an infection. MS-13 is in Los Angeles, San Diego, Tucson, El Paso, Chicago, Madison, Minneapolis, Phoenix, and other cities as well.

Just last Halloween in Tucson, my home turf, three teenagers in three wrong places at three wrong times were shot down, two of them killed. All three were students at Sunnyside High School. Three normal kids with bright futures, students of a friend of mine. One of these kids, a young girl, was at a party. Some gang-bangers tried to crash, and an argument ensued. Later the bangers came back. They shot up the house from their car. The girl, inside dancing with friends, died.

My teacher friend says the kids know the ropes. You’re sitting at a stop light and a car pulls up. Someone in the other car flashes a gang sign. You’re not in a gang or you’re in a different gang; you don’t respond or you give the wrong sign.

That's disrespect.

Bang, bang, you’re dead.

Amazing. Imagine being a teenager today...

A few weeks ago, my wife and two of her friends took their Concealed Carry Class and submitted their permit paper-work. The class was jammed. The instructors said classes have been packed for more than a year; they're struggling to keep up with demand.

Now these are ordinary citizens. Not gang-bangers, not criminals. You can’t get a concealed carry permit if you’re a criminal. Nor can a criminal buy a gun – legally. But criminals don’t have any problem getting guns, all kinds of guns, even automatic weapons. They just smuggle them in from Mexico and spread them around the gangs. The guns that are terrorizing Chicago aren’t guns held by law-abiding citizens; they’re gang guns. No gun ban is going to stop that trade. Only law abiding citizens are denied the means to protect themselves in Chicago.

Our growing security anxiety is fueled by several very real concerns: 1) fear that our institutions are breaking down; 2) fear that wealth re-distribution policies will heighten tensions; 3) fear that anti-gun measures will limit purchases by law-abiding citizens of weapons and ammunition; 4) fear that like the L. A. riots after the Rodney King beating and the looters and marauders during and after Katrina, there will be roving gangs of looters and predators following any future catastrophe or breakdown of food delivery, power supply, energy or social order; 5) fear that terrorist or gang or drug lord raids within our borders will increase; 6) fear that our borders are so porous, we have no ability to stop drugs or the growing illegal gun trade, and 6) fear that the police cannot adequately protect us.

A Harvard study a year or so ago examined the effectiveness of strict gun control measures worldwide. The study concluded that those jurisdictions that have the more severe gun limits, have higher crime rates. Look at Chicago or Washington, D.C. Indeed, Britain, which completely banned most guns many years ago, has seen violent crime rise since.

Already, some silly measures have become law, and are being considered elsewhere. Like the California law that requires every handgun sold by 2010 to imprint on its cartridge identifying marks traceable to the gun. This law was passed last year by the California legislature and signed by the Governator despite no proof that such technology exists or would be effective. In fact, a study by the University of California at Davis, showed that such technology does not work. And what about revolvers? Their cartridges are carried away with the gun.

Imagine how easily you could be framed. Go to the gun range, fire your weapon. Someone picks up your brass and leaves it at a crime scene.

Boom. You’re in jail.

The gun industry has reacted slowly to the California measure, although at least one manufacturer has decided not to sell guns to police or anyone else in California if this law remains in effect. A few other manufacturers are considering similar actions.

So called “assault” weapons are defined very loosely. The term is usually described as semi-automatic weapons, those that don’t have a rotating cylinder feeding a bullet to the chamber. Banners claim these weapons aren’t used for hunting; they're only used to kill people.

That's not true. On either front.

Varmint hunting is popular these days. Rats, prairie dogs, coyotes, they're fair game in many areas. And semi-automatic weapons, both pistols and rifles, are popular choices for hunting them.

I've owned semi-automatic weapons for over ten years, and I don't hunt.

I haven’t killed anybody.

I shoot paper, lots of paper. I compete in paper-shooting contests. Fun stuff, shooting in competitions, part of our American heritage. Sergeant York, an American hero, used to compete in turkey shoots. So do I, but my turkeys are paper, and they’re taped over cardboard.

And what’s wrong with that? Good clean sport. Nothing gets killed, and only a few pieces of paper and cardboard are damaged. The paper, bullets and cartridges are all recycled.

Shooting is green.

So who gets hurt by me owning a gun... or several?

Semi-automatic weapons fire one bullet at a time, just like revolvers do. Yes, magazines for these guns may contain more bullets, but some revolvers shoot as many as eight rounds, and there are speed loaders available. Speed loaders facilitate a revolver rate of fire not far slower than a semi-auto's.

Pick up any gun magazine; there are many from which to choose. Check out the ads. Yes, they may scare you. But remember, these are the guns the good guys, law-abiding citizens, are buying. They're used for self defense and for sport. A gun ban won't stop gangs from getting guns. Criminals don't file for concealed carry permits, and they don't buy their guns in U.S. gun stores. You bump into a bad guy at the wrong time and place, and the only thing between you and the coroner may be your ability to defend yourself.

The bad guys may have machine guns. And sometimes, grenades.

Back in Connecticut, a Revolutionary War cemetery adjoined my back yard. Stones dressed with flags mark the war's graves. In those veterans' days, every home contained a gun.

We may return to that notion.