LibriumArcana.Games

The bill's text.

Being a bill in the United States Congress, it is exceedingly wordy, full of references to other documents, and exceptionally hard to format in a post, so I'm not going to quote the whole thing. Key highlights include:

Definitions wrote:(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following
(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:
...
[Long list of specific makes and models of rifles.]
(B)
...
The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:
...
[Similarly long list of specific makes and models of handguns.]
...
(C)

The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:
...
[Somewhat shorter list of specific types of shotguns.]
...
(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a threaded barrel;
(iii) a pistol grip;
(iv) a forward grip; or
(v) a barrel shroud.
...
[Skip sections detailing technical terms.]
...
(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.

That last part is really fun. Note that, once again, the determination for what is an assault weapon and what is not rests largely on cosmetic appearance. Unlike last time, there seems to be no mention of bayonet mounts.

God damnit. Just when I was fixing to get my AK47 and M16

Rogue, an honest question: Is this and the various never-going-anywhere Draft bills the only ones you read? Your words make it sound as if you're surprised a bill is inundated with references to other ones, and is archaic, labyrinthine, and lengthy. They're almost all like this. And that's before the endless provisions, riders, and amendments are attached.

He didn't sound surprised to me Nitram, he sounded like he was explaining why he didn't post the entire bloody bill here.

That said I'm going into some of my problems.

A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

That's the vast majority of mordern weapons, doesn't really help narrow the field at all, by the way most hunting rifles I've seen in Oklahoma have a detectable magazine including bolt actions.

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

Does make the weapon slightly easier to conceal but not by much unless we're talking something like the M4. Does not make the weapon more lethal in my opinion. A note, a rifle with a folding stock is usually meant for close order action in a urban enviroment (not all of them have this, M-4s do not). If they want to ban urban close order assualt weapons... Why not just say so?

(ii) a threaded barrel;

I.E is a rifle. All rifles and pistols are threaded. The majority of shotguns and any arty peice called a smoothbore is not. So it's not a quality of any superdangerous weapon (In fact a Grenade Launcher isn't fucking threaded neither are anti-tank weapons...)

(iii) a pistol grip;

No point to this, doesn't actually make the weapon anymore dangerous. It's a cosmetic feature to make the shooter more comfty. Accuratcy is not effected at all.

(iv) a forward grip; or

Usually something found on sub-machine guns. I have no experience with submachine guns so I will forbear comment.

(v) a barrel shroud.

A barrel shroud protects the shooter from the heat of the barrel. It's a safety feature you twits. You can put them on anything bigger then a pistol. Does not make a weapon more lethal unless you're hoping this makes the shooter burn his hand and shot less.

that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.

Great so I just need to find the Ashcroft of gun control then huh? Yeah I'm not liking this at all.

I think they mean threaded like the tip of the barrel is threaded to accept silencers and suppressors.

Are you sure? I got the sense they meant the rifling in the barrel?

No, that just wouldn't be possible, for your aforementioned reason. The big thing, from what I understand, is threading like the threading in a pipe or screw, which would allow for easy attachement of said illegal modifications. In fact, that's about the only part of the law that makes any sense at all, since civilians shouldn't really need to own silencers or supressors in the first place.

I would have to agree with that with reservations. I can think of a few duck hunters would find a silencer handy, but in all honesty I think the duck hunters can take one for the team on this issue.