Trump's OMB Director Quietly Calls Out the Republicans Threatening to Derail the 'Big,...
Liberal Amnesty Group Inadvertently Makes Great Case for the Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill'
Wait, Trump Is Up By *How Much* Now? Dems Are Going to Implode.
Here Are Some of the People Who Owe Special Counsel Robert Hur an...
Four Trump Officials Pen NYT Op-Ed Calling for This Commonsense Reform
FBI Investigates Fertility Center Explosion, Not Ruling Out 'Act of Terrorism'
Trump, Putin to Talk to End 'Bloodbath' in Ukraine
Conservatives Slam Leaked Biden Audio, Say Tapes Confirm Mental Decline and Massive...
Minnesota Dems Fight to Keep Free Health Care for Illegal Immigrants Despite Soaring...
Piers Morgan Stumps Left-Wing Feminist on Defining a Woman
Trump Surges in Deep-Blue New Jersey as Voters Turn on Democrat Governor
Jasmine Crockett Mocks Christian Lawmakers Over SNAP Reform
This Pro-Life Advocate Once Underwent a Medication Abortion. Then She Reversed It.
Trump Torches Supreme Court Over Immigration Ruling: 'Criminals Will Flood In'
Pay for Pro Growth Tax Cuts by Ending the Credit Union Tax Loophole
OPINION

The Useful Illogic of 'Assault Weapon' Bans

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

After Omar Mateen used a Sig Sauer MCX rifle in an attack on an Orlando nightclub that left 49 people dead, USA Today urged Congress to "ban assault weapons now." The paper's editorial board said such firearms must be prohibited because they are "accurate and quick, firing with just the twitch of a finger."

Advertisement

Like most people who want to ban "assault weapons," including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, USA Today's editorialists do not know what they are. They assume the category is defined by features that make guns especially lethal in the hands of mass murderers. It isn't.

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear two cases challenging "assault weapon" bans enacted by New York and Connecticut after the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Both laws ban semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines if they have one or more "military-style" features.

New York's list of prohibited features includes folding or telescoping stocks, thumbhole stocks, pistol grips, second handgrips or protruding grips that can be held by the nontrigger hand, bayonet mounts, threaded barrels, flash suppressors, muzzle brakes, and grenade launchers. Connecticut's list is similar, but it excludes bayonet mounts, muzzle brakes, and threaded barrels.

An expanded version of the federal "assault weapon" ban that expired in 2004, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), takes the same approach. Its list of forbidden rifle features includes rocket launchers and barrel shrouds along with pistol grips, forward grips, folding or telescoping stocks, and threaded barrels, but it omits bayonet mounts, muzzle brakes, and flash suppressors.

As you can see, the definition of "assault weapon" is pretty arbitrary. With the exception of grenade and rocket launchers, which require illegal "destructive devices" to be of any use, these features have little or nothing to do with a gun's deadliness in the context of a mass shooting.

Advertisement

Contrary to what USA Today implies, "assault weapons" are not uniquely accurate, they fire no faster than any other semiautomatic, and they are not unusual in "firing with just the twitch of a finger," which any gun with a trigger will do. Nor are they distinguished by especially large rounds, by especially high muzzle energy, or by the ability to accept detachable magazines, which many guns that are not considered "assault weapons" can do.

In fact, one of the main reasons the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit gave for ruling that the New York and Connecticut "assault weapon" bans do not violate the Second Amendment was that law-abiding gun owners have plenty of equally satisfactory alternatives. So do mass shooters, who overwhelmingly prefer handguns to the military-style rifles that are supposedly their "weapon of choice."

The appeals court nevertheless deferred to the judgment of state legislators, arguing that the constitutional cost of doing so was slight. Unlike the local handgun bans overturned by the Supreme Court, the 2nd Circuit said, "the statutes at issue do not ban 'an entire class of arms,'" which "makes the restrictions substantially less burdensome."

The appeals court reached that conclusion with help from the plaintiffs challenging the laws, who argued that "there is no class of firearms known as 'semiautomatic assault weapons' -- a descriptor they call purely political in nature." In other words, "assault weapon" bans are constitutional not in spite of their arbitrariness but because of it.

Advertisement

The Washington Post, which has been editorializing in support of "assault weapon" bans for more than two decades, also sees an advantage to their lack of logic. After Congress enacted the federal ban in 1994, the Post called the law "mainly symbolic," saying "its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control."

The mechanism for achieving "broader gun control" is the recognition that "assault weapons" account for a tiny share of gun homicides and that many other firearms are just as deadly -- points that advocates of a ban are keen to obscure for the time being.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement