Chris Cuomo Had a Former Leftist Call in to His Show. He Clearly...
The Right Needs Real America First Journalism
This Town Filled Its Coffers With a Traffic Shakedown Scheme – Now They...
Planned Parenthood: Infants Not 'Conscious Beings' and Unlikely to Feel Pain
Democrats Boycotting OpenAI Over Support for Trump
Roy Cooper Dodges Tough Questions About His Deadly Soft-on-Crime Policies
Axios Is Back With Another Ridiculous Anti-Trump Headline
In Historic Deregulatory Move, Trump Officially Revokes Obama-Era Endangerment Finding
Sen. Bernie Moreno Just Exposed Keith Ellison's Open Borders Hypocrisy
Another Career Criminal Killed a Beloved Figure Skating Coach in St. Louis
Colorado Democrats Want to Trample First, Second Amendments With Latest Bill
Federal Judge Blocks Pete Hegseth From Reducing Sen. Mark Kelly's Pay Over 'Seditious...
AG Pam Bondi Vows to Prosecute Threats Against Lawmakers, Even Across Party Lines
Senate Hearing Erupts After Josh Hawley Lays Out Why Keith Ellison Belongs in...
2 Pakistani Nationals Charged in $10M Medicare Fraud Scheme
OPINION

The Whimsical Illogic of 'Assault Weapon' Bans: The Category Is Defined by Politicians, Who Focus on Looks Rather Than Function

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
The Whimsical Illogic of 'Assault Weapon' Bans: The Category Is Defined by Politicians, Who Focus on Looks Rather Than Function

Since 1996, Gallup has been asking Americans whether they support a ban on "assault weapons." Gallup has never explained what "assault weapons" are, and there's a good reason for that: The category is defined by politicians, so its meaning is arbitrary, mutable and illogical.

Advertisement

Last week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who wrote the federal "assault weapon" ban that was enacted in 1994 and expired in 2004, introduced her latest attempt to reinstate and expand it. Her bill bans "205 military-style assault weapons" by name, along with any rifle that "accepts a detachable ammunition magazine and has one or more military characteristics," such as "a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock."

The 1994 definition required two "military characteristics" instead of just one, and the list was different. Back then, Feinstein said nothing about barrel shrouds, but she was worried about bayonet mounts, which she is now willing to allow.

Now, as then, however, features that do not make a gun any more deadly in the hands of a mass shooter or an ordinary criminal, such as a folding stock or a threaded barrel, nevertheless transform it into an intolerable "assault weapon." Compounding the craziness, Feinstein's new bill also targets products that reverse this magic by removing the features that offend her.

The California company Thordsen Customs, for example, sells a kit that replaces an adjustable stock and pistol grip on a rifle that would otherwise qualify as a prohibited "assault weapon" in some states. Feinstein claims "Thordsen-type grips and stocks" are "designed to evade a ban on assault weapons," which is a bizarre way of looking at it.

Advertisement

Related:

DIANNE FEINSTEIN

"We are complying with the ban," says Alan Thordsen, the founder and CEO of Thordsen Customs. "If there's a feature that is banned, we change the feature. That's not evading. That's not skirting the law or violating the spirit of the law. We are conforming with the law and creating products that enable law-abiding people to keep their legal firearms in a legal configuration so that they are not criminals."

By Feinstein's logic, smooth rifle barrels should be banned because they can replace threaded barrels, changing a prohibited "assault weapon" into a legal gun. The problem here is not sneaky entrepreneurs like Thordsen, but irrational legislators like Feinstein. Thordsen's real offense, one suspects, is highlighting the silliness of legislation like Feinstein's.

An "assault weapon" ban that just took effect in Boulder, Colorado, cuts Feinstein's list of "military characteristics" in half, focusing on pistol grips, adjustable stocks and "any protruding grip or other device" that "allow(s) the weapon to be stabilized with the non-trigger hand." Unlike Feinstein, it seems, Boulder's gun controllers are not afraid of barrels with shrouds or threads.

A ballot initiative that took effect this month in Washington goes in a different direction. While the state's ban applies only to adults younger than 21, it defines "semiautomatic assault rifles" so broadly that the category includes all semi-automatic rifles.

Advertisement

The seven states with general bans on "assault weapons" define them more narrowly than Washington, but the criteria vary. New York, like Feinstein circa 1994, cannot abide bayonet mounts, for example, but California, which enacted the nation's first "assault weapon" ban in 1989, is OK with them.

Once you realize that "assault weapons" are in the eye of the beholder, it's hard to take seriously the extravagant promises of legislators who want to ban them. Feinstein claims her bill would "put a stop to mass shootings." Yet, even if it eliminated the millions of "assault weapons" that Americans already own (something it does not even purport to do), would-be mass shooters would still have plenty of equally lethal alternatives.

After three decades of this nonsense, Americans may be starting to wise up. According to Gallup, support for legislation like Feinstein's fell from a peak of 59 percent in 2000 to 40 percent last year.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement