Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SYFROYH

(34,204 posts)
Tue Jul 12, 2022, 01:48 PM Jul 2022

An effective AWB by Exec Order?

I posted this idea in another thread, but thought it might be interesting to discuss here.

Trump may have opened a door for restrictions not previously opened before by any other President.

After the Las Vegas massacre, Trump banned bump stocks by exec order. A bump stock is essentially just a non-federally regulated part of a rifle that functions differently than other stocks. I think the strength of this manner of prohibition is that there are still other stock options that make the AR or other rifles useable (collapsible, folder, or fixed stocks).

There are a lot of non-federally regulated parts on AR-type rifles. For example, magazines, collapsible/folding stocks, and pistol grips are nonregulated parts.

If what Trump did by banning bump stocks was legal (and perhaps it wasn't which is why he did it knowing it would be overturned), then Biden could cite him as an example of how to handle AR-type rifles.

He could, in effect, recreate an AWB by exec order. I think the issue will be that he can't make the rifles unuseable. For example, perhaps he could ban collapsible stocks, but not fixed stocks. He could ban 11+ round magazines, but not 10 rounds mags. He could ban pistols grips, but not grips that connect to the stock (e.g., monster grips).

I don't think this will significantly reduce gun violence or even mass shootings, but it would achieve AWB-compliant ARs similar to the ones available during the 1994 AWB which Biden credits as having an effect.

Just a thought.

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

PTWB

(4,131 posts)
1. I don't think it will work.
Tue Jul 12, 2022, 01:55 PM
Jul 2022

The Trump bump stock ban essentially classified bump stocks as machine guns, which are subject to NFA registration. (They’re not machine guns by any stretch of the imagination so that EO will likely be overturned eventually, but that’s a different thread for a different time.)

For Biden to ‘ban’ assault weapons via EO, he would have to classify them as something falling under the NFA or another existing law. What would work? I can’t think of anything.

And really, it seems like an AW ban is a lot of political capital to spend to get such a small return. All rifles — including ‘assault weapons’ — account for just 3% of gun crime. If we were serious about banning something to reduce gun violence, we would be talking about banning handguns.

SYFROYH

(34,204 posts)
3. Ok, good constructive criticism of the idea.
Tue Jul 12, 2022, 02:12 PM
Jul 2022

Do you think classifying certain "AWB" parts and 10+ round magazines as Destructive Devices would work?

The only thing different about a StreetSweeper and gran-pappies sxs is the capacity of the rotating mag, right? Or is that analogous?

 

PTWB

(4,131 posts)
6. I don't think so.
Tue Jul 12, 2022, 04:04 PM
Jul 2022

Last edited Tue Jul 12, 2022, 04:39 PM - Edit history (1)

A destructive device is already defined as: A missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than 1/4 oz.

Any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may readily be converted to expel a projectile, by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore greater than one-half inch in diameter.

A combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a device into a destructive device and from which a destructive device can be readily assembled.

SYFROYH

(34,204 posts)
7. I wonder how StreetSweepers met the DD designation.
Tue Jul 12, 2022, 04:25 PM
Jul 2022

Either way, I suppose my idea wouldn't work. Not that I really wanted it , too.

Thanks for the discussion.
 

PTWB

(4,131 posts)
8. It's because their bore is over .5 and the ATF says they have no sporting purpose.
Tue Jul 12, 2022, 04:38 PM
Jul 2022

I see my definition I pasted earlier didn’t copy correctly and I’m including the full definition in an edit.

yagotme

(3,918 posts)
9. Shotguns are exempt from the .5" definition,
Thu Jul 14, 2022, 05:44 PM
Jul 2022

as everything 20 gauge and over would be banned. A 12 is .70". The "no sporting purpose" is what killed the "Sweeper".

FBaggins

(27,764 posts)
2. I don't think that's how TFG's executive order worked
Tue Jul 12, 2022, 02:05 PM
Jul 2022

It wasn't "essentially just a non-federally regulated part of a rifle".

The change was to include bump stocks in the definition of "machine gun" - and thus it was already regulated.

DetroitLegalBeagle

(2,197 posts)
4. And it remains to be seen if the ban will survive
Tue Jul 12, 2022, 02:18 PM
Jul 2022

I think there are still a case or two working their way through Federal court. In light of both Bruen and the WV v EPA, I don't know if it survives now.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»An effective AWB by Exec ...