What is an assault weapon?

JSH1 said:

We used the term Assault Weapon too.View attachment 782725

Click to expand...

I'm not claiming that gun folks haven't used the term "assault weapon". Obviously we have. I already agreed with that. I'm simply challenging you and @GRIZ22 to prove your claim that the gun industry was the first to use the term "assault weapon". Because so far, that claim is unfounded.

JSH1 said:

My position is that the term Assault Rifle and Assault Weapon was widely used in the gun community in the 80's and 90's. I grew up reading gun magazines and they had no issue with the term nor did they attempt to limit the term "Assault Rifle" to only select fire guns. It is only in the past 10 years or so that the industry has abandoned that term and has switched to "Modern Sporting Rifle" in an attempt to win the branding war. Pretending otherwise is attempting to rewrite history.

Proof. Well I didn't save all my gun magazines. Will vintage Guns & Ammo covers do?

I do not support banning semi-automatic firearms.

Available from EBay:
View attachment 782723

Available from Amazon:
View attachment 782724

Click to expand...

The magazine covers may well be actual assault rifles or perhaps semi-auto versions of them, which would be technically inaccurate usage.

I recall using the term at least once in that time period, referring to a Ruger Mini-14, which ironically has not been banned other than a couple of variations. I'm sure I also called a .308 varmint rifle a sniper rifle at some point as well. But there is a distinct difference in informal, "slang" usage and claiming that this huge conglomeration of firearms, including .22 rimfire pistols and .50 BMG rifles is a distinct class of firearm, too deadly for civilians to own. Most of the defining features have nothing to do with "deadliness" and very few of the banned guns have ever been used by the military.

"Modern Sporting Rifle" does seem a bit contrived. "Sporting" misses the primary point of gun rights and the rifles in question are not at all limited to sport. It is not a great descriptor. Kinda like "assault weapon". lol.

An accurate, informative description would start with action type, firearm type (rifle, pistol, shotgun), and chambering. Certain other features might make a gun more or less useful to the owner but for legal purposes, sticking to the fundamentals makes a lot more sense.

"I do not support banning semi-automatic firearms."

Glad to hear it!

plinky said:

The magazine covers may well be actual assault rifles or perhaps semi-auto versions of them, which would be technically inaccurate usage.

Click to expand...

Technically inaccurate according to whom? According to Merriam-Webster......

Definition of assault rifle
: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

Click to expand...

As hard as non-firearm folks try to use the term "Assault Rifle", there are firearm folks that are passionate against the use of that term, for those weapons intended for civilian usage. Almost as bad as "Clip vs Mag". Thing is, would calling them anything else change any thing? Should we call them "Civilian Assault Type Rifles"? Would that make them any less feared or the drive to ban/restrict them any less? Is it any different than calling a Bolt Action 30-06 a "deer rifle", even tho not all of them are used for hunting deer? As much as we try and make out the foolishness of Liberals and their desire to be "politically correct", we fervently argue over the political correctness of the term "Assault Rifle"? Anyone here want to argue against the fact that a very high percentage of the so called "assault rifles" are bought by folks because they just look so dang "Tacticool"? Why is it they have to get a camo bandana and an ammo bandolier to wear with it? Why is it they have to get a ammo can to carry their little bit of stuff to the range?

As I said in my previous post, regardless of what folks try to claim, it ain't the name that so many folks fear, it's the damage and carnage done with 'em. There is no argument that they are used by civilians to do just that. I am not for banning them or any other firearm now available to the civilian market. But what folks want to call them is not the issue here......we need to quit trying to cloud the issue with foolish banter over terminology.

buck460XVR said:

Technically inaccurate according to whom? According to Merriam-Webster......

Click to expand...

Before you put too much stock in various online dictionary definitions, even "reputable" ones like M-W, you should look up what they've added to "literally"...

Merriam-Webster defines"assault" as a" violent attack". Using that definition just about anything used to attack someone would be considered an assault weapon including hands and feet.

I know this thread is about those mean old guns designed for war that run out and kill and maim on their own like the antis seem to believe but look at the possibilities that could open up when an assault weapon ban is passed.

buck460XVR said:

Technically inaccurate according to whom? According to Merriam-Webster......

Click to expand...

MachIVshooter said:

Before you put too much stock in various online dictionary definitions, even "reputable" ones like M-W, you should look up what they've added to "literally"...

Click to expand...

Guys, dictionaries reflect the language and how we all use it. If we all misuse a word often enough, that becomes part of the accepted definition. So those dictionaries aren’t just providing the technical definitions of words and terms, they’re also providing the common definitions based on usage, even if that usage is technically incorrect.

Take the word “fortuitous”, for example. That word originally only meant “happening by chance”. It is completely correct to say, “It was fortuitous that he was hit by a bus.”

But many people confused the word “fortuitous” with the word “fortunate” and incorrectly used it to mean “lucky”. And over time, “lucky” became an accepted secondary definition of “fortuitous”, even though that’s not technically what it meant previously.

buck460XVR said:

Technically inaccurate according to whom? According to Merriam-Webster......



As hard as non-firearm folks try to use the term "Assault Rifle", there are firearm folks that are passionate against the use of that term, for those weapons intended for civilian usage. Almost as bad as "Clip vs Mag". Thing is, would calling them anything else change any thing? Should we call them "Civilian Assault Type Rifles"? Would that make them any less feared or the drive to ban/restrict them any less? Is it any different than calling a Bolt Action 30-06 a "deer rifle", even tho not all of them are used for hunting deer? As much as we try and make out the foolishness of Liberals and their desire to be "politically correct", we fervently argue over the political correctness of the term "Assault Rifle"? Anyone here want to argue against the fact that a very high percentage of the so called "assault rifles" are bought by folks because they just look so dang "Tacticool"? Why is it they have to get a camo bandana and an ammo bandolier to wear with it? Why is it they have to get a ammo can to carry their little bit of stuff to the range?

As I said in my previous post, regardless of what folks try to claim, it ain't the name that so many folks fear, it's the damage and carnage done with 'em. There is no argument that they are used by civilians to do just that. I am not for banning them or any other firearm now available to the civilian market. But what folks want to call them is not the issue here......we need to quit trying to cloud the issue with foolish banter over terminology.

Click to expand...

Regarding law, words and definitions are extremely important. It may seem like petty stubbornness but when others start playing fast and loose with definitions in an attempt to ban very commonly used guns, we have to insist on accuracy. Besides, this is not astrophysics. Our opposition is largely willfully ignorant and keeping the rest of their contingent stupid with misinformation.

If they were to (wrongly) start calling your DA revolvers fully-automatic assault cannons, because they can shoot really fast and blow stuff up ("Who needs such a horrible gun!?!?") we should correct this inaccuracy.

And one ammo can? That would be silly. Actually I usually do only take one designated range can, but that is what they are designed for and very handy for.

I think you do get the point though. Calling something a threatening name does not make it any more lethal. It is still a semi-auto rifle, chambered in a caliber almost exclusively recommended for target/varmint use. The fact that something like one in a million gun owners go on a shooting spree also does not change that. We don't regulate rights according to the most extreme abuser, who by all rights should have been locked up years ago. If we did, "Glock-class" handguns would have been banned after the VT shooting. Quite the opposite, we regulate them in a way that accommodates the overwhelming lawful use.

For legal purposes, by far the best way to identify guns is in dry technical terms, just as has been done for about a century. You (not you specifically) want to ban semi-autos? Or semi-autos with a detachable mag? Fine. No need to describe them any other way. Go for it!

MachIVshooter said:

Before you put too much stock in various online dictionary definitions, even "reputable" ones like M-W, you should look up what they've added to "literally"...

Click to expand...

Indeed. It's "LITERALLY" the most misused word in the English language. I wouldn't exaggerate.

plinky said:

Regarding law, words and definitions are extremely important. It may seem like petty stubbornness but when others start playing fast and loose with definitions in an attempt to ban very commonly used guns, we have to insist on accuracy. Besides, this is not astrophysics. Our opposition is largely willfully ignorant and keeping the rest of their contingent stupid with misinformation.

Click to expand...

Exactly. There's no such thing as pedantry where legal definitions are concerned.

I don't believe the antis are really concerned with with legality. The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms and says noting about being able to place restrictions on any type, just that that right shall not be infringed. You can see where we are with that now. If they can gain an inch they will take it, legal or not, and immediately begin grabbing for another inch, foot, or whatever they think they can get. They will never be satisfied until they have them all.

If it looks like a gun that the police and military use, then it will be subject to attack as being unsuitable for citizens. I remember a rather silly episode of Guns and Ammo TV where two old toots (like me) had a fully auto M4 and a semi AR. They cranked some fully auto rounds and said : Now that's an assault rife (or some such). Then they crank some semi rounds. That's not an assault rifle, it's a Modern Sporting Rifle. Since the latter was fired rather quickly, they just made the case for a naive person saying that both should be banned.

I know hear commentators describing an AR as an assault-style rifle - referencing it's appearance.

It doesn't make a difference. After the failure of the AWB to accomplish any crime reduction or reduction of the general population's access to evil weaponry, the goal is to ban all semi auto guns. Maybe in the short term it is AR or AK patterns. In the long term - anything including the Mini-14s, etc. Australia took out everything.

tark said:

How about any weapon that was full-auto in its original military configuration, and had to be adapted to semi-auto only for civilian sale

Click to expand...

That's exactly what how the antis think. Oooohhhh, it's scary looking, it must be an "assault" weapon.

Assault is an action, not a device.

It's not something you have, it's something you do.

Theohazard said:

I'm not claiming that gun folks haven't used the term "assault weapon". Obviously we have. I already agreed with that. I'm simply challenging you and @GRIZ22 to prove your claim that the gun industry was the first to use the term "assault weapon". Because so far, that claim is unfounded.

Click to expand...

There is an article in the NYT called “Even Defining ‘Assault Rifles’ Is Complicated”. In this article Phillip Peterson, the author of “Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Assault Weapons”, says: “The popularly held idea that the term assault weapon originated with anti gun activists, media or politicians is wrong. The term was first adopted by the manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearm owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun”

To me who said the term first is irrelevant. The term Assault Weapon was adopted and used in the gun community for decades. Trying a rebrand decades later and attempting to whitewash the past is foolish.

JSH1 said:

There is an article in the NYT called “Even Defining ‘Assault Rifles’ Is Complicated”. In this article Phillip Peterson, the author of “Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Assault Weapons”, says: “The popularly held idea that the term assault weapon originated with anti gun activists, media or politicians is wrong. The term was first adopted by the manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearm owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun”

To me who said the term first is irrelevant. The term Assault Weapon was adopted and used in the gun community for decades. Trying a rebrand decades later and attempting to whitewash the past is foolish.

Click to expand...

As is trying to use "assault weapon" as a legal term, primarily to cast a negative light on whatever the term is applied to. It really is the counterpart to "modern sporting rifle".

As I said before, it is most precise to stick to a dry, technical description of firearms. The problem for gun banners is that they need to carve off a smaller bite to ban. A ban on all semi-autos with detachable mags would be intellectually consistent and have absolutely no chance of becoming law. So we have a cobbled up definition comprised largely of meaningless features.

Do some owners like the bayonet lug, flash hider, etc? Sure, but functionally, they are insignificant. Just call the dang rifle what it is. A semi-auto firearm with a detachable mag. Ban it if you can. Enough of the theater and misinformation though.

JSH1 said:

There is an article in the NYT called “Even Defining ‘Assault Rifles’ Is Complicated”. In this article Phillip Peterson, the author of “Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Assault Weapons”, says: “The popularly held idea that the term assault weapon originated with anti gun activists, media or politicians is wrong. The term was first adopted by the manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearm owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun”

Click to expand...

Regardless of who makes the claim, I want to see some evidence. Mr. Peterson’s claim is not much more believable than anyone else’s since he doesn’t provide any citations to back it up. If he’s correct, then you should be able to find a usage of that term by the gun industry that dates before that 1980 NYT article I referenced.

JSH1 said:

To me who said the term first is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But I’m simply asking for evidence to back up a claim made in this thread. And so far I haven’t seen any.

JSH1 said:

The term Assault Weapon was adopted and used in the gun community for decades. Trying a rebrand decades later and attempting to whitewash the past is foolish.

Click to expand...

There’s no “trying a rebrand”. The rebrand has already happened. The term is now almost exclusively used by anti-gun politicians, people who are anti-gun, and people who are simply ignorant about guns.

And yes, I’ll agree once again that the gun community has used the term in the past. But I’m still waiting to see some evidence to back up your claim that we’re the ones who invented it.

Theohazard said:

Regardless of who makes the claim, I want to see some evidence. Mr. Peterson’s claim is not much more believable than anyone else’s since he doesn’t provide any citations to back it up. If he’s correct, then you should be able to find a usage of that term by the gun industry that dates before that 1980 NYT article I referenced.

Click to expand...

If you want to search the gun magazine archives feel free. I'm fine with the fact that gun magazines were at least using it by 1981. The idea that the term was first invented by anti-gun people and then adopted by the industry also doesn't make much sense.

The NSSF would have you believe the following:

• Antigun people invented the term "Assault Weapons" to try to build support to ban them
• Gun magazines and manufacturers adopted that term and used it for decades
• The gun community suddenly took offense to the term and decided on "Modern Sporting Rifle" instead.

A far more likely scenario:

• Gun magazines and manufactures invented the term "Assault XYZ" (Rifle, Weapon, Pistol, Shotgun, etc) as a marketing term.
• They spent plenty of ink hyping how these assault weapons were just like the one's used by the military except they are semi-automatic
• Antigun people picked up on that branding and started saying "Assault Weapons" are just like military versions and should be banned
• Assault Weapon bans started to actually happen
• The NSSF decided that from now on "Assault XYZ" will be banned from industry use and "Modern Sporting Rifle" will be used from henceforth on.

Theohazard said:

There’s no “trying a rebrand”. The rebrand has already happened. The term is now almost exclusively used by anti-gun politicians, people who are anti-gun, and people who are simply ignorant about guns.

Click to expand...

Yes the rebrand has already happened - the industry lost control of a term they popularized.

Pretty ironic that the Peterson quote indicates the industry used the term to promote a category of guns based on appearance...and then the antis codified the term to ban guns...based on appearance.

Of the two, I'd prefer imprecise fluff terms in marketing over lawmaking.

I understand this is the latest target to come under the banners' withering gaze:

https://www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperstore.com/prodimages/alt_images/ruger-precision-rimfire_1.jpg

JSH1 said:

If you want to search the gun magazine archives feel free.

Click to expand...

You made the claim, not me. When you make a claim, it’s your responsibility to provide evidence to back that claim up, otherwise your claim is worthless and should be disregarded.

JSH1 said:

I'm fine with the fact that gun magazines were at least using it by 1981

Click to expand...

And I found a case of the New York Times using the term a year earlier.

JSH1 said:

The idea that the term was first invented by anti-gun people and then adopted by the industry also doesn't make much sense.

Click to expand...

Sure, it doesn’t make much sense if you think about it in terms of gun people directly copying terms used by anti-gun people. But that’s usually not how language works. Language spreads indirectly through a culture without any obvious origin. It’s very possible that anti-gunners (or the New York Times, which doesn’t usually trend pro-gun) first used the term and it spread indirectly throughout the culture before being picked up by the gun world.

And maybe you’re right that it was actually first used by the gun world, but you haven’t yet provided any evidence to back that up.

In case I forgot to say it , this is an assault weapon:

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/155/5813/1024/TEC1.jpg

And this:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7d/a8/de/7da8de7f40cc54924e70aaf317853c99.jpg

And this:

http://www.fototime.com/F214D44FC7BEB57/large.jpg

The Barrett, while actually being something like "military grade weaponry" has never been used in a crime that I'm aware of. While a criminal can adapt just about any firearm to their purpose with a little planning, they have not done so with this mega-huge, mega-expensive rifle. Better ban it, just to be safe!

The problem is not just the vague term "assault weapon", but the arbitrary and superficial nature of the definition.

plinky said:

Regarding law, words and definitions are extremely important. It may seem like petty stubbornness but when others start playing fast and loose with definitions in an attempt to ban very commonly used guns, we have to insist on accuracy. Besides, this is not astrophysics.

Click to expand...

....and in the example given to us by the author of this thread in his OP, Oregon gives us a specific description of their definition of what the law would restrict. I would tend to think, even not using astrophysics, that Oregon's accurate definition would hold up in court, over, let's say....your subjective definition.

plinky said:

And one ammo can? That would be silly. Actually I usually do only take one designated range can, but that is what they are designed for and very handy for.

Click to expand...

Same could be said for those firearms that are the subject of this thread. They are very handy for mass shooters and were originally designed for military usage. I personally find Ammo cans of little use other than storing ammo at home. When I throw my range stuff into my truck/jeep, I prefer something softsided and with shoulder straps. I don't find ammo cans handy at all. Doesn't take an astrophysicist to realize that many folks have them for the same reason they have specific firearms with specific accessories....because they are "Tacticool". Now I know this is not true of everyone, but it's no mystery that military surplus stores have really cashed in from the "Doomsday Prepper" crowd that has become so prevalent now, as they “prepare for the apocalypse”. One only needs to read Facebook or any of these gun forums to see that many folks think of themselves as "paramilitary" and having a firearm that resembles military issue, is a big cosmetic/ego plus.

plinky said:

I think you do get the point though. Calling something a threatening name does not make it any more lethal. It is still a semi-auto rifle, chambered in a caliber almost exclusively recommended for target/varmint use. The fact that something like one in a million gun owners go on a shooting spree also does not change that. We don't regulate rights according to the most extreme abuser, who by all rights should have been locked up years ago. If we did, "Glock-class" handguns would have been banned after the VT shooting. Quite the opposite, we regulate them in a way that accommodates the overwhelming lawful use.

Click to expand...

Seem you get the point I've been trying to make, other than the fact that, not calling it something does not make it any less lethal. It really does go both ways. Folks here get red in the face arguing about the definition of what constitutes an "Assault Rifle".....as if calling it a "high capacity sporting rifle" is going to change the mindset of anyone significant. While they are recommended for target/varmint use, it is not as you claim, exclusive. Those most popular calibers and all of the original offerings, were in standard military calibers. But, like the platform, it isn't the caliber that makes it the main threat. It's the though process behind the pulling of the trigger. The mag capacity and destructive power of the projectile just adds to it. I beg anyone here to dispute that. While selective fire does add to it also, that selective fire would not matter at all without the other two.

Again, I'm not for the banning/restrictions on any firearm platform, mag capacity or caliber, now available to the civilian market. I'm just not buying this bogus argument that calling them anything, by our own personal definition, is going to matter in the long run when it comes to banning or restrictions. That definition, made at that time, will define, legally, what firearms/accessories are included. Thinking and arguing anything else, is just going to cost us down the road. JMHO....Others are free to disagree.

"I would tend to think, even not using astrophysics, that Oregon's accurate definition would hold up in court, over, let's say....your subjective definition".

Umm, OK, what IS my subjective definition? The historical definition of assault rifle has been posted repeatedly. Doesn't seem subjective at all. Have I even tried to define "assault weapon"? I believe I've said it is a vague term and that the various legislative definitions do not constitute a proper class of firearms for regulation. I have repeatedly advised that the proper way to refer to a class of guns for regulatory purposes is in objective technical terms...action type, etc. What is subjective about that? Seems like the opposite.

The various definitions used in bans are of course quite specific. They are also convoluted and illogical and their main purpose IMO is to carve off a more manageable bite to ban. Unless you really find an AR-15 to be different in some significant way to a Ruger Ranch rifle? The banned features have little or nothing to do with deadliness.

Assault rifle, accurately used, has a real legal significance. Assault weapon is just a catch-all. Again, I'll agree that we can call them anything we want but the definition should be based on solid logic and objective standards. There is a reason why guns have been regulated by basic technical standards for as long as we have had federal gun laws.

"The mag capacity and destructive power of the projectile just adds to it."

Mag capacity is not terribly important when they can be easily changed. It is reported that the Parkland killer used 10 round mags. You would want to ban detachable mags.
1000ft/lb of energy is only marginally more than a healthy 10mm load and bullet shape and construction often make the handgun more destructive than the small rifle round. This has been way overblown.

The 5.56 was selected as "just barely enough" for combat and frequently it is not even that. As a SD and varmint hunting round, I think it is acceptable. Civilians don't generally want to shoot through walls and if they can't kill a Pdog at long range, it's not a great loss.


The fact that one gun owner in a million horribly misuses an AR-15 does not change the rights of virtually all other owners who are law abiding.

The most deadly school shooting in U.S. history was carried out with a Glock 19. 32 people were killed. In other countries, they would have immediately banned virtually all handguns. In the U.S., we don't blame the masses for the actions of one person.

Kaybee said:

Im seeing this term thrown around but no clear idea what defines it.

This bill in Oregon calls it a semi auto rifle with a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
https://www.statesmanjournal.com/st...s-require-owners-surrender-weapons/444530002/

I don’t understand that. Isn’t any rifle with a detachable magazine capable of potentially holding more than 10rounds? Is it possible at for a rifle with a detachable magazine not able to accept magazines over 10? Does that exist?

Click to expand...

Ask David Hogg. He knows everything

Make no mistake about it, ours or your definition doesn't matter in any way, that is called wasting your time. The politicos and anti-gunners set the tone long ago, they mean ARs and AKs and anything that looks or operates similarly. Stop arguing over something you aren't going to change. If you think people like feinstein or schumer don't know the difference you are the foolish one. They know, but since when do truth and facts matter in politics? As long as one can get their base to parrot what they say to advance the agenda it doesn't matter. Sort of like how fake news got our current potus in the oval office.

Some examples to illustrate how simple and easy it is to identify a true class of firearms and how convoluted is the definition of an "invented" class of firearms. I don't know if the definition of an assault weapon will fit in one post. We'll see:

Definitions of:

Semi-auto firearm: A semi-automatic firearm is one that not only fires a bullet each time the trigger is pulled, but also performs all steps necessary to prepare it to discharge again—assuming cartridges remain in the firearm's feed device.

Machinegun: Firearms within the definition of machinegun include weapons that shoot, are designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger.

Assault Rifle: An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

Assault Weapon:
“(36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:

“(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

“(i) A pistol grip.

“(ii) A forward grip.

“(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.

“(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.

“(v) A barrel shroud.

“(vi) A threaded barrel.

“(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

“(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

“(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

“(i) A threaded barrel.

“(ii) A second pistol grip.

“(iii) A barrel shroud.

“(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

“(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

“(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

“(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has any one of the following:

“(i) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.

“(ii) A pistol grip.

“(iii) A fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds.

“(iv) The ability to accept a detachable magazine.

“(v) A forward grip.

“(vi) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.

“(G) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

“(H) All of the following rifles, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:

“(i) All AK types, including the following:

“(I) AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM.

“(II) IZHMASH Saiga AK.

“(III) MAADI AK47 and ARM.

“(IV) Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S.

“(V) Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS.

“(ii) All AR types, including the following:

“(I) AR–10.

“(II) AR–15.

“(III) Alexander Arms Overmatch Plus 16.

“(IV) Armalite M15 22LR Carbine.

“(V) Armalite M15–T.

“(VI) Barrett REC7.

“(VII) Beretta AR–70.

“(VIII) Black Rain Ordnance Recon Scout.

“(IX) Bushmaster ACR.

“(X) Bushmaster Carbon 15.

“(XI) Bushmaster MOE series.

“(XII) Bushmaster XM15.

“(XIII) Chiappa Firearms MFour rifles.

“(XIV) Colt Match Target rifles.

“(XV) CORE Rifle Systems CORE15 rifles.

“(XVI) Daniel Defense M4A1 rifles.

“(XVII) Devil Dog Arms 15 Series rifles.

“(XVIII) Diamondback DB15 rifles.

“(XIX) DoubleStar AR rifles.

“(XX) DPMS Tactical rifles.

“(XXI) DSA Inc. ZM–4 Carbine.

“(XXII) Heckler & Koch MR556.

“(XXIII) High Standard HSA–15 rifles.

“(XXIV) Jesse James Nomad AR–15 rifle.

“(XXV) Knight’s Armament SR–15.

“(XXVI) Lancer L15 rifles.

“(XXVII) MGI Hydra Series rifles.

“(XXVIII) Mossberg MMR Tactical rifles.

“(XXIX) Noreen Firearms BN 36 rifle.

“(XXX) Olympic Arms.

“(XXXI) POF USA P415.

“(XXXII) Precision Firearms AR rifles.

“(XXXIII) Remington R–15 rifles.

“(XXXIV) Rhino Arms AR rifles.

“(XXXV) Rock River Arms LAR–15.

“(XXXVI) Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles and MCX rifles.

“(XXXVII) SKS with a detachable magazine.

“(XXXVIII) Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifles.

“(XXXIX) Stag Arms AR rifles.

“(XL) Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 and AR–556 rifles.

“(XLI) Uselton Arms Air-Lite M–4 rifles.

“(XLII) Windham Weaponry AR rifles.

“(XLIII) WMD Guns Big Beast.

“(XLIV) Yankee Hill Machine Company, Inc. YHM–15 rifles.

“(iii) Barrett M107A1.

“(iv) Barrett M82A1.

“(v) Beretta CX4 Storm.

“(vi) Calico Liberty Series.

“(vii) CETME Sporter.

“(viii) Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C.

“(ix) Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000.

“(x) Feather Industries AT–9.

“(xi) Galil Model AR and Model ARM.

“(xii) Hi-Point Carbine.

“(xiii) HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1, and HK USC.

“(xiv) IWI TAVOR, Galil ACE rifle.

“(xv) Kel-Tec Sub-2000, SU–16, and RFB.

“(xvi) SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, Sig Sauer SG 551, and SIG MCX.

“(xvii) Springfield Armory SAR–48.

“(xviii) Steyr AUG.

“(xix) Sturm, Ruger & Co. Mini-14 Tactical Rifle M–14/20CF.

“(xx) All Thompson rifles, including the following:

“(I) Thompson M1SB.

“(II) Thompson T1100D.

“(III) Thompson T150D.

“(IV) Thompson T1B.

“(V) Thompson T1B100D.

“(VI) Thompson T1B50D.

“(VII) Thompson T1BSB.

“(VIII) Thompson T1–C.

“(IX) Thompson T1D.

“(X) Thompson T1SB.

“(XI) Thompson T5.

“(XII) Thompson T5100D.

“(XIII) Thompson TM1.

“(XIV) Thompson TM1C.

“(xxi) UMAREX UZI rifle.

“(xxii) UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine.

“(xxiii) Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78.

“(xxiv) Vector Arms UZI Type.

“(xxv) Weaver Arms Nighthawk.

“(xxvi) Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.

“(I) All of the following pistols, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:

“(i) All AK–47 types, including the following:

“(I) Centurion 39 AK pistol.

“(II) CZ Scorpion pistol.

“(III) Draco AK–47 pistol.

“(IV) HCR AK–47 pistol.

“(V) IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol.

“(VI) Krinkov pistol.

“(VII) Mini Draco AK–47 pistol.

“(VIII) PAP M92 pistol.

“(IX) Yugo Krebs Krink pistol.

“(ii) All AR–15 types, including the following:

“(I) American Spirit AR–15 pistol.

“(II) Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol.

“(III) Chiappa Firearms M4 Pistol GEN II.

“(IV) CORE Rifle Systems CORE15 Roscoe pistol.

“(V) Daniel Defense MK18 pistol.

“(VI) DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol.

“(VII) DPMS AR–15 pistol.

“(VIII) Jesse James Nomad AR–15 pistol.

“(IX) Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol.

“(X) Osprey Armament MK–18 pistol.

“(XI) POF USA AR pistols.

“(XII) Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol.

“(XIII) Uselton Arms Air-Lite M–4 pistol.

“(iii) Calico Liberty pistols.

“(iv) DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol.

“(v) Encom MP–9 and MP–45.

“(vi) Heckler & Koch model SP–89 pistol.

“(vii) Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, TEC–9, and TEC–DC9.

“(viii) IWI Galil Ace pistol, UZI PRO pistol.

“(ix) Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol.

“(x) The following MAC types:

“(I) MAC–10.

“(II) MAC–11.

“(III) Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol.

“(IV) Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11.

“(V) Velocity Arms VMAC.

“(xi) Sig Sauer P556 pistol.

“(xii) Sites Spectre.

“(xiii) All Thompson types, including the following:

“(I) Thompson TA510D.

“(II) Thompson TA5.

“(xiv) All UZI types, including Micro-UZI.

“(J) All of the following shotguns, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:

“(i) DERYA Anakon MC–1980, Anakon SD12.

“(ii) Doruk Lethal shotguns.

“(iii) Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12.

“(iv) All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following:

“(I) IZHMASH Saiga 12.

“(II) IZHMASH Saiga 12S.

“(III) IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01.

“(IV) IZHMASH Saiga 12K.

“(V) IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030.

“(VI) IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika.

“(v) Streetsweeper.

“(vi) Striker 12.

“(K) All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms, including TNW M2HB and FN M2495.

“(L) Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraphs (A) through (K) can be assembled.

“(M) The frame or receiver of a rifle or shotgun described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (F), (G), (H), (J), or (K).
***********************************************************************************************************************************

Lest anyone think that I have padded this definition by including the list of guns banned by name, that is part of the legal definition and it's there for a reason. Probably more than one reason but primarily IMO, to prevent makers and current owners from simply deleting banned features, resulting in a once more legal semi-auto rifle.

So it's not just a ban on irrelevant features. It is a ban on guns which had irrelevant features, even after the features are removed.

I notice that the Ruger PC carbines are specifically exempted from the ban, as well as the Mini-14 and Mini-30, while the poor HiPoint Carbine is classified as forbidden military grade weaponry, apparently because it has a pistol grip. Unavoidable since it is a pistol grown into a rifle and houses its 10 round mag in the grip.