What makes an AR-15 an AR-15?

[USAF_Vet]

I know the likelihood of another AWB is slim, but I fear that if another one does come to pass, guns won't be banned based on silly features (bayonet lugs) but by name.

So my question is: What makes an AR-15 an AR-15?
As I understand it, the AR-15 is one model of rifle made by the Armalight company and is specific to that rifle.

So while we would probably all consider the S&W M&P 15 an AR-15, by brand association it is not.

While the term AR-15 has come to encompass all makes and models that have a similar appearance, are they, by rule of law, considered as such?

If a hypothetical AWB does outright ban the AR-15, what would the language have to be in order to ban the similar styles rifles of other manufacturers?

(This naturally would include the AK variants as well, if the AWB banned the AK-47).

I guess the gist of this is would semantics apply? "No, I don't own an AR-15, I own a DPMS DCM-16 upper resting on an ATI Omni lower." By all appearances my rifle looks and functions like an AR-15, but by virtue of nomenclature, it is not.

 

[holdencm9]

Well, they could make some silly rule like "any model designation of 'AR' stamped on the receiver makes it an AR. Then my PSA's would all be good because they say "PA-15" on the side .

 

[~Abstract~]

...I fear that if another one does come to pass, guns won't be banned based on silly features (bayonet lugs) but by name...

Why?

That's EXACTLY how they were segregated the last time.

...By all appearances my rifle looks and functions like an AR-15, but by virtue of nomenclature, it is not...

Which is precisely why they don't create bans solely based on name (by and large)...but by looks and functions.
(There are exceptions to this...MAC-10 etc...but the last AWB banned evil features...and I would assume that's how it would happen, were it to happen again.)

 

[USAF_Vet]

Why?

That's EXACTLY how they were segregated the last time.







Which is precisely why they don't create bans solely based on name (by and large)...but by looks and functions.
(There are exceptions to this...MAC-10 etc...but the last AWB banned evil features...and I would assume that's how it would happen, were it to happen again.)

Why? Because even the anti gun groups are smart enough to realize just how ineffective the 'feature' ban really was. That's how they did it last time and last time failed. It takes a special kind of stupid to think that it would work the next time doing the same thing.


Ah, you edited mid post.

Anyway, they would have to get much more specific (or much more broad) in their wording, which might make for some unintended consequences. By banning functions and features, one could ban the AR-15 and its variants, but also by virtue of the wording, ban the Ruger 10/22, or the Benelli M4. Not that I think they would be upset about that in the least.

 

[~Abstract~]

What would stop them from taking a list of all "AR-15 variants" and banning them by name?

If they understand the "feature" ban was ineffective...why bother banning guns with those features?


They're gonna do what they wanna do.

I don't think they wanna do that (anymore) though.

 

[~Abstract~]

Surely it TAKES a special kind of stupid to think that if a feature ban is ineffective...a named ban would actually work.

There are much easier ways around names than features.

 

[USAF_Vet]

I mentioned a named ban specifically because that is how the antis have been talking. Obama specifically mentioned the AK-47 as something to ban when the topic came up in the second debate.

We're not dealing with gun savvy folks here, bu they know enough to realize their feature ban didn't work. It's not too much of a stretch to think they might attempt a name ban that would be equally ineffective. I'm just wondering how they might try to get around certain obstacles when writing a new proposal.

 

[MIL-DOT]

I've long since learned that this is the wrong place to try and talk reason on this subject, but the sad fact is that the chance of another AWB isn't "slim" at all, it's inevitable. We ARE going the same route as Britain and Australia, and it ain't gonna be a hundred years from now,either.Wait and see.
As to the Op's question, the anti's are hip to the ways we get around their stupid bans ( thumbhole stocks instead of pistol grips,converted Saigas,etc.) and aren't leaving the same loop-holes next time around.
They're simply going to ban whatever they deem "hi-capacity" ,detachable magazines, and the weapons that accept them. Prior to this, we'll likely see (presumably) gradual moves for registration, elimination of private sales, huge taxes, etc. Also, if the SCOTUS changes further to the left, well see huge changes from there.
If Obammy wins next week, we may well see him begin some moves through exectutive orders ( at the very least, halting certain imports).
But like it or not, there are huge storm clouds on the horizon, and you can ackowledge the inevitable, are you can bury your head in the sand and insist, "Not in THIS country, they won't," all the while, there are people sitting in jail, in this country, right this minute,because they simply drove through the wrong state with the wrong gun in their car. Not in this country, my @$$.

 

[Bobson]

MIL-DOT, I agree with you completely. Too many people seem to believe sticking their heads in the sand saying it wont happen makes that illusion our reality. Its just a matter of time, and whether Obama is going to start the ban or not, he certainly isn't helping anything - which means he is making things worse for us.

 

[happygeek]

We're not dealing with gun savvy folks here, bu they know enough to realize their feature ban didn't work. It's not too much of a stretch to think they might attempt a name ban that would be equally ineffective. I'm just wondering how they might try to get around certain obstacles when writing a new proposal.

Easy, the VPC has advocated all along giving the ATF pre-market approval power for all new firearms. The ATF already does this for would-be imports, deeming them 'sporting' or 'non-sporting', the 'non-sporting' ones being disallowed from being imported due to the 68 GCA.

 

[hentown]

AS stupid as the antis are, they're not stupid enough to try to ban anything by name. That's why they banned by features the last time, and that's what they'll have to do, if they ever ban ARs again.

 

[meanmrmustard]

They're too busy with foreign affairs, economic ruin, Sandy, and bashing each other to care about guns right now.

My heart goes out to those affected by Hurricane Sandy. You're in my thoughts.

 

[benEzra]

In my opinion a new ban is exceedingly unlikely. Having said that, if one were to be introduced, it would probably be along the lines of S.1431/H.R.2038, which is the wording the prohibitionists have been introducing over and over since 2004 or so.

Basically, it would ban (and confiscate upon the death of the owner) all autoloading rifles with detachable magazines and handgrips that stick out, all shotguns with detachable magazines, and all civilian magazines holding more than 10 rounds (.22 rimfire tubular mags excepted), as I recall. I seem to recall it also banned parts, and of course included a list of banned names, and I believe it may have authorized the AG to add names to the list. But if you google S.1431 (2004) you should find it.

 

[JustinJ]

I mentioned a named ban specifically because that is how the antis have been talking. Obama specifically mentioned the AK-47 as something to ban when the topic came up in the second debate.

He mentioned AK because it is the common term applied to guns of that configuration. If they banned guns by name what would stop manufacturers from simply changing the name of their guns? If a ban were to happen it certainly would not happen by name.

 

[MachIVshooter]

As I understand it, the AR-15 is one model of rifle made by the Armalight company and is specific to that rifle.

Originally, the rights to the trademark AR-15 belonged to Armalite, Division of Fairchild Aircraft and then Armalite, Inc. I. But Armalite sold the Rights to Colt; Only Colt can make the AR-15. Everyone else's is an AR-pattern rifle, even Armalite, Inc. II (Theirs is the M15).

So while we would probably all consider the S&W M&P 15 an AR-15, by brand association it is not.

Correct.

While the term AR-15 has come to encompass all makes and models that have a similar appearance, are they, by rule of law, considered as such?

Depends on the language of the law.

If a hypothetical AWB does outright ban the AR-15, what would the language have to be in order to ban the similar styles rifles of other manufacturers?

The '94 ban called out the Colt AR-15 specifically, then banned a list of features common to the AR. Of course, manufacturers simply ditched the bayonet lugs and telescoping stocks and continued to manufacture and sell the guns.

If (and it's a really big if) we were to see another AWB, you can bet it will be more encompassing. That said, I'd bet conservatively that there are more than 100 times as many ARs (complete rifles and lowers) out there in 2012 as there were in 1994, so banning them would be pretty sillly. I came of age in the middle of the ban, I'm 31 now, and I personally own five ARs and a pile of magazines. Out of the entire gun-owning crowd I associate with, I can only think of a couple folks who don't own at least one AR.

 

[Jeremy2171]

When Congress fails....lame duck presidents can use executive orders...

"O" stated if he get a 2nd term he WILL go for another ban....

 

[JustinJ]

When Congress fails....lame duck presidents can use executive orders...

While the use of executive orders has expanded to alarming levels, more so 12 to 4 years ago than in the last 4 years, it is extremely unlikely that an AWB would even be attempted by one much less upheld. I don't believe that is a realistic concern.

Also, a president need not be a lame duck to issue an executive order.

 

[adelbridge]

hedge your bets and buy pre-re-ban serial number receivers now. the last ban grandfathered in anything before 1994 and if it happens again MAYBE it will be legal to own older guns

 

[JustinJ]

hedge your bets and buy pre-re-ban serial number receivers now. the last ban grandfathered in anything before 1994 and if it happens again MAYBE it will be legal to own older guns

Um, wouldn't all receivers available now and up to a hypothetical new AWB be "pre-ban"?

 

[Ken451]

Surely it TAKES a special kind of stupid to think that if a feature ban is ineffective...a named ban would actually work.

Well our politicians have shown that they have "a special kind of stupid". I mean, WHAT did they expect to accomplish by banning Chinese (but not Russian) SKSs with bayonet lugs (but not those without the lugs)?????

How many bank robberies, drive by shootings, or mass shootings were done with bayonets???

There is absolutely no logic with the gun banners.

Ken

 

[Cal-gun Fan]

When Congress fails....lame duck presidents can use executive orders...

"O" stated if he get a 2nd term he WILL go for another ban....

No, he didn't. That's false.

EDIT: Well, mostly false. He stated he was interested in "seeing if we can get an assault weapon ban reintroduced". Thats far from stating he "Will go for a second ban". And even if he did-remember-we have a majority republican congress, and the last time that any type of gun control was passed, the Democrats lost BIG TIME in the following election. I don't think we need to be too paranoid about an AWB-and that is largely due to the NRA, of which we should all be members

 

[Warp]

In my opinion a new ban is exceedingly unlikely.

Agreed.

 

[leadcounsel]

I agree with Mil dot. Another ban is inevitable unless we vote these morons out onto their butts.

There are honest good people in prison for silly rule breaking that are simply unconsitutitional and didn't harm anyone.

 

[leadcounsel]

President Obama, October 2012:

So my belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we've already got, make sure that we're keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We've done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we've got more to do when it comes to enforcement.

But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap hand guns.

This is exactly the words the President said in the 2nd Debate.

Additionally, his White House website has frequently stated that they support the AWB and want to reintroduce it.

If he wins, you can BET that a ban on various guns WILL be introduced and probably passed.

 

[Ignition Override]

Just before I saw "Cal-gun Fan's" comments about politicians, I was expecting to have already seen something about Al Gore's loss of an election, often attributed to his comments about an "AWB".

Gun owners claim that it was probably because of Gore's comments about some sort of "AWB".

1) If 'that party' enacts another ban on certain 'sport/utility' guns or specific evil features, couldn't this easily determine which party has a majority in either the House or Senate, or do they assume that it would only
give Them a better majority?

2) And on a side note, is a planned bill (that would pass) likely to handicap or stop the CMP's future sale of Garands, or access to any more foreign crates of them shipped via the DOD? My only M-1 is lonely for a mate, though most of us are well aware that foreign supplies available to the DOD might have dried up.