A different way of defining what an assault weapon is
Last edited Tue Oct 10, 2017, 07:57 PM - Edit history (2)
Any semi-automatic weapon that fires a rimless, semi-rimmed, or rebated rim center-fire cartridge that has a bullet of less then 6.5mm in diameter or a metal based case length of less then 50.8mm or caseless ammunition of any dimension or any rimless, semi-rimmed or rebated Polymer-cased center-fire cartridge of any dimension.
The appearance of the gun has nothing to do with the above definition. The gun could look like a hunting rifle or it could look like something out of a Hollywood war movie. The gun could have a bayonet lug, grenade launcher, flash suppressor, pistol grip or folding stock and it might not be an assault weapon as defined by above. Or it could. It all depends on the action of the gun and the cartridge it fires.
Such a definition keeps things simple. All one has to do is first determine if the gun is a semi-automatic, see if the cartridge it is loaded with is a center-fire round and then measure the cartridge. No fuss. No muss.
If one has an issue with including semi-automatic handguns in the above, then one could refine it further by saying an assault weapon is a semi-automatic firearm that has a barrel length of 16" or longer and fires a rimless, semi-rimmed, or rebated rim center-fire cartridge that has a bullet of less then 6.5mm in diameter or a case length of less then 50.8mm.
A semi-automatic, or self-loading, firearm is a weapon that performs all steps necessary to prepare the weapon to fire again after firing—assuming cartridges remain in the weapon's feed device or magazine. By pulling the trigger and firing, the gun uses the energy of the fired cartridge to cycle the action of the firearm to eject the spent case and advance the next available cartridge into position which allows another shot to be fired when the trigger is pulled again.
A center-fire cartridge is a cartridge with a primer located in the center of the cartridge case head.
"The rimmed cartridge is the oldest of the types and has a rim that is significantly larger in diameter than the base of the cartridge. "
"On a rimless case, the rim is the same diameter as the base of the case; it is known as an extractor groove."
"On a semi-rimmed case the rim projects slightly beyond the base of the case, though not as much as a rimmed cartridge."
"Rebated rim cartridges have a rim that is significantly smaller in diameter than the base of the case, serving only for extraction."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rim_%28firearms%29
Rimmed cartridges do not have an extractor groove.
According to the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI), a cartridge is "a single round of ammunition consisting of the case, primer and propellant with or without one or more projectiles." Only the projectile portion is the bullet.
The case length of a 7.62x39mm cartridge is about 38.7mm
Polymer-cased ammunition (or PCA) is the concept applied to define the alternative to use polymer-based casings instead of metal-based (brass, aluminum or steel mainly) in the manufacturing of ammunition.
Caseless ammunition is a type of small arms ammunition that eliminates the cartridge case that typically holds the primer, propellant, and projectile together as a unit.
Steps to determine if a firearm is an assault weapon
1. If the firearm is a semi-automatic, proceed to step 2.
2. If the barrel of the firearm is 16" or longer, proceed to step 3.
3. Examine the ammunition the firearm is designed to fire or is currently loaded with or has been modified to fire. Proceed to step 4 if any of the following conditions are met:
a. The ammunition is a center fire rimless, semi-rimmed or rebated rim cartridge with a bullet diameter of less then 6.5mm
or
b. The center fire cartridge case is less then then 50.8mm long
or
c. the ammunition is a caseless cartridge of any dimension
or
d. the cartridge is a Polymer-cased ammunition of any dimension
4. The gun in question is an assault weapon.
Note: I first posted this back in 2012
= new reply since forum marked as read
Response to Kaleva (Original post)
Even if they're not banned by congress or unilaterally ruled to be conversion devices by the ATF, it's not like they're new on the block either. They've been around for awhile and there's a reason they're not more popular. They're ugly, goofy, and generally pretty shitty.
Owning things like arm braces and bump stocks is lame in general... let the neck-beards have them.
Every time someone with a registered machineguns or SBRs meets brace and bumpski owners:
There's nothing innately unconstitutional with categorizing a group of guns and giving them a name "Assault Weapon" regardless of how "over inclusive" some might find the definition. It's just an exercise in logistics and legal definition.
Nor did I advocate banning anything. I simply suggested that Assault Weapons be held under the purview of the NFA and the future transfer of such items be made in accordance with ATF/NFA regulations. No one is banning or confiscating ANYTHING. Assault weapons already owned can be grandfathered in with tax-exempt registrations, and they can continued being owned and used all the same. And if someone wants to sell an assault weapon then they can do so under the transfer procedure set forth by the ATF/NFA. It's a system already in place with well understood regulations in the gun community. And for sellers or purchasers of otherwise assault weapons that do not want to deal with added ATF/NFA regulations, they can have the rifles' magazines made integral to the existing firearm via an ATF approved method. This address samples already on the market without confiscation or costly reimbursement while giving the current owners of such weapons a choice of legally continuing possession as NFA Assault Rifle... or converting the weapon to a Non-Assault Rifle.
As far as development of new feeding methods, Necessity is the mother of all invention. If a new feeding device is truly needed, I'm sure one will be created eventually. And if it can be marketed at a low enough price with enough sold to the extent of creating a public safety issue needing addressed... Well then, as they say, necessity is the mother of invention. And I'm sure new legislation can be invented. 
First, I'd define what an assault rifle is as a selective-fire rifle (meaning machine gun) that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. As I would include full auto "pistols" in the above definition if they use an intermediate cartridge but do not meet the legal definition of rifle as they would still be lumped in the category of machine guns, regardless of length.
As for assault weapon, that would be any kind of weapon you could assault someone with.
What you are really asking for is how I would define the category of semi-auto weapons typically considered most dangerous. Unfortunately I don't think that is possible as no matter where I draw the line on dimensions, capacity or any other factor, it could still be avoided by a slight change.
For example, you talked about having a fixed magazine, we that didn't work in California as it was easily worked around by the Bullet Button. Change the law to outlaw the Bullet Button, the next day the Bullet Button Reloaded was available.
Even if you made it so the magazine didn't come out, you would still need an arbitrary magazine limit or you would get something like this...
]
That is a helical rotary magazine that holds 100 rounds.
Look at New York. There they passed an AW ban but since that is just a made up media term and can't really be defined, it didn't take long for New York AW ban compliant guns to make it back into the market (though they look a bit weird).
While I don't like to give my personal opinion, I think the bottom line is either you ban everything or nothing as everything else is just useless regulation and a waste of time that only causes more gun sales and more gun profits as people buy up stuff before it is banned then buy the new stuff to get around the ban.
Want to have a heart attack? Check out this link.
http://www.store.silencerco.com/products/maxim-50]
That is a 50 caliber rifle with built in silencer but guess what, it is available by mail with no paperwork and no background check. (Note: buying a gun over the internet still requires it be sent to a local dealer who then does the paperwork and background check)
How is it possible the gun linked above is totally unrestricted? Well for starters, it isn't a gun. Under the law, guns are only modern weapons and that gun is a muzzle loader and counts as an antique. Also, the silencer isn't legally a silencer either as silencers can be mounted on guns while a silencer mounted on anything else is just a muffler, like on your car. As that muzzle loader isn't a gun and the silencer can't be removed as it is welded on, then it isn't a silencer. Since it isn't a gun or a silencer, then it is legal to sell like a hammer or any other tool.
Trying to define AW is like squeezing a balloon. You won't make the balloon smaller, it just puffs out where you aren't pressing.
I believe the reason is that the term itself is used principally used to disparage modern rifles (and by association their owners) and to ban their use and possession.
I see no advantage in having a useful and workable definition for rifles of modern design using center fire ammo under 6.5 mm diameter.
I think accepting your definition means that an AWB would not affect AR pattern rifle in 7.62 or .338. For this reason I don't think the pro-regulation folk will accept it. Language has a purpose. Often the meaning of a term changes with time and is influenced by connotative use. For example, the term "dope" has come to mean "a drug taken illegally for recreational purposes, especially marijuana or heroin." When the drug "control" laws were passed, this term was used to broad-brush all the "drugs" except tobacco and alcohol. We're changing that now after dozens of years and an uncountable number of lives destroyed and money spent imprisoning those that used pot, not to mention the money earned by actual criminals in dealing and smuggling drugs.
IMNSHO many pro-regulation folk want to make a statement that the tools used by some mass shooters are indicative of mental or emotional compromise on the part of any owner. I have no interest in legitimizing a useless term to which they cling. Much like "nose bagger" was a disparaging term, I believe assault weapon is being pushed as a negative description. I haven't seen any positive uses for it. While many negative terms exist already (like war criminal) I am unconvinced we need this new one. YMMV
You've done a good job of carefully nailing down that one.
I have some basic objections. From the pro-RKBA side, I don't see how anyone would find it useful to say, "I need to go to the gun store and get a new assault weapon." I also can't imagine a store having an "ASSAULT WEAPON SALE". From the pro-regulation side, I don't see those folks accepting that certain rifles, which they would like to ban from sale, not being allowed to be termed "assault weapons". (Semi-auto AK pattern rifles take 7.62 x 39 IIRC.) From the hunting side, as you point out, it's too small for any sizeable game, only varmint sized animals.
I don't think you definition is lacking in anything inherently, it just doesn't seem useful that any group would want to incorporate the term as you define it in their conversation or advertising.
But I do appreciate the compulsive need to have a precise definition. 
But I thought it was a interesting exercise to engage in. And I thought and still believe it accomplishes a number of things.
1) There's no easy way to get around it unless one changes the action of the rifle/carbine or the dimensions of the cartridge the rifle/carbine fires.
2) Appearance of the gun or what accessories the gun has is irrelevant.
3) Magazine capacity, or what type of magazine the gun uses, is irrelevant.
4) Handguns are not affected by this.
5) Semi-automatics that fire rimfire cartridges are not affected.
6) Semiautomatic rifles/carbines that fire ammunition popular with hunters and long range target shooters are not affected.
7) Semiautomatic shotguns, because they fire shells and not cartridges, are not affected by this.
Just for giggles though, I may edit my OP and e-mail it to my senators and representative.
