An effective AWB by Exec Order?

[SYFROYH]

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.

[PTWB]

1. I don't think it will work.

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]

3. Ok, good constructive criticism of the idea.

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]

6. I don't think so.

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]

7. I wonder how StreetSweepers met the DD designation.

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

Thanks for the discussion.

[PTWB]

8. It's because their bore is over .5 and the ATF says they have no sporting purpose.

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

[yagotme]

9. Shotguns are exempt from the .5" definition,

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

[FBaggins]

2. I don't think that's how TFG's executive order worked

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]

4. And it remains to be seen if the ban will survive

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.

[FBaggins]

5. Indeed. The 5th circuit just tossed a panel ruling upholding the ban

They're going to hear it en-banc.