While all of us posting here seem to understand fully the hopolophobe's definition of assault weapons , there are a couple of subtle notation from the 1994 ban--
1. Because of the language in that ban, arguably any firearm that accepts a magazine with a capacity of greater than ten rounds contstitutes an assault weapon.
If you think about that for a minute--well that category now includes any semiauto pistol for which a standard-or optional- capacity magazine exceeds ten rounds.
2. The other semiautos, long or short, fall under the "junk gun" definitions because of the use of polymers.
IMO, the problems involved are not based on definitions; as pointed out by benEzra (and myself, earlier), these bills are to codify legal definitions of firearms, not to expand the standard lexicon of firearms. Gunnies that use the term "assault weapon" do that--that is, they lend credibility to the term simply treating it as a "real" definition, not a political one.
For the topic here, the issue not what what kind of definitions are in the proposed legislation; the real issue is whether or not such legislation expends too much political capital at the time it is introduced.
In short, give the Majority some time to get a roll on, and get the people thanking them--then we'll see the sweeping ban rolled out.
Jim H.
