Question About Biden's "Assault Weapons" Ban

[Gun4Fun90]

During his campaign Joe Biden said he was going to ban "AR-14's" and "Assault Rifles" well I don't know what this ar-14 nonsense is but my ar-15 is my favorite gun.

As I live in Washington DC that already has an "assault weapons" ban, my ar-15 is currently configured in a compliant configuration.

So I was initially upset by the comments but not super worried about how it would affect me personally in the short term.

but out of curiosity I went to Bidens website to read up on his proposed ban and found this paragraph that has me a little concerned.

For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality

Source: https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/

This confused me as none of the features typically associated with "assault weapons" have anything to do with lethality at all, and none of the previous or existing laws trying to restrict ownership of ar-15's or ar-15 style weapons (cause lets be real how many people actually own an Armalight Rifle 15 branded colt) or "assault weapons" have ever addressed anything remotely associated with the guns lethality.

If he just plans to clone the Clinton era ban or the DC or California ban's I can wait that out for 4 years by just leaving my rifle in it's dc compliant configuration which normally I only need to do when I am home in DC and not when I am out of state at my cabin.

But this language indicated he may be planning to do something more than that. Maybe?

So has anyone seen anywhere where he indicated how he plans to actually define an assault weapon?

 

[SharpDog]

I believe they will try to close any loopholes this time. Good luck with your 'compliant configuration'.

I would start with the Feistein ban legislation. It will be at least that and likely more.

Senators Introduce Assault Weapons Ban - Press Releases - United States Senator for California (senate.gov)

 

[CapnMac]

This is an issue with a big bag of "ifs" in it.
POTUS can only sign legislation brought to him. That requires a compliant Congress, both House and Senate. And, then the houses both have to agree.

At present all we have in campaign rhetoric, which has been, historically, mercurial.

So, there are no answers here, no better than speculating on a meteorite impact. Purely speculative at best.

 

[bdickens]

One more time:

THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT MAKE LAWS.

 

[Armybrat]

Executive Orders can have the effect of legislation.

 

[DocRock]

Executive Orders can have the effect of legislation.

No, they cannot. An Executive Order, by definition, orders an Executive Branch agency to implement a law (which must be passed by Congress and signed by the President) in a certain way. It cannot have the effect of legislation because it has to instruct implementation of a given law or regulation (which must be based on law).

The President cannot, legally, sign an Executive Order that instructs the BATFE to prohibit the manufacture of AR15 pattern rifles, for example. There is no law on which such an implementation instruction could be legally based. He can certainly try to do so. The Order will then be subject to challenge in the Judiciary.

 

[bdickens]

The monumental amount of ignorance of basic Civics in these threads is just staggering.

 

[GEM]

That is true. Let me speak to the issue before the close. The Clinton AWB was based on a faulty understanding of firearms. It had basically cosmetic criteria that did not affect the efficacy of the AR platform guns. It also grandfathered older guns.

Research by criminologists, sponsored by the DOJ, found that the law had no effect on any know crime indices. The researchers stated that this was because:

1. The existing stocks of guns and higher capacity mags was adequate for a good bit of the demand.
2. The compliant new guns also filled the demand with equally efficacious guns. IIRC, hundreds of thousands of compliant ARs were sold after the law went into effect. Also, Mini-14s were untouched.

There were two views of this research, google Roth and Koper - I actually heard their presentation:

1. Gun folks said - see bans don't work - get rid of them. Whoppee.
2. Anti guns folks (the authors and the DOJ folks - whom I heard), said, well - then we need more draconian bans. Smarter anti gun folks proposed laws that were much stricter. No mags, no grandfathering. Implementation by states varies as to the provisions and grandfathering.

That's is how it stands. Biden's proposals, which would have to be passed by Congress - not EO, are from the strict school of thought.

Now, given the doom panic, remember:

1. It would have to pass the Senate and the filibuster exists. Might they get rid of that? Set your hair on fire but Biden and some Democratic Senators are against getting rid of the filibuster.
2. It would have to get past a positive 5/4 Scotus. Oh, they will pack the court. Set your hair on fire but even Democrats may not want to go that way. Note that the GOP could have down that for gun rights and didn't.

Now, having written - which I have done quite a few times - Closed.

Wait, till it happens and then we discuss.

PS - edited to fix typos that occurred because my wife told to get off the computer because we had to go!