To revisit the “Assault Weapons” Ban:
1. The AR-15 was specifically banned for ten years, so the rifle model used in the shooting was illegal from 1984 to 2004. During that time period, this nutcase would have had to choose a rifle with a different name.
2. Also banned were semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)
In other words, a near clone weapon with exactly the same capabilities as the rifle used in this shooting would have been legal even under the “assault weapons” ban.
3. Also banned were semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
* A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm
I have seen no indication that the pistols purchased or in particular the one used would have violated this part of the ban.
4. Also banned were semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
* Detachable magazine
Again, I see no indication that his shotgun was covered by the ban.
My question: exactly what real purpose do liberals claim the Assault Weapons Ban would serve that liberals are frothing at the mouth to get it reinstated, or is this just a first step toward their dream of gun grabbing with nothing beyond emotion to justify it?
Reminds me of the scene in Pleasantville where the mayor lists the colors that may not be used when painting.