The Washington Examiner is hazy on the DOA House assault weapons ban but here we go:
House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons
Misleading - the bill prohibits the sale of some cosmetically-enhanced SA weapons.
The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.
Again, misleading. It would be honest and clarifying if the Dems would just try to ban SA rifles and pistols. It would surely lead to staggering Dem losses across rural Blue New England and doubtless elsewhere and we could all see where the nation stands.
So yeah, but no - the actual text of the bill revives the 2013 Feinstein effort, which emphasized detachable magazines and at least one "military" feature. By way of contrast, the 1994 bill disallowed more than two features, and specifically cited bayonet mounts, which may not have been PR genius.
In any case, here is the House, 2018:
This has been hashed and rehashed but for what might be the last time - can some of the experts jog my memory and explain to me the possible enhanced lethality contributed by any of these cosmetic features?
I get limiting magazine capacity as a real safety issue. Obviously, one wonders about enforceability since there are plenty in circulation and a decent machinist could make more.
Let's also note that plenty of mass shootings would not have had a different outcome. For example at Va Tech (IIRC and I bet I do) the shooter used handguns with ten and fifteen round magazines; the commission concluded a magazine limit of ten would not have saved lives.
I can see where a folding or collapsible stock might aid concealment, although I can't recall a shooting where concealment was emphasized as a factor. I also read in some hunting magazine (NOT the kind of magazine we are limiting here!) that the collapsible/adjustable stock makes a rifle easy to share amongst family members of differing sizes - dad and child, hubby and wife., whatever. Or as a weapon of war!
I feel confident that banning grenade launcher mounts won't be saving lives, but do correct me as appropriate.
As to the barrel shrouds and forward grips my guess as to the added danger is that a shooter won't need to worry about grabbing a hot barrel and can re-aim the gun in a very Rambo, shoot-from-the hip fashion (Avoidance of burned hands get mentioned in the 1994 bill).
Is that a plausible thought process, or do those barrel shrouds just look too much like something from a Schwarzenegger film or Miami Vice? Couldn't a shooter who has taken the time to get a gas mask, tactical vest and multiple magazines remember to pick up a glove for his non-shooting hand? Or would that make re-loading magazines too cumbersome?
Last thought - damn, the phone rang and now I'm hoping that last thought was no big deal. Huh...