The Firearm Blog had information about the AR57 earlier in the year, here is an update.  This AR57 is fully suppressed:

Sneak peek of intergrally suppressed AR57

The AR Five Seven is a one piece 5.7×28mm upper that attaches to a AR-15 lower and uses the 50 round FN P90 magazines. 57 Center posted a few photos of their new integrally suppressed AR57 model:

How cool is that!

An integral suppressor encompasses the barrel which is ported at various strategic points to bleed off gas. The advantage is that the suppressor does not extend much further than the muzzle, if at all, and its weight is distributed along the barrel instead of in front of the muzzle.

More

Related posts

• Assault Weapons Education (0)
• Assault Weapons Ban Confusion (0)
• Thank You for Panic Buying… (0)
• Revised “District of Columbia Personal Protection Act” Introduced (0)
• Patrick Murphy Signs on to National Concealed Carry (0)

The NSSF has put together a great fact sheet on Assault Weapons.  The fact sheet debunks many of the liberal myths that have been floating around since the 1990s. 

Attention liberals…find a friend that can read this to you.  You may learn something.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON SO-CALLED ‘ASSAULT WEAPONS’

What has erroneously been termed an “assault weapon” is a semi-automatic firearm that fires just one bullet with each pull of the trigger (versus a fully automatic firearm — machine gun -

AR-15 (not an assult weapon)

- which continues to shoot until the trigger is released). Specifically, legislation has incorrectly defined an “assault weapon” as a semi-automatic firearm that can accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following cosmetic features (it is these cosmetic features that distinguish the firearm from other “non-assault weapons.”):

• A folding or telescoping stock
• A pistol grip
• A bayonet mount
• A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
• A grenade launcher

None of these features figure into the criminal misuse of firearms, regardless of their appearance.

SEPARATING FACT FROM FICTION

There is a tremendous amount of misinformation surrounding the issue of so-called “assault weapons.” Below are several of the more misleading allegations related to these firearms followed by corresponding statements of fact:

Claim: A commercially-sold “assault weapon” is a machine gun and has no place in civilian hands.

Fact: A so-called “assault weapon” is NOT a machine gun or automatic firearm. Automatic firearms were severely restricted from civilian ownership under the 1934 National Firearms Act. A so-called “assault weapon” is functionally no different than any other “legal” firearm. These guns fire in the same manner as any other semi-automatic firearm (one shot per trigger pull – no spray firing), they shoot the same ammunition as other guns of the same caliber and are no more powerful. What differentiates a so-called “assault weapon” from other guns is cosmetic; for example, the type of stock on the gun, which makes the conventionally operating firearm look more like a military firearm.

The gun-ban lobby understands that the confusion over what is and what is not an “assault weapon” only benefits them. Consider this statement from Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center:

“The public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is presumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

Claim: Semi-automatic “assault weapons” are high-powered guns that are meant for war.

Fact: So-called “Assault weapons” are more often than not less powerful than other hunting rifles. The term “assault weapon” was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie. These guns are used for many activities. In fact, the Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A, both labeled “assault weapons,” are the rifles most often used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. And their cartridges are standard hunting calibers, useful for game up to and including deer.

Claim: The 1994 “assault weapons ban” helped to reduce violent crime.

Fact: A recent comprehensive study by the Centers for Disease Control — hardly a pro-gun entity — looked at the full panoply of gun control measures — including the “assault weapons ban” — and concluded that none could be proven to reduce crime. Homicide statistics demonstrate that the miniscule use of so-called “assault weapons” in crime (less than 1 percent) continued to decrease after the ten-year ban expired in 2004 and their manufacturing and sales resumed.

Another study, commissioned by Congress, found “the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.”

The report also noted that so-called “assault weapons” were “rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”

Conclusion:

Crime control legislation should be based upon solid facts, not emotions, cosmetics or appearance. Semi-automatic firearms are now the most popular type of firearm in America and are used for a wide variety of legitimate sporting purposes, including hunting, small game control, target shooting and personal defense. They should not be banned.

Related posts

• Assault Weapons Ban Confusion (0)
• NRA Statement on New DC Gun Bill (0)
• About (0)
• Sneak peek of intergrally suppressed AR57 (0)
• Revised “District of Columbia Personal Protection Act” Introduced (0)

I decided to investigate this confusion and came to the found the following:

The EXPIRED (1994-Sept 2004 enforcement period) assault weapons ban (officially know as, Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) had the following restrictions:

The Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 specifically prohibited manufacture and sale of:

• Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models)
• Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil
• Beretta Ar70 (SC-70)
• Colt AR-15
• Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC
• SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12
• Steyr AUG
• INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22
• revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12

In addition, the bill banned any semi-automatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and that also has at least two of the following characteristics:

• a folding or telescoping stock
• a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
• a bayonet mount
• a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
• a grenade launcher;

The bill banned any semi-automatic pistol that can accept a detachable magazine that also has at least two of the following characteristics:

• an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip
• a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer
• a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the
• nontrigger hand without being burned
• a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded;
• a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm
• Finally, the bill banned any semi-automatic shotgun has at least two of the following characteristics:
• a folding or telescoping stock
• a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
• a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds
• an ability to accept a detachable magazine

It should be noted although the Federal ban expired in September 2004, Certain states have maintained restrictions on “assault” type weapons.

Info from NRA (Pre-Heller):

“Assault weapons” are prohibited in Connecticut, New Jersey and New York. Some local jurisdictions in Ohio also ban “assault weapons.” Hawaii prohibits “assault pistols.” California bans “assault weapons”, .50BMG caliber firearms, some .50 caliber ammunition and “unsafe handguns.” Illinois: Chicago, Evanston, Oak Park, Morton Grove, Winnetka, Wilmette, and Highland Park prohibit handguns; some cities prohibit other kinds of firearms. Maryland prohibits “assault pistols”; the sale or manufacture of any handgun manufactured after Jan. 1, 1985, that does not appear on the Handgun Roster; and the sale of any handgun manufactured after January 1, 2003 that is not equipped with an “integrated mechanical safety device.” Massachusetts: It is unlawful to sell, transfer or possess “any assault weapon or large capacity feeding device” [more than 10 rounds] that was not legally possessed on September 13, 1994 and the sale of handguns not on the Firearms Roster. The City of Boston has a separate “assault weapons” law. The District of Columbia prohibits new acquisition of handguns and any semi-automatic firearm capable of using a detachable ammunition magazine of more than 12 rounds capacity and any handgun not registered after February 5, 1977. Virginia prohibits “Street Sweeper” shotguns. (With respect to some of these laws and ordinances, individuals may retain prohibited firearms owned previously, with certain restrictions.) The sunset of the federal assault weapons ban does not affect the validity of state and local “assault weapons” bans.

The states and cities that maintained parts of the ban have caused this ban to live on. Thus the root of the pre-ban / post-ban confusion.   Luckily this ban is only in certain geographic areas which have been anti-gun for some time.  Perhaps with some more time and decisions out of the Supreme Court, we can get back to normal.

Related posts

• Revised “District of Columbia Personal Protection Act” Introduced (0)
• NRA Statement on New DC Gun Bill (0)
• Assault Weapons Education (0)
• Ammunition Accountability (2)
• Another one Bites the Dust (0)

After reading this update from NRA-ILA Site Updates I am wondering why we need a House Resolution to enforce the intentions of the Supreme Court.  For years we have heard about the judicial precedence and how the court’s rulings revise laws (aka Legislating from the Bench).  Why then must we pass a law when the highest court in the land has made a decision? 

Revised “District of Columbia Personal Protection Act” Introduced

Thursday, July 31, 2008

This legislation (H.R. 6691) is necessary to enforce the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, by repealing the District’s recently enacted unconstitutional restrictions on its residents’ right to keep and bear arms. 1. Repeal D.C. Ban on Semiautomatic Pistols In Heller, the Court held that “Handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid”. Semiautomatic pistols are the most commonly owned handguns in the United States (75 percent of the handguns sold in the past 20 years are semiautomatics), and are therefore “the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home”. The new D.C. City Council ordinance continues the 30-year old ban on semiautomatic pistols, which clearly violates the Heller decision. This bill repeals D.C.’s ban on semiautomatic pistols in order to comply with Heller. 2. Restore Right of Self-Defense in the Home In Heller, the Court held that “the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is therefore unconstitutional.” The D.C. ordinance provides that trigger locks may only be removed and firearms made operable if there is an “immediate” threat of danger. Once a threat is “immediate”, however, there is no time to remove a trigger lock or assemble a firearm. This clearly violates the Heller decision. This bill repeals D.C.’s requirement that firearms be disassembled or secured with a trigger lock in the home. 3. Repeal Registration Requirement The D.C. ordinance maintains an extremely burdensome registration process for handguns and ammunition, requiring: multiple visits to police headquarters; ballistics testing; passing a written test on D.C. gun laws; fingerprinting; and limiting registration to one handgun per 90 days. Each of these must be met before D.C. residents are allowed to legally own a handgun. This bill repeals the current D.C. registration system, which is unduly burdensome and serves as a vehicle for even more onerous restrictions. 4. Allow D.C. Residents to Purchase Handguns Federal law prohibits the purchase of a handgun outside of a person’s state of residence. There are currently no firearms dealers in the District of Columbia, nor are there likely to be in the near future. Therefore, D.C. residents are allowed under the Heller decision to possess handguns, but are prohibited by federal law from purchasing handguns. This bill creates an exemption to the federal ban on interstate handgun sales by allowing D.C. residents to purchase handguns in Virginia and Maryland.

Related posts

• NRA Statement on New DC Gun Bill (0)
• Assault Weapons Ban Confusion (0)
• Heller yeah… (0)
• Illegal? (0)
• New DC Gun Law (0)

Here is a great post from Snowflakes in Hell

Firearms

NRA Statement on New DC Gun Bill

As a follow up to the news that NRA managed to hammer out a deal with Congress to stop the gun registration shenanigans by Mayor Fenty and the DC Council, they have a released this statement:

Today, in a bi-partisan effort, Congressman Travis Childers, Congressmen John Dingell, John Tanner, Mike Ross and Mark Souder, along with 47 of their colleagues, introduced the Second Amendment Enforcement Act. This critical legislation overturns D.C.’s recently enacted emergency laws that continue to defy the recent Supreme Court ruling by continuing to restrict District of Columbia residents’ right to self-defense. This National Rifle Association-backed bill is needed to enforce the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.

On June 26, the U. S. Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that “the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” The Supreme Court clearly stated that handguns are constitutionally-protected arms because they are commonly used, are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, are considered by the American people to be the quintessential self-defense weapon, are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home and are the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of home and family.

The Second Amendment Enforcement Act will:

* Repeal the District’s ban on semi-automatic handguns. Semi-automatic pistols have been the most commonly purchased handguns in the United States over the last 20 years, and therefore a ban on those firearms is unconstitutional as decided by Heller;

* Restore the right of self-defense by repealing the requirement that firearms be disassembled or secured with a trigger lock in the home;

* Repeal the current D.C. registration system that requires multiple visits to police headquarters; ballistics testing; passing a written test on D.C. gun laws; fingerprinting; and limiting registration to one handgun per 90 days. The current system is unduly burdensome and serves as a vehicle for even more onerous restrictions; and

* Create a limited exemption to the federal ban on interstate handgun sales by allowing D.C. residents to purchase handguns in Virginia and Maryland. Currently there are no firearms dealers in the District of Columbia, and the federal ban prohibits residents from purchasing handguns outside of the District; therefore, District residents have no means of purchasing handguns.

More

Related posts

• Revised “District of Columbia Personal Protection Act” Introduced (0)
• Assault Weapons Ban Confusion (0)
• Illegal? (0)
• Heller yeah… (0)
• Congress Has a Duty to Intervene (0)