Initial Analysis of the 2013 AWB Part 2 (IANAL or IANACC Warning)

OK, let’s continue with the “analysis”, shall we? As I posted before this is far from being a comprehensive and final analysis since I Am Not A Lawyer and I Am Not A Congress Critter.

Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

The Evil Bumpfire Device! Used by Drug Dealers and Gang Members anywhere…..wait, scratch that. And in truth, any bumpfire attachment does not accelerate the rate of fire of a semi rifle, it just makes it easier to reach the rate of fire, but with these people it is not the reality but the perception: It scares me so it should be banned. If the law passes, this section will make Jerry Miculek illegal.

‘(37) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’—
 ‘‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

Sneaky! If you were thinking on coupling two or more 10-round magazines, you are out of luck, they saw right through you (yawn). Now remember how twisted ATF can go in interpreting the law so, if you happen to have in your range bag two 10-round magazines and some duct tape, you could be accused of conspiracy to violate Federal Firearms Laws (2013 AWB) since you could tape both magazines together and create an evil high capacity assault magazine clip feeding device.

The term ‘permanently inoperable’ means a firearm which is incapable of discharging a shot by means of an explosive and incapable of being readily restored to a firing condition.

See? I knew my guns were I mean inoperable. All my firearms use powder propellants to discharge a shot so my EBRs are not “Assault Weapons”…Yay!

Now for the confusing part: The Grandfather clause (which I am not pasting here because it is way too long.) I read and re-read the whole thing several times, but it remained more confusing than the usual federal-legalese-speak such as the transferring to a prohibited person which is already illegal (felon, adjudicated mental incompetent, etc) and the Safe Storage detail also and some other stuff that is plainly inapplicable or useless. Then I remembered that we are missing a part of the law that was initially announced but then withdrawn: Mandatory registration of the “Assault Weapon”.  Only then all those other subchapters and new regulations make sense to make life a misery for gun owners whereas the way they are now, they can be easily challenged in court or simply ignored as unenforceable.

Beginning on the date that is 90 days after the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.

This one is truly designed to be such an annoyance and a roundabout gun registration of privately owned firearms. Disguised as “making sure guns don’t fall in the hands of criminals” the reality is that they are demanding a written & permanent record of who owned and who owns the gun via the bound book of the FFL. If they were interested on just “making sure” they could very well just set up an web-based NICS check or allow regular citizens to call and do a background check just like the FFLs. As written, lots of people will choose NOT to go to a FFL and screw the law. FFLs will find onerous to be doing background checks for guns they are not making money out of and charge a nasty fee for their time as some are doing right now asking $50 and even more per NICS check.

As it stands, this bill is not going anywhere with anti gunners without major modifications. It still bans firearms a posteriori  which already SCOTUS said is a no-no. I think it is pretty much dead in the water.

I know some are saying that this bill is a smoke screen designed to get attention and then compromise down and that the real danger is in the myriad of small bills floating around. I will make the case that all of them are a danger but Di-Fi’s bill was the touted as the most comprehensive and important of all. It announced and trumpeted was the Golden Standard, Last Hope for Mankind, The Messiah Of Gun Control Bills. For this administration, perception is very much important as means to obtain what they want and after the failure of the “Executive Measures” to rise up to the occasion and provide a definite answer, the AWB of 2013 was supposed to cover what the President could not. Now both stand as failure and if the rhetoric that is coming out of DC is any indication, cockiness is being substituted by equal mixes of desperation and shrillness.

New Gun Control Laws were supposed to be easy to get after Sandy Hook. They are still trying to figure what went wrong.



4 Replies to “Initial Analysis of the 2013 AWB Part 2 (IANAL or IANACC Warning)”

  1. I think Feinswine’s bill was a red herring, so all of our attention was focused on that. There are at least a dozen gun control bills that have been introduced. One of them is for universal background checks and sets the fee, if I recall correctly, at $15 or $25. Another one is a magazine ban.

    Feinswine was promised her bill would be voted on, or she would be allowed to amend another bill with this AWB, so if her bill get’s voted down, she’ll still have the opportunity to amend another bill that will come up for vote. I don’t know how many time Reid will let her keep trying with AWB amendments to other bills.


    1. But there is no taste or desire for compromising in our side. Actually I feel like lots of people want to chew Gun Control Laws and spit them once and for all. They lost the narrative and if they haven’t figured out, they are setting themselves up for a nice roasting. If anything I am more afraid of a Hughes’ amendment-type of legislation.
      My feel, they are going to lose big on this one. AWB of 2013 was supposed to be the Main Battleship and it is floundering bad. If we sink it and the rest of the little flotilla, we have secured Gun rights for possibly 20 years and more likely we will see pro gun bills advancing in Congress.
      And let’s not forget the beatdown that Cuomo’s bill will get in SCOTUS.

      PS: I just found this:

      Lansdowne believes that the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut weakened the gun lobby’s power and has opened the door for new gun control legislation.

      “We broke the NRA,” Lansdowne said off-camera.
      They are disconnected from reality…


      1. No compromise at all. As far a magazine ban with a 10 round limit, a DOJ study found:

        The few available studies on shots fired show that assailants fire less than four shots on average, a number well within the 10-round magazine limit imposed by the AW-LCM ban…

        That can be found in section 9.2.1 page 90 of


        …eliminating AWs and LCMs might only reduce gunshot victimizations by up to 5%. And even this estimate is probably overly optimistic because the LCM ban cannot be expected to prevent all incidents with more than 10 shots.

        As far as the NY law, I see that getting struck down, too. While reasonable restrictions are allowed, I would think that the court would find it unreasonable to limit a magazine capacity to seven rounds considering there are but a few handguns with a magazine that small. If that law get’s struck down, it would be nice if some of those left leaning judges agree. Maybe that would put a stop to some of this nonsense.

        The report above is 101 pages of “the ban may have help reduced gun shot victims, but it may not have helped. if it did help, it wasn’t statistically significant”


  2. Bumpfire devices? I am thinking about the billion or so “assault pants” that are going to be illegal because of the “belt loop loophole”…



Comments are closed.