This is Part 6, and the final article, in my series on military-grade weapons. As I laid out in Part 1, the focus of this series is discussing the idea of “military-grade” weapons. This assumes a definition of military-grade as of particular need and near-exclusive usage by the military. We have endeavored to decide if we can regard any weapon owned by civilians in America as military-grade based on this definition. Specifically, we have been discussing the various features of the AR-15 to determine if we can class it as military-grade. We have done this to see if the AR-15 can be subject to distinct regulations while avoiding an impact on the majority of civilian-owned firearms.
In Part 1, I conceded that, using our working definition of military-grade, full-automatic fire would make a weapon military-grade. We based this idea on the conclusion that machine guns are area weapons with a specific military application and go beyond the personal need for self-defense. However, I laid out the intense regulations on machine guns under current US law. I also point out these laws have proven sufficient to keep such weapons from being used to perpetrate crimes.
In Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4, I began laying out each notable feature of the civilian AR-15 to figure out if any of them allowed us to class the AR-15 as military-grade and subject to distinct regulations. We discussed semi-auto fire in Part 2, ammo capacity in Part 3, and caliber (bullet size) in Part 4. In each case, I established that each feature is common in the bulk of civilian-used firearms over the last century. I concluded that we could not use any of the three features discussed to class the AR-15 as military-grade without likewise classing most civilian-owned firearms.
In Part 5, I finished our discussion of the major features of the AR-15. I discussed light-weight construction, length, and accessories. In all three instances, I demonstrated that each of them had become standard across the civilian market. I also reached the first major conclusion of this series in Part 5: that the AR-15 cannot be considered military-grade by way of any single feature.
Here in Part 6, we are going to discuss the last recourse for defining the AR-15 as military-grade: by seeing if we can build a definition of military-grade through a combination of its features.
(note: this article runs a little long so that I could conclude the series)
As students of recent history may recall, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban enacted by President Clinton took the route of combining AR-15 features to create a legal definition for an assault weapon. Readers should note that the term assault weapon exists in legal language only. It has never been considered an actual category of firearms among enthusiasts, developers, historians, in law enforcement, or in the military. So, let’s take a look at how the Federal Assault Weapons Ban defined an assault weapon and see if it aids in creating a working definition of a military-grade firearm.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban defined a rifle as an assault weapon if it was a semi-automatic rifle with detachable magazines that had two or more additional features from a list of five features: folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash hider or threaded barrel, or grenade launcher.
If we adopt the same legal definition that the FAW used for assault weapons as what constitutes a military-grade weapon, then the AR-15 clearly falls into that category. If you have read the previous articles in this series, I’m sure you will not be surprised when I tell you there are problems with this definition.
As we established in Part 2 and Part 3, the main aspects of an AR-15 that make it lethal are its semi-automatic capability and its detachable magazines. The additional features required in the definition of an assault weapon amount to little more than aesthetics specifically designed to target typical AR-15 style weapons. But any AR-15 can be modified to eliminate these additional features.
The modified weapons above frustrate the FAW’s legal definition of assault weapons due to the alterations and would escape our attempts to classify them as military-grade if we used the same definition. Crucially, neither weapon is truly diminished in their function. Both of these guns are still functioning AR-15s with no diminished lethal capacity. (As a side note, both are utilizing a ten-round magazine which would escape the high-capacity bans mentioned in Part 3 as well)
Clearly, a definition of military-grade crafted on the assault weapon language of the FAW is essentially a hollow definition if the goal is to decrease the level of firepower available to a mass shooter. There is no escaping the facts of the AR-15’s functionality: the main features that make these weapons deadly are semi-automatic fire and detachable magazines. And, as was demonstrated in Part 2 and Part 3, there is no way to craft a definition of military-grade using those features because they are typical in civilian use over the last century.
The final summary of both the features and of the combination of features of the AR-15 is that it is little more and little else than the most popular semi-automatic firearm among numerous and plentiful civilian-style semi-automatic firearms. No matter the moniker we attempt to apply, whether it is “military-grade” as we have entertained in this series, “assault weapon” as the FAW tried, or the other popular definitions such as “weapon of war” or “military-style”, the features of the AR-15 itself are far from unique in the civilian world.
As a final exercise, let’s abandon all pretenses of weapon classification. After all, the AR-15 is indeed the weapon of choice for mass shooters. Let’s entertain the idea of banning the AR-15 specifically based on that fact alone. Surely, that will have some impact, right?
Doubtful. Take a look at some of the modern semi-automatic weapons that would still be on the market even with the AR-15 gone:
Alright, let’s say we expand our ban to cover all semi-automatic firearms that are AR-15 style. Now we’ve made a dent, right?
Once again, no. Take a look at the semi-automatic firearms that predate the AR-15 and the impact it had on firearm development:
So, how about we at least reintroduce the FAW and beef it up by specifically banning all AR-15’s, AR-15 style weapons, and any semi-auto originally designed for use by the military? That still wouldn’t keep a mass shooter from getting his hands on a weapon with the same capabilities as an AR-15.
This is the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle:
The Mini-14 is the big brother of the Ruger 10/22 I mentioned in an earlier article, the one I got when I was a kid. Built on the same idea, it’s beefed up to the .223 round the AR-15 uses. It was designed with ranchers and farmers in mind to take out varmints and critters as small as prairie dogs and as big as coyotes without having to use the much bigger and much higher velocity rounds that most hunting rifles use. The semi-automatic capability is valuable because we’re talking about small fast-moving critters that are going to run out of sight or jump in a hole before you can reload a single action weapon.
This Mini-14 is designed with no military or police function in mind and yet, in several ways, its better than the AR-15. Its design is newer, and its internal workings are far more rugged. It uses what’s called a gas-piston rod, which leads to considerably fewer malfunctions than the AR-15 with its direct-gas impingement. Without getting too nitty-gritty, this means that if you fire an AR-15 one-hundred times, it will likely jam, but if you fire a Mini-14 one-hundred times, it likely won’t.
The reality of the firearms world is there’s no neat line of separation between military and civilian firearms. Throughout the history of firearms, military and civilian innovation have coordinated and fed off of each other’s developments. The idea of a weapon being specifically military-grade does not bear out with the facts. Even the restrictions on full-automatic weapons had more to do with law enforcement being outgunned by criminals in the ’20s and ’30s then it did with any specific “military-grade” weapon classification.
The goal of gun control activists is to push back against the growing occurrence of mass shootings. Their singular focus on firearms, and specifically on the AR-15, does not serve their goal. Mass confiscation of the majority of civilian-owned guns, removing all semi-automatic weapons, would be the minimum needed confiscation to impact the options available to a mass shooter.
Even this draconian, and likely impossible, approach would not remove the threat. The University of Texas tower shooting killed 18 and wound 31. The shooter predominantly used a bolt-action rifle. The D.C. Sniper killed 17 and wounded 10 utilizing an AR-15 variant, but not in a way that maximizes the weapons capabilities. The tactics he utilized would have led to the same results with single-action weapons, possibly with worse results utilizing a gun designed for long-range effectiveness.
Sadly, government gun control is not the sweeping solution most activists think it would be. Many have called for at least a return of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. But the Columbine Shooting took place when the FAW was in effect, killing 13 and wounding 24. The modern epidemic of mass shootings began during the FAW and picked up momentum despite its provisions.
What we’re dealing with is a trend that parallels the dramatic increase in suicide, self-radicalization, and endemic anti-social behavior. These conditions lead to behaviors that culminate in violence and death. Removing only one of the many possible means to this inevitable end would solve very little. Crafting pseudo-definitions to justify banning or seizing firearms from law-abiding citizens is not an answer to the problem.
Justin Stapley is the owner and editor of The Liberty Hawk. As a political writer, his principles and ideas are grounded in the ideas of ordered liberty as expressed in the traditions of classical liberalism, federalism, and modern conservatism. You can follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.
- The Liberty Hawk is Now on Medium - December 9, 2020
- Betraying Allies Is Not the Way to Avoid Being the World’s Police - August 14, 2020
- The Last Full Measure of Devotion - August 13, 2020
So then, you’ve made the case for banning all semi-automatic weapons? I’m quite confident that most/all gun-control advocates would agree with you that “military grade” has nothing to do with it. The point is that we need to stop predators from getting their hands on semi-automatic weapons of any type. Unless of course I’m mistaken and you actually do want to arm predators with semi-automatic weapons? The one thing your six part article fails to do is make any point about reducing the number of mass shootings in the USA. If you don’t see that as a problem that needs to be solved, then all you’re doing is wasting a lot of time setting up straw men to knock down. “We can’t classify AR-15s as military weapons because civilians own them.” That’s it. That’s all you needed to say. Coulda saved a lot of time.