A direct answer to the question of whether President Joe Biden could ban assault rifles is: no. For one, if we are being technical, civilians have never generally owned assault rifles. The firearms industry, including the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – its trade association – uses the term “modern sporting rifles” for the semi-automatic AR-style rifles that civilians can own.
“Assault rifles” would be those specifically designed and produced for military and law enforcement sales. Hence, a ban wouldn’t technically impact “assault rifles.”
The Associated Press suggested last summer that the terms “assault rifles” and “assault weapons” should be considered highly politicized.
It accurately defines a semi-automatic rifle as “a rifle that fires one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, and automatically reloads for the subsequent shot;” while an automatic rifle is defined as a rifle that “continuously fires rounds if the trigger is depressed and until its ammunition is exhausted.”
The NSSF has also noted that millions of modern sporting rifles are legally owned by law-abiding Americans today.
“These rifles are used by hunters, competitors, millions of Americans seeking home-defense guns and many others who simply enjoy going to the range. The modular nature of the platform allows it to be configured for various applications and body types. Despite their popularity, modern sporting rifles are widely misunderstood,” the NSSF explained.
“Confusion exists because though these rifles look like military rifles, they do not function the same way. Also, groups wanting to ban these rifles have for years purposely spread misinformation about them to aid their cause, including using the terms ‘assault rifle’ and ‘weapons of war,'” the NSSF added.
Current estimates suggest there are as many as 400 million guns in private hands in the United States.
State Bans – Paving the Way to Federal Ban?
Of course, drawing from federal and state laws, an assault weapon is one that can include semi-automatic rifles, pistols, shotguns, and which are able to accept detachable magazines. The issue is still very much in gray territory, as some states consider a pistol grip to be a defining feature, while others do not.
Currently, nine states now ban most semi-automatic rifles, including the AR-15.
Just last month, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed House Bill 1240 into law, a measure prohibiting the “manufacture, importation, distribution, selling, and offering for sale” of more than 60 specific weapons, including AR-15s, M-16s, AK-47s, and others.
Legal challenges have already been filed in federal courts.
Moreover, it was also last month that a federal judge blocked enforcement of an Illinois state ban on semi-automatic firearms. In a 29-page opinion, Judge Stephen P. McGlynn, of the Southern District of Illinois said the ban was likely to be found unconstitutional.
The decision could be appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
A Mission for Joe Biden?
Biden has never shied away from his goal to see semi-automatic firearms banned. However, he has finally admitted that any legislative efforts would have to be made by lawmakers – not through executive action.
Following the tragic school shooting in Nashville, Tennessee, in March, President Joe Biden called for Congress to ban “assault rifles,” and attempted to paint lawmakers as the problem.
“People say, why do I keep saying this if it’s not happening?” Biden said, referring to his frequent appeal for such a ban, NPR reported. “Because I want you to know who isn’t doing it, who isn’t helping, to put pressure on them.”
Since taking office, the president has repeatedly called for a ban on semi-automatic firearms, which he maintains will curb gun violence. However, the president actually conceded that he is essentially powerless to act.
“I have gone the full extent of my executive authority to do, on my own, anything about guns,” Biden told reporters. “I can’t do anything except plead with Congress to act reasonably.”
GOP lawmakers have argued that a ban won’t stop bad people from doing bad things and that the country needs to address issues of mental health and school security rather than blaming firearms.
MORE: Kamala Harris Is a Disaster
MORE: Joe Biden – Headed For Impeachment?
Author Experience and Expertise:
A Senior Editor for 19FortyFive, Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu.
ed
May 2, 2023 at 1:06 pm
who is going on the suicide mission to physically take them away from law abiding citizens?
Willy
May 2, 2023 at 2:30 pm
‘Assault rifle’ was defined by the Supreme court years ago when the ban was in effect. Todays AR15 type rifles come under that definition. Some of the definition variables were admittedly cosmetic, Example-barrel shroud. However one variable was larger than a 10 round magazine. This one makes sense because if you need more than 10 rounds before reload than you are out to assault and not just hunt.
Tamerlane
May 2, 2023 at 3:33 pm
Assault rifles are already banned unless someone has applied for and has been granted a stamp from the federal government. New assault rifles have been banned since 1986.
So I’m not sure what the devil you’re talking about here Pete.
Rick
May 2, 2023 at 3:43 pm
Guns don’t kill people, republicans do. Unwilling to interrupt the flow of cash from gun lobbyists, republicans offer ‘thoughts and prayers’ after each massacre. Think of it this way, campaign donations are more important than the life of your children.
Fred
May 2, 2023 at 6:35 pm
No military in the world issues Semi-Automatic rifles to Assault teams. Calling an AR-15 a “Weapon of War” is a joke. No military uses them!
With as many as 40 million of them in circulation, they are in “Common use” and thus protected by the 2nd amendment.
And, they are used for hunting every day here in Texas, where they are used against Feral Hogs that do Millions of dollars worth of damage to farms and homes each year. If we could kill 7,000 a day, the population would stay stagnant! And when 100 or so angry 300 pound hogs are heading your way, you will want multiple 30 round magazines.
ONTIME
May 3, 2023 at 2:43 am
Does this mean Big Whopper Joe is going to take away the US military’s ability to use their rifles?????…This is a 2nd right amend and civilian arms are not assault weapons…..Joe is a doofus and he knows it but he likes to act like a thug….
Tamerlane
May 3, 2023 at 1:35 pm
Rick:
No. In actuality, GOP primary members are approximately ten times (10X) less likely to kill someone with a firearm than core Democrat voters. Gonna have to go ahead and challenge your numbers there. Per capita, Republicans are less likely than Democrats to murder someone with a firearm.
The cost of liberty is real. The cost of the freedom to choose to drive a car or eat a Big Mac have consequences—auto fatalities and heart attacks. Firearm deaths should be minimized yes, but never at the cost of abrogating the core purpose of the Second Amendment—to ensure that the federal government never have a monopoly on militarily useful force. Think of it this way, the liberty of everyone is more important than the lives of some unfortunates, including children. I’d give my own life, and that of everyone I know and love, to preserve the hard won freedom our citizens possess. I in fact took an oath to that effect when I first enlisted in the armed forces as a private, and I reaffirmed that oath as I was promoted up to non-commissioned officer and to commissioned officer.
As Patrick Henry thundered in response to British attempts to deprive American colonists of their militarily useful private arms at Lexington and Concord:
“They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”