AR-15s: ‘Weapons of War’ or ‘Modern Sporting Rifles’?
Democrats call AR-15s and rifles like them “weapons of war.” A firearm industry group calls them “modern sporting rifles.” Who’s correct?
Democrats call the rifles “weapons of war” (and “assault weapons,” “people-killing machines,” and “weapons of mass destruction”) for hyperbole, to give their hardest-left voters a bogeyman to hate, and to manipulate impressionable middle-of-the-road voters and weak Republican voters and politicians into going along with a ban or other restrictions on guns.
But to the extent that Democrats are saying that AR-15s and the like are military rifles, they’re incorrect. While some semi-automatic rifles were standard in the military from the late 1930s through the early 1970s, that hasn’t been the case since, and the military has never used the semi-automatic AR-15 or rifles like them. If Democrats want to apply the “weapon of war” label to guns used by the military today, they’ll have to apply it to bolt-action rifles, semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, semi-automatic pistols, and perhaps a few revolvers, types of guns that together account for most guns owned by the American people.
If Democrats are instead saying that AR-15s and the like could be used in a war, they’re being frivolous, because any weapon could be used in war. Edged weapons—e.g., knives, swords, javelins and spears, arrows launched by bows, axes and hatchets, and bayonets—have been used throughout the 2,500 years of warfare’s written history. The same is true of bludgeons. For example, when muskets and rifles have run out of ammunition during battles, they’ve been swung like baseball bats or used as hammers, to bash the heads of the enemy. Bare hands are also used in wars, as indicated by the term “hand-to-hand combat.”
Democrats say they want to ban AR-15s to prevent murders. But year-in and year-out, more murders are committed with knives and other edged weapons, more with bludgeons, and more with hands and feet, than with rifles of any sort, let alone those that Democrats call “weapons of war.” Of course, Democrats ignore the murders that don’t happen, when people use AR-15s to defend themselves against criminals who attack them within their homes.
Furthermore, the keeping and bearing of arms has for centuries been one of the great political rights aimed at preventing oppression, by waging “war” against tyrants. Such was the case in England, and the legislative history of our Second Amendment makes clear that the amendment was adopted because of concern that the government would disarm the people as a precursor to imposing tyranny.
James Madison, who introduced the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, and Alexander Hamilton separately wrote in The Federalist that in the event that the U.S. Army became tyrannical, the people, being armed and more numerous, would be able to defeat it. So, to the extent that AR-15s would be useful for fighting against tyranny, Democrats who call them “weapons of war” unintentionally make the case that the rifles are quintessentially within the scope of the right to keep and bear arms.
The group that invented the term “modern sporting rifles” presumably did so hoping it would protect firearm manufacturers from lawsuits and convince middle-road voters and weak Republican voters and politicians to oppose a gun ban. However, Remington recently paid a $75 million settlement to victims of a terrible crime in which one of its rifles was used 10 years ago, lawyers are reportedly looking at suing Daniel Defense because one of its rifles was used in a similar crime this year, and polls—for what they are worth—consistently find that middle-road voters overwhelmingly favor banning the rifles. Clearly, the “sports” messaging isn’t working.
Also, less than one percent of AR-15 owners use those rifles for an organized sport and polls consistently find that the reason Americans most often cite for owning guns is protection.
Furthermore, and we can hope of interest to the Supreme Court, assuming it agrees to take one or more cases challenging Democrat states’ “assault weapon” bans, Judge Roger Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California rejected the “modern sporting rifles” term in striking down California’s “assault weapon” ban in Miller v. Bonta last year. He also explained why the rifles are within the scope of the right to arms, and it had nothing to do with sports. Judge Benitez wrote:
“[T]he popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. . . . [T]he evidence overwhelmingly shows that AR-15 platform rifles are ideal for use in both the citizens’ militia and a state-organized militia. Quite apart from its practicality as a peacekeeping arm for home-defense, [it] can also be useful for war. In fact, it is an ideal firearm for militia service. . . . The evidence is clear . . . that the AR-15 . . . bears a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency, as well as the effectiveness, of a modern well-regulated militia. It is therefore categorically protected by the Second Amendment. . . .’
“The Second Amendment protects any law-abiding citizen’s right . . . to be armed to defend himself, his family, and his home. At the same time, the Second Amendment protects a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms to use should the militia be needed to fight against invaders, terrorists, and tyrants. The Second Amendment is about America’s freedom: the freedom to protect oneself, family, home, and homeland.”
“Combat” or “Cosmetic” Features
Judge Benitez also dealt with what amounts to another terminological disagreement between supporters and opponents of a ban on AR-15s and similar rifles. Ban supporters say the rifles have “combat features”—which, if true, would be desirable on any rifle used for “defense,” which the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), said is the “core” and “central component” of the right to arms.
On the other hand, some ban opponents who don’t know much about guns, or who thoughtlessly parrot what they’ve heard some other ban opponents say, or who forget or who are afraid to admit that “combat” against tyranny is the political purpose for which the Second Amendment was adopted—say that the features are “cosmetic,” as if they’re on the rifles for nothing more than looks, in the way that women use mascara, eye shadow, and lipstick. On this point, ban supporters are correct that two of the features are for “combat.” The features aren’t “cosmetic.”
The features Democrats complain about are the rifles’ ability to use detachable ammunition magazines, and their having a pistol grip, a folding or adjustable-length stock, a flash suppressor, a bayonet mount, and—wait for it—a “grenade launcher,” the latter included by Democrats only for hyperbole, for the reasons mentioned earlier, since grenades are “destructive devices” under federal law and cannot be privately owned without special permission of the federal government.
Detachable magazines
Semi-automatic and other types of firearms that use detachable magazines have been around for more than a century and account for the majority of firearms bought today. They’re certainly the majority of firearms used on a regular basis—mostly handguns and rifles kept at home for protection, handguns carried for protection, handguns and rifles used during training classes and in marksmanship competitions, and rifles and shotguns used for hunting. And it won’t be long before they’re the majority of firearms owned.
Where rifles and shotguns are concerned, detachable magazines make it easier to load and unload a firearm, as compared to doing so one round of ammunition at a time. With a semi-automatic pistol, a detachable magazine is the only efficient way to contain ammunition within the gun. And in the event you have to reload any gun in a life-threatening situation, because you ran out of ammunition or you had to unload the gun to clear a malfunction, a detachable magazine allows you to reload quickly.
Pistol grips and adjustable-length stocks
Pistol grips are, of course, found on all pistols and other handguns, which are the majority of firearms Americans buy each year and which the Supreme Court, in Heller, expressly declared to be within the scope of the right to arms. They’re also common on bolt-action rifles used for precision marksmanship competitions. Generally, the reason for a pistol grip is ergonomics: it allows a firearm to be held with the wrist straight. Anti-gun activist groups—again, for hyperbole—claim a pistol grip is designed to allow a rifle to be fired “from the hip,” but such a grip would make doing so more difficult, not less.
For centuries, people able to afford the most expensive custom-built muskets, rifles, and shotguns had their gun makers tailor the length of the gun’s stock to the end-user’s physique. Tailor-made or adjustable-length stocks are also common to expensive rifles and shotguns used in marksmanship competitions today. An adjustable-length stock on an AR-15 merely serves the same purpose at a cost the average person can afford.
Flash suppressors and bayonet mounts
Where ban supporters are right about the features being oriented to “combat” is with regard to a flash suppressor and bayonet mount. A flash suppressor is designed to distribute the flash of light associated with firing a rifle in a way that reduces the chance of you blinding yourself at night, and to prevent an enemy from locating you by seeing your flash outdoors during the day or at night. A bayonet mount allows for a bayonet to be affixed to a rifle.
While when defending yourself against criminals attacking you within your home, a bayonet would likely not be needed, a flash suppressor would be helpful at night, and both features would be desirable on a rifle being used for any of the three purposes of the militia noted by the Supreme Court in Heller: “repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections,” and “to resist tyranny” or, as Judge Benitez put it, “to fight against invaders, terrorists, or tyrants.”
Again, Judge Benitez:
“Standard size magazines are ubiquitous. With the physiological stress of waking to the noise of home invaders, one may need many rounds to overcome the difficulty of aiming in the dark at multiple attackers making furtive movements. The adjustable stock can be quickly set for one’s arm length. The pistol grip gives a homeowner a secure hold with one hand while the other hand holds a telephone or [when reloading] spare magazine. A flash suppressor prevents the night-time home defender from being blinded by her own muzzle flash. . . .’
“On an AR-15 rifle, a telescoping stock is typically capable of adjusting to between three and six different lengths. This enables the rifle stock to be quickly and properly adjusted to fit the user, which is particularly beneficial to persons of smaller stature. . . . The telescoping stock also makes a single weapon useful for different members of a household. . . . [T]he lack of a pistol grip makes it less safe when it comes to clearing malfunctions. In self-defense and in battle, malfunctions can be fatal. . . . Those of small stature or less strength may need an adjustable stock, pistol grip, or vertical foregrip to maintain proper control of their firearm.”
Conclusion
AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles, along with bolt-action, pump-action, revolvers, and other types of firearms in the hands of the American people, are not currently “weapons of war,” and won’t be in the future unless it becomes necessary to use them, as the Supreme Court and Judge Benitez said, to fight against invasion, insurrection, terrorists, or tyrants.
AR-15s and similar rifles can be used for sports. But as with javelins and archery equipment developed for battle and used throughout most of warfare’s history, and now used in the Olympics, using AR-15s and similar rifles for sports doesn’t change their underlying design. Thus, it’s no more accurate to call them “modern sporting rifles” than it would be to suddenly call a baseball bat a “modern defensive bludgeon” because it can be used to fend off someone who breaks into your house in the middle of the night.
A baseball bat is a baseball bat. An AR-15 is a rifle. We shouldn’t allow people who use politically charged epithets and silly euphemisms to confuse us about basic facts.
© 2022 Mark Overstreet