"Military Style"

Oleg Volk

Monday Gunday: The Folly of Gun Restriction

Why I get upset by gun restriction, simplified edition:

Let's say a law is passed -- oh, let's call it the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, just for giggles -- preventing civilians (meaning: non-military personnel) from owning military-style weapons. I would expect most people to think that law only affects "army stuff": assault rifles, machine guns, etc.

But here's the problem I have with that law, aside from its dubious constitutionality: poor definitions that lend themselves to slippery-slope enforcement.

You see, officers and members of the military police are regularly issued carry pistols. The regulation pistol of the US Armed Forces is the Beretta M9, a 9mm semi-auto magazine that uses a 15 round detachable magazine. It is also immensely popular in its civilian version, the Beretta 92 (probably because veterans, having returned their issued sidearm and wanting to own one for private use, decide to purchase a pistol identical to what they have trained with).

So when legislation says that "military style weapons" are forbidden for civilian ownership, it suddenly becomes a non-trivial point of legislation if this pistol is restricted because it is, in fact, issued and used by the US Armed Forces.

Is this pistol restricted because it's military issue? If not, you need a better definition than "military-style weapon".* Perhaps something like above a certain caliber, or fully automatic as opposed to semi-automatic, or any number of other things -- at which point I refer you to the 1934 National Firearms Act. **

More @ Lurking Rhythmically