David Chipman's obfuscation, like the president's vagueness, is aimed at concealing the illogic of targeting firearms based on their "military-style" appearance.
Such laws arbitrarily prohibit rifles that are commonly used for legal purposes.
Victory for the Second Amendment in Miller v. Bonta. Will the Biden administration pay attention?
A new RAND analysis shows how difficult it is to answer basic questions about this rare variety of homicide.
A ban won’t stop mass shootings, but it will hinder self-defense.
The president's unilateral restrictions are legally dubious and unlikely to "save lives."
The suggestion that the ordinance could have prevented Monday's mass shooting is utterly implausible.
It is hard to see how an "assault weapon" ban or expanded background checks could have prevented this attack.
As usual, the senator and her allies want to ban guns based on arbitrary distinctions.
The policies he favors would arbitrarily limit Second Amendment rights and threaten the industry that makes it possible to exercise them.
Sheila Jackson Lee's sweeping licensing and registration scheme suggests what Democrats would do if they didn't have to worry about the Second Amendment.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s unilateral order confirms suspicions that government is always on the verge of abusing its power.
Such bans have already proven to be essentially valueless for crime-fighting.
The presidential contender has trouble explaining why the guns he wants to ban fall outside the Second Amendment.
Legislators who approved a bunch of other gun control bills could not agree on what features make a firearm intolerable.
Plus: Virginia's assault weapon ban gets shot down, Trump's tariffs face new legal scrutiny, and why you don't want Amy Klobuchar on your bar trivia team
Law enforcement betrayed the trust of gun owners who were doing their best to comply with government-mandated confiscation.
Beto O’Rourke’s scheme would be an ineffectual attempt to enforce arbitrary distinctions.
A decision based on a poor grasp of gun technology.
The presidential contenders hyped the "epidemic" of gun violence and the threat posed by school shootings while perpetuating myths about "assault weapons," background checks, and the Second Amendment.
The presidential contender says the 1994 ban made mass shootings less lethal, even though the guns it tolerated were "just as deadly."
The "assault weapons" that the presidential contender wants to confiscate are not especially deadly, but the symbolism of that policy is poisonous.
The law's impact on weapon choice cannot plausibly account for reductions or increases in fatalities.
A growing number of prominent Democrats want owners of "assault weapons" to surrender them to the government. History says most people will ignore any such law.
The presidential contender nevertheless insists the law reduced mass shooting deaths.
The familiar proposals would do little or nothing to prevent attacks like these.
The presidential contender feels no need to defend the policies he favors, because "we all know" they are "the right thing to do."
None of the participants in last night's debate had a credible answer to the question of what should be done about the hundreds of millions of guns that Americans already own.
The government is prohibiting "military-style semi-automatics" and redefining them to include most guns with detachable magazines.
The category is defined by politicians, who focus on looks rather than function.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein's latest bill classifies firearms not by what they do but based on how they look.
The latest version of the senator's "assault weapon" ban targets products that highlight the irrationality of "assault weapon" bans.
A ballot initiative that took effect this week bans sales to adults younger than 21.
The New York Times continues to push the myth that there is something uniquely deadly about the guns Dianne Feinstein wants to ban.
Politicians' demands for stricter laws are notably lacking in detail and logic.
The senator is miffed that the SCOTUS nominee thinks people have a right to own the guns she wants to ban.
Kamala Harris wants Brett Kavanaugh to give gun violence victims "a fair shake," by which she means adopting her view of the Second Amendment.
A decade after recognizing a constitutional right to armed self-defense, the Supreme Court remains reluctant to defend it.
New Golden State registration rules are OK, judge says.
The city council's unanimous support for the new ban does not make up for its lack of logic and legality.
How a scary name for an arbitrary group of firearms distorts the gun control debate
Assault weapon ban proposals are more and more popular, but the facts about American gun violence show they'd have little positive effect.
His obsession with Justice Scalia's aside in Heller about "weapons...most useful in military service" ignores Scalia writing of weapons "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."
Pedantry may be annoying, but sloppy firearms legislation is a lot worse.
This arbitrary category of firearms is not distinguished by rate of fire or muzzle velocity.
How to make an assault weapon ban look effective: include handgun murders
The policy, which the company wants Congress to impose on the country, is driven by emotion, P.R., and symbolism, not logic.
It is doubtful that the proposed rule would have made a difference in mass shootings.