Reply #8: "Assault rifle" is a specific term, different than "assault weapon".

[X_Digger]

Every technical discipline has its terms that may differ from non-technical usage.

"Bicycle" shorts might not be used to ride a bicycle. A "cigarette" lighter might be used to light cigars. A pocket watch might be used to assault someone, that doesn't make it an "assault weapon".

Similarly, an "assault rifle" refers to a select-fire (semi-automatic, fully-automatic, or three round burst capable) rifle.

"Assault weapon" has multiple definitions- there's the definition in the now-expired federal "assault weapons ban"; there's the definition in California's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act (AWCA '89); there's the definition in the Connecticut Assault Weapons Ban (Chapter 943 of the state code). They all refer to semi-automatic firearms, with a combination of 'features'- the ability to accept detachable magazines; grips not inline with the bore of the weapon and not part of the stock ("pistol" grips); bayonet mounts; barrel shrouds; collapsible stocks; thumbhole stocks (in some states); and / or removable muzzle brakes.

The fuzziness on what constitutes an "assault weapon" is why there are firearms that are variations of the same firearm, yet do not meet the specific criteria of an "assault weapon" by state (or federal when it was active) standards.

e.g.

These are all California legal rifles, technically not "assault weapons" per CA statute.



Some "assault weapons" are indeed rifles, but not all "assault weapons" are rifles. Nor does being a rifle make a particular "assault weapon" an "assault rifle".