.... guns, that is.
Citing firearm sale reports on the southwestern border, Chipman claimed the ATF defines an assault rifle as “any semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine above the caliber of .22, which would include a .223, which is, you know largely the AR-15 round.”
So basically any rifle that fires one round for each depression of the trigger and can accept a magazine, other than a .22.
Because any rifle that can accept a magazine can accept one of any size.
Note that there is no legal definition of an "assault rifle." By definition any weapon used offensively against a person is an assault, so such is an "assault rifle", since a person committed an assault with it -- whether it's fired or not.
The military has a definition, which is a select-fire rifle. That is, a rifle which, by operation of a selector switch, can fire either once when the trigger is depressed or some number of times greater than one, including (but not necessarily) continually until the ammunition is exhausted. In civilian and legal parlance a weapon which can fire more than once with each press of the trigger, whether all the time or by choice of the operator (e.g. by putting a switch in a specific position) is called a machine gun.
So what Chipman basically said is that he'd ban anything he could, Constitution be damned.
May I remind you that Miller, the "first" real gun control decision at the Supreme Court, said that weapons suitable for use by the military and infantry in particular, are in fact militia weapons and protected under the Second Amendment. That case turned on whether a sawed-off shotgun was such a weapon. The government lied, incidentally, in claiming it wasn't: Not long before that they had in fact not only ordered but used short-barrel shotguns in WWI. They were rather handy in trench warfare, you see, where the length of a regular rifle was a problem for the person using it.
But enough of history -- oh wait, not quite enough.
You see, Chipman has apparently lied before; he was at Waco during the Branch Davidian disaster, but he apparently claimed last year that the Branch Davidians shot down two Texas ANG choppers with Barrett .50 caliber rifles. Problem: Zero choppers were in fact shot down. His was grilled on this during his testimony and now claims they were forced down. Uh, there's no evidence of that either that I can find.
The reality of the BATFE is that much of what they do is unconstitutional -- blatantly so. Then again so is much of other areas of the law these days, if you actually believe the Constitution means what it says. For example, the Fourth Amendment is quite-clear and does not admit the capacity to search or seize without a warrant, yet that is violated daily. Then there are all manner of constraints on taking, which did occur at the behest of various agencies and arms of the Federal Government over the last year. Some people got very rich from all that taking and others got poor or displaced. As just one example of many rent forbearance is flatly illegal by government mandate unless the government covers all of the landlord's anticipated cash flow including his profit because it is a taking by the government. The 5th Amendment forbids this, except with just compensation. There has been no compensation -- just or otherwise.
So-called "critical race theory" and set-asides as Biden put into place only for non-whites when it comes farms and other places is blatantly illegal. So says the 14th Amendment. Further, the 14th Amendment incorporates all of the Constitution's protections against states, forbidding the states to engage in discrimination. That came out of the end of slavery -- and has been routinely ignored.
Note that the 14th Amendment does not care whether the reason is race, color, creed, religion or otherwise: Laws, policies or other mandates by the government, whether state or federal, that explicitly favor one person over another are unconstitutional -- period.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
How hard is that to understand?
The Constitution is never more than one action by the government away from extinction. The entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment is that so long as it stands as intended it will never need to be used as the government and its agents fully understand there are more of "us" than "them", and therefore acts that are repugnant to the Constitution, should the people decide the government must stop them, will stop.
Chipman does not respect this. In fact, he would set fire to the whole thing.
That hasn't happened before where he's conveniently been, has it?