PDA

View Full Version : 50 BMG Rifle Ban and Nordyke


Solidmch
04-24-2009, 8:01 PM
I have been reading several posts since Nordyke came out. Seems to me that the 50 BMG ban would be a issue in the forefront of challenge. Where am I wrong with this thinking???

CHS
04-24-2009, 8:03 PM
Fighting the .50BMG ban is so easy it's not even funny. I wouldn't be surprised if it were one of the first things to fall.

Hopi
04-24-2009, 8:04 PM
Common sense now has a team of allies.....Heller/Nordyke.

CSDGuy
04-24-2009, 8:10 PM
The .50 BMG ban, though (probably easy to attack) shouldn't go first. I'd say to surgically carve the heart out of the law... then the rest of it becomes very easy to attack. This is chess... not a canon battle between ships-of-the-line.

Roadrunner
04-24-2009, 8:16 PM
The .50 BMG ban, though (probably easy to attack) shouldn't go first. I'd say to surgically carve the heart out of the law... then the rest of it becomes very easy to attack. This is chess... not a canon battle between ships-of-the-line.

And what exactly is the "heart" of the law?

RRangel
04-24-2009, 8:18 PM
If the AWB goes the .50cal BMG restrictions won't be far behind.

# 12275. This chapter shall be known as the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 and the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004.

See also 12278., and 12280.

Cal DOJ Firearm laws (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.php)

CSDGuy
04-24-2009, 8:30 PM
Forumguy... Exactly. Also, challenge certain stuff below 12054... and among other things, transport restrictions (mostly) die. :) They shouldn't go immediately. Incrementalism got us into this mess... it'll get us out in the most secure way possible. (Don't spook the courts...)

CAL.BAR
04-24-2009, 8:53 PM
I have been reading several posts since Nordyke came out. Seems to me that the 50 BMG ban would be a issue in the forefront of challenge. Where am I wrong with this thinking???



NO NO NO. Heller only said that "weapons commonly and regularly used for home and self defense" (like handguns) cannot be totally banned. .50 BMG is not regularly used for self defense (at least not by civilians). (Don't even bother trying to argue otherwise, you'd sound stupid) If Heller were to apply to .50's, it would also apply to rockets, tanks and fully auto machine guns. NO, the state CAN make REASONABLE REGULATIONS as to firearms laws (as long as they do not conflict with Heller (via Nordyke) But even the feds ban fully auto MG's and Heller WILL NEVER change that. It has been the law since 1934.

No one is ever going to say that normal everyday people regularly use an anti-aircraft round with a one mile range to defend their 1500 square foot tract house or apartment(s)!

Heller has very limited uses. I would be surprised if we could even overturn the AW laws in CA with it, much less the.50bmg.

nobody_special
04-24-2009, 8:56 PM
I hate to say it, but I doubt the 50BMG ban will be overturned. It will qualify as dangerous and unusual.

FS00008
04-24-2009, 9:10 PM
I actually think it will be overturned... it's commonly used in the rest of the US for distance competitions...

DDT
04-24-2009, 9:13 PM
I hate to say it, but I doubt the 50BMG ban will be overturned. It will qualify as dangerous and unusual.

What makes it dangerous and unusual?

jamesob
04-24-2009, 9:24 PM
What makes it dangerous and unusual?

its dangerous because it shoots a projectile and unusaul because it's so damn expensive.:thumbsup:

Calguns2000
04-24-2009, 9:30 PM
its dangerous because it shoots a projectile and unusaul because it's so damn expensive.:thumbsup:This may not be far from the truth... this is an oversimplification, but, there's just not that big a market for $8900 rifles.

jamesob
04-24-2009, 9:34 PM
This may not be far from the truth... this is an oversimplification, but, there's just not that big a market for $8900 rifles.
i got less than 2k in mine, ammo is what i can't afford.:)

Roadrunner
04-24-2009, 9:35 PM
I hate to say it, but I doubt the 50BMG ban will be overturned. It will qualify as dangerous and unusual.

Not if you put it into is proper perspective. The antigunners have made this sound like a devastating weapon like a grenade launcher. If you talk about its maximum effective range, the fact that it is only slightly larger than a .45 caliber round, the fact that muzzle loaders used .50 cal or bigger bullets, somehow, it's just not such an evil weapon. I would also approach it from the perspective that a 30-06 (hunting rifle) is just as accurate.

Prc329
04-24-2009, 9:35 PM
And you can take down an airplane with it ;)

socom308
04-24-2009, 9:36 PM
But even the feds ban fully auto MG's and Heller WILL NEVER change that. It has been the law since 1934.

Wrong, the federal government did not ban machineguns in 1934, it began taxing and regulating them.

Stryprod
04-24-2009, 9:42 PM
Not if you put it into is proper perspective. The antigunners have made this sound like a devastating weapon like a grenade launcher. If you talk about its maximum effective range, the fact that it is only slightly larger than a .45 caliber round, the fact that muzzle loaders used .50 cal or bigger bullets, somehow, it's just not such an evil weapon. I would also approach it from the perspective that a 30-06 (hunting rifle) is just as accurate.

If only everyone (incld. the politicians) put things in the proper perspective, we'd never be where we are right now :thumbsup: *wink*

Stryprod
04-24-2009, 9:51 PM
Question: Could the devils advocate argue that Heller affirms rights to bear arms, but only of common arms such as pistols, certain rifles (30-06) but yet not .50 as they are not "common".

Just curious if this will need further case load underneath it.

I (layman) absolutely can see AWB being dropped as this is a wide encompassing genre including multiple weapons and multiple calibers used widely throughout other states, but is .50 cal much more narrow and less utilized?

... thoughts?

Input would be much appreciated.

kermit315
04-24-2009, 9:54 PM
I hate to say it, but I doubt the 50BMG ban will be overturned. It will qualify as dangerous and unusual.

ah, but it is no more dangerous than any other center fire rifle, and only unusual in this state. In other states, they are a lot more common than people think.

The only way I think you can make an unusual argument, is if it is significantly different from any other bolt action or semi auto rifle design, which it isnt. Until then, it is merely another rifle, same as an AR isnt an assault weapon, it is just another rifle.

Its merely a bolt action rifle/semi auto in a caliber that isnt as big as some muzzleloaders (.54 caliber springs to mind.)

If it was on wheels, then it would be classified as ordnance, thus changing the argument.

Cali-V
04-24-2009, 9:56 PM
This may not be far from the truth... this is an oversimplification, but, there's just not that big a market for $8900 rifles.

Not a big civilian market...

The safe handgun list will more than likely be the first incision, with restrictive CCW and AWB a close second...

With Nordyke and the advent of .50 Beowulf and other similar calibers there may be some room to weaken the 50 BMG ban... But I don't think by very much...

CSACANNONEER
04-24-2009, 9:58 PM
I actually think it will be overturned... it's commonly used in the rest of the US for distance competitions...

Thanks to 50BMGBOB, California is again home to 50 matches. He started one at USI a few years ago and he will be co-match director of a FCSA match in Coalinga the first weekend of June. Coalinga was one of the earliest and most popular matches that the FCSA held but, the FCSA stopped having matches there a few years ago until BOB stepped up and got it going again. There's a match outside of Palmdale as well. California has a longer history of 50 matches than most other states. But, I would not goes as far as to say that 50 matches are "common" in the rest of the country. I believe that 50 matches (sanctioned by any official organization) occure in less than a dozen states. California is lucky enough to have three different venues and I've heard rumor of at least one more to come. Also, there are more now and there have always been more FCSA members in California than in any other state!


My personal view on overturning the ban is that we should first go after some of the other unconstitutional laws which will impact more people. 50 shooters are a very small minority of shooters and can wait a little longer if it means overturning other laws which will benefit more shooters. There is one condition to this, I'd like the ban overturned by the time I'm ready for another 50. I wouldn't mind getting a DTC but, I need a rifle chambered in 50BMG for FCSA "Light Gun" class. But, that's a bit selfish of me so, I guess I can wait.

kermit315
04-24-2009, 10:00 PM
It might end up being an unintended consequence if something later anyway, if all the cards are played right.

nobody_special
04-24-2009, 10:27 PM
They're certainly uncommon, especially compared to .30-06, .308 or .223. They're less common than AWs. And they're not particularly well suited for the types of self-defense that the courts are likely to sanction.

thmpr
04-24-2009, 10:29 PM
They're certainly uncommon, especially compared to .30-06, .308 or .223. They're less common than AWs. And they're not particularly well suited for the types of self-defense that the courts are likely to sanction.

It would have been more common if it wasnt for the ban.

Zebra
04-24-2009, 10:36 PM
It would have been more common if it wasnt for the ban.
Actually, I think the ban made 50's really common. I know that I would not own one without it. Remember Serbu's back orders?

Frank

tombinghamthegreat
04-24-2009, 10:40 PM
I donno if the 50 BMG ban could be overturned.....i think the safe handgun list, AW ban and 12025/12031 along with the school zones are much more important to overturn, 50bmg ban is a lower priority that should work itself out along the way of getting rid of other unconstitutional laws.

popeye4
04-24-2009, 10:41 PM
I can't imagine that 50's will be at the head of the line. The first fight will be the hardest, I'm sure that once we win that one (whatever it turns out to be), the rest will start to crumble.

I'm looking forward to when the RICO laws are applied to the Brady Bunch and others for conspiring to deprive us of our civil rights... :chris:

Roadrunner
04-24-2009, 10:43 PM
If only everyone (incld. the politicians) put things in the proper perspective, we'd never be where we are right now :thumbsup: *wink*

I didn't even go into what constitutes unusual and in common use. Have you seen the $200,000.00 shotguns at Bass Pro? I don't think those are very common. So again, put into proper perspective, they are uncommon because they are very expensive and limited in quantity. But they are common as type of weapon because they are shotguns. And so it goes with the .50 cal. target rifles. They are not common because they are expensive, but they are common because they are a semiautomatic rifle. Essentially they are demonizing a caliber that's no worse than any hunting rifle.

Roadrunner
04-24-2009, 10:46 PM
I donno if the 50 BMG ban could be overturned.....i think the safe handgun list, AW ban and 12025/12031 along with the school zones are much more important to overturn, 50bmg ban is a lower priority that should work itself out along the way of getting rid of other unconstitutional laws.

I guess it's low priority if you don't already own one, and want to let others shoot it.

Cali-V
04-24-2009, 11:04 PM
I guess it's low priority if you don't already own one, and want to let others shoot it.

No I'd say it's a lower priority, because there are other fights which if won will benefit far more people... The List, CCW, and AWB to name a few.

CHS
04-24-2009, 11:05 PM
I didn't even go into what constitutes unusual and in common use. Have you seen the $200,000.00 shotguns at Bass Pro? I don't think those are very common. So again, put into proper perspective, they are uncommon because they are very expensive and limited in quantity. But they are common as type of weapon because they are shotguns. And so it goes with the .50 cal. target rifles. They are not common because they are expensive, but they are common because they are a semiautomatic rifle. Essentially they are demonizing a caliber that's no worse than any hunting rifle.

*THIS*

People are looking at the scope of "common use" in too limited a view and are misreading and misinterpreting how heller was decided. The Supreme Court did not decide that Heller's gun was protected because that SPECIFIC make and model was in common use, they decided that it was protected because firearms of its type were the most common firearms available.

"Common use" has nothing to do with specific firearms. AR's are not protected because AR's are common. AR's are protected because semi-automatic firearms are the most common firearms available, and AR's are semi-automatic.

Get it?

.50BMG's and other large-calibers might be specialty firearms, but they are regular and normal "common-use" firearms because they are typically bolt-action or semi-automatic. There is nothing dangerous and unusual about them.

The cartridge they fire might be a niche thing, but that doesn't make the firearms not protected.

The .50BMG ban should be easy to beat because most of the firearms it actually ends up banning are BOLT-ACTION guns, many of which are SINGLE-SHOT.

Maestro Pistolero
04-24-2009, 11:21 PM
NO NO NO. Heller only said that "weapons commonly and regularly used for home and self defense" (like handguns) cannot be totally banned.

Yes, but that was the second amendment application they were dealing with, i.e. Dick Heller in his home.

Heller did NOT say that military style weapons could be banned, it said commonly used self defense weapons could not.

In fact Scalia almost invites a challenge in this passage:

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause"

Nordyke also made reference in dicta to a militia-like application of 2A, regarding citizens aiding in national security until 'professional forces' could arrive.
This reference re-invigorates the militia clause in my opinion.

bwiese
04-24-2009, 11:24 PM
I hate to say it, but I doubt the 50BMG ban will be overturned. It will qualify as dangerous and unusual.

But it's arbitrary and capricious and 50BMG cannot be shown more dangerous than various other legal calibers 510DTC or "497 Feinstein" etc.

Furthermore, the 50BMG rifle ban is somewhat mooted since 50BMG non-rifles are legal.

CHS
04-24-2009, 11:28 PM
But it's arbitrary and capricious and 50BMG cannot be shown more dangerous than various other legal calibers 510DTC or "497 Feinstein" etc.

Furthermore, the 50BMG rifle ban is somewhat mooted since 50BMG non-rifles are legal.

I forgot to add the "arbitrary and capricious" to my post.

That's very very important to point out to the nay-sayers.

.50BMG rifles are of common use (bolt-action or semi-automatic), and the banning of the .50BMG cartridge while not banning things like .510DTC is arbitrary and capricious. Especially since I can still legally buy an M2 chambered in .50BMG in California only because it doesn't have a rifle-stock.

cousinkix1953
04-24-2009, 11:36 PM
Not if you put it into is proper perspective. The antigunners have made this sound like a devastating weapon like a grenade launcher. If you talk about its maximum effective range, the fact that it is only slightly larger than a .45 caliber round, the fact that muzzle loaders used .50 cal or bigger bullets, somehow, it's just not such an evil weapon. I would also approach it from the perspective that a 30-06 (hunting rifle) is just as accurate.
I remember listening to Janet Reno explaining magical powers of this super rifle during the WACO incident...

50BMGBOB
04-24-2009, 11:37 PM
Thanks to 50BMGBOB, California is again home to 50 matches. He started one at USI a few years ago and he will be co-match director of a FCSA match in Coalinga the first weekend of June. Coalinga was one of the earliest and most popular matches that the FCSA held but, the FCSA stopped having matches there a few years ago until BOB stepped up and got it going again. There's a match outside of Palmdale as well. California has a longer history of 50 matches than most other states. But, I would not goes as far as to say that 50 matches are "common" in the rest of the country. I believe that 50 matches (sanctioned by any official organization) occure in less than a dozen states. California is lucky enough to have three different venues and I've heard rumor of at least one more to come. Also, there are more now and there have always been more FCSA members in California than in any other state!


My personal view on overturning the ban is that we should first go after some of the other unconstitutional laws which will impact more people. 50 shooters are a very small minority of shooters and can wait a little longer if it means overturning other laws which will benefit more shooters. There is one condition to this, I'd like the ban overturned by the time I'm ready for another 50. I wouldn't mind getting a DTC but, I need a rifle chambered in 50BMG for FCSA "Light Gun" class. But, that's a bit selfish of me so, I guess I can wait.

Just to set the record straight, the match at USI was going on for years before I got my 50BMG. We do shoot twice a year there now. And yes we are getting the 50BMG match going again in Coalinga.

There are a lot more 50BMG owners than most realize. Common? Ferrari's aren't what I would call common, but they are just a car. The same is true with 50BMG's. I think if we get rid of the AWB, we will get 50BMG's back too. Like others have said, most 50BMG's are single shot target rifles. They shoot high Ballistic Coefficient bullets (most over 1.0) that are heavy and buck the wind good. And they are guaranteed to put a big grin on your face when you shoot one! Just like driving a Ferrari.

cousinkix1953
04-24-2009, 11:40 PM
And you can take down an airplane with it ;)
So what! Flashback to World War 2. The rest of the combatants shot down airplanes using machineguns chambered for their standard rifle cartridges. only we were making a .50 caliber machinegun...

CHS
04-24-2009, 11:44 PM
So what! Flashback to World War 2. The rest of the combatants shot down airplanes using machineguns chambered for their standard rifle cartridges. only we were making a .50 caliber machinegun...

Someone doesn't have a sense of humor...

50BMGBOB
04-24-2009, 11:49 PM
But it's arbitrary and capricious and 50BMG cannot be shown more dangerous than various other legal calibers 510DTC or "497 Feinstein" etc.

Furthermore, the 50BMG rifle ban is somewhat mooted since 50BMG non-rifles are legal.

Don't sell antigunners short. After seeing how easy it was to work around the CA ban, they are pushing bans based on muzzle energy now in other states and at the federal level.

Zebra
04-24-2009, 11:52 PM
But it's arbitrary and capricious and 50BMG cannot be shown more dangerous than various other legal calibers 510DTC or "497 Feinstein" etc.

Furthermore, the 50BMG rifle ban is somewhat mooted since 50BMG non-rifles are legal.
I still don't know makes is a firearm a rifle and what makes it a long gun.
There was this discussion re. 50BMG upper, OLL and Spade Grip:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=173516

Is this combination a legal .50BMG non-rifle or an illegal .50BMG rifle?

Frank

Sarkoon
04-25-2009, 12:06 AM
Wrong, the federal government did not ban machineguns in 1934, it began taxing and regulating them.

How much tax do I have to pay to get a real FN P90?

CHS
04-25-2009, 12:06 AM
I still don't know makes is a firearm a rifle and what makes it a long gun.


A Rifle has a buttstock and meets the 26" OAL minimum, and is not chambered for shotshells.

A Shotgun has a buttstock and meets the 26" OAL minimum, and is chambered for shotshells.

A "Long gun" meets the 26" OAL minimum.

Roadrunner
04-25-2009, 12:56 AM
*THIS*

People are looking at the scope of "common use" in too limited a view and are misreading and misinterpreting how heller was decided. The Supreme Court did not decide that Heller's gun was protected because that SPECIFIC make and model was in common use, they decided that it was protected because firearms of its type were the most common firearms available.

"Common use" has nothing to do with specific firearms. AR's are not protected because AR's are common. AR's are protected because semi-automatic firearms are the most common firearms available, and AR's are semi-automatic.

Get it?

.50BMG's and other large-calibers might be specialty firearms, but they are regular and normal "common-use" firearms because they are typically bolt-action or semi-automatic. There is nothing dangerous and unusual about them.

One other thought occured to me. Do you suppose that the antigunners attempt to vilify .50 cal target rifles by stressing the 50 BMG (Browning Machinegun)?

The cartridge they fire might be a niche thing, but that doesn't make the firearms not protected.

The .50BMG ban should be easy to beat because most of the firearms it actually ends up banning are BOLT-ACTION guns, many of which are SINGLE-SHOT.

Cool. We are on the same page. One last thing that I think could be a valuable point is the fact that a .50 caliber firearm, be it a machinegun, semiautomatic or bolt action, are still classified as small arms.

devildog999
04-25-2009, 1:20 AM
Fighting the .50BMG ban is so easy it's not even funny. I wouldn't be surprised if it were one of the first things to fall.

This I can't wait to see happen. I should start saving ;)

Kid Stanislaus
04-25-2009, 5:31 AM
Heller has very limited uses. I would be surprised if we could even overturn the AW laws in CA with it, much less the.50bmg.


The voice of reason.

timdps
04-25-2009, 7:41 AM
Furthermore, the 50BMG rifle ban is somewhat mooted since 50BMG non-rifles are legal.

+1.

The fact that it is legal to buy and own a belt fed, tripod or vehicle mounted, semi-auto, .50 cal. BMG NON-rifle in California makes the .50 cal. BMG rifle ban absurd on its face.

I think the AWB and shall issue are more important and should be attacked first, but have little doubt that the BMG rifle ban will fall, probably as more of a side effect than a direct attack.

tim

calnurse
04-25-2009, 7:44 AM
any chance we will be able to get a real ar-15 soon?

nobody_special
04-25-2009, 8:10 AM
It would have been more common if it wasnt for the ban.
Yes, but Scalia approved the judicial use of such circular reasoning in Heller. :rolleyes:

But it's arbitrary and capricious and 50BMG cannot be shown more dangerous than various other legal calibers 510DTC or "497 Feinstein" etc.

Furthermore, the 50BMG rifle ban is somewhat mooted since 50BMG non-rifles are legal.
Hey, I agree, but I'm not sure a judge will.

CHS
04-25-2009, 8:51 AM
Hey, I agree, but I'm not sure a judge will.

When you show the judge two photos of what appear to be the exact same gun, and two photos of what appear to be almost-identical gigantic cartridges, then explain that one is perfectly legal in CA because it's just not CALLED .50BMG, they'll "get it".

If .510DTC is perfectly legal because it's not .50BMG, and .50BMG is perfectly legal as long as it's a Ma Deuce, then that is an arbitrary and capricious ban and cannot stand scrutiny.

It's almost a slam-dunk case.

JDoe
04-25-2009, 9:50 AM
They're certainly uncommon, especially compared to .30-06, .308 or .223. They're less common than AWs. And they're not particularly well suited for the types of self-defense that the courts are likely to sanction.
But the second isn't only about personal "self defense" and on page 4509 of the Nordyke decision (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf) GOULD, Circuit Judge, concurring wrote...
"The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion....

...Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against
the possibility that even our own government could degenerate
into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility
should be guarded against with individual diligence."
Protection against governments both foreign and domestic and including well equipped terrorists seems, to me, to imply that something greater than common self defense, home defense arms are protected by the second amendment.

No one is ever going to say that normal everyday people regularly use an anti-aircraft round with a one mile range to defend their 1500 square foot tract house or apartment(s)!

Should we then accept a ban on all rifles chambered for .303 British because it is a known anti-aircraft round used to shoot down hundreds of enemy aircraft by the British Supermarine Spitfire. Would this mean that I would have to turn in my Lee Enfield bolt action rifle?

hoffmang
04-25-2009, 11:39 AM
I would say that the .50BMG ban is a low priority for now - especially with all the work arounds.

However, the .50BMG rifle is not "dangerous and unusual." It is quite usual and no more dangerous than any other large bore rifle. It also happens to be smaller that most rifle rounds from the previous century. Finally note that the Heller test is common for self defense and other lawful purposes (like competitive shooting.)

-Gene

Roadrunner
04-25-2009, 11:59 AM
I would say that the .50BMG ban is a low priority for now - especially with all the work arounds.

However, the .50BMG rifle is not "dangerous and unusual." It is quite usual and no more dangerous than any other large bore rifle. It also happens to be smaller that most rifle rounds from the previous century. Finally note that the Heller test is common for self defense and other lawful purposes (like competitive shooting.)

-Gene

:iagree: :thumbsup:That's what I'm talkin' about! :yes::rockon:

CALI-gula
04-25-2009, 12:26 PM
*THIS*

People are looking at the scope of "common use" in too limited a view and are misreading and misinterpreting how heller was decided. The Supreme Court did not decide that Heller's gun was protected because that SPECIFIC make and model was in common use, they decided that it was protected because firearms of its type were the most common firearms available.

"Common use" has nothing to do with specific firearms. AR's are not protected because AR's are common. AR's are protected because semi-automatic firearms are the most common firearms available, and AR's are semi-automatic.

Get it?

.50BMG's and other large-calibers might be specialty firearms, but they are regular and normal "common-use" firearms because they are typically bolt-action or semi-automatic. There is nothing dangerous and unusual about them.

The cartridge they fire might be a niche thing, but that doesn't make the firearms not protected.

The .50BMG ban should be easy to beat because most of the firearms it actually ends up banning are BOLT-ACTION guns, many of which are SINGLE-SHOT.


Well said in every way as concerns how some here are limited in THEIR view of how .50BMG is relative to their lives. A new definition of "The Theory of Relativity" maybe? For me, .50BMG is VERY much common use, and I would plainly classify myself as a normal everyday person - really - boring through and through, all the way to the definition of my career.

While I agree with Gene as far as priority issue, since Paul Koretz's AB-50 .50BMG ban is a joke due to the legal existence in CA of so many other calibers that provide equal or even better performance (now Paul, do you really think I would list those here?), the .50BMG ban is sure to fail with ease.

There are tougher ones to tackle, whereby the AB-50/.50BMG ban would fall simply from the blast wave overpressure out of good judgment of the government to avoid the cost of defending it from the likes of The Calguns Foundation.

.

rob
04-25-2009, 1:24 PM
I'm sure this has been brought up in other threads, but wouldn't this (and other similar laws in this category) be able to challenge over equal protection?

the 50cal ban has a few execeptions/exemptions:

LEOs - Department of Justice, police departments, sheriffs' offices, marshals' offices, the Youth and Adult Corrections Agency, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, district attorneys' offices, Department of Fish and Game, Department of Parks and Recreation, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States, or any federal law enforcement agency for use in the discharge of their official duties....on or off duty.

Registration - Current LEOs can register a .50BMG, all they need is authorization from their employer.

With 2A incorporated, wouldn't that open each one of these clauses up for a challenge? Also, I know nothing of what I am talking about.

Solidmch
04-25-2009, 7:44 PM
I would say that the .50BMG ban is a low priority for now - especially with all the work arounds.

However, the .50BMG rifle is not "dangerous and unusual." It is quite usual and no more dangerous than any other large bore rifle. It also happens to be smaller that most rifle rounds from the previous century. Finally note that the Heller test is common for self defense and other lawful purposes (like competitive shooting.)

-Gene

Thanks for posting on this. I bought a LOT of stuff before the SB23 ban... I went Mag Crazy for the most part but have always kicked myself for not getting a 50 BMG... I was hoping it would be alittle higher on the priority list

draconianruler
04-25-2009, 10:25 PM
I would say that the .50BMG ban is a low priority for now - especially with all the work arounds.

However, the .50BMG rifle is not "dangerous and unusual." It is quite usual and no more dangerous than any other large bore rifle. It also happens to be smaller that most rifle rounds from the previous century. Finally note that the Heller test is common for self defense and other lawful purposes (like competitive shooting.)

-Gene

I too agree that the BMG ban should be a low prioity. I love 50cals but there is already a compariable cartridge (50DTC) for those that missed the ban. To me the focus should be on shall issue :thumbsup:

kermit315
04-25-2009, 10:28 PM
as I said before, while it is/should be a low priority right now, there is the real possibility that it could end up getting killed as an unintended consequence if they go after "AW's" and all the dominos fall just right.