PDA

View Full Version : "Long-Range Sniper Rifle Safety Act of 2007"


xxG3xx
08-08-2007, 9:27 AM
Fifty Caliber Institute Alert
May 9, 2007

New Feinstein Bill Targets Muzzle Energy

Dianne Feinstein and her friends are at it again! The California senator has introduced S.1331, the "Long-Range Sniper Rifle Safety Act of 2007" which would classify .50 BMG caliber rifles as "destructive devices" under the National Firearms Act, requiring registration when purchased or sold.

However, a new "copycat" provision has been added that also prohibits any firearm, regardless of caliber, that develops 12,000 foot-pounds of energy or more. Accordingly, S.1331 will affect many more firearms than those chambered in .50 BMG. Another key difference is that owners are given 7 years to register their rifles instead of the more typical weeks or months seen in other attempts.

Feinstein claims "This legislation doesn't ban any firearms; it would only institute common-sense regulations for the sale of these dangerous sniper rifles." However, as several states already prohibit ownership of Title II firearms (even if legally registered with the BATFE), S1331 will certainly result in the banning of many personal firearms.

The list of co-sponsors for S.1331 reads like a "Who's Who of Gun Control", including Senators Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), Carl Levin (D-Mi), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Frank Lautenberg (D- N.J.)


http://www.50cal.org/newletters/alert070509/



here we go again...i hope this wasnt already posted

proraptor
08-08-2007, 9:46 AM
Edited.

RobG
08-08-2007, 9:54 AM
Maybe she saw the "Shooter" movie and is worried about the presidents safety :rolleyes:

xxG3xx
08-08-2007, 9:57 AM
^^^^

someone said that on a different forum

glockman19
08-08-2007, 10:01 AM
What other calibers would this affect?

Piper
08-08-2007, 10:02 AM
I really think the pro-gun liberals need to get in the game and tell other liberals that this isn't just about guns. Because when the guns go away, so does the Bill of Rights as we know it.

xxG3xx
08-08-2007, 10:03 AM
well im not so sure but prolly

50 dct
408
416
338

glockman19
08-08-2007, 10:19 AM
well im not so sure but prolly

50 dct ?
408 ?
416 = 5160 Ft. Lbs. Energy Remington 416 mag
338 = 5409 Ft. Lbs. Energy

Found this gret web site:
http://ballistics.ntinnovations.com/Ballistics.aspx?ID=1488

xxG3xx
08-08-2007, 10:23 AM
well like i said....i wasnt sure :)

Dr. Peter Venkman
08-08-2007, 10:25 AM
...and the only thing lower than Bush's ratings are congress'.

supersonic
08-08-2007, 10:27 AM
well im not so sure but prolly

50 dct ?
408 ?
416 = 5160 Ft. Lbs. Energy Remington 416 mag
338 = 5409 Ft. Lbs. Energy

Found this gret web site:
http://ballistics.ntinnovations.com/Ballistics.aspx?ID=1488

:rofl2:....g..g....guud wun!!!!!
soupersawnick:43:

megavolt121
08-08-2007, 10:31 AM
Here's the actual text so far. That ***** must be reading Calguns and realized if its not shoulder mounted, its not a rifle...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1331

Section 2.b.36.b
`(B) a copy or duplicate of any rifle described in subparagraph (A), or any other rifle developed and manufactured after the date of enactment of this paragraph, regardless of caliber, if such rifle is capable of firing a projectile that attains a muzzle energy of 12,000 foot-pounds or greater in any combination of bullet, propellant, case, or primer.'.

Section 3.b
(b) Modification to Definition of Rifle- Section 5845(c) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(c)) is amended by inserting `or from a bipod or other support' after `shoulder'.

Buddydog
08-08-2007, 10:45 AM
Several words that will never add up...Feinstein and common-sense

triggerhappy
08-08-2007, 10:47 AM
She is starting to irritate me.

QuarterBoreGunner
08-08-2007, 11:00 AM
In a virtual Confederacy of Dunces, she still manages to rise to the top..

I'm just speechless; this is so asinine.

Nahuatl
08-08-2007, 11:00 AM
I suspect the NTW-20 is their reason for banning high-energy rifles. It's a shoulder-fired, bipod supported, bolt action, 3-shot, South African rifle using either a 14.5mm or 20mm round. Under current law, is it legal to import? Probably. Even most .50 cal loads don't develop that much muzzle energy, but the 20 gets about 21K foot pounds.

hossb7
08-08-2007, 11:11 AM
Feinstein claims "This legislation doesn't ban any firearms; it would only institute common-sense regulations for the sale of these dangerous sniper rifles."
common sense huh? like thinking CRIMINALS will follow LAWS?

DrjonesUSA
08-08-2007, 11:52 AM
Wow.

Who said they're not going after your deer rifles?

They are dead next in line, along with scoped rifles.

Maybe a ban/regulation on scopes too?

hossb7
08-08-2007, 12:19 PM
Wow.

Who said they're not going after your deer rifles?

They are dead next in line, along with scoped rifles.

Maybe a ban/regulation on scopes too?

i'll have to put my glass lenses on either end of an empty paper towell roll and duct tape it to my rifle

jumbopanda
08-08-2007, 12:23 PM
Damnit, why can't she just trip and break her hip or something?

50 Shooter
08-08-2007, 12:27 PM
This bill has nothing to do with the protection of long range sniper rifles.:p

Patriot
08-08-2007, 12:36 PM
3,000lb. vehicle @ 30 MPH (44 feet/second)
kinetic energy = 91,000 foot pounds

@ 60 mph 361,194 foot pounds

If my figures are off, this post is worth what you paid for it :p

dfletcher
08-08-2007, 12:39 PM
Aside from being wrong, these sort of bills, once in place as law, have the added insidious nature of allowing future politicians (remember, the Dems want to not be cast as the party of gun control) of claiming they do not vote for gun control, they did not vote for any new gun restrictions. They do that by setting the original ME ban point at 12,000 ft lbs, then gradually ratcheting that down - eventually to about 150 ft lbs at the muzzle. The future politician can then claim they are not anti gun, they only voted to "amend" an existing law. Much like CA and the "not unsafe" list adding mag disconnects and loaded chamber indicators.

CCWFacts
08-08-2007, 12:47 PM
Banning calibers by name ("50 BMG") is obviously stupid, because there are a doze equivalent calibers. California learned that with its 50 BMG ban. Hello, there's a Russian 50 cal that has even more bang than 50 BMG and it perfectly fine here. So I can see what she's trying to do: ban based on energy, so a slight change to the cartridge won't evade the ban.

But then, how do you test muzzle energy? I bet some crazy person could load a 30'06 up to that muzzle energy, and fire it out of a specially-designed 30'06 rifle. Conversely, a 50 BMG could be loaded down to a low muzzle energy. For reloaded cartridges, any given cartridge could have a wide wide range of energies.

And she says it's not a ban... well, true, except for those of us in no-NFA states, like California. I'm sure this energy range would cover a whole bunch of big-bore hunting rifles, not just 50 BMGs. Grandpa's old 416 Rhinostopper would suddenly become an NFA weapon and Californians would need to dispose of them.

Anyway... the good news is the current congress has no appetite for gun control.

Outlaw Josey Wales
08-08-2007, 1:48 PM
She is starting to irritate me.

Starting!

xxG3xx
08-08-2007, 2:01 PM
they are taking it way to far...stock up while you can guys.

ibanezfoo
08-08-2007, 2:12 PM
I really want to know why these "people" think they have the right to restrict things from me. Its really really starting to piss me off. If I want something, and I don't harm anyone with it, what business is it of theirs?

-Bryan

EastBayRidge
08-08-2007, 2:21 PM
I'll bet anything she saw this thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=65414), called up Kennedy and said "we've GOT to protect those poor long range sniper rifles ! It's for the RIFLES" :p

xxG3xx
08-08-2007, 2:25 PM
^^^^

lol

1064chubbs
08-08-2007, 2:42 PM
Damnit, why can't she just trip and break her hip or something?

heyyyyyy lets be nice now. A heart attack would be less painful and will end quicker.:43:

megavolt121
08-08-2007, 2:44 PM
Banning calibers by name ("50 BMG") is obviously stupid, because there are a doze equivalent calibers. California learned that with its 50 BMG ban. Hello, there's a Russian 50 cal that has even more bang than 50 BMG and it perfectly fine here. So I can see what she's trying to do: ban based on energy, so a slight change to the cartridge won't evade the ban.

But then, how do you test muzzle energy? I bet some crazy person could load a 30'06 up to that muzzle energy, and fire it out of a specially-designed 30'06 rifle. Conversely, a 50 BMG could be loaded down to a low muzzle energy. For reloaded cartridges, any given cartridge could have a wide wide range of energies.

And she says it's not a ban... well, true, except for those of us in no-NFA states, like California. I'm sure this energy range would cover a whole bunch of big-bore hunting rifles, not just 50 BMGs. Grandpa's old 416 Rhinostopper would suddenly become an NFA weapon and Californians would need to dispose of them.

Anyway... the good news is the current congress has no appetite for gun control.


What about grandfathering in? Can someone here chime in on that?

triggerhappy
08-08-2007, 3:49 PM
Damnit, why can't she just trip and break her hip or something?

As Satan's beloved daughter that will never happen

xenophobe
08-08-2007, 3:58 PM
But then, how do you test muzzle energy?

Umm... Go by SAAMI spec? :p


What about grandfathering in? Can someone here chime in on that?

Wow... didn't you read the FIRST post in this thread completely before replying? :rolleyes:

Another key difference is that owners are given 7 years to register their rifles instead of the more typical weeks or months seen in other attempts.

megavolt121
08-08-2007, 4:39 PM
Wow... didn't you read the FIRST post in this thread completely before replying? :rolleyes:

Actually, not only did I read it, I re-read it and I looked it up on the gov's website and posted a link (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=703938&postcount=12). Yes I understand there is 7 year window to register, with the FEDERAL gov't but I'm not worried about the feds.

And she says it's not a ban... well, true, except for those of us in no-NFA states, like California. I'm sure this energy range would cover a whole bunch of big-bore hunting rifles, not just 50 BMGs. Grandpa's old 416 Rhinostopper would suddenly become an NFA weapon and Californians would need to dispose of them.

My question lies with CA. If the BMGs become NFA what happens to Californians with them? Since I don't see Mr. 50 owner walking to his CLEO and saying "So Mr. Cop, I've got this registered 50, and now I gotta register it as NFA with the Feds, mind signing here?" and walking away with a positive result, will those CA REGISTERED 50BMG's have any grandfathering?

So instead of being just being short telling me to read the original thread, why not read what my question was in regards to?

Nahuatl
08-08-2007, 5:13 PM
This is a lot more than a .50.
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e230/Coyotl/Equipment/nwt-20.jpg

Bishop
08-08-2007, 5:16 PM
Maybe it will get some of those hunters to realize their deer guns aren't safe. We really need to unite gun owners under one cause; preservation of gun rights.

And, yes, I'll bet money that they'll overload smaller rounds to give them enough muzzle energy to ban all rifles of that caliber.

CCWFacts
08-08-2007, 5:35 PM
My question lies with CA. If the BMGs become NFA what happens to Californians with them? Since I don't see Mr. 50 owner walking to his CLEO and saying "So Mr. Cop, I've got this registered 50, and now I gotta register it as NFA with the Feds, mind signing here?" and walking away with a positive result, will those CA REGISTERED 50BMG's have any grandfathering?

I'll explain.

At the fed level, everything is hunky dorry. The big-bore rifle becomes an NFA item. The owner goes through the process of entering it into the NFA registry (and btw it's easy to work around the CLEO by having it owned by a legal entity). So that's all fine. It's not exactly grandfathered, but federally, it still possible to possess. And to buy and sell new ones. No problem.

At the CA level, the CA state AW reg for 50 BMGs doesn't change. What changes is that a) these are now NFA and b) a whole bunch of other big-bore rifles, which are not CA AWs, suddenly are NFA DDs.

Now... here's the problem for CA owners of these big-bores: You need another permit from the CA DoJ to own NFA items of any kind. So those who already have CA-regd 50 BMGs would suddenly need to get not only the NFA paperwork, but also the CA state NFA permit. Those with non-50 BMGs bigbores would need the NFA reg and the CA state NFA permit.

But! The DoJ doesn't issue that permit to anyone except Hollywood props companies and the like. Ordinary people like us don't get them.

So the gun wouldn't be grandfathered, it wouldn't be banned, it would just require a state permit which is impossible to get.

Fortunately this bill is dead dead dead. It won't pass. I'll bet 100 rounds of 50 BMG ammo on that.

(how will they decide) Umm... Go by SAAMI spec?

Does SAAMI specify MV or ME? I don't think so. Do they specify specific loads? I don't think so. They may specify a max pressure but this is getting to be pretty vague. And what about all the non-SAAMI defined ammo out there? There are so many I-don't-knows in this. BTW 220 Swift gets up to 1605 ft lbs with a 40gr bullet.

DrjonesUSA
08-08-2007, 5:36 PM
And, yes, I'll bet money that they'll overload smaller rounds to give them enough muzzle energy to ban all rifles of that caliber.

No, they will just ratchet the muzzle energy limit down further and further.

ldivinag
08-08-2007, 5:46 PM
Wow.


Maybe a ban/regulation on scopes too?

just go straight to the point...

ban people... they are the ones killing people...

ldivinag
08-08-2007, 5:48 PM
The list of co-sponsors for S.1331 reads like a "Who's Who of Gun Control", including Senators Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), Carl Levin (D-Mi), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Frank Lautenberg (D- N.J.)

hmmmm... is there a pattern i see?????

[/sarcasm]

Solidsnake87
08-08-2007, 5:50 PM
Feinstein is a communist spy sent to infiltrate the government. Nuff said.

Patriot
08-08-2007, 6:04 PM
26 USC 5845

The term “destructive device” means

(2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and

NTW-20 (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn55-e.htm)

I don't think the NTW-20 has much to do with it, does it? I thought >.5" firearms other than shotguns were already destructive devices :confused:

P08
08-08-2007, 6:05 PM
Feinstein

Thinking....;)Hmmm...

Create a law for a non existant problem....

Make liberal constituent groupies happy to continue contributing $$$$$....

Piss off people who would never vote for me....

Priceless American Politics

nhanson
08-08-2007, 6:37 PM
here we go again...i hope this wasnt already posted
Besides all the illegal funds funneled to her husband's company and her friend the murder with a similar cast of characters behind them......what else do you expect! :mad:

Also, the majority "hunting rifles" are in the 3,000 to 3,500 foot pounds range.....way below the 50 cal stuff above 12,000 ft-lbs.

They hope to catch everyone off-guard :sleeping: and find a new "AW" ban approach that does not deal with "features" and does deal with effectiveness.......they will try to ratchet down the energy threshold and then try to ban the most critical part------marksmanship training!.......Sounds kind of like "militia” and “sportsman” mantras :eek: used in the past and now that is failing for them so, we need another approach******muzzle energy!

I have never voted for these yo-yos and the general population keeps putting them back in office…….until they are gone hold onto you shorts, count you fingers when you shake their hands and SEND YOUR DONATIONS to the NRA for lobbying against these stupid attemps at control and getting them voted out of office! :D

Pvt. Cowboy
08-08-2007, 8:38 PM
I really think the pro-gun liberals need to get in the game and tell other liberals that this isn't just about guns.

Yeah, that whole VW Jetta full of pro-gun liberals. That'll do it.

Yes, I've seen pro-gun liberals before and I know they're out there. They're just very very rare; rare enough in fact as to correctly refer to them as a mutation.

kevykev707
08-08-2007, 9:42 PM
No, they will just ratchet the muzzle energy limit down further and further.

that's part of their evil plot. :mad:

CalNRA
08-09-2007, 12:25 AM
I hope the numerous esteemed pro-gun Democrats in the Senate and House will educate their poor misled colleagues of the poor logic of this bill and stand up for the law-abiding gun owners.

chiefcrash
08-09-2007, 6:05 AM
*sigh*

more people have been killed by broken lawn chairs than .50 BMGs...


and yet it's the rifle that must be banned...





I swear, it seems more and more that society in general is getting DUMBER through time...

Mute
08-09-2007, 8:21 AM
Nothing new. That yeti Feinstein has had the .50 bug up her posterior for a very long time. We need to find a way to vote her worthless hide out of the senate.

megavolt121
08-09-2007, 8:21 AM
I'll explain.

At the fed level, everything is hunky dorry. The big-bore rifle becomes an NFA item. The owner goes through the process of entering it into the NFA registry (and btw it's easy to work around the CLEO by having it owned by a legal entity). So that's all fine. It's not exactly grandfathered, but federally, it still possible to possess. And to buy and sell new ones. No problem.

At the CA level, the CA state AW reg for 50 BMGs doesn't change. What changes is that a) these are now NFA and b) a whole bunch of other big-bore rifles, which are not CA AWs, suddenly are NFA DDs.

Now... here's the problem for CA owners of these big-bores: You need another permit from the CA DoJ to own NFA items of any kind. So those who already have CA-regd 50 BMGs would suddenly need to get not only the NFA paperwork, but also the CA state NFA permit. Those with non-50 BMGs bigbores would need the NFA reg and the CA state NFA permit.

But! The DoJ doesn't issue that permit to anyone except Hollywood props companies and the like. Ordinary people like us don't get them.

So the gun wouldn't be grandfathered, it wouldn't be banned, it would just require a state permit which is impossible to get.

Fortunately this bill is dead dead dead. It won't pass. I'll bet 100 rounds of 50 BMG ammo on that.


So say this BS passes, what would CA registered 50BMG owners have to do? Will they be forced to surrender their 50s?

MrLogan
08-09-2007, 8:44 AM
I hate Feinstein with every inch of my being. I never once voted for her; how the hell does she keep getting voted back into office? :mad:

DrjonesUSA
08-09-2007, 9:26 AM
I hate Feinstein with every inch of my being. I never once voted for her; how the hell does she keep getting voted back into office? :mad:


You can thank SF and LA for that.

The rest of CA is pretty moderate/conservative - look at a county-by-county map.

Nahuatl
08-09-2007, 9:27 AM
A-Square builds a .577 here in the US. And Holland & Holland build rifles in both .600 and .700 Nitro Express. None of those develop energies that high. Most .50 cal loads don't either.

When was the last time you saw any meaningful legislation passed by this congress anyway? The dems promised to pass 6 major bills in the first 100 hours. So far, after 180 days of the new congress, they raised the minimum wage and renamed 12 federal buildings.

Maybe she doesn't want civilians to get their hands on the military's 10KJ plasma rifles.

DrjonesUSA
08-09-2007, 9:27 AM
I swear, it seems more and more that society in general is getting DUMBER through time...


THIS IS NOT ABOUT CRIME, IT IS A VERY CONCERTED, ORGANIZED, COHERENT STRATEGY TO DISARM LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZENS.

1064chubbs
08-09-2007, 9:35 AM
THIS IS NOT ABOUT CRIME, IT IS A VERY CONCERTED, ORGANIZED, COHERENT STRATEGY TO DISARM LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZENS.

:iagree: when do you ever see gang members sniping out victims with .50 cals

DrjonesUSA
08-09-2007, 9:44 AM
:iagree: when do you ever see gang members sniping out victims with .50 cals


They started with machine guns - "who the hell needs one of those anyway?"

They moved on to "assault rifles" - "What are you, some kind of terrorist? Only cops need those"

They're working on .50s - "Those things are too big, too powerful, too expensive for civilians to own"

They will start attacking other rifles - "These sniper rifles allow anyone to kill another human being at distances up to a mile away" (THIS IS ANY DEER RIFLE, even though they won't go up to a mile, ANY deer gun will hit out to 1000 yards and they'll lie about the distances involved anyway)

They have attacked cheap handguns - "These cheap "Saturday Night Niggertown Specials (that's the original term - didn't know that, huh?) are the weapons of choice for criminals because they are so cheap, readily available and easily hidden. Because they are cheaply made, they are also dangerous and unsafe to law-abiding citizens."

ETC

ETC

ETC

ETC

MrLogan
08-09-2007, 9:54 AM
They started with machine guns - "who the hell needs one of those anyway?"

They moved on to "assault rifles" - "What are you, some kind of terrorist? Only cops need those"

They're working on .50s - "Those things are too big, too powerful, too expensive for civilians to own"

They will start attacking other rifles - "These sniper rifles allow anyone to kill another human being at distances up to a mile away" (THIS IS ANY DEER RIFLE, even though they won't go up to a mile, ANY deer gun will hit out to 1000 yards and they'll lie about the distances involved anyway)

They have attacked cheap handguns - "These cheap "Saturday Night Niggertown Specials (that's the original term - didn't know that, huh?) are the weapons of choice for criminals because they are so cheap, readily available and easily hidden. Because they are cheaply made, they are also dangerous and unsafe to law-abiding citizens."

ETC

ETC

ETC

ETC

:mad:

Calguns2000
08-09-2007, 10:05 AM
Are there any statistics on how many crimes have actually been committed with .50 BMG rifles? :confused: This is a solution in search of a problem. :mad:

chiefcrash
08-09-2007, 10:26 AM
THIS IS NOT ABOUT CRIME, IT IS A VERY CONCERTED, ORGANIZED, COHERENT STRATEGY TO DISARM LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZENS.

exactly...

Are there any statistics on how many crimes have actually been committed with .50 BMG rifles? :confused: This is a solution in search of a problem. :mad:

I actually looked into this once. The statistics are fuzzy, but it's somewhere between 5-15ish crimes committed with a .50 in the US for all years...

From what i've found, the crimes were usually possession by a felon, unlawful discharge. A few were someone shooting AT (note: not hitting) people (IE: Waco). I haven't found a case yet were someone was actually shot, let alone killed, by a .50 BMG...

shark92651
08-09-2007, 3:16 PM
Are there any statistics on how many crimes have actually been committed with .50 BMG rifles? :confused: This is a solution in search of a problem. :mad:

I am not aware of any at all. It doesn't stop politicians from running campaign ads with videos of .50 rifles punching holes through cop cars though!

DrjonesUSA
08-10-2007, 8:22 AM
From what i've found, the crimes were usually possession by a felon, unlawful discharge. A few were someone shooting AT (note: not hitting) people (IE: Waco). I haven't found a case yet were someone was actually shot, let alone killed, by a .50 BMG...


Please don't spread that BS.

Nobody was using any .50s at Waco.

The fact that 74 men, women and CHILDREN died while only FOUR government thugs died shows who was REALLY doing the shooting.

DIG
08-10-2007, 4:34 PM
WTF?! I must have selective hearing/sight when it comes to the news. I don't ever recall 50Cal's as being a weapon of choice for criminals. ...Again, wtf??!!
Politicians will sensationalize ANYTHING to instill fear in the poor sheeple of today's society. That's how they'll gain support, as always. Making people believe that they are in imminent danger of big-bore firearms and 50cal owners going out and targeting planes, trains, spaceshuttles, my fat neighbor.
...imminent danger... ...imminent danger... are you programmed yet?? :43:

Not all politicians are completely stupid and they know as well as we do that this law don't really make a bit of sense. It DOES, however, make them look tough on gun control and they are "looking out for your safety and the safety of your children" (registered trademark). Passing laws as these show they are making some sort of "progress" (BS!) to the public. The politicians probably don't shoot 50's (duh!). They don't feel the effects of the new laws. They don't feel their God-given rights being trampled on.:mad:

Career politicians should go shovel ***** for the next 20years! Bring in the new, untainted blood. Of the people, for the people. The career politians are FAR removed from "the people". Looks more like the "elitists" up on the hill than your average nose-to-the-grindstone American. It's all about looking out for themselves, their party, special interests (+contributions), and how to stay in office.
...grobble, grobble....

[end rant] :o

bulgron
08-10-2007, 4:55 PM
I really think the pro-gun liberals need to get in the game and tell other liberals that this isn't just about guns. Because when the guns go away, so does the Bill of Rights as we know it.

I've been trying to do this, but my liberal friends don't believe me. The sincerely see the 2A as a dead letter.

Guns are bad, that's all they know. And nothing I've ever found can dissuade them of that closely-held belief.

bulgron
08-10-2007, 5:00 PM
Nothing new. That yeti Feinstein has had the .50 bug up her posterior for a very long time. We need to find a way to vote her worthless hide out of the senate.

In order to do it, the Republican party has to put up a viable candidate. So far, everyone they've put up against her has been beyond lame.

Remember when they imported that guy from Texas (can't remember his name) to run against her? As big as this state is, and they had to bring in someone from out of state.

There's your problem, right there.

I can't even remember who they ran against her in 2004. Whoever it was was either incredibly forgettable, or they didn't bother to campaign in Silicon Valley.

Dr. Peter Venkman
08-10-2007, 7:45 PM
No one will ban your hunting rifle, rest assured. They will call it a sniper rifle first.

dfletcher
08-10-2007, 9:39 PM
It is so like the weasels - starting off with big numbers & using ME is a foot in the door to increasingly lower numbers. Sneaky little dinks.

Pthfndr
08-10-2007, 9:49 PM
I'll explain.

At the CA level, the CA state AW reg for 50 BMGs doesn't change. What changes is that a) these are now NFA and b) a whole bunch of other big-bore rifles, which are not CA AWs, suddenly are NFA DDs.

Now... here's the problem for CA owners of these big-bores: You need another permit from the CA DoJ to own NFA items of any kind. So those who already have CA-regd 50 BMGs would suddenly need to get not only the NFA paperwork, but also the CA state NFA permit. Those with non-50 BMGs bigbores would need the NFA reg and the CA state NFA permit.

Would you please post the text, or a link to the text, in CA law that says CA bans NFA firearms?

I don't think there is any such CA law that includes the word/letters "NFA" in regards to firearms.