banning our .50 muzzleloaders???

[PAlongrifle]

I just got my May issue of American Rifleman, and was taken back a bit by one of the lines on page 18's " ONLY A .50 Caliber Ban? DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT!" article by James O.E. Norell. The second paragraph (last on the page) states:

"Moran's bill, H.R. 654, is a prime example of how the gun-ban crowd seeks legislation that outlaws many guns in addition to those they target directly. A ban on rifles with a bore of .5 of an inch also would include many antique and blackpowder rifles and a number of big-bore rifles owned by hunters of dangerous game. And that's only the tip of the iceberg."

Now I know a few things... 1) Liberals want all guns banned, so it would make sense that they would try to sneek in muzzleloaders. However (and I say this a NRA member), I also know that 2) the NRA sometimes says stuff to get its members up in arms (no pun intended), as an active grass-roots base is the best defense against the Libs.

So, do you think this falls more into the category of #1 or #2? Would we go from not even needing a background check to having a total ban? Wouldn't this mean that they are now classifed as guns by the Feds? I always thought that they did not have this status, which (again) is why not NICS checks are done and why I can order a muzzleloader online without overnighting it and following all the nutty postal laws that regulate the shipment of guns.

Opinions?

 

[roundball]

I just got my May issue of American Rifleman, and was taken back a bit by one of the lines on page 18's " ONLY A .50 Caliber Ban? DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT!" article by James O.E. Norell. The second paragraph (last on the page) states:

"Moran's bill, H.R. 654, is a prime example of how the gun-ban crowd seeks legislation that outlaws many guns in addition to those they target directly. A ban on rifles with a bore of .5 of an inch also would include many antique and blackpowder rifles and a number of big-bore rifles owned by hunters of dangerous game. And that's only the tip of the iceberg."

Now I know a few things... 1) Liberals want all guns banned, so it would make sense that they would try to sneek in muzzleloaders. However (and I say this a NRA member), I also know that 2) the NRA sometimes says stuff to get its members up in arms (no pun intended), as an active grass-roots base is the best defense against the Libs.

So, do you think this falls more into the category of #1 or #2? Would we go from not even needing a background check to having a total ban? Wouldn't this mean that they are now classifed as guns by the Feds? I always thought that they did not have this status, which (again) is why not NICS checks are done and why I can order a muzzleloader online without overnighting it and following all the nutty postal laws that regulate the shipment of guns.

Opinions?

What does the bill say about it?

 

[Zonie]

If the bill is written as poorly as some of the bills in Congress, it may very well include any gun .50 caliber or larger.

As I understand it, the existing Federal laws do recognize muzzleloaders as actual firearms , but the current laws specifically state that many of the gun laws do not apply to any muzzleloaders (old or new) and all guns manufactured prior to 1898.

If I am correct in this, and if the proposed law did not specifically exclude muzzleloaders and guns made prior to 1898, it would include not only muzzleloaders, but historic firearms like the Springfield .50-70 Trapdoor. :curse: :curse: :curse:

As with most of these laws, there are a lot of people who would like to ban any gun. By themselves they are a small but very loud minority. They use scare tactics when guns like the .50 caliber pistols come along and unfortunatly get a lot of ignorant people to march with them.

Whether the NRA is using this proposed law to build membership, or just stir up the troops is just a minor issue.
The real issue it the need to stop the proposed law.
:imo:

 

It took me a bit, but here it is. What a bunch of tripe!
:bull: :curse: :bull: :curse: :bull: :curse: :bull: :curse: :bull: :curse: :bull: :curse: :bull: :curse: :bull: :curse:

50 Caliber Sniper Rifle Reduction Act (Introduced in House)

HR 654 IH


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 654
To ban the transfer of 50 caliber sniper weapons, and otherwise regulate the weapons in the same manner as machine guns are regulated.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 8, 2005
Mr. MORAN of Virginia (for himself, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. NORTON, Mr. WEXLER, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Ms. WATSON, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. WYNN, Mr. EVANS, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mrs. MCCARTHY, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, and Ms. CARSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To ban the transfer of 50 caliber sniper weapons, and otherwise regulate the weapons in the same manner as machine guns are regulated.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `50 Caliber Sniper Rifle Reduction Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that--

(1) certain firearms originally designed and built for use as long-range 50 caliber military sniper weapons are increasingly sold in the domestic civilian market, and there are fewer legal restrictions on their possession or transfer than there are on handguns;

(2) the intended use of these long-range firearms, and an increasing number of models derived directly from them, is the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including armored vehicles and such components of the national critical infrastructure as radars and microwave transmission devices, in addition 50 caliber sniper weapons pose a significant threat to civil aviation in that they are capable of destroying or disabling jet aircraft;

(3) these firearms are neither designed nor used in any significant number for legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and are clearly distinguishable from rifles intended for sporting and hunting use;

(4) extraordinarily destructive ammunition for these weapons, including armor-piercing and armor-piercing incendiary ammunition, is freely sold in interstate commerce; and

(5) the virtually unrestricted availability of these firearms and ammunition, given the uses intended in their design and manufacture, present a serious and substantial threat to the national security.

SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF 50 CALIBER SNIPER WEAPONS UNDER THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.

(a) In General- Subsection (a) of section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining firearm) is amended by striking `(6) a machine gun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device.' and inserting `(6) a 50 caliber sniper weapon; (7) a machine gun; (8) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (9) a destructive device.'

(b) 50 Caliber Sniper Weapon-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 5845 of such Code is amended by redesignating subsections (d) through (m) as subsections (e) through (n), respectively, and by inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection:

`(d) 50 Caliber Sniper Weapon- The term `50 caliber sniper weapon' means a rifle capable of firing a center-fire cartridge in 50 caliber, .50 BMG caliber, any other variant of 50 caliber, or any metric equivalent of such calibers.'.

(2) MODIFICATION TO DEFINITION OF RIFLE- Subsection (c) of section 5845 of such Code is amended by inserting `or from a bipod or other support' after `shoulder'.

(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 5811(a) of such Code is amended by striking `5845(e)' and inserting `5845(f)'.

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. COVERAGE OF 50 CALIBER SNIPER WEAPONS UNDER THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968.

(a) In General- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(z)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a 50 caliber sniper weapon.

`(2)(A) The prohibitions of paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.

`(B) The possession prohibition of paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to the otherwise lawful possession of a 50 caliber sniper weapon that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.'.

(b) 50 Caliber Sniper Weapon Defined- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36) The term `50 caliber sniper weapon' has the meaning given such term in section 5845(d) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(d)).'.

(c) Penalties- Section 924(a)(2) of such title is amended by striking `or (o)' and inserting `(o), or (z)'.

:bull: :bull: :bull: :bull: :bull: :bull: :bull: :bull:

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Dang socialists, there are no "sniper" or "Assult" weapons, these are mis-used left wing catch phrases.

Niether one of these words exsist in the DOD master weapons list.

And a 50 cal Hawkens surely dont fit in either catagory.

You can use a 22 cal like the Beltway murderers did. This is not sniping.

There are NO assult guns in the USA, except a very few Class III private owners and the US Army own 18 at last count.

These folks make me sick.

I thought I could evade this type of nonsense by turning the wayback machine to the 1700's. Guess Not

 

What happen to the United States being a nation of rifle men? What next? The elimination of the DCM? By these standards the Department of Civilian Marksmanship is naught but a sniper training school. This stinks of European style gun control, an milimeter slice of the people's right at a time. Just say NO!

Just :m2c:

 

[Gary]

We all know that society will not be any safer with the passage of any "feel good" legislation. There's no demonstrated need for such a law and it's only because the antis don't trust the peasantry with gonnes.

 

[Slamfire]

If the bill doesn't specifically excempt a class of firearms then they would be included in the ban. :bull: :sorry:

 

[mikee51848]

I think I know what they're talking about. At a recent gun show I attended, you could buy a rifle, like the one I saw in "Navy Seals", that the team sniper used. Now I believe in the 2nd Amendment rights, but why would anyone need a gun like that? :imo:

 

[soggy]

:curse: :curse: DON'T Trust NO ONE........ We did up here in Canada and look at what we have to put up with when it comes to firearms. :curse: :curse: :curse: :m2c:

 

I think I know what they're talking about. At a recent gun show I attended, you could buy a rifle, like the one I saw in "Navy Seals", that the team sniper used. Now I believe in the 2nd Amendment rights, but why would anyone need a gun like that? :imo:

This is the kind of drivel the antis thrive on. When they can get one of our own to say things like, "Now I believe in the 2nd Amendment rights, but why would anyone need a gun like that?" or "Well, I use my .30-06 and my 12 gauge pump for hunting... I don't see why anyone needs an assault rifle.", they are winning the battle.

The real question is this: If I'm a law-abiding citizen who in 36 years of life on this planet have not committed any violent crimes with the 20 some-odd assorted guns I currently own, why do you think if I owned "a gun like that" that I would instantly turn into a felon and start sniping innocent people on the street?

The criminals are already breaking the laws folks. Outlawing more weapons based on their appearance isn't going to solve any problems, it's only going to create more red tape for law-abiding citizens.

 

[Slowpoke]

These type of laws come up ever year, they're so far fetched that they're laughable. The only thing the do is stir up the NRA Masses and the "black helicoper" crowd.

SP

 

[hwalker]

I think I know what they're talking about. At a recent gun show I attended, you could buy a rifle, like the one I saw in "Navy Seals", that the team sniper used. Now I believe in the 2nd Amendment rights, but why would anyone need a gun like that? :imo:

It's not amatter of need, altough the way things are going, there may be a real 'need' in the furure.
The question is the right to 'bear arms', with out specifying what kind of 'arms'. Any weapon is dangerous, and anything around is a potential weapon. When do we start banning table knives/korks and pencils?

If it was up the the people in charge (which is not necesarily the govt), no one would be allowed to be able or capable of defending themselves. Who knows, there might actually be a rebellion one of these days, by citizens dis-satisified with the current situation. After all, it happened a couple hundred years ago, and might be considered again by those who think they actually have the right to live in freedom.

 

[hcook]

AMEN!!!

 

[USMCsniper]

Well I know that BP guns are legaly "NON-Guns" ,just like airguns, and anything built before 1899. The BATF has no jurisdiction over any of these. If I understand it correctly the Fed Gov cant do [censored] about them, but State Gov Might.

 

[Slowpoke]

I guess I'm on the left on this issue. I feel no need to defend myself with a fifty caliber centerfire rifle that can penetrate a armored vehicle. No one is going to break into my home with a tank. The government passes laws all the time that limit what we can and can't do. What scares me is that about a mile from here, the county reduced the speed limit from 45 to 35 in a residental area. The way things are going, I'm afraid that some day they will pass legistalation that bans my car. Because you know the governemnt, you give them a inch they'll take a mile. (Sorry, bad attempt at humor)
Anyway, I'm a life member of the NRA and believe our rights to own weapons but I also believe there's a limit to what society will tolerate. Baltimore and DC are enough of a war zone already.

SP

 

[roundball]

.....Now I believe in the 2nd Amendment rights, but why would anyone need a gun like that?.....

It's not a question of "need"...it's a question of "rights'.

It's an example of the oldest form of control over some people by some other people..."I don't NEED OR LIKE something, therefore, let's pass a law and ban it".

Myself, I personally have no NEED or interest in owning such a rifle but I WANT the RIGHT to if I wanted to.

It's like the anti-hunters who don't like hunting, so they try to pass legislation to ban others from hunting.

I have never and will never carry a concealed weapon...don't NEED to... but as soon as our state passed 'concealed carry' legislation, I immediately went through the process and got one...because it's my right, and I knew I would be a positive statistic in the data base showing that the streets didn't run red with blood when 'concealed carry' laws were passed.

We all must not let them start us down the slippery slope...an assault weapon today, your semi-auto trap or skeet shotgun tomorrow, etc, etc, etc...once precedence is set it gets easier and easier to take away more and more...there are people today in these anti organizations who are salaried by them and literally make their living pushing legislation like this...it's what they do...thank God there is an NRA.

 

I think I know what they're talking about. At a recent gun show I attended, you could buy a rifle, like the one I saw in "Navy Seals", that the team sniper used. Now I believe in the 2nd Amendment rights, but why would anyone need a gun like that? :imo:

WHY?
1. The 2nd ammendemnt gives me the right.
2. We have the right to form a malitia.
We don't have the right to hunt .. that is a privilage
We have the right to own a gun and form a malitia for what?....
It isn't to go to the local range and shoot paper targets, nor to plink at tin cans, or to hunt.
We have the right to protect yourself and that includes protecting yourself from the government PERIOD!
The qusetion is:
How long are we as citizens going to sit back and let the government take our right a little at a time.

If the "SEALS" have such weapons then why should I or you also be able to have them.
After all, when the next revolution begins ,I want to be able to join a well formed malitia with the same advantage, if not more as the enemy.

Woody

 

[robinghewitt]

It's not a question of "need"...it's a question of "rights'.

Can I come and live with you? :thumbsup:

After banning hunting with dogs Mr Blaire is all set to ban imitation firearms and tighten up the regs on BB guns and everything else vaguely gun shaped with a "rationalisation" of the Firearms Act :shocking:

He has to get re-elected first on May 5th, but winning foreign wars is a very popular thing to do with the electorate so he probably will. OTOH, the hunting brigade haven't had their say yet and they have had plenty of time and money to plan their response. Blaire doesn't have a megga lead in the polls.

The anti-gun brigade seems to have infiltrated an unelected civil service clique at the Home Office so we get this nonsense regardless of which goverment gets elected

 

[BLAHMAN]

.....Now I believe in the 2nd Amendment rights, but why would anyone need a gun like that?.....

It's not a question of "need"...it's a question of "rights'.

That simple term "need" as opposed to "rights" will and can also affect us in the everyday affairs that we endure.

Property rights? Do we really need a house with two baths?

Vehicles: do you really need a pickup truck with an 8 cylinder engine?

Food: do you really need to eat a ham sandwich when a cracker will do?

That is the scary part of the 'slippery slope'. Gun control isn't about controling guns, it's about controling people.

I love my country, but I do not trust my government.