[twoblink]

I'm just wondering as someone suggested, if they do pass a .50Caliber ban, calling it a .49999 Caliber... would that effectively bypass this law?

What if we went metric?

Calling it the 1.27 instead of the .50?

The stupidity of these and other laws never ceases to amaze me...

[Blackhawk]

Depends on how the law is written.

[Wildalaska]

Tough to advertise too..introducing the new S&W .4999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 magnum

Wild:neener: Alaska

[Jeff OTMG]

If the .50 BMG is restricted, it won't be long before we see a .498. If they go after that then a .490 won't be long behind.

[David Park]

The advantage of the .50BMG is that it's an old, well-established, common cartridge. There is a lot of reasonably-priced surplus ammo and components out there.

My guess is that even if some new firearm was labeled .498 caliber, if the BATF determined that the .50BMG would chamber and fire, it would be illegal. It may be possible to find a "loophole" similar to the current post-ban rifles, but I'm sure the gun grabbers will try to make any .50 ban as broad as possible. That's why we can't allow a ban to become law.

[50 Shooter]

Here's the problem, Koretz did his homework with AB50. He took out the "sniper" moniker and specifically labled the projo's AND the case. So if you try to wildcat the case, they will still see it as a .50 BMG case and won't be able to own it.

The reason he re-wrote it this way was to get away from muzzleloaders and pistols. Figuring if he did it this way, not as many people would be affected, thus not as many people would want to fight the ban.

And here's the worst part of all, Koretz is now on the Public Safety Committee!!! So are problems have just went up 1000%:banghead:

[twoblink]

I don't understand the logic here..

I'm less threatened by a man with a .50Caliber BMG then I am someone with a inexpensive revolver...

The chances of a man who can afford a $3000 rifle committing a crime against me is much less then someone who stole a cheap revolver....

Where is the LOGIC here, or am I just barking up the wrong tree??

[cookhj]

twoblink, you're trying too hard to understand it! if it doesn't make sense, then it MUST be the right way!

[Lone_Gunman]

Yes you are right Two Blink... but they will interpret your logic as a reason to ban revolvers too!