Heard about the new Federal .50 BMG ban bill?


PDA






nplant
July 25, 2007, 06:39 PM
It's called "Long-Range Sniper Rifle Safety Act of 2007." Gimme a break.

Senate Bill 1331 would try to export California's insane idea of a public hazard to the rest of the country (nothing new here). Does anyone actually, really believe that the .50 BMG is a threat to peace and prosperity in a bolt action rifle? I know, I know, preaching to the choir again.

I did a search and couldn't find this (quickly - I'm at work). Here's a link to the Library of Congress page that will give you all the info you could want. Guess who's behind the bill. :fire:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas

If you enjoyed reading about "Heard about the new Federal .50 BMG ban bill?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
erik the bold
July 25, 2007, 06:50 PM
Here's a link that works.......right here (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1331)

Bruce333
July 25, 2007, 07:02 PM
Looks like it would affect more the just the .50 BMG.

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.'.

PTK
July 25, 2007, 07:05 PM
If passed you can expect widespread disobedience. Even among the simple folk where I live there are quite a few .50s.

ABTOMAT
July 25, 2007, 07:07 PM
Looks like it would affect more the just the .50 BMG.

I'm just curious, what other legal cartridges get up into that range? Even .700NE is a few thousand fewer foot-pounds.

fletcher
July 25, 2007, 07:07 PM
Times like this make me wish I could afford a .50. I'm not sure that it's going to pass.

Black Majik
July 25, 2007, 07:10 PM
Times like this make me wish I could afford a .50. I'm not sure that it's going to pass.



That's what us Californians said too...

Juna
July 25, 2007, 07:15 PM
:barf: My @#$@#$ senator Carl Levin is a co-sponsor! :fire::banghead::cuss:

DoubleTapDrew
July 25, 2007, 07:15 PM
Surprise surprise look who's the sponsor. Looks like Feinstein isn't happy that Barrett and others have circumvented **********'s asinine .50 cal ban. They are going to keep adding larger slices to the NFA DD regs until we have single shot .22's and then we'll get those taken away so we don't shoot our eye out.
I hope this "Elk-Hunting Rifle Elimination Act of 2007" doesn't make it out of introduction.

fletcher
July 25, 2007, 07:17 PM
`(36) The term `.50 BMG caliber sniper rifle' means--

`(A) a rifle capable of firing a center-fire cartridge in .50 BMG caliber,


So... any rifle that fires .50BMG is considered a sniper rifle? Feinstein - always on the cutting edge of idiocy.

Time to write the senators.

EDIT: Faxes sent.

Jorg Nysgerrig
July 25, 2007, 07:19 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by new. It was introduced in May, read and sent to committee. It was discussed way back here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=276520

Nomad101bc
July 25, 2007, 07:19 PM
Does she know of a better way to humanely kill large game?

CountGlockula
July 25, 2007, 07:28 PM
You can no longer buy a rifle chambered for .50 BMG, BUT what you can buy is the new .50 DTC.

Cosmoline
July 25, 2007, 07:33 PM
I'm just curious, what other legal cartridges get up into that range?

The law is so broad, it includes any "case," which means any action ABLE to be chambered in .50 BMG would be illegal. That includes virtually all 98 pattern hunting rifles. Not to mention AR's.

DoubleTapDrew
July 25, 2007, 08:04 PM
Does she know of a better way to humanely kill large game?

She takes their food away through legislation. It's not as humane but it doesn't frighten her.

Don't Tread On Me
July 25, 2007, 08:05 PM
Looks like the Feds have read UC.

Titan6
July 25, 2007, 08:09 PM
This is a matter of public safety. There has been literally a wave of sniping with .50 BMG in Iraq. Oh wait... never mind....

Ian
July 25, 2007, 08:24 PM
I'm just curious, what other legal cartridges get up into that range? Even .700NE is a few thousand fewer foot-pounds.

Things like 12.7x107 (the Russian DShK .50), .55 Boys, 14.5x114 (PTRD/PTRS), and a dozen or so other WWI and WWII anti-tank cartridges. Also the 20mm Vulcan, which Anzio Ironworks makes bolt and single-shot rifles in. More importantly, it would cover the things like .416 Barrett that are functionally similar to .50 BMG but slip past legislation.

Edit: Cosmoline, I think the word "case" is referring to the cartridge case, not the firearm's action or receiver.

budney
July 25, 2007, 08:28 PM
Danggit! I guess this means I have to hurry up and buy a BMG so I'll be grandfathered in...

nplant
July 25, 2007, 08:29 PM
Thanks Eric and Jorg for covering my desire to quickly share something with the community...

Mods - this one can be closed, since Jorg points out the older thread. *Sorry!*

SoCalShooter
July 25, 2007, 08:33 PM
Uhhhggg thanks for the info, looks like all Dems right now, but they need to get people on the other side of the isle to vote with them or they will not get enough votes for it. Either way I'll contact my rep.

Geno
July 25, 2007, 08:42 PM
There are many words that inadequately describe Levin, and not one of them is THR-worthy. :evil:

I see this expanding (if it ever passed) into ALL "sniper" rifles, which is precisely why it won't pass. But you can be certain that they will play on the horrors of imaginary terror-that-could-be, and all the while continuing to leave the back door of America "unlocked", wide-open and not even monitored.

Yes, there are many fine, fine words that inadequately describe Levin, and not one of them is THR-worthy. ;)

Will Learn
July 25, 2007, 08:44 PM
They're taking the country away from us one nibble(or big bite in this case) at a time. I just wonder if we'll ever be able to take it back? Every day it seems we are closer to the tipping point. I think it's time to take out another student loan to finance a .50 project. What I'm more worried about though lately is the availability of ammo. The last thing I need is a 30lb paper weight and I'm not sure my ability to acquire a lifetime supply of .50 BMG outweighs my paranoia of not being able to get any(.50 ammo) in the future.

Geno
July 25, 2007, 08:51 PM
There are several companies that sell .50 BMG uppers for the AR15.

See www.ferret50.com

Here's another lead: http://www.50bmgstore.com/50bmgcurrentprices.htm

Edit to ask: How many .50 BMGs have been used to commit a crime in America in the past 5 years?

Doc2005

wdlsguy
July 25, 2007, 09:25 PM
Things like 12.7x107 (the Russian DShK .50), .55 Boys, 14.5x114 (PTRD/PTRS), and a dozen or so other WWI and WWII anti-tank cartridges. Also the 20mm Vulcan, which Anzio Ironworks makes bolt and single-shot rifles in.
A firearm in a military caliber over .50 is almost certainly going to be considered a "destructive device" by BATFE under the current rules.

More importantly, it would cover the things like .416 Barrett that are functionally similar to .50 BMG but slip past legislation.
Looks like the .416 Barrett runs a bit over 9,000 ft-lbs, so it would be safe for now.

Prince Yamato
July 25, 2007, 09:31 PM
Anyone see the up to this? She's trying to NFA it instead of ban it outright... it means the antis are losing :neener:

Geno
July 25, 2007, 09:34 PM
Should we ask that everyone who owns a .50 BMG post a picture here, or do you all think we should start a separate thread for .50 BMG pics?

Has anyone else noticed that Carl Levin looks like Dr Evil?! Or was it Mini Me?!

Juna
July 25, 2007, 09:44 PM
If I read the text of the bill correctly, it bans all .50 BMG firearms, in addition to all of the above-mentioned large-50ish-caliber metric cartridges, and any rifle that looks like them (e.g. "copies or duplicates"):
The term `.50 BMG caliber sniper rifle' means--

`(A) a rifle capable of firing a center-fire cartridge in .50 BMG caliber, including a 12.7 mm equivalent of .50 BMG and any other metric equivalent; or

`(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.'.

And as for this comment:
Danggit! I guess this means I have to hurry up and buy a BMG so I'll be grandfathered in...

I refer you to this:
SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION.

Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall implement regulations providing for notice and registration of .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles as destructive devices (as those terms are defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this Act) under this Act and the amendments made by this Act, including the use of a notice and registration process similar to that used when the USAS-12, Striker 12, and Streetsweeper shotguns were reclassified as destructive devices and registered between 1994 and 2001 (ATF Ruling 94-1 (ATF Q.B. 1994-1, 22); ATF Ruling 94-2 (ATF Q.B. 1994-1, 24); and ATF Ruling 2001-1 (66 Fed. Reg. 9748)). The Attorney General shall ensure that under the regulations issued under this section, the time period for the registration of any previously unregistered .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle shall end not later than 7 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

So, yes, you may be grandfathered in, but you'll be registered as owning a destructive device or else you'll become a federal criminal.

Moreover, I have never heard of any crime being committed in the U.S. where a .50 BMG firearm was discharged by a criminal. I have seen numerous stories by Carl Levin, Feinstein, et al who have claimed that people arrested for any sort of crime who happened to legally own a .50 BMG rifle constituted criminal use of "dangerous .50 caliber sniper rifles capable of shooting down a 747" and necessitated such a ban.

Didn't the D.C. sniper use .223? At Virginia Tech he used a .22 LR and a 9mm. I guess the "assault sniper .22 pistol safety ban of 2007" is up next. :barf::fire::banghead::cuss:

I'm with you, Doc 2005. I'd go more into detail of what I think of Carl Levin (and all the Levins, for that matter), but it wouldn't be THR.

strat81
July 25, 2007, 10:26 PM
E-mails sent to Sens. Ben Nelson (D) and Chuck Hagel (R) of Nebraska.

Titan6
July 25, 2007, 10:28 PM
Doc 2005- I believe the answer to your question is 0. If you go back a couple of more years you will find a couple of murders of LEOs. The antis are not worried about crime or terrorism. The antis are worried about the .50 cals being used for the intended purpose of the 2A.

Daniel T
July 25, 2007, 10:49 PM
Doc 2005- I believe the answer to your question is 0.

I think the answer is actually "1". The crazy guy that up-armored a bulldozer or some such in Granby, CO used a .50BMG to fire randomly at buildings when he went on his "rampage".

I don't think he actually hit anyone though.

Working Man
July 25, 2007, 10:53 PM
I have always wanted a .50 BMG just for S&G.
I think I will start to save in earnest for one now. Can't let those pesky H&k
and good ole 1911's get in the way any more. :D

MinnMooney
July 25, 2007, 10:55 PM
FEINSTEIN, KENNEDY, LEVIN, MENENDEZ, MIKULSKI, CLINTON, DURBIN, BOXER, LAUTENBERG, SCHUMER, and DODD.

What a list of Who's Who in the book of "Haven't You Learned ANYTHING About What Happens After a Country Disarms It's Citizenry?!?"

Titan6
July 25, 2007, 10:58 PM
From that great bastion of truth the VPC:

On April 28, 1995, Albert Petrosky walked into an Albertson's grocery store in suburban Denver, Colorado, and gunned down his estranged wife and the store manager. Armed with an L.A.R. Grizzly 50 caliber sniper rifle, an SKS Chinese semiautomatic assault rifle, a .32 revolver, and a 9mm semiautomatic pistol, Petrosky then walked out into the shopping center parking lot, where he exchanged fire with a federal IRS agent and killed Sgt. Timothy Mossbrucker of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department. Petrosky, who was known to his friends as "50-cal Al," fired all four weapons, including the 50 caliber rifle, during his murderous rampage. ("Authorities Investigate Gun Sale: Rifle Used in Albertson's Slayings Wasn't Illegal," Rocky Mountain News, May 1, 1995)


Branch Davidian cult members at a compound in Waco, Texas, fired 50 caliber sniper rifles at federal ATF agents during their initial gun battle on February 28, 1993. The weapons' ability to penetrate tactical vehicles prompted the agency to request military armored vehicles to give agents adequate protection from the 50 caliber rifles and other more powerful weapons the Branch Davidians might have had. Four ATF agents were killed. ("Weaponry: .50 Caliber Rifle Crime," GAO Office of Special Investigations letter, August 4, 1999)


On February 27, 1992, a Wells Fargo armored delivery truck was attacked in a "military style operation" in Chamblee, Georgia, by several men using a smoke grenade and a Barrett 50 caliber sniper rifle. Two employees were wounded. ("Two Armored Truck Guards Shot," The Atlanta Journal Constitution, February 27, 1992)

PILMAN
July 25, 2007, 11:24 PM
They are like the energizer bunny, they just keep going and going and going and....

MudPuppy
July 25, 2007, 11:28 PM
I guess a 50 is in the same category as the other "fun guns", like the full autos, so I'd guess from their point of view it could just as easily be regulated in the same manner. But I guess that's also true of most semi autos as well. Its surprising that more types haven't been lumped into that NFA category--as a population, we've demonstrated our willingness to put up with just a little more in most cases.

strat81
July 25, 2007, 11:43 PM
A letter you can all use:

Dear Senator Old Guy:
My name is Real Name and I am writing to urge you to vote against S.B. 1331 - “Long-Range Sniper Rifle Safety Act of 2007.” This piece of legislation serves no purpose but to infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. To my knowledge, the .50 BMG has not been used in this country for any terrorism-related crime or for any sniping-related crime. Further, I find it quite ridiculous for such a bill to describe any rifle chambered in .50 BMG as a “sniper rifle.” The language of the bill also opens the doors for any rifle remotely similar to a current .50 BMG rifle to be banned. Also, the common AR-15 defense rifle is available in a .50 BMG configuration; this bill potentially opens the door for declaring all AR-15-style rifles “destructive devices” and placing them under regulation and registration of the National Firearms Act. Such a bill would also pose a severe detriment to hunters who may wish to humanely harvest big game from the safe distances the .50 BMG allows. I strongly urge you to vote no on S.B. 1331. I appreciate your support in this matter. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Real Name
Real Address

CountGlockula
July 25, 2007, 11:51 PM
Here's my buddies, LEO, Barrett:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v171/Gregdog/Range%20Day/RangeDay001.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v171/Gregdog/Range%20Day/RangeDay002.jpg

Double Naught Spy
July 26, 2007, 08:24 AM
Moreover, I have never heard of any crime being committed in the U.S. where a .50 BMG firearm was discharged by a criminal.

In addition to what Titan6 posted, there was Heemeyer in Granby, CO back in 2004...
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3390654/detail.html

Video of the event, but not of the shooting...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbG9i1oGPA&mode=related&search=

eric.cartman
July 26, 2007, 10:10 AM
I thought only Bush used terror tactics :evil:

We must save the world from the evil .50BMG,
Quick, every one go here: http://www.50caliberterror.com/

EDIT: Jesus, this website gives new meaning to "emotional" gun grabbers!!!


The .50 Caliber Sniper Rifle puts us all at risk whenever we fly an airplane.

These powerful sniper rifles which were designed for the battlefield to puncture armor and destroy targets from long range are easier to get than a handgun.

Why should we be spending billions of dollars on homeland security when a terrorist can buy a sniper rifle that can shoot armor piercing bullets up to 2000 yards with great accuracy?

Why do we permit the sale of a weapon that is powerful enough to threaten civilian airplanes taxiing on the runway or during landing and takeoff?

Your safety is at stake because these weapons are so readily available.

.50 Caliber sniper rifles are a terrorist’s dream considering the death and destruction they could inflict.

If you are fed up with gun manufacturers who put profits before homeland security, join our national campaign NOW!
Facts on .50 Caliber Sniper Rifles

http://www.vpc.org/50caliber.htm

* .50 Caliber Sniper Rifles were designed to attack parked or landing aircraft, armored personnel carriers, rail tank cars, bulk fuel storage, and concrete bunkers.
* .50 Caliber sniper rifles are powerful enough to puncture armored limousines and can be used as tools for assassination.
* .50 Caliber Sniper Rifles have effective ranges up to 2,000 yards, or in other words, 20 football fields laid end to end. Deer hunters generally shoot at ranges of 150 to 200 yards.
* Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network bought 25 Barrett .50 Caliber sniper rifles in the late 1980s.
* .50 Caliber ammunition is the largest round available on the civilian market and highly destructive armor-piercing, incendiary, and explosive rounds are easily available.

Realllllllyyyyyy??? :banghead::banghead::banghead:

fletcher
July 26, 2007, 10:12 AM
Has anyone actually been killed with a .50, though?

ozwyn
July 26, 2007, 10:16 AM
if they ban everything .50 and larger, that pretty much ends civil and revolutionary war reenactments and virtually all black powder shooting.....

plenty of enthusiasts that could be mobilized I am thinking.......

fletcher
July 26, 2007, 10:21 AM
^ It's pretty much banning centerfire only, or anything else that exceeds 12k ft-lbs.

2400
July 26, 2007, 10:30 AM
I did a search and couldn't find this (quickly - I'm at work). Here's a link to the Library of Congress page that will give you all the info you could want. Guess who's behind the bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas


Sponsor: Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Cosponsors
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D-CA]
Sen. Hillary Clinton [D-NY]
Sen. Christopher Dodd [D-CT]
Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Sen. Edward Kennedy [D-MA]
Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ]
Sen. Carl Levin [D-MI]
Sen. Robert Menéndez [D-NJ]
Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D-MD]
Sen. Charles Schumer [D-NY]

MD_Willington
July 26, 2007, 12:31 PM
Well iuf it passes, make a rim-fire .50BMG...

Geno
July 26, 2007, 12:40 PM
How to Lie with Statistics. Sounds like they're just re-writing the old textbook, new topic, same perversion of "wanna-be-fact". What’s next? The lowly .22LR used to be listed as deadly to 1.5 miles…Hades on high, that exceeds the distance listed for the .50 BMG…is that the next distortion?

DoubleTapDrew
July 26, 2007, 01:33 PM
Feinstein apparently hasn't read Michael Marks' article (http://fiftycal.org/frenchrebuttal0511.php)
Actually she probably has...but public safety isn't part of her agenda.

ball3006
July 26, 2007, 01:57 PM
50 cal rifles will be grandfathered. If this is the case, stocking up with ammo would be the thing to do if you own a 50 cal rifle.....chris3

wdlsguy
July 26, 2007, 02:39 PM
If this bill passes, .50 BMG's will become "destructive devices". Since they intend to follow the procedures they created for the Streetsweeper:

- existing .50 BMG's would need to be registered on a Form 1. Fingerprints and passport photos would be required, but the CLEO signature and $200 tax payment would not be required.

- new .50 BMG's could be made on a Form 1 ($200) or manufactured on a Form 2 ($0).

- .50 BMG's could be transferred on a Form 4 ($200).

ETA: So buying one now means you get to skip the CLEO signature and $200 registration tax if this passes.

Glockman17366
July 26, 2007, 03:37 PM
"My @#$@#$ senator Carl Levin is a co-sponsor"

Then call Levin and voice your opinion as a taxpayer

Carl N. Brown
July 26, 2007, 03:52 PM
* Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network bought 25 Barrett .50 Caliber sniper rifles in the late 1980s.--VPC

The US DoD through the CIA supplied .50 Barrett rifles to the Afghans
fighting the Russian occupation of Afhanistan. After the Russians
left, the CIA made no effort to reclaim the Barrett rifles so
Taliban "inherited" them and may or may not have passed them
on to Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. Since Al-Qaeda has apparently
not used .50 Barrett rifles, we may never know. If Al-Qaeda had to
buy the rifles from the Taliban, so much for Islamic "brotherhood"
although I suspect Al Qaeda picked them up as free-bies if the
picked them up at all.

But Tom Dias' and VPC's old story of Ronny Barrett making his early
profits selling guns to Bin Laden is pure bull**** and slanderlous libel.

hornadylnl
July 26, 2007, 04:38 PM
"Sponsor: Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Cosponsors
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D-CA]
Sen. Hillary Clinton [D-NY]
Sen. Christopher Dodd [D-CT]
Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Sen. Edward Kennedy [D-MA]
Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ]
Sen. Carl Levin [D-MI]
Sen. Robert Menéndez [D-NJ]
Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D-MD]
Sen. Charles Schumer [D-NY]"

Can you believe that there are gun owners on this forum that vote for Democrats? Granted, their senator may not be on this list but voting them into power helped give democrat senate rule, thus putting the antis in control of congress. Thanks.

asknight
July 27, 2007, 12:18 AM
It's a good thing that the rifle I was looking at wasn't a 50 BMG, it was a 12.7x99mm! :neener:

Banning a product by name doesn't make any sense. And with technology the way it is, and in the right hands (Ronnie Barrett)... a superior performing round could be developed in mere hours after a ban.

ETA: hornadylnl, thanks for the info. I note that it's all Cali and Yankee democrats on that sponsorship... interesting to say the least!

Prince Yamato
July 27, 2007, 12:51 AM
These powerful sniper rifles which were designed for the battlefield to puncture armor and destroy targets from long range are easier to get than a handgun.

Oh that is SUCH crap. I WISH I could get a 50bmg as easy as I could get a handgun.

RobTzu
July 27, 2007, 01:11 AM
I sent the following email to Senator Brownback (R) Kansas and Senator Roberts (R) Kansas.


I am concerned about Senate Bill 1331 ("Long-Range Sniper Rifle Safety Act of 2007.") It is my hope that you will do everything in your power to stop this bill from becoming law. The 2nd amendment states that the "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This bill is an infringement, and therefore unconstitutional. If the 2nd Amendment can be run over rough shod, what guarentee does the citizen have that other Civil Liberties and Rights will be respected?



I am tired of these nibbles.

tmajors
July 27, 2007, 02:04 AM
No surprise really, but Pres candidate Hillarity Clinton is a co-sponsor to remove any doubt how her presidency would be towards gun owners.

fletcher
July 27, 2007, 02:39 AM
^^^ Yeah, maybe as easy to get if you have thousands of dollars you can throw around. Also, "destroy targets from long range" - isn't that kind of the idea for a rifle?

Double Naught Spy
July 27, 2007, 05:05 AM
Actually, rifles (and guns in general) are designed to deliver a projecile down range in a controlled manner. Whether the target is long or short range and whether it is to be destroyed or not isn't a design parameter of the rifle, but an application.

RobTzu
July 27, 2007, 04:13 PM
I got a reply back from one of my Senators... Roberts (R) KS. Someone actually read it, because the filter on his site did not have a "gun rights" section, I had to file it under "other". I know this is a canned response, but it is a good canned response:

Thank you for your letter regarding gun rights. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns with me.

I remain in strong support of congressional efforts to preserve our Second Amendment right to bear arms. Furthermore, I am opposed to actions that infringe on those rights and do not effectively reduce crime and violence. Firearm laws should only be enacted with the intent to punish criminal activity. Rather than chipping away at fundamental liberties backed by the Constitution, we should target the real problem–mainly crime.

I support enforcing the gun laws currently on the books, instead of creating new ones that erode basic rights of self-protection. The best way to combat crime is through solid law enforcement opportunities and education. Throughout my service in the U.S. Senate, I have consistently voted to strengthen sentences for crimes committed with guns, and I have supported provisions to stop violent crime and remove repeat offenders from the streets. Supporters of gun control claim that to reduce crime the government must regulate firearms. This view fails to recognize that criminals do not obey laws, and that passing gun legislation has no effect on removing guns from the hands of criminals. Nationwide statistics prove that states with strict gun laws have little effect on crime rates. In the end, it is only law-abiding citizens who are punished by gun control.

As a public servant to both Kansas and the nation, I swore an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. Rest assured, I take that responsibility seriously. Again thank you for taking the time to contact me. If you would like more information on issues before the Senate, please visit my website at http://roberts.senate.gov. You may also sign up on my home page for a monthly electronic newsletter that will provide additional updates on my work for Kansas.

50 Shooter
July 27, 2007, 04:40 PM
If this crap passes and you own a .50 but don't live in a state that allows DD's... To bad, so sad, gotta sell it or turn it in!

Being that I live in Kali and they don't allow DD's but I'm supposedly "grandfathered" in, wanna bet that I can't keep it?

Is it time to feed the hogs yet?

DoubleTapDrew
July 27, 2007, 04:49 PM
Being that I live in Kali and they don't allow DD's but I'm supposedly "grandfathered" in, wanna bet that I can't keep it?

No you can't keep it but you can turn in your several thousand dollar rifle for a shiny new $50 Best Buy gift card at the next "gun buy back"!!! :barf:
Don't worry, it won't be destroyed. It'll go into the armory of the "professionals" since we can't be trusted with it.

fearless leader
July 27, 2007, 05:41 PM
It's nice to know that while the war rages on, illegals continue to pour across our borders, China expanding it's military, or any other of the thousands of things you could accomplish this year, you have time to sponsor a bill to prevent all of those horrible 50 caliber snipings of which I never heard, and insure I will turn in my Democrat card. I am a registered democrat, but I am sick to death with the party banning guns.
Every time there is a sensless shooting, I notice a common denominator: one "wolf" attacks a place full of defensless "sheep." The standard democrat answer to this has been to make more of us sheep.
I am not in your voting area, or in your state, but if you want the party to keep it's base, keep in mind how many Democrats in the deep south your nauseating with your "make more sheep attitude."

How many good Democrats will be sacrificed on the alter of gun control? There are more laws out there than the police know. I should know, because when I attended the academy they answered many of my questions wrong, but as a student, I did as I was told.

Retiring Democrat

Jim Coker

"I'm proud of our troops, but I'm ashamed of my Congress" - Jim Coker, Retiring Democrat
If you're not reading this in German or Japanese, be glad the seated Congress was not around in 1941

This is a message I just fired off to Diane "Frankenstein."
Around here, the Sheriff elections are between Democrats usually, so if you don't have a Democrat card, you can't vote for Sheriff. It's all settled in the primary. I let the Senator know I would be turning that in.

I would suggest similar, diplomatic, tactful e-mails and letters if you don't want to lose this.

JimmyN
July 27, 2007, 05:43 PM
They really build up the hype about the danger to airliners. Apparently they have never seen any WWII gun camera footage from fighter planes. Or maybe the fighter pilots should have been armed with a bolt action .50cal instead, allowing them to take out the enemy craft with a single shot.

RobTzu
July 27, 2007, 05:44 PM
Spellcheck before you send in the emails ;)

CZ.22
July 27, 2007, 06:09 PM
+1 senator roberts!

Gifted
July 28, 2007, 04:13 AM
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.'.I've been looking at messing with sabots. What's the smallest caliber that will do it there? would .308s be in trouble?

Titan6
July 28, 2007, 06:46 AM
Even the most powerful .308 can achieve only about one quarter of the energy of a .50BMG.

trickyasafox
July 28, 2007, 11:41 AM
who are we writing? the usual senator suspects?

Reddbecca
July 28, 2007, 04:31 PM
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.'.

This very well could be a ban of many, many guns, not just anything in the .50 caliber range. The devil is really in the details on this one. "or greater in any combination of bullet, propellant, case, or primer", four rounds of .30-06 have a combined muzzle energy of at least that much. This can ban hunting guns and many M1 Garands if the liberals read into it the way I can read it.

ke6guj
July 29, 2007, 04:20 AM
Being that I live in Kali and they don't allow DD's but I'm supposedly "grandfathered" in, wanna bet that I can't keep it?

Actually, certain DD's are legal in CA. CA defines a DD as .60" or greater (other than shotgun). Any DD under .60" (except for .50bmg) would not be regulated by CADOJ and not need a CADOJ DD permit. The way I read it, your existing CA-registered .50BMG should or CA-legal .50DTC be grandfathered even if it needed to NFA-registered as a DD. If future "grandfather" NFA registrations do not require CLEO sign-off on the Form 1, then you'd only need to file the form 1 and be done.

Heck, you could buy/build something like a 14.5x114mm Russian and only need CLEO sign-off for the NFA Form 1/4. No CADOJ DD permit needed for that. Yes, getting that CLEO sign-off may be difficult, but you could go corp or trust to bypass the sign-off.

12301. (a) The term "destructive device," as used in this chapter, shall include any of the following weapons:
(3) Any weapon of a caliber greater than 0.60 caliber which fires fixed ammunition, or any ammunition therefor, other than a shotgun (smooth or rifled bore) conforming to the definition of a "destructive device" found in subsection (b) of Section 479.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, shotgun ammunition (single projectile or shot), antique rifle, or an antique cannon. For purposes of this section, the term "antique cannon" means any cannon manufactured before January 1, 1899, which has been rendered incapable of firing or for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade. The term "antique rifle" means a firearm conforming to the definition of an "antique firearm" in Section 479.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

TimboKhan
July 29, 2007, 05:07 AM
With no exceptions, I am automatically against any anti-gun bill, so I didn't really read more than the link to the bill and the first page. I wanted to comment on this:

If passed you can expect widespread disobedience. Even among the simple folk where I live there are quite a few .50s.

Uh... Really? Don't get me wrong, if guns are banned in the near future, I will be disobeying those laws and sinking my guns beneath the earth in PVC pipes, but I guess I am just not convinced that there are enough .50 caliber shooters around to really cause "widespread disobedience". Disobedience, sure. Widespread? Not so sure.

In any event, I don't support the bill, so I guess it's kind of a moot point.

fearless leader
July 29, 2007, 09:33 AM
How many .50 BMGs have been used to commit a crime in America in the past 5 years?

It doesn't matter. It only matters that they don't want you to be able to use it on them, in my opinion.

If I was part of the movement against America, as she is, I would fear a slug coming at me from a mile or so away too.

Kind of the same reason that they banned handguns in The Peoples Republic of Washington, DC.

I wonder when they'll burn the books?

_________________________________________________________________
If you can read this in English, be glad the seated Congress wasn't in power in 1941.
I'm proud of our troops, but I am ashamed of our Congress!

SpeedAKL
August 2, 2007, 10:58 PM
:cuss:

I was just drooling over a pair of Barretts in the store today, and a .50BMG was something I always wanted to own when I got out to enjoy the white-collar income that I'm busting my rear end in college to earn. Sadly, it seems that the Democrats wanna ruin my fun (along with ruining the war on terror, the military, the economy, my cars, the federal government, and anything else they can get their hands on).

SpeedAKL
August 2, 2007, 11:00 PM
Seriously, where in the hell is this country going. I saw the latest opinion polls in the Wall Street Journal, and it seems that the American people are bent on socialism.

Blackbeard
August 3, 2007, 12:28 AM
Well let's see, one of my Senators is a co-sponsor, and the other is Barack Obama. No point in writing any letters, eh?

I hate this ^#$&% state!!

ZombieHunter
December 21, 2008, 10:44 PM
lmao found this link:
http://www.vpc.org/snipercrime.htm

last i checked being in possession of of something doesn't mean it was used in a crime. I mean hey...i bet those people all had a $1 bill in their pocket...we better move to ban money!

Justin
December 21, 2008, 10:56 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=70670&d=1199811473

This is a pretty old thread.

If you enjoyed reading about "Heard about the new Federal .50 BMG ban bill?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!