SF Board of Supes to attempt a .50 cal ban Citywide


PDA






stv
July 18, 2004, 02:06 PM
Sniper rifle in city's sights
By Adriel Hampton | Staff Writer
Published on Friday, July 16, 2004
URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/index.cfm/i/071604n_guns


A San Francisco supervisor has quietly introduced a proposal to join growing efforts to ban the sale or transfer of high-powered sniper rifles, prompting gun lobbyists to threaten a lawsuit against The City.

Supervisor Matt Gonzalez's plan is part of a growing legal pressure against the military-style .50-caliber weapons that are capable of penetrating armor and striking targets up to four miles away. A gun-lobby lawsuit is proceeding against Contra Costa County for its recent ban of the rifles in unincorporated areas of that East Bay region.

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has worked for years to curb the .50-caliber's prevalence, and a spokesman from her office said she would be supportive of a local effort.

"We've tried to limit them on a national level and we haven't been able to get that through," said Howard Gantman of Feinstein's office.

Contra Costa supervisors passed a ban on the rifles this spring, arguing that they might be used for terrorist attacks on local refineries. The City of Los Angeles has a similar ban, and these efforts to restrict the guns are now working their way through state and federal legislatures.

The guns are popular among hobbyists who use them for target practice, but are not common in San Francisco.

Gonzalez on Tuesday introduced legislation to clean up local gun laws that conflict with state law and recent court decisions and to add the ban on the sale and transfer of .50-caliber rifles in San Francisco.

Gun-lobby attorney Chuck Michel called the San Francisco effort "premature" and said that, depending on the outcome of the current Contra Costa suit, he might press a case against The City if legislators pass a .50-caliber ban.

"I don't know why they would want to get involved in litigation," he said.

The sniper rifles, available easily over the Internet for a few thousand dollars, have "never been used in a crime," Michel said, adding that efforts to ban them buy into a new argument that they are "simply too big. The problem is there is no such thing as a gun that is 'just right' ... in the mind of the gun-ban lobby."

A San Francisco ban on the rifles might help fuel a national crackdown, but local law enforcement officials said they don't see their use in gun crimes here.


:barf:

Of course, when asked about crime stats with .50s, they admit that there hasn't been any. Go figure.

If you enjoyed reading about "SF Board of Supes to attempt a .50 cal ban Citywide" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
schizrade
July 18, 2004, 04:04 PM
I hate this city.

Matt Gonzalez is an admitted socialist. He has no idea what he is doing judging from his actions.

whm1974
July 18, 2004, 04:42 PM
Supervisor Matt Gonzalez's plan is part of a growing legal pressure against the military-style .50-caliber weapons that are capable of penetrating armor and striking targets up to four miles away

For one, any hunting rifle will penetrate armor if the right bullet is used. The Bullet itself may go up to four miles, but can most people hit the target?

Contra Costa supervisors passed a ban on the rifles this spring, arguing that they might be used for terrorist attacks on local refineries

This is real silly. Attacking refineries is illegal anyway... So how is this going to stop terrorist attacks with .50 rifles?

-Bill

jefnvk
July 18, 2004, 05:57 PM
I wonder where they got the idea that a .50 could take out a refinery? Try here: http://www.vpc.org/studies/duckcont.htm

Standing Wolf
July 18, 2004, 07:18 PM
U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has worked for years to curb the .50-caliber's prevalence...

Yeah, they're so "prevalent," I'll bet there aren't five of these rifles in the entire city of San Francisco; heavily armed murderers walking around on the loose, by contrast...

feedthehogs
July 18, 2004, 08:33 PM
The sniper rifles, available easily over the Internet for a few thousand dollars

The gun lobby needs to tell its attorney not to oversimplify the ease of firearms purchase.

No metion of an FFL needed and the regulations there of.

This kind of loose information is bad enough from Feinstein, much worst from our side.

deej
July 18, 2004, 09:10 PM
Note the clever quoting:



The sniper rifles, available easily over the Internet for a few thousand dollars, have "never been used in a crime," Michel said



Chuck Michel never said any such thing (re. "available easily over the Internet.") That's an editorial insertion.

whm1974
July 18, 2004, 11:45 PM
Chuck Michel never said any such thing (re. "available easily over the Internet.") That's an editorial insertion.

Yes, always beaware of what you say to reporters.

-Bill

LAR-15
July 19, 2004, 12:09 AM
How many gun stores sell .50s in SF?

And is the M82 banned in CA?

So what they'e spending 10,000 on a Windrunner?:confused:

schizrade
July 19, 2004, 12:12 AM
You mean the ONE gun store in SF? No .50 there.

LAR-15
July 19, 2004, 12:15 AM
This guy is an idiot then.

There are no gun stores in SF selling .50s?

So just what does this thing ban??

schizrade
July 19, 2004, 12:24 AM
The one remaining store in SF gets by by doing gunsmithing and selling to LE. I try and pick up ammo when I need it just to support them some.

stv
July 19, 2004, 12:25 AM
High Bridge Arms (last gun store in SF...) did have an AR-50 in the case for a while. Did it finally sell?

tyme
July 19, 2004, 12:28 AM
The M82 is banned by CA's Assault Weapon Control Act because the M82 is centerfire, has a detachable magazine, and has a pistol grip.

sharpie613
July 19, 2004, 01:19 AM
Dianne Feinstein, widely believed to be insane for pursuing a losing cause, still wants "Mr. and Mrs. America [to] turn them all in" except for her government financed bodyguards, police, and people to whom she owes favors. Feinstein, despite carrying a firearm for her own protection, believes that "banning guns addresses a fundamental need of all Americans [except Sen. Feinstein] to feel safe."


Look! I can play too!!

whm1974
July 20, 2004, 10:10 AM
Feinstein, despite carrying a firearm for her own protection,

I didn't know she did this. If we don't have a right even own or carry a gun for protection then why does she?

-Bill

boofus
July 20, 2004, 11:17 AM
She is a deputy federal marshal too. So she has access to P90s and MP5Ks and OICWs and everything else the peasants can never hope to own. Even if they take away her CCW she can still pack 24/7 with post-sample machineguns.

Feinswine is a total hypocrite. Whoever thinks ********** isn't a police state has their head buried in the sand or up their ass. The ruling class and their personal enforcers in KA live by a completely different set of rules from the serfs.

Hell even the SFPD over there can't get semi-auto patrol rifles. Guess you gotta be a bodyguard for someone 'important' to get one there. :barf:

MP5
July 20, 2004, 12:55 PM
Contra Costa supervisors passed a ban on the rifles this spring, arguing that they might be used for terrorist attacks on local refineries.

Gee, and maybe they should ban passenger jets to prevent another 9/11. Just as logical. Criminals don't give a damn about what's banned or not. By definition, they're the folks who disregard laws. And anyway, if something is banned in one city or county, what's to stop Joe Terrorist from heading just out of the city limits to buy his weapon of choice there? (Making the ridiculous assumption that terrorists all walk into your neighborhood firearms dealer to purchase their guns legally.)

R.H. Lee
July 20, 2004, 05:44 PM
I think it was Chuckie Schumer awhile back quoted as saying the .50 could penetrate a limousine at over a mile.............

If you enjoyed reading about "SF Board of Supes to attempt a .50 cal ban Citywide" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!