S1331: Feinstein Leads Senate Coalition to "Regulate" .50 BMG rifles

Status
Not open for further replies.

BADUNAME13

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
1,802
Location
Gulf Coast
Senator Feinstein Leads Senate Coalition to Regulate .50 BMG Caliber Combat-Style Sniper Rifle

Wed, 05/09/2007

May 8, 2007 -- Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), today introduced legislation to regulate the transfer and possession of .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles, which have extraordinary firepower and range (more than a mile with accuracy, with a maximum distance of up to four miles). These combat-style weapons are capable of bringing down airliners and helicopters that are taking off or landing, puncturing pressurized chemical storage facilities, and penetrating light armored personnel vehicles and protective limousines.

Current federal law classifies all .50 caliber rifles as “long guns,” subject to the least government regulation for any firearm. While the State Department has acknowledged the danger of these weapons by suspending all export of .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles weapons for civilian use in foreign countries, these weapons can still be purchased in the United States with little to no regulation.

“These are combat-style weapons designed to kill people efficiently and destroy machinery at a great distance. This legislation would regulate these dangerous combat weapons, making it harder for terrorists and others to buy them for illegitimate use,” Senator Feinstein said. “This legislation doesn’t ban any firearms; it would only institute common-sense regulations for the sale of these dangerous sniper rifles”

The legislation is co-sponsored by 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.).

A .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle weighs up to 28 pounds and fires the most powerful commonly available cartridges – the massive Browning Machine Gun cartridge, which has a diameter of ½ inch and a length of 3-6 inches.

A broad coalition of law enforcement organizations have called on Congress to regulate .50 caliber sniper rifles, including:

* International Brotherhood of Police Officers,
* Major Cities Chiefs Association,
* National Black Police Association,
* Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association,
* National Latino Peace Officers Association,
* The Police Foundation, and others.

The law enforcement groups have noted that “it is of special concern to the law enforcement community that these weapons of war are capable of penetrating our special operations vehicles, tactical equipment, and helicopters,” and warned that “their easy availability on the civilian market make them very attractive to potential terrorists.”

Long-Range Sniper Rifle Safety Act of 2007

This legislation would:

* Add the .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle to the list of firearms classified as “destructive devices” under the National Firearms Act, which would mean they must be registered when purchased or sold;

* Require the same registration for any “copycat” sniper rifles that might be developed in the future with destructive power that is equivalent to the .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle; and

* Allow people who already possess .50 BMG caliber sniper weapons up to seven years to register their existing firearms by implementing a registration process identical to what was used when “street sweeper” and other firearms were reclassified as “destructive devices” in 1994.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONGRADULATIONS Fineswine! You got me off my @$$.

I am looking to buy ether a Barrett 99 or a Ultramag .50 upper.
AS OF NOW!

Anyone find some good deals... let me know. I'm officially in the market.


&(%^$ On them!
 
Two things I re-learned here:

1. The police are NOT our friends. An individual cop, maybe, but not organized law enforcement groups. And BTW why in hell are there politically-active organizations of police agencies in a free country? They (supposedly) work for US.

2. Hillary Clinton IS virulently anti-gun, whether or not she plays it down when she runs for President.
 
Since laws against the .50 were enacted in California we haven't had a single aircraft shot down.

Hooray, the skies are safe again!
 
Great. I have up to seven years to register my 50 and then have to pay the ATF a TAX for something I have owned for years. Why does California keep re-electing this woman. Show me one good piece of legislaion she has produced.
 
Seven years, Eh?

That's seven years I won't have to worry about getting blood on the front lawn when someone comes to confiscate my .50BMG(Assuming my savings continue to grow and I buy one on schedule!).

The Second Amendment actually means something. Sooner or later, those of us to the likes of Diane Feinstein will learn what it means, too, and why our Founding Fathers secured the right in the first place. Let's just hope we don't lose our arms to some ignorantly enacted confiscation scheme before the need for them arises - but then, wouldn't such a scheme constitute the need for them in the first place?

Arms, and our right to keep and bear them, are unique. They are tools with the power to protect all our rights, including our right to keep and bear those arms themselves! No other right has the power within it to protect itself. Kind'a makes the right and the tools it protects rather important, doesn't it. Worth putting life on the line, don't you think?

Woody

A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other limit that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood
 
YAWN.

She's tried since 2000 to stick 50 calibers under the NFA and failed.
 
Wait, I see Hillary Clinton's name on this:confused: I thought she said in the debates that she would "respect my 2nd amendment rights?"... .......... oh wait:uhoh:

And I'm so sick of hearing the same "its an efficient, powerful killing machine that can take down aircraft, puncture chemical containers etc." when these have been legal for years and that hasn't happened. but this one has some new wrinkles. It seems Clinton, Feinstein etc. are now concerned that someone might open fire on their limousine with a .50cal.

I seem to remember airliners being hit with SAM's and not being "shot down" Any terrorists taking pot shots at airlines with a 30lb. 50cal is one ****ty terrorist.
 
It seems Clinton, Feinstein etc. are now concerned that someone might open fire on their limousine with a .50cal.

Well, if they would leave our rights alone, they'd have nothing to fear from us, would they. Obviously, if they have this fear, they must be aware that there are consequences to their actions. If their fear is that of a terrorist acquiring one of these dastardly 50 cals, a terrorist will acquire one regardless of any law or whether or not there are any here in the country to be had at all! Chances are that a terrorist will bring in the weapon some how. I bet someone trying to buy such a weapon who could barely speak English would raise some suspicion.

Woody
 
The legislation is co-sponsored by 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.).

I guess something's got to hold down the far end of the intelligence bell curve.
 
These are the people you handed the keys to the city when you voted to "punish the Republicans" last November.

Thanks a lot for sticking to your principles.
 
The law enforcement groups have noted that “it is of special concern to the law enforcement community that these weapons of war are capable of penetrating our special operations vehicles, tactical equipment, and helicopters,” and warned that “their easy availability on the civilian market make them very attractive to potential terrorists.”
In reality, they are much more vulnerable just going to and from work.

Pilgrim
 
Great. I have up to seven years to register my 50 and then have to pay the ATF a TAX for something I have owned for years. Why does California keep re-electing this woman. Show me one good piece of legislaion she has produced.

Whoa whoa, who said registration? It's regulation of transfer and posession, that's all. No-one said registration, you're trying to confuse the issue and scare people. Shame. There's no 'Red Dawn' list being compiled of which doors to knock o(i)n come 'the day'.
 
Even if it weren't for item 3 in the list above, moving something to the NFA list is registration.
Or am I just up too late tonight and so not catching some well crafted sarcasm? :)
 
Quote:
Great. I have up to seven years to register my 50 and then have to pay the ATF a TAX for something I have owned for years. Why does California keep re-electing this woman. Show me one good piece of legislaion she has produced.

Whoa whoa, who said registration? It's regulation of transfer and posession, that's all. No-one said registration, you're trying to confuse the issue and scare people. Shame. There's no 'Red Dawn' list being compiled of which doors to knock o(i)n come 'the day'.
__________________

The origional post at the bottom said that current owners would have seven years to register their firearms. Looks like a registration to me.....

This legislation would:

* Add the .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle to the list of firearms classified as “destructive devices” under the National Firearms Act, which would mean they must be registered when purchased or sold;

* Require the same registration for any “copycat” sniper rifles that might be developed in the future with destructive power that is equivalent to the .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle; and

* Allow people who already possess .50 BMG caliber sniper weapons up to seven years to register their existing firearms by implementing a registration process identical to what was used when “street sweeper” and other firearms were reclassified as “destructive devices” in 1994.
 
today introduced legislation to regulate the transfer and possession of .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles, which have extraordinary firepower and range (more than a mile with accuracy, with a maximum distance of up to four miles). These combat-style weapons are capable of bringing down airliners and helicopters that are taking off or landing, puncturing pressurized chemical storage facilities, and penetrating light armored personnel vehicles and protective limousines.

Has it ever happened? Only people who could afford such a thing are mafia snipers, but even then they are just too big to be practical.
 
Umm... Yeah... lots of people can afford such things. Not just "mafia snipers". It's more about how one chooses to manage his finances. I've also seen your posts regarding MG's. Just because you can't afford one doesn't mean that others can't, or people that can are related to the "mafia".
 
These are the people you handed the keys to the city when you voted to "punish the Republicans" last November.

nuh 'uh. I voted for pro-gun dems. That's why they're all standing up against this ban right this very minute! See, see...uh... pro-gun Democrats... hello? Oh that's right... it's an oxymoron.
 
Umm... Yeah... lots of people can afford such things. Not just "mafia snipers". It's more about how one chooses to manage his finances. I've also seen your posts regarding MG's. Just because you can't afford one doesn't mean that others can't, or people that can are related to the "mafia".

That's funny, because I used to own an MP40. ($7200) So yeah my poor white trash self can afford them too. Prices keep going up and up...and if youd rather buy 4 machineguns instead of a house be my guest. And if the registry stays closed it will go up ever more.

The 'mafia' comment (which you misunderstood) was in reference to the crimes that could supposedly happen with a .50 BMG. Who would need to 'shoot down an airplane' (Didnt this only happen in a movie?) - in other words, the polticians are worrying about themselves being asassinated with these more than anything else. We're on the same page, I guess I am sorry about not using 'approved' pro-gun language.

Please dont make assumptions about me again.

nuh 'uh. I voted for pro-gun dems. That's why they're all standing up against this ban right this very minute! See, see...uh... pro-gun Democrats... hello? Oh that's right... it's an oxymoron.

Yeah we'll see if they put there votes where their mouths are.
 
It was sarcasm. The thing to do now is get someone who can ask a question, some friendly or sympathetic reporter or leader, and have them put the C word out there. Force the anti's to use the C word in public. Tie Registration and Confiscation together. And keep pushing it. Every letter to the editor ought to use both words.

I sort of imagine it like Al Pacino, eventually one day someone will prod them and they'll just burst, "You can't HANDLE the truth! Yes we want to confiscate them, we want them all!"

...Oh wait, I quoted Janet Reno saying that in my sig, it's already established, just that not everyone knows it yet.



"Let us not hear that the registration system will cost $100 per firearm. Let us not hear that it is a prelude to confiscation by the government of hunting rifles and shotguns. Let us not contend that it will cost $1.5 billion to put in place. That is the way to distort the discussion. That is the way to frighten people."
- Former Liberal Justice Minister Alan Rock, Hansard, February 16, 1995.

"I came to Ottawa last year, with the firm belief that the only people in Canada who should have firearms are police officers and the military."
- former Justice Minister Alan Rock


"The Firearms Act is about licensing and registration, not confiscation."
- Former Justice Minister Anne McLellan, July 31, 1998.

"This is not about confiscating guns. I resent the implication and the mythology that is portrayed by using that statement, because it is incorrect."
- Lynn Myers, MP. Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, November 8, 2001.
 
So, are they doing this to test the proverbial waters and/or wear us down before they let HR1022 into committee? Or will they try to pass it and amend the muzzle energy/range/penetration language later to ban everything else?

Oh, and, GovTrack.us shows that Schumer and Dodd have signed on as co-sponsors since the press release. Surprise, surprise..
 
So, are they doing this to test the proverbial waters and/or wear us down before they let HR1022 into committee?

I think 1022 is going to be pulled/changed soon. McCarthy has another bill that conflicts with it, and so far 1022 seems to be going nowhere. (despite the co-sponsers - keep in mind that the DC gun ban bill has over 100 consponsers and it doesnt seem to be going anywhere either)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top