You can't own that -- it's dangerous!

All of them are pretty stupid.

My biggest complaint is about SBRs too. I can own a full length rifle in any caliber but I can't have a handier (but less effective) version for short range work without a tax stamp. The same silly law allows the original version of a firearm as pistol because it doesn't have the stock. Why not just let people have the darn proper configurations?

The GCA 1968 was one of the stupidest gun laws ever. Well, most of them are.

Only gun law I agree with is Violent Felons not being able to own guns.

I'm not talking about full-auto, grenade launchers, and stuff like that. I mean a gun that is no more dangerous than the average gun...

Click to expand...

Well I am talking about full-auto, M203 and M79 grenade launchers, and stuff like that. And I mean guns that are no more dangerous than the average gun.

I'd like to have a full auto lower and an M203 attached to the upper. I can't swing the cash for that though.

I want a 380 glock and a silencer would be nice

I want to know who at Chevy decided a Z71 should only go 99mph.

Aside from full autos, SBRs are just ridiculous. 16" barrel and I am OK, 15 7/8" and I am on my way to prison. No sense.

All I would ask is that they take an honest look at SBR's.

1) Yes they are more concealable, but I have trouble hiding a full size XD
2) Shorter barrels (to a point) propel the bullet a lot slower than a full size barrel
3) I find them a lot more comfortable

None of these things makes them more dangerous.

Silly laws

* In Virginia
** I cannot Open Carry a rifle with a magazine larger than 20 rounds, nor can I Open Carry a shotgun that can contain more than 5 shells of its largest ammunition in its magazine.

* In Maryland
** Anything can be construed as a dangerous weapon.
** I cannot own certain models of handgun.
** I cannot use magazines larger than 20 rounds made later than a certain date.
** I cannot have a gun in my vehicle except for going between home and range.

* Connecticut
** I cannot own body armor without meeting the guy face to face. Of course, authority-approved armed groups are excepted.

* New Jersey
** Everything.

* California
** Nearly everything.
** I cannot own a gun chambered for 50 BMG.

* South Carolina
** Incredibly lax Concealed Carry, but very punitive on Open Carry.

*Federal
** I cannot purchase a handgun from an FFL until I am 21.
** I cannot import a Dragunov, G3, or anything automatic.
** I cannot sell a suppressor abroad.
** I cannot use magazines larger than 10 rounds on an imported gun unless I replace some foreign parts with domestic parts.
** If I open a gun store, then I need a totally different FFL than if I were to sell guns at a pawnshop.
** I am only protected while travelling with a gun while I am driving and i am held to standards of my target state.

I am still sticking with the SBR/SBS laws being the most idiotic.

A rifle is easier to shoot accurately than a pistol. A rifle cartridge will MOST likely over-penetrate inside typical homes. A pistol cartridge is LESS likely to over-penetrate inside typical homes. A full length rifle is not as easy to maneuver in small areas (like inside a home). A pistol is easier to take away from it's operator and close distances. Recoil from either is usually easier to manage than a shotgun. If given enough distance shot will spread and cause more collateral damage to an area. (Although over-penetration is less of a problem to be fair about it.)

Therefore, a person would logically conclude that a SBR in a pistol cartridge would be a very good choice for a home defense weapon. Why do you think tactical teams like the
MP-5? Why did Thompsons work so well in WWI and WWII? The higher rates of fire are not really needed but the platforms are proven effective designs. The SBR laws prevent people from easily obtaining one of the best platforms for home defense.

Suppressed weapons. I'd love to have one, but it's a no-go here.

The silliest law to me is that I cannot carry to school. Really? Society seems to believe that when I set foot on campus I am suddenly a hot headed, intoxicated frat kid without a clue.

I wish AOW's were easier to obtain. There are times I wish I could buy a gun hidden in a cell phone or a pen gun or something like that.

At least you guys have the option for a tax stamp. In NY, they don't even exhist

I can't own SBR or SBS but a destructive device that has a short barrel and fires shotgun shells is ok.....

Yeah, I have to pay a tax stamp for, SBR, SBS, AOW, DD, Suppressor, and any other NFA. I wish I didn't have to . But, at least I can own all of the above in Kansas.

Hunterdad said:

At least you guys have the option for a tax stamp. In NY, they don't even exhist

Click to expand...

They exist in NY, but only the cops and criminals have them.

jon86 said:

The silliest law to me is that I cannot carry to school. Really? Society seems to believe that when I set foot on campus I am suddenly a hot headed, intoxicated frat kid without a clue.

Click to expand...

Now just to be fair...

Yeah I live in Cali, the list of what I want but cannot have is pretty long. We get around what we can, but it is annoying. My AR just does not feel right with only ten round mags.

Our state allows AOW but no SBR/SBS so we can buy things like the Serbu Super Shorty shotgun but if we put a stock on that, it's illegally short.

Up until last year, it was perfectly legal to own suppressors but it was actually illegal to use them, period. Luckily that law was fixed.

A rifle cartridge will MOST likely over-penetrate inside typical homes. A pistol cartridge is LESS likely to over-penetrate inside typical homes.

Click to expand...

Not really true, unless you are comparing a very poorly chosen rifle load to a well chosen pistol load. Almost any of the great 5.56/.223 defense loads offer reduced penetration through building materials and lower risk of harm from a projectile that exits the body of your attacker, because the high velocity and relatively fragile nature of the bullets means that they break apart very easily when hitting almost any kind of barrier. After a few inches of penetration in a person they fragment and by the time they exit on anything but a surface wound, the small, rapidly decelerating bits won't have enough mass or velocity to pose a significant threat.

Walls tend to break them up much easier than the heavier, slower pistol bullets, so while you aren't safe on the other side of a single wall from any capable defensive bullet, on the other side of a second wall you may very well have a significantly reduced risk of injury from a .223 bullet compared to a service pistol JHP.

do you think tactical teams like the
MP-5? Why did Thompsons work so well in WWI and WWII?

Click to expand...

They don't like the MP-5, not anymore anyway. They've all switched to AR platform 5.56 rifles.

If we had the M-16 in WWII, we wouldn't have used the Thompson, M1 Carbine, M3, M2 Carbine, and almost certainly not the Garand either.

It's a better hammer for the nails we encounter.

I want a butterfly knife. Seems sort of silly that they're illegal with a bunch of conceal carry firearms out and about.

I'm not talking about full-auto, grenade launchers, and stuff like that. I mean a gun that is no more dangerous than the average gun, yet some politician has deemed it a menace to society.

Click to expand...

Those two statements contradict each other. A .22lr pistol is just as dangerous as a rocket launcher in the wrong hands. Sure a rocket launcher can cause more collateral damage, but in the end, people are soft & squishy. Doesn't take much to mortally wound a human.

Full auto, silencers, and so-called Destructive Devices are all overregulated. Then again, if I had my way, they'd be sold with no more restrictions than, say, power tools (which is what they are).