http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3563
A .50 Caliber "I Told You So"
... and will some gun owners - and Smith & Wesson - ever get it?
by Brian Puckett
[email protected]
April 8, 2003
Back in January of 2000, I wrote an article for Handguns Magazine called "A Plan to Restore the Second Amendment".
It contained these words:
By means of state and federal legislation, every fundamental principle relevant to the Second Amendment has been violated - freedom to bear arms in public, government permission to own or carry, firearm transport, bullet design, firearm storage, firearm style/design, magazine capacity, arbitrary designation as a "destructive device", waiting periods, limits on purchases per month. Every one of these aspects of gun law establishes a precedent which -- unless challenged now -- can and will be expanded upon to virtually eliminate the Second Amendment.
In July of 2001 I wrote an article for KeepAndBearArms.com titled "Either Turn Bush Around on Second Amendment, or the Game is Over", which stated in part:
The Democrats are pushing now to ban .50 BMG caliber rifles, which have been legal to own and shoot for about 80 years. You don't care? You will care when precisely the same rationale for banning it (too big, too powerful, no one really needs a caliber/cartridge/bullet that big) is used to ban all .50+ caliber cartridges and bullets, including black powder. You will care when precisely the same rationale is extended to ban your .458 Winchester Magnum, and then your .375 Weatherby Magnum, and then your .30-'06.
I'm sure many mentally scoffed about a .50 BMG (Browning Machine Gun) ban being expanded to include such warm and fuzzy .50 caliber firearms as muzzleloaders. Hey, it's just the "evil" .50 BMG they're after, and who needs one of those?
In case you didn't notice the KeepAndBearArms.com Newslink [see article by clicking here] on this subject way back in February, you can pick up your latest copy of Gun Week (March 20, 2003) and read on page 2:
LA Eyes Ban on .50 Ca. Handguns
Los Angeles City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo said in February that he will urge the City Council to ban the sale and possession of .50-caliber handguns such as the Smith & Wesson (S&W) revolvers that are expected to hit the market nationwide soon. In a letter to Council President Alex Padilla, Delgadillo said he will include the new revolver in a proposal that his office is drafting, at the council's request, that would ban .50 caliber rifles, The Los Angeles Times reported.
In case you haven't gotten the message from the anti-gun fanatics, here it is:
"First we'll ban the .50 BMG, then all .50's, and then we'll start working on the rest. The .458 Win Mag is certainly too powerful to serve any useful purpose in North America. We'll give your big-bore muzzleloader a pass for now, but we'll come back for it later."
There's more bad news. Even under new management, S&W's first response to L.A's proposed .50 caliber handgun ban is to save its own rear end first. Apparently one S&W boycott wasn't enough. According to the Gun Week article, Bob Scott, chairman of the "new" Smith & Wesson, did not come out swinging for the Second Amendment. Instead he is quoted as saying Delgadillo's reaction was "premature and overly dramatic."
I have no idea what the "premature" means. One might interpret it as admitting that later on, after the facts are out, Delgadillo may well be correct -- .50 caliber handguns should be banned.
Much worse is this statement attributed to Bob Scott: "This [new .50 cal S&W] revolver does not have the range a rifle has, and it is designed for big game hunting and silhouette shooting."
Thanks a lot, Bob, for sticking up for us .50 BMG rifle owners. I appreciate your drawing a distinction between S&W's reasonable "big game hunting and silhouette" .50 caliber product and those possibly unreasonable .50 caliber firearms of Barrett, Armalite, Serbu, LAR, State Arms, Anzio, McMillan, EDM, etc., not to mention the .50 caliber ammunition made by AAA, Arizona Ammunition, Mitchell's Mausers, etc.
I suppose as a gun writer, and one who has recently touted Smith & Wesson's products, I should be more circumspect about this sort of thing. But I don't wish to be. Especially in light of the fact that KeepAndBearArms.com director Angel Shamaya wrote a letter [see letter following this article] and made two phone calls to Smith & Wesson urging them to take a strong Second Amendment stance against efforts to ban their new .50 S&W gun. They never responded to the letter or phone calls.
Dear firearm manufacturers: Get this straight -- we're all in this together. We don't care about your particular product, we care about all of them, because an assault on one can be extended to others. And we don't care about your particular company if you aren't willing to stand up for all of us. You'd think Smith & Wesson would know this by now.
By the way, the goal of ending such unconstitutional idiocies as the LA City Council's proposed ban is exactly why we need to get the main issues of the Second Amendment settled in the U. S. Supreme Court now.
A .50 Caliber "I Told You So"
... and will some gun owners - and Smith & Wesson - ever get it?
by Brian Puckett
[email protected]
April 8, 2003
Back in January of 2000, I wrote an article for Handguns Magazine called "A Plan to Restore the Second Amendment".
It contained these words:
By means of state and federal legislation, every fundamental principle relevant to the Second Amendment has been violated - freedom to bear arms in public, government permission to own or carry, firearm transport, bullet design, firearm storage, firearm style/design, magazine capacity, arbitrary designation as a "destructive device", waiting periods, limits on purchases per month. Every one of these aspects of gun law establishes a precedent which -- unless challenged now -- can and will be expanded upon to virtually eliminate the Second Amendment.
In July of 2001 I wrote an article for KeepAndBearArms.com titled "Either Turn Bush Around on Second Amendment, or the Game is Over", which stated in part:
The Democrats are pushing now to ban .50 BMG caliber rifles, which have been legal to own and shoot for about 80 years. You don't care? You will care when precisely the same rationale for banning it (too big, too powerful, no one really needs a caliber/cartridge/bullet that big) is used to ban all .50+ caliber cartridges and bullets, including black powder. You will care when precisely the same rationale is extended to ban your .458 Winchester Magnum, and then your .375 Weatherby Magnum, and then your .30-'06.
I'm sure many mentally scoffed about a .50 BMG (Browning Machine Gun) ban being expanded to include such warm and fuzzy .50 caliber firearms as muzzleloaders. Hey, it's just the "evil" .50 BMG they're after, and who needs one of those?
In case you didn't notice the KeepAndBearArms.com Newslink [see article by clicking here] on this subject way back in February, you can pick up your latest copy of Gun Week (March 20, 2003) and read on page 2:
LA Eyes Ban on .50 Ca. Handguns
Los Angeles City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo said in February that he will urge the City Council to ban the sale and possession of .50-caliber handguns such as the Smith & Wesson (S&W) revolvers that are expected to hit the market nationwide soon. In a letter to Council President Alex Padilla, Delgadillo said he will include the new revolver in a proposal that his office is drafting, at the council's request, that would ban .50 caliber rifles, The Los Angeles Times reported.
In case you haven't gotten the message from the anti-gun fanatics, here it is:
"First we'll ban the .50 BMG, then all .50's, and then we'll start working on the rest. The .458 Win Mag is certainly too powerful to serve any useful purpose in North America. We'll give your big-bore muzzleloader a pass for now, but we'll come back for it later."
There's more bad news. Even under new management, S&W's first response to L.A's proposed .50 caliber handgun ban is to save its own rear end first. Apparently one S&W boycott wasn't enough. According to the Gun Week article, Bob Scott, chairman of the "new" Smith & Wesson, did not come out swinging for the Second Amendment. Instead he is quoted as saying Delgadillo's reaction was "premature and overly dramatic."
I have no idea what the "premature" means. One might interpret it as admitting that later on, after the facts are out, Delgadillo may well be correct -- .50 caliber handguns should be banned.
Much worse is this statement attributed to Bob Scott: "This [new .50 cal S&W] revolver does not have the range a rifle has, and it is designed for big game hunting and silhouette shooting."
Thanks a lot, Bob, for sticking up for us .50 BMG rifle owners. I appreciate your drawing a distinction between S&W's reasonable "big game hunting and silhouette" .50 caliber product and those possibly unreasonable .50 caliber firearms of Barrett, Armalite, Serbu, LAR, State Arms, Anzio, McMillan, EDM, etc., not to mention the .50 caliber ammunition made by AAA, Arizona Ammunition, Mitchell's Mausers, etc.
I suppose as a gun writer, and one who has recently touted Smith & Wesson's products, I should be more circumspect about this sort of thing. But I don't wish to be. Especially in light of the fact that KeepAndBearArms.com director Angel Shamaya wrote a letter [see letter following this article] and made two phone calls to Smith & Wesson urging them to take a strong Second Amendment stance against efforts to ban their new .50 S&W gun. They never responded to the letter or phone calls.
Dear firearm manufacturers: Get this straight -- we're all in this together. We don't care about your particular product, we care about all of them, because an assault on one can be extended to others. And we don't care about your particular company if you aren't willing to stand up for all of us. You'd think Smith & Wesson would know this by now.
By the way, the goal of ending such unconstitutional idiocies as the LA City Council's proposed ban is exactly why we need to get the main issues of the Second Amendment settled in the U. S. Supreme Court now.
