Cal Jr. Rifle Team DQed

Status
Not open for further replies.

AZRickD

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
1,684
Some of you may remember the pic of the Arizona Junior Rifle Team I posted here (AR15s at hand) -- (or did I post it at GlockTalk?). Anyway, here is some ironic news from the latest competition that will chap your hide.

Rick

<snip>

Team Arizona has returned from another National Matches. Lots of good shooting, and our Junior Team did well again. Took second in the National Infantry Team Trophy match, and over 35 individual medals were won.
http://www.members.cox.net/riohighpower/azjrhp.htm


As a point of information, the California Junior Team was disqualified from all service rifle matches. Since the Peoples Republic calls it a felony for kids to handle the "evil black gun", they have to shoot bolt guns that don't meet service rifle rules. They are trying to make a point to the folks back home on how stupid the law is.

Myles Gorin
 
I know its not the same, but couldnt the kids shoot a Garand or '03 instead? (Or what about the M1A?)

Kharn
 
That is a good question, Sven. On one hand they are trying to make a point with CA DOJ, but on the other, they are hobbling the CA junior team at the same time. Many a junior team has been fielded with M1As, and there is nothing wrong with it at all. Remember, this is the CA Shooting Association making this decision, not the NRA or CMP.
 
As a point of information, the California Junior Team was disqualified from all service rifle matches. Since the Peoples Republic calls it a felony for kids to handle the "evil black gun", they have to shoot bolt guns that don't meet service rifle rules. They are trying to make a point to the folks back home on how stupid the law is.

What law prohibits minors from firing California banned assault weapons (assuming the weapons were registered as such by 1/1/2001)? The only law I can think of is the restriction on "transferring" an assault weapon in the state of California. But even then, even the assault weapon can be "lent" so to speak as long as the registrant is present at the location where the firearms is being used. IE: I can let my friend fire my Colt Sporter Lightweight if he goes with me to the shooting range.
 
Since the Peoples Republic calls it a felony for kids to handle the "evil black gun", they have to shoot bolt guns that don't meet service rifle rules. They are trying to make a point to the folks back home on how stupid the law is.


And they're also not letting the kids shoot in the matches. What a WONDERFUL way to get people into the sport!
 
I scored for one of the ca. junior teams in the 6 man team match on the 8th of august.
they all used identical .223 bolt action rifles and most of them on that team were out of the calveras ca. area.
yes they knew it would not count but that does not mean they can not compete and I for one tip my hat to them and their coaches for carring themselfs to a high degree of personal pride to help juniors in a bad situation.
they had no problem in the nra week with rules, but it is truely sad to blame them and their coaches for rules that are forced on them.
wayne their coach that day is a dedicated coach and shooter trying to promote the junior program.
I'am just glad I do not live in ca. anymore as things like this just remind me of how much we all have to lose if we do not fight for gun rights.
jon
 
The "felony to possess" (= just pick it up) rule applies to actions in CA, but that seriously cripples their practice sessions now, doesn't it?

Now if minor students in public schools have a limited Constitutional "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their bodies/backpacks (and less for lockers? Can't remember), doesn't it also follow that their pre-existing notgrantedbythegovernment but Constitutionally _protected_ right to keep and bear arms can be regulated AS LONG AS IT IS NOT ELIMINATED???

Yes, I agree that it was/is time to make a political statement by continuing to obey that stupid CA law even there on the shores of Lake Erie near Port Clinton, OH. The Second Amendment ain't about hunting ducks.:fire:

See what the do-gooder laws are doing to ***the children***?:barf:
 
So the California Shooting Assn could have used guns that were legal for the match and legal for the state of cal, like M1A or Garand? But they chose to have the kids use a gun that's illegal for the match?

The association leaders were way out of line, using the kids' disqualification to make their own political point. Even if most of us agree with their political position.

Let the kids compete, have fun, etc. We don't need to make them political tools. (Yet) :)

Regards.
 
as I understand they went with the tikka master sporter type setup because it one of the easiest for juniors to pick up (besides the AR). M1A's and garands fire full power cartridges and while they can be made accurate, it is considerably more difficult than making a boltgun such as a tikka shoot knots. I didn't know they were even trying to shoot service. If they didn't understand they'd be disqualified then that was their own dumb faults. But if they knew it and simply wanted to shoot match class, then they couldn't have picked a finer (CA-legal) rifle, IMHO.

atek3
 
as I understand they went with the tikka master sporter type setup because it one of the easiest for juniors to pick up (besides the AR). M1A's and garands fire full power cartridges and while they can be made accurate, it is considerably more difficult than making a boltgun such as a tikka shoot knots.


I shot my dad's m-1aNM in 3-gun matches when i was 11 or so and finished near the top of the pack, even though i was a sickly child with chronic asthma.


I'm reasonably certain those kids can shoot an m-1a in an event where they don't have to run around with the rifle no problem.
 
A Critical Piece of Info!

Uhhh, what do we know about where the Junior Competitors--the KIDS--were on this nasty question? When I was 17, I would have gladly sacrificed my medal chances to stuff the idea up the do-gooders' faces.:neener:

Would that change anyone's criticism of the actions at hand?:scrutiny:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top