Quantcast

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

Discussion in 'Legal' started by BADUNAME13, May 10, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BADUNAME13

    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!
     
  2. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    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.
     
  3. torpid

    torpid Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,944
    Location:
    CA coast
    Since laws against the .50 were enacted in California we haven't had a single aircraft shot down.

    Hooray, the skies are safe again!
     
  4. WoofersInc

    WoofersInc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Messages:
    1,111
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    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.
     
  5. jpk1md

    jpk1md Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Messages:
    620
  6. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    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
     
  7. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    YAWN.

    She's tried since 2000 to stick 50 calibers under the NFA and failed.
     
  8. gotarheels03

    gotarheels03 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    140
    Location:
    Hockessin, DE
    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.
     
  9. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    duplicate
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2007
  10. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    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
     
  11. Creeping Incrementalism

    Creeping Incrementalism Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2005
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    S.F. Bay Area
  12. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,040
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    I guess something's got to hold down the far end of the intelligence bell curve.
     
  13. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    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.
     
  14. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,957
    Location:
    Nevada, escaped from the PDRK via Idaho.
    In reality, they are much more vulnerable just going to and from work.

    Pilgrim
     
  15. Lucky

    Lucky Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,919
    Location:
    Calgary, near Rocky Mountains - Canada
    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'.
     
  16. Kaylee

    Kaylee Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,749
    Location:
    The Last Homely House
    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? :)
     
  17. obxned

    obxned Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,490
    Location:
    OBX, NC
    Sure wish she would just go back to stealing our tax dollars.
     
  18. WoofersInc

    WoofersInc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Messages:
    1,111
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    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.
     
  19. Ratzinger_p38

    Ratzinger_p38 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    759
    Location:
    Ohio
    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.
     
  20. goldshlagerxx

    goldshlagerxx Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    59
    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".
     
  21. Prince Yamato

    Prince Yamato Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,411
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
  22. Ratzinger_p38

    Ratzinger_p38 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    759
    Location:
    Ohio
    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.

    Yeah we'll see if they put there votes where their mouths are.
     
  23. Lucky

    Lucky Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,919
    Location:
    Calgary, near Rocky Mountains - Canada
    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.



     
  24. illspirit

    illspirit Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Messages:
    289
    Location:
    Virginia
    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..
     
  25. Ratzinger_p38

    Ratzinger_p38 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    759
    Location:
    Ohio
    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)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice