Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Black Butte, Mar 9, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Black Butte

    Black Butte Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    888
    I was wondering about firearms that forum members would like to acquire but are prevented from doing so by a law that you believe serves little purpose. 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. I will start by providing two illustrative examples:

    (1) I'd love to get a Walther PPK (not a PPK/S). Being the James Bond gun and having ties to WWII makes it desirable to collectors. As a semi-automatic chambered in .380 or .32, it isn't inherently dangerous as compared to other semi-autos. Yet, the import ban of 1968 prevents me from getting one. Yes, I have the option of getting one made here by S&W under license, or I'm forced to pay a premium if I can even find a pre-'68, but it's not the same.

    (2) The semi-auto Thompson (Auto Ordinance - now Kahr) is totally desirable, being the quintessential Al Capone and WWII gun. My state, however, bans SBRs, and a Thompson with a 18.5" barrel rather than a 10.5" barrel just doesn't replicate what you see watching "Road to Perdition" etc.

    Any silly laws that seem to serve no purpose frustrate you?
     
  2. jerkface11

    jerkface11 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    5,498
    Location:
    Arkansas
    All of them are pretty stupid.
     
  3. InkEd

    InkEd Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,575
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    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?
     
  4. Pilot

    Pilot Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    6,605
    Location:
    USA
    The GCA 1968 was one of the stupidest gun laws ever. Well, most of them are. :rolleyes:
     
  5. FIVETWOSEVEN

    FIVETWOSEVEN Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Messages:
    5,051
    Only gun law I agree with is Violent Felons not being able to own guns.
     
  6. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,931
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    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.
     
  7. OARNGESI

    OARNGESI Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2011
    Messages:
    803
    I want a 380 glock and a silencer would be nice
     
  8. MtnCreek

    MtnCreek Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2010
    Messages:
    3,952
    Location:
    West GA
    I want to know who at Chevy decided a Z71 should only go 99mph. :mad:
     
  9. VegasAR15

    VegasAR15 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    467
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    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.
     
  10. Buck Kramer

    Buck Kramer Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    683
    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.
     
  11. mortablunt

    mortablunt Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,590
    Location:
    Deutschland
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2012
  12. InkEd

    InkEd Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,575
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    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.
     
  13. leadaddict

    leadaddict Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    517
    Location:
    Iowa
    Suppressed weapons. I'd love to have one, but it's a no-go here.
     
  14. jon86

    jon86 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    Messages:
    812
    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.
     
  15. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Messages:
    3,276
    Location:
    Kodiak, AK
    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.
     
  16. Hunterdad

    Hunterdad Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,873
    Location:
    Syracuse, NY
    At least you guys have the option for a tax stamp. In NY, they don't even exhist
     
  17. xx7grant7x

    xx7grant7x Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    Messages:
    382
    I can't own SBR or SBS but a destructive device that has a short barrel and fires shotgun shells is ok.....
     
  18. GCMkc

    GCMkc Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    281
    Location:
    Kansas City
    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.
     
  19. tyeo098

    tyeo098 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,060
    Location:
    The Old Dominion
    They exist in NY, but only the cops and criminals have them.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2012
  20. Panzercat

    Panzercat Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Messages:
    971
    Now just to be fair... ;)
     
  21. firesky101

    firesky101 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,433
    Location:
    California
    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.
     
  22. Cesiumsponge

    Cesiumsponge Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,266
    Location:
    Washington
    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.
     
  23. NG VI

    NG VI Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    Messages:
    4,884
    Location:
    Maine
    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.

    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.
     
  24. chrome_austex

    chrome_austex Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    496
    I want a butterfly knife. Seems sort of silly that they're illegal with a bunch of conceal carry firearms out and about.
     
  25. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,060
    Location:
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    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).
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page