Ass Hat
Home
News
Events
Bands
Labels
Venues
Pics
MP3s
Radio Show
Reviews
Releases
Buy$tuff
Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls
  
  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food
  
  New Thread
  New Poll
Miscellaneous
Links
E-mail
Search
End Ass Hat
login

New site? Maybe some day.
Posting Anonymously login: [Forgotten Password]
returntothepit >> discuss >> making a dependent and vulnerable society: anti-survivalist california bans .50 cal sniper rifle by humanbonedeathmachine on Jan 5,2005 11:40pm
Add To All Your Pages!
toggletoggle post by humanbonedeathmachine at Jan 5,2005 11:40pm
Tuesday, January 4, 2005

California bans sniper rifle to gun enthusiasts' dismay

By CAROLYN MARSHALL
THE NEW YORK TIMES

SAN FRANCISCO -- On Jan. 1, California became the first state in the nation to ban the .50-caliber long-range rifle, a firearm that gun-control advocates have portrayed as a military weapon that could easily fall into the hands of terrorists trying to assassinate a foreign leader or shoot down an airplane.

Under the new regulations, signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in September, it is illegal in California to manufacture, sell, distribute, import or possess a firearm known as the .50-caliber BMG, a powerful single-shot rifle widely used by law enforcement, the military and more recently, by civilian sport shooters.

Those who already own the rifle, considered an assault weapon under the new law, have until April 30, 2006, to register the firearm for $25 or face a misdemeanor charge with a fine up to $500 for first-time offenders.

Proponents of gun rights say they fear California's ban will prompt other states to follow. Gun enthusiasts are looking for ways to circumvent the law by devising alterations to the rifle. Before the ban, gun owners descended on gun shops throughout the state, rushing to buy the limited supplies of the .50 BMG.

"We all think it's the first step toward banning sniper rifles," said Michael Fournier, owner of the Gun Exchange in San Jose, Calif. "They keep chipping away a little at a time. Eventually they'll try to get them all."

A lawyer for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, a state lobbying group that fought to defeat Assembly Bill 50, which established the ban, said the gun control lobby has for the first time managed "to demonize" a firearm that lawmakers and gun proponents say has never been used to commit a crime in the United States.

The lawyer, Chuck Michel, said the BMG, a 30-pound firearm that costs between $2,000 and $8,000, is typically purchased by collectors, shooting-range enthusiasts and skilled competitors.

"Criminals don't carry around very pricey, very heavy rifles," Michel said. "They want handguns they can conceal."

The .50-caliber BMG rifle was patented in 1987 by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, initially designed as a sniper rifle for use by law enforcement and the U.S. military. It was widely used by troops during the Gulf War.



Manufacturers say the rifle is accurate at up to 2,000 yards -- equivalent in length to 20 football fields stretched end-to-end. The BMG uses 5 1/2-inch-long bullets that have been touted as powerful enough to rip through armor at long range and accurately reach targets more than a mile away. Some manufacturers say it has a range of up to four miles.

"They can pierce the skin of an aircraft," said Daniel Vice, a lawyer with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a supporter of the law. "It could be used to shoot down an airplane. And we certainly don't want to wait until a terrorist buys one before we ban it."

Assemblyman Paul Koretz, a Democrat from West Hollywood and the author of the legislation, concedes that street criminals would likely view the .50 BMG as too much gun for everyday robberies or drive-by shootings. The new law, he said, is designed to restrict use by "terrorists, general nut cases and survivalists," not sport shooters and collectors.

He said government reports suggest that the gun has been used for assassinations overseas and that at least 25 BMGs were bought by Osama bin Laden.

Michel, the lawyer for the gun rights group, said invoking a .50-caliber ban in the name of terrorism was a scare tactic without merit. "The terrorist can get a nuclear dirty bomb or a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher," Michel said. "The .50-caliber is just a pea shooter in comparison."





toggletoggle post by Todd(bombshelter) at Jan 6,2005 2:54pm
"They can pierce the skin of an aircraft," said Daniel Vice, a lawyer with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a supporter of the law. "It could be used to shoot down an airplane. And we certainly don't want to wait until a terrorist buys one before we ban it."


So they ban it ,Now everyone will want one cause they are banned......GOOD STRATEGY



toggletoggle post by Hooker  at Jan 6,2005 3:01pm
I don't feel safe going to the store to buy a half gallon of milk, some rollos and an iPod without my .50 caliber sniper rifle strapped. But that's just me.



toggletoggle post by retzam at Jan 6,2005 3:09pm
Hooker said:
I don't feel safe going to the store to buy a half gallon of milk, some rollos and an iPod without my .50 caliber sniper rifle strapped. But that's just me.


hahahahahahaha

damn man you're cracking me up today



toggletoggle post by the_reverend   at Jan 6,2005 3:15pm
and this all cause a sword can't beat it.
http://www.returntothepit.com/view.php?formid=13909#189488



toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Jan 6,2005 3:41pm
American Shooter or some other redneck show that I watch had something on this weapon once. This thing is completely bad-ass -- in the demo they were wacking targets that were ridiculously far away -- with repeated accuracy. Not sure why you'd really need one, but the terrorism thing is just another scare tactic that the anti-gun tree-huggers can use to ban more and more guns. Silly.



toggletoggle post by hoser at Jan 6,2005 3:45pm
Agreed. If the Government can ban 1 gun (unconstitutional) then where will they stop? What gun is next? They can't take them all at once so it looks like they are going to take them away 1 by 1. The last time this happened here in this country was when the British took the guns from the colonists and declared that guns were illegal. "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hands."



toggletoggle post by retzam at Jan 6,2005 3:53pm
hoser said:
Agreed. If the Government can ban 1 gun (unconstitutional) then where will they stop? What gun is next? They can't take them all at once so it looks like they are going to take them away 1 by 1. The last time this happened here in this country was when the British took the guns from the colonists and declared that guns were illegal. "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hands."


Do you really think that guns will ever be outlawed? First of all, remember that George W. Bush is our president right now. Second of all, it would take so long to outlaw every gun one by one, or to outlaw guns in general, that we'd have to have multiple terms of an ultra-left wing liberal legislature and presidential administration, which will not happen. I'm completely against guns to be honest with you, but I'm not going to completely explain my position because it's already on this site somewhere. Anyway, this is just a ploy to ease liberal outrage at "big brother".



toggletoggle post by hoser at Jan 6,2005 5:48pm
Retzam: WORD

I, for once, agree with every single point that you made in your last post. I wasn't saying that banning guns would ever happen, because it won't. I just don't like weakening the Constitution in ANY way. Especially when they just try to peck at it.



toggletoggle post by DaveFromTheGrave  at Jan 6,2005 6:54pm
ths "skin" of an aircraft is lightwieght thin sheet metal.
a .22 pistol could pierce it. or a hammer and nail.



toggletoggle post by the_reverend   at Jan 6,2005 7:01pm
DFTG is right there...
put there is a lattace structure between the innerskin and the outer skin.



toggletoggle post by eddie  at Jan 6,2005 7:05pm
now that they're banned the government makes it seem like terrorists couldn't get one if they wanted.



toggletoggle post by Hooker  at Jan 6,2005 7:06pm
"outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns"


-some dude's bumper sticker.



toggletoggle post by the_reverend   at Jan 6,2005 7:18pm
man.. I really hate guns...
I don't like shooting them,
i don't like being around them,
and I wish no one out there every could fire one in rage.



toggletoggle post by Hooker  at Jan 6,2005 7:33pm
i like the feeling of a gun. but i'm not that into them.



toggletoggle post by the_reverend   at Jan 6,2005 7:39pm
I once heard happiness was a warm gun,
but I don't like anything more powerful than a pelletgun



toggletoggle post by succubus  at Jan 6,2005 7:44pm
i actually like shooting guns..haven't done that in a while..
i like seeing how good my aim is



toggletoggle post by retzam at Jan 6,2005 8:36pm
the_reverend said:
man.. I really hate guns...
I don't like shooting them,
i don't like being around them,
and I wish no one out there every could fire one in rage.


I'm completely with you on all of this.



toggletoggle post by retzam at Jan 6,2005 8:40pm
hoser said:
Retzam: WORD

I, for once, agree with every single point that you made in your last post. I wasn't saying that banning guns would ever happen, because it won't. I just don't like weakening the Constitution in ANY way. Especially when they just try to peck at it.


Yeah man, the Constitution should not be weakened at all, definitely not. If they are just pecking at it like you say, that just opens up the possibility for "pecking" at it to an even greater extent, and this grows and grows and eventually the Constitution is completely obsolete. However, I have to disagree with one thing, that being that banning one specific gun is unconstitutional. If you're referring to the right to bear arms, I don't think it really applies, since banning one gun doesn't do anything to that right.



toggletoggle post by humanbonedeathmachine at Jan 6,2005 10:29pm
yeah, theres always homemade mortars and flamethrowers



toggletoggle post by tbone_r  at Jan 7,2005 12:14am
"I once heard happiness was a warm gun"
hahaha, i like you.

"it could be used by a terrorist" or "but it will help stop terrorists" are 2 key phrases that people will say to influence the people to give up rights. like the patriot act.

i don't think guns should be legal, but i dont think it's worth hurting the constitution over because of what retzam said about opening the government up to doing more damage.



toggletoggle post by humanbonedeathmachine at Jan 7,2005 12:28am
but again, if guns arent legal what happens? criminals, robbers, rapists, and degenerates will still own the guns and everyone will have nothing. look at chicago. violent crime shot the fuck up when they banned handguns because the degenerates still packed when doing their gangbangin. it became easy for em. now that aside, our 2nd amendment is to keep the government in check. in an ideal world, law abiding citizens would have the same firepower as the govt, but of course in an ideal world there'd be no nukes at all. another point to think off of is hell, the world hates america. if invasion was to happen, id put more trust into gun toting white trash like myself to defend the home turf than the govt.



toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Jan 7,2005 8:52am
I just applied for my carry permit. I had one several years ago when I lived in Manchester, but I let it expire. It is a nice feeling to know you can legally carry concealed.



Enter a Quick Response (advanced response>>)
Username: (enter in a fake name if you want, login, or new user)SPAM Filter: re-type this (values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
Message:  b i u  add: url  image  video(?)show icons
remember:you are so smrt
[default homepage] [print][12:07:58pm Apr 25,2024
load time 0.02130 secs/12 queries]
[search][refresh page]