More 50 cal gun control

[Ranb]

Senate bill 1331 introduced a few days ago; Long-Range Sniper Rifle Safety Act of 2007.

This bill does not directly ban the 50 BMG rifle but does classify it as a destructive device and controls it along with machine guns/SBS's/SBR's/silencers with the National Firearms Act of 1934.

From the bill;

(b) Definition of .50 BMG Caliber Sniper Rifle- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(36) The term `.50 BMG caliber sniper rifle' means--
`(A) a rifle capable of firing a center-fire cartridge in .50 BMG caliber, including a 12.7 mm equivalent of .50 BMG and any other metric equivalent; or
`(B) a copy or duplicate of any rifle described in subparagraph (A), or any other rifle developed and manufactured after the date of enactment of this paragraph, regardless of caliber, if such rifle is capable of firing a projectile that attains a muzzle energy of 12,000 foot-pounds or greater in any combination of bullet, propellant, case, or primer.'.


Anyone owning these rifles will have to register them with the BATFE, and pay the $200 tax. Anytime they are transferred to another, the $200 tax is paid again. In addition if a civilian (as opposed to a corporation) wants to buy or make one, then he or she has to obtain the local sheriff's signature on the atf form 1 or form 4. There are some police chiefs who will not sign this tax form and allow transfer of these weapons. This bill will amount to a de facto ban in some areas even where they are legal to own.

The bill does not cover 50 caliber (or 51 caliber) firearms such as the 50 DTC, 50 FatMac or others that are not the same dimensions as the 50 BMG cartridge but are at least as powerful.

Ranb

[Architect]

Don't expect any sympathy from the Europeans, where we have a rather different view on the need for private citizens to own weaponry which is hard to argue has a legal civilian purpose.

[Ranb]

Why is it hard to argue that they have a legal civilian purpose? Not even the most hard core American gun control supporter argues that they are illegal for civilians to use.

Ranb

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Architect

Don't expect any sympathy from the Europeans, where we have a rather different view on the need for private citizens to own weaponry which is hard to argue has a legal civilian purpose.

Are you aware of any illegal purposes the .50 BMG has been used for?

[Architect]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Are you aware of any illegal purposes the .50 BMG has been used for?

Well for me the word "sniper" seemed rather incongruous, unless it's a remarkably poor marketing spin on "hunting". This assumes, however, that sniping is illegal in the US.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Architect

Well for me the word "sniper" seemed rather incongruous, unless it's a remarkably poor marketing spin on "hunting". This assumes, however, that sniping is illegal in the US.

Hey, you're the one claiming it would be hard to prove the .50 BMG had a legal purpose. But so far, it seems that every single rifle and cartridge sold has been used for a legal purpose, as I'm not aware of a single illegal act done with such a rifle and cartridge.

So you're aware of someone using it as a sniper rifle? Please provide the link.

eta: It's the authors of the bill that call it a "sniper rifle", not the manufacturer. And I'd really like you to comment on the attractiveness to crimnals of a $2,800 single-shot rifle that weighs over 33 pounds.

[Bikewer]

Apparently as a direct challenge to such legislation at least two firms have in development weapons designed to take cartridges in the .40 caliber range.

These are both apparently based on modified (necked-down, as we say) .50 BMG cases. One is designated .416 somthing-or-other.

They did segments on these weapons on the Discovery channel's "Futureweapons" show, and both have very impressive ballistics which exceed in some respects the .50 itself.
The above-mentioned .416 round has a particularly aerodynamic bullet which maintains supersonic speed to nearly a mile, and can (in the hands of a decent marksman) hit man-sized targets reliably at 1 1/2 miles....

These are both being developed and marketed as military-specific sniper weapons, but could presumably be put out in civilian drag as well.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Architect

Well for me the word "sniper" seemed rather incongruous, unless it's a remarkably poor marketing spin on "hunting". This assumes, however, that sniping is illegal in the US.

The 50 BMG cartridge was first made in the 1920's for a machine gun called the M2. The first bolt action and semi-auto sporting rifles were made in the 1980's for the civilian market. They were marketed as target rifles by the manufacturers. Later on the military adopted them as sniper rifles as they were able to be carried and used by a single soldier unlike the much heavier M2 machine gun.

Dishonest politicians like Feinstein like to call them sniper rifles or destructive devices to make them seem less like sporting rifles.

While 50 BMG rifles have never been used in the USA for killing people, they have been involved in a few other violent crimes. A man shot up a police car with his LAR grizzly, then shot the police officer with a smaller caliber rifle. I also read about an armored car robbery involving a 50 BMG rifle. You can find a more complete list of the crimes committed with these rifles at some gun control websites.

While these people who would like to outlaw civilian ownership of these rifles, they can not say that these rifles are used to commit crimes often compared to other firearms.

Ranb

[Alt+F4]

I don't think the issue is whether a .50 caliber gun has ever been used in a murder, but rather where (or if) there will be a line drawn on owning of military weapons.

If a person is allowed to own a .50 caliber gun then shouldn't they also be allowed to own a tank, a flame thrower or a submarine?

[Ranb]

In the USA we are. All I have to do to buy or build a large weapon is to submit the right paperwork and pay the $200 tax. There are no controls on flamethrowers and submarines in this country. If I want the torpedos with the warhead, then I have to submit the ATF form 1 for each one I make.

Ranb

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Are you aware of any illegal purposes the .50 BMG has been used for?

You can make the same arguement about RPG's. So should they be legal?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Ranb

The 50 BMG cartridge was first made in the 1920's for a machine gun called the M2. The first bolt action and semi-auto sporting rifles were made in the 1980's for the civilian market. They were marketed as target rifles by the manufacturers. Later on the military adopted them as sniper rifles as they were able to be carried and used by a single soldier unlike the much heavier M2 machine gun.

The historic term you are looking for is Anti Tank Rifle. So if we are being pedantic they should be called that and not sniper rifles. Also it was first not developed for the M2, it was a German anti tank rifle round from WWI.

Quote:

While these people who would like to outlaw civilian ownership of these rifles, they can not say that these rifles are used to commit crimes often compared to other firearms.

Ranb

The argument is what is the legal activity that requires such a weapon?

[Architect]

In my experience those who are pro-guns will rarely, if ever, be convinced that there is something wrong with being able to own military grade weaponry.

[Metullus]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The argument is what is the legal activity that requires such a weapon?

Long range target shooting?

[Architect]

Originally Posted by Metullus

Long range target shooting?

Uhu. And we should sell sawn off shotguns and single stockings together just to suit a very small fetish lobby, then?

[Metullus]

Originally Posted by Architect

Uhu. And we should sell sawn off shotguns and single stockings together just to suit a very small fetish lobby, then?

The question I was answering was "what is the legal activity that requires such a weapon?" In the USA long range target shooting is a legal activity. I expressed no opinion as to whether or not such an activity is justified. Neither have I expressed any opinion as to whether sawn-off shotguns should be permitted. I will opine that I see no reason to outlaw the sale of stockings, but that is just me.

[Architect]

It is not illegal to fire rocket launchers on private property. But that does not make it justifiable, or provide a cogent argument for making such weaponry legal.

Let me be quite clear here; I live in a country where deer stalking is a recognised sport. I have no problems with normal hunting weapons. What I have is trouble understanding why weapons with capabilities significantly greater than can be justified by these normal pursuits are permitted.

Where do we stop? Grenades? Machines Guns? Claymores? Armour peircing weaponry?

But then I also live in a country which banned automatic weapons after the last big school massacre, and (surprise surprise) we don't seem to have had any since. So don't expect me to be too sympathetic to the NRA.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Architect

Uhu. And we should sell sawn off shotguns and single stockings together just to suit a very small fetish lobby, then?

Well, in the USA, sawn off (barrel <18") shotguns are legal and sold to many. But I think you have not heard of any problems with the legally owned ones. So yes, this fetish suits many here and is not a problem.

Ranb

[Architect]

Sawn off shotguns; illegal in the UK, France, and (if I recall correctly) Germany. Favoured weapon of bank robbers. In fact, what legal function is there fore the damned things? Have you got really scary rabbits in the US or something?

[Metullus]

Originally Posted by Architect

It is not illegal to fire rocket launchers on private property. But that does not make it justifiable, or provide a cogent argument for making such weaponry legal.

Having over the years designed, built, and launched a variety of rockets I should point out that not all rocket launchers are weapons, or can even be effectively used as weapons. In my experience rocketry is a challenging and satisfying hobby.

If, however, you are referring only to RPG weapons and the like, I have not suggested that they should be legal.

Originally Posted by Architect

Let me be quite clear here; I live in a country where deer stalking is a recognised sport. I have no problems with normal hunting weapons. What I have is trouble understanding why weapons with capabilities significantly greater than can be justified by these normal pursuits are permitted.

I enjoy competing in road rallys. I seldom exceed 75 mph when racing. I see no reason that automobiles should be built that can exceed 80 mph. Perhaps these should be outlawed.

It is all a question of what one considers to be a normal pursuit, no?

Originally Posted by Architect

Where do we stop? Grenades? Machines Guns? Claymores? Armour peircing weaponry?

Let those who would legalize these weapons make their own argument.

Originally Posted by Architect

But then I also live in a country which banned automatic weapons after the last big school massacre, and (surprise surprise) we don't seem to have had any since. So don't expect me to be too sympathetic to the NRA.

What does the NRA have to do with this? Cannot a discussion about a subset of firearms be undertaken without reference to the NRA?

[Metullus]

Originally Posted by Architect

Sawn off shotguns; illegal in the UK, France, and (if I recall correctly) Germany. Favoured weapon of bank robbers. In fact, what legal function is there fore the damned things? Have you got really scary rabbits in the US or something?

The question you should ask is how short is the legal barrel length. In the US it is illegal to own a shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches. Usually when we in the US talk about "sawn-off" shotguns we are referring to weapons with shorter than 18 inch barrels.

What is the law in the UK.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Architect

.....But then I also live in a country which banned automatic weapons after the last big school massacre, and (surprise surprise) we don't seem to have had any since. So don't expect me to be too sympathetic to the NRA.

I think the reason your country has not had anymore big school massacres has more to do with no one willing to do it than the perceived lack of suitable weapons to do such a thing. A person does not need an automatic weapon to kill kids at a school. Most reasonable people know banning a weapon is not nearly the same thing as eliminating them from the country.

I'm not sure why you even mention the NRA. The NRA's usual tactic concerning NFA weapons and 50 caliber rifles is to ignore them. The owners of these weapons get very little support from the NRA that is why many NFA weapons owners (myself included) do not belong to the NRA. The NRA hardly mentioned AB50, the California bill that restricted 50 BMG rifles assault weapons.

You do not have to expect me to be too sympathetic to the NRA either.

Ranb

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Architect

Don't expect any sympathy from the Europeans, where we have a rather different view on the need for private citizens to own weaponry which is hard to argue has a legal civilian purpose.

Ironically, whilst automatic weapons, handguns, semi automatic rifles, and shotguns capable of holding more than two cartridges at once are illegal in the UK, there is no law against .50 BMG weapons.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Metullus

.....In the US it is illegal to own a shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches.....

This statement is wrong. There are no federal laws banning any small arms. In 1934 the National Firearms Act was passed which required a tax stamp to be issued prior to transferring a machine gun, short barreled shotgun, short barreled rifle or silencer. The stamp is issued on a routine basis. I have never heard of the ATF refusing to issue a stamp to transfer a NFA weapon as long as the paperwork (two forms, photos, fingerprints) was filled out correctly, the person is allowed to own firearms and lives in a state that did not ban them.

The people/companies who make machine guns, tanks, rockets and other stuff like this for the government are licensed and pay the Special Occupational Tax (SOT, greater than or equal to $500). They make and register an unlimited number of weapons without obtaining the $200 tax stamp.

Since a machine gun like a Thompson cost about $150 back in 1934, the $200 tax almost stopped all legal sales. The most common obstacle for an American to buy short barreled shotguns is obtaining the local sheriff's signature.

Ranb

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Metullus

The question you should ask is how short is the legal barrel length. In the US it is illegal to own a shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches. Usually when we in the US talk about "sawn-off" shotguns we are referring to weapons with shorter than 18 inch barrels.

What is the law in the UK.

A shotgun in the uk must have a barrel of not less than 24 inches, with a bore not greater than two inches and the weapon must not be capable of holding more than two cartridges.

[Architect]

Originally Posted by brodski

Ironically, whilst automatic weapons, handguns, semi automatic rifles, and shotguns capable of holding more than two cartridges at once are illegal in the UK, there is no law against .50 BMG weapons.

Really!? Well there you go!

[Metullus]

Originally Posted by Ranb

This statement is wrong. There are no federal laws banning any small arms. In 1934 the National Firearms Act was passed which required a tax stamp to be issued prior to transferring a machine gun, short barreled shotgun, short barreled rifle or silencer. The stamp is issued on a routine basis. I have never heard of the ATF refusing to issue a stamp to transfer a NFA weapon as long as the paperwork (two forms, photos, fingerprints) was filled out correctly, the person is allowed to own firearms and lives in a state that did not ban them.

The people/companies who make machine guns, tanks, rockets and other stuff like this for the government are licensed and pay the Special Occupational Tax (SOT, greater than or equal to $500). They make and register an unlimited number of weapons without obtaining the $200 tax stamp.

Since a machine gun like a Thompson cost about $150 back in 1934, the $200 tax almost stopped all legal sales. The most common obstacle for an American to buy short barreled shotguns is obtaining the local sheriff's signature.

Ranb

Thank you. I stand corrected.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The historic term you are looking for is Anti Tank Rifle. So if we are being pedantic they should be called that and not sniper rifles. Also it was first not developed for the M2, it was a German anti tank rifle round from WWI.

The argument is what is the legal activity that requires such a weapon?

I have never heard the M2 described as being intended for anti-tank use. It is intended for anti-armor though. The 50 BMG round was an American development, different than the rimmed Mauser cartridge and the British Boys anti-tank cartridge.

The legal activity that I participate in that requires "such a weapon" is the 50 BMG matches I compete in down in Eatonville WA.

Ranb

[Architect]

So if I set up RPG competitions they should be made legal too?

[Ranb]

No. It already is legal. No law against it here.

Ranb

[Architect]

Remind me why ordinary citizens would require access to RPGs, please.


ETA: Although on a lighter note, I'm watching the Bulgarian entry in the Eurovision Song Contest an suddenly and RPG does seem like a good idea......

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Hey, you're the one claiming it would be hard to prove the .50 BMG had a legal purpose. But so far, it seems that every single rifle and cartridge sold has been used for a legal purpose, as I'm not aware of a single illegal act done with such a rifle and cartridge.

So you're aware of someone using it as a sniper rifle? Please provide the link.

eta: It's the authors of the bill that call it a "sniper rifle", not the manufacturer. And I'd really like you to comment on the attractiveness to crimnals of a $2,800 single-shot rifle that weighs over 33 pounds.

Within my mildly limited knowledge, the Israelis are the primary users of the .50 as a sniper weapon. Its' primary advantage is the distance over which it has a nearly flat trajectory and the mass of the bullet.*
Personally, my preference for the .50 rifle is for holing engines (making them useless) at a distance greater than that which most bullets can travel with any real accuracy.


*Its' technical disadvantage is that it can go on to pass- in a mostly straight line - 3+ more people.

[Lonewulf]

I didn't realize that RPGs and the .50 BMG were the exact same kind of firearm.

Thank you for your very enlightening intellectual points, Architect. You have edumucated me.

Now, I'm sure you see no difference between an RPG and a nuclear weapon, right?

What about a doomsday device?

Same ol', same ol'.

[billydkid]

Originally Posted by Architect

Don't expect any sympathy from the Europeans, where we have a rather different view on the need for private citizens to own weaponry which is hard to argue has a legal civilian purpose.

Many people use these kinds of weapons specifically for ultra-long range target shooting. There are organizations and events involving this sort of shooting. When anyone should to justify to anyone else their right to enjoy this kind of activity is beyond me. And this is so obvious it pains me to have to say it every friggin time - the sorts of people who would use these kinds of weapons (or any kind of weapon) to attack others are not going to be deterred from having them by any law from obtaining them. Laws only curtail the behavior of people who are law abiding.

[Skibum]

Originally Posted by WildCat

And I'd really like you to comment on the attractiveness to crimnals of a $2,800 single-shot rifle that weighs over 33 pounds.

Those are the "saturday night special" rifles, the really good ones go for around 10 grand.

[davefoc]

A question for the people here who think that the regulation of 50 caliber single shot rifles should not be regulated:

What, if any, restrictions on the ownership of firearms and explosives do you favor?

[Architect]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I didn't realize that RPGs and the .50 BMG were the exact same kind of firearm.

Thank you for your very enlightening intellectual points, Architect. You have edumucated me.

Now, I'm sure you see no difference between an RPG and a nuclear weapon, right?

What about a doomsday device?

Same ol', same ol'.

As I've said before, there is a fundamental difference in view when it comes to ownership of weapons in Europe (by which I primarily mean the West) and the US. And don't expect and sympathy from the country which suffered Dunblane.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Architect

As I've said before, there is a fundamental difference in view when it comes to ownership of weapons in Europe (by which I primarily mean the West) and the US. And don't expect and sympathy from the country which suffered Dunblane.

1) So people in Europe see RPGs, nuclear weapons, and .50 rifles as being the exact same kind of weapon, or even comparable? Nice to know.

2) Ask me if I care what they think. No, really, ask me.

I'm glad that the U.S. doesn't follow the rest of the world on every single topic. I don't want to live in a world that's just one big conglomerate, homogeneous mass.

Originally Posted by davefoc

A question for the people here who think that the regulation of 50 caliber single shot rifles should not be regulated.

This sentence makes no sense. Who thinks that the regulation should not be regulated?

I've made similar errors to this, but everyone loves to point 'em out, so...

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Ranb

I have never heard the M2 described as being intended for anti-tank use. It is intended for anti-armor though. The 50 BMG round was an American development, different than the rimmed Mauser cartridge and the British Boys anti-tank cartridge.

The legal activity that I participate in that requires "such a weapon" is the 50 BMG matches I compete in down in Eatonville WA.

Ranb

That is a circular argument. You could have competitions with any weapon.

How much is target usage a legitimate requirement for a weapon? What about say artillery competitions. Now those probably do exist but likely only with civil war weapons, do they let say modern cannons or mortars be used for such activities?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I didn't realize that RPGs and the .50 BMG were the exact same kind of firearm.

Great strawman. They are both intended for use against armored targets so the comparison is not inappropriate.