Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 2/22/2002 2:03:44 PM EDT
Heard on the radio at lunch time that a bill was introduced to ban .50 caliber rifles, with the usual lies added. No other details were available. We inmates of Kalibans, get busy!
Link Posted: 2/22/2002 5:49:08 PM EDT
Here's a summary from the Caliban website, for full text go to [url] http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm[/url] and search for 2222: AB 2222, as introduced, Koretz. .50 caliber sniper weapons. Under existing law it is a crime to manufacture, cause to be manufactured, import into the state, keep for sale, or offer or expose for sale, or to give, lend, or possess certain dangerous weapons, as specified. This bill would add to the list of dangerous weapons subject to those prohibitions, small arms armor piercing ammunition, as defined. By changing the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law generally regulates the manufacture, possession, transport, and sale of machineguns, as defined. This bill would similarly regulate .50 caliber sniper weapons, as defined. This bill would also provide, subject to exceptions, that any person who manufactures, causes to be manufactured, distributes, transports, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives or lends a .50 caliber sniper weapon is guilty of felony punishable by 4, 6, or 8 year imprisonment in the state prison. This bill would further provide that, subject to exceptions, possession of a .50 caliber sniper weapon in violation of law would be punishable by imprisonment in state prison or in a county jail, not exceeding one year. By creating new crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires, except as specified, for the destruction, as a nuisance, of a machinegun possessed in violation of law. This bill would similarly require, except as specified, for the destruction, as a nuisance, of a .50 caliber sniper weapon possessed in violation of law. Existing law provides that persons may arrange to relinquish an assault weapon to a police or sheriff's department. This bill would similarly permit persons to arrange to relinquish a .50 caliber sniper weapon to a police or sheriff's department. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Link Posted: 2/22/2002 6:05:51 PM EDT
From skimming the bill, it appears to ban the sale of .50BMG rifles, and AP ammunition after 1/1/03, and requires people possessing the rifles to apply for a permit by 3/31/03. The bill puts .50BMG rifles in the same category as machine guns, don't know if they plan to use the same criteria to issue permits as they presently do for machine guns, for which permits are almost never issued.
Link Posted: 2/22/2002 6:42:49 PM EDT
[i]sigh[/i]
Link Posted: 2/22/2002 6:50:31 PM EDT
We are seriously screwed on this one. I highly doubt the DoJ will give permits for this. Also, I wonder about things like the Ferret50. Is that considered a firearm?
Link Posted: 2/22/2002 7:04:53 PM EDT
There are nearly identical bills introduced into both the U.S. House and Senate. Not much action this year on it, but it could be a real problem if they get into a hurry to pass something at the end of the session. How long will we continue to allow our 2nd Amendment Rights be trampled?
Link Posted: 2/22/2002 7:08:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2002 7:24:27 PM EDT
And when everyone rebarrels for the .499 Willy_ (my future wildcat catridge based on the 50 BMG case, just kidding but you get my point) what will they ban then? The Cheyenne Tactical .408 looks to be very promising and an almost infinite number of catridges can be made under .50 cal.
Link Posted: 2/22/2002 7:51:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2002 7:55:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2002 8:34:37 PM EDT
This is one of fuc*ing dumbest things I've ever seen. Name one damn incident where a crime was commited with a .50. NONE!!! I'll tell ya what, if I wanted to go out and pop someones mellon from 500 to 1000 yards, it wouldn't be a large and clunky .50 cal rifle!! It would be something along the lines of a Remington 700 or a Winchester model 70. Both in .308. Just ask Carlos Hathcock. (If he were still alive) Bunch of fucking dumbasses as far as I'm concerned. What's next, my hunting rifles?? /rant off T
Link Posted: 2/22/2002 8:45:24 PM EDT
toaster: Yes, as a matter of fact, your "high powered rifle with a sniper scope" is next! Paul
Link Posted: 2/22/2002 8:46:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2002 9:12:05 PM EDT
Hmmm, would a .50 cal with iron sights not be a "sniper weapon". This sucks big time.
Link Posted: 2/22/2002 9:42:53 PM EDT
Though I don't currently own any .50 "Sniper" rifles, I would enjoy the opportunity to do so in the future. I borrowed from DVDTracker's letter and wrote my own letter to my representative.
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 12:33:00 AM EDT
If this passes, then the next year the definition of "sniper weapon" will include those of "intermediate" calibers, as recommended in the VPC "report" where all of this propaganda started. How much more are you people going to take? Stand and fight or break and run?
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 12:33:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2002 12:34:42 AM EDT by mattja]
Well, you better stock up on M855 real soon. (26) As used in this section, "small arms armor piercing ammunition" means center-fire ammunition that is .50 caliber and under and which meets any of the following: (A) The ammunition has been designated by the United States military as "armor penetrator," "armor piercing (AP)," "armor piercing incendiary (API)," "armor piercing tracer," or "armor-piercing incendiary-tracer(API-T)." (B) The ammunition is substantially [b]similar in design or performance[/b] to any ammunition described in subparagraph (A), whether or not specifically so designated by the military. (C) The ammunition is described or marketed by the manufacturer or by any vendor in commerce as having any of the design or performance characteristics described in subparagraph (A), whether or not so designated by the military.
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 1:21:14 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 3:24:36 AM EDT
so what do you want to do?
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 4:03:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mattja: Well, you better stock up on M855 real soon. (26) As used in this section, "small arms armor piercing ammunition" means center-fire ammunition that is .50 caliber and under and which meets any of the following: (A) The ammunition has been designated by the United States military as "armor penetrator," "armor piercing (AP)," "armor piercing incendiary (API)," "armor piercing tracer," or "armor-piercing incendiary-tracer(API-T)." (B) The ammunition is substantially [b]similar in design or performance[/b] to any ammunition described in subparagraph (A), whether or not specifically so designated by the military. (C) The ammunition is described or marketed by the manufacturer or by any vendor in commerce as having any of the design or performance characteristics described in subparagraph (A), whether or not so designated by the military.
View Quote
M855 is not considered by the military to be armor piercing. It has a bit of steel in the front end----to move more of the weight to the back-end of the bullet----and in so doing, to better stabilize the flight of the bullet. A number of years ago, some smart marketer came up with the term "steel penetrator"----but it certainly is not an AP round.
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 4:40:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2002 4:42:50 AM EDT by mattja]
Originally Posted By PaulLaVanway:
Originally Posted By mattja: Well, you better stock up on M855 real soon. (26) As used in this section, "small arms armor piercing ammunition" means center-fire ammunition that is .50 caliber and under and which meets any of the following: (A) The ammunition has been designated by the United States military as "armor penetrator," "armor piercing (AP)," "armor piercing incendiary (API)," "armor piercing tracer," or "armor-piercing incendiary-tracer(API-T)." (B) The ammunition is substantially [b]similar in design or performance[/b] to any ammunition described in subparagraph (A), whether or not specifically so designated by the military. (C) The ammunition is described or marketed by the manufacturer or by any vendor in commerce as having any of the design or performance characteristics described in subparagraph (A), whether or not so designated by the military.
View Quote
M855 is not considered by the military to be armor piercing. It has a bit of steel in the front end----to move more of the weight to the back-end of the bullet----and in so doing, to better stabilize the flight of the bullet. A number of years ago, some smart marketer came up with the term "steel penetrator"----but it certainly is not an AP round.
View Quote
Look again at (B). It doesn't need to be classified as AP by the military, it just has to perform in a "substantially similar" fashion. They will no doubt include the SS109 bullet, and even if they don't, ammo sellers will still refuse to stock/sell it out of fear. This is what they did with SB23 and this is what they will do with M855. They purposely make these laws vague.
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 4:49:02 AM EDT
Once agian a new law created when there was no problem. I really think legislatures should only be in session one month a year, so they only pass the laws that are really needed. [sniper]
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 4:55:00 AM EDT
SS109, an even easier and more effective way of passing laws is to require 10 old laws to be removed from the books for every new law enacted. Sure, they woudl cut the dead weight laws first, but then after a few years, tehy woudl have to really decide if a new law was worth losing the old ones.
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 5:06:16 AM EDT
OR, just eliminate all laws every 10 years and start over from there. There was some guy that was kind of important to this country that proposed that idea. --Is it just me, or does it seem that every, or almost every gun bill proposed in KA is signed into law?
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 5:09:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Lumpy223: Time to take another 2 steps backwards and re-draw that line in the sand........[I]again.[/I]
View Quote
When are you kaliban gonna READ THE BOOK!!! ("Unintended Consequences" by John Ross) It's GOING to start somewhere......they WON"T let up!
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 5:19:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SS109: Once agian a new law created when there was no problem. I really think legislatures should only be in session one month a year, so they only pass the laws that are really needed. [sniper]
View Quote
Man, you better visit now because pretty soon you'll be banned from this state. :)
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 5:23:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2002 5:24:50 AM EDT by godjack]
again what can we do that will make them sit up and listen for a change? its not gonna be a couple hundred letters to your state reps. or do you really think so? its a good thing the founding fathers didnt do what the people in this country are doing right now, eh? would we listening to tony blair? what is the point at which honest, sensible americans say f*** this and take back the country? eliminate liberalism from the gene pool, thats what needs to be done!
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 5:25:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86:
Originally Posted By Lumpy223: Time to take another 2 steps backwards and re-draw that line in the sand........[I]again.[/I]
View Quote
When are you kaliban gonna READ THE BOOK!!! ("Unintended Consequences" by John Ross) It's GOING to start somewhere......they WON"T let up!
View Quote
Hey, WE are not the Kaliban. It's our fruitcake AG, our merry bunch of theives state legislature, and the elitist liberals who are the Kaliban. If anything, we are like those poor Afghani women forced to cover themselves from head to toe or risk being flogged by the "modesty police".
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 5:41:48 AM EDT
You live in Kalifornia, You are Kalibani, you are KALIBAN!!
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 6:12:46 AM EDT
The gunners are really to blame for the 50-cal mess in Calif. A few years ago before the Great Western Gunshow([url]http://www.greatwesternshow.com/[/url], Pomona, Calif was banned, I had a big argument with an exhibitor there about help us fight the assualt weapons ban here in Calif. His reply was that he is not going to help us because HIS gun was not an AW. This guy was a member of some state-wide 50-cal club/organization. I tried to explain to him that with a few minor wording changes in the law HIS 50-cal bolt action could be designated an AW. The guy was unconvinced, and I left. Now, those people are pleading for help in fighting the ban on 50-cal sniper rifles because it has started to affect them personally, which is too late. This is just the beginning. Here in Calif. the opposition Republican party has pretty much become irrelevant because to pass most any law, it does not require their cooperation. And to make matters worst, the Democratic controlled legislature has just redrawn the state assembly and senate districts to the detriment of the Republican opposition. The fun is just starting.
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 6:20:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Lumpy223: Time to take another 2 steps backwards and re-draw that line in the sand........[I]again.[/I]
View Quote
Alright, you heard it, Lumpy223 has requested a line redraw. Everyone, take 1 step back...very good, and now take step #2. Very good, no pushing or shoving this time. We're getting pretty good at this. O.K. the line has been redrawn. Repeat the line has been redrawn.
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 6:34:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2002 6:41:01 AM EDT by IAM_NAKID]
[left]warlord: you hit the nail right on the head too many gun owners feel that ban's do not affect them because he/she own's a shotgun/ pistol or in this case a single shot 50cal rifle, so it does not apply to them, they don't have to worry about it, too many of them sit on there collective butt's.[/left]
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 6:37:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By warlord: The gunners are really to blame for the 50-cal mess in Calif. snip
View Quote
The last gun show I went to there were several .50 cal rifles for sale and I heard several people say that their gun was accurate more than a mile!???? Under what perfect conditions, in the hands of who that shot that particular rifle how many times, and working with a pro spotter before you are spotted by what who you are shooting at?!!!! And why help the enemy by repeating their lies? Somebody in this thread mentioned Ferrets and 50 cal uppers. Its only a barrel until it is in the proximity of a lower, eh? I am surprised that 50AE is not included! I anticipated that if the enemy bans the future sale of firearms they will also try to register current owners. That puts a different spin on the people saying buy now before it is banned.
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 6:45:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Goad:
Originally Posted By warlord: The gunners are really to blame for the 50-cal mess in Calif. snip
View Quote
The last gun show I went to there were several .50 cal rifles for sale and I heard several people say that their gun was accurate more than a mile!???? Under what perfect conditions, in the hands of who that shot that particular rifle how many times, and working with a pro spotter before you are spotted by what who you are shooting at?!!!! And why help the enemy by repeating their lies? Somebody in this thread mentioned Ferrets and 50 cal uppers. Its only a barrel until it is in the proximity of a lower, eh? I am surprised that 50AE is not included! I anticipated that if the enemy bans the future sale of firearms they will also try to register current owners. That puts a different spin on the people saying buy now before it is banned.
View Quote
Goad: this sounds like a complete ban to me. If you have to get a license in order to own it, and since they won't issue you a license... Its too bad the 50-cal folks waited until it affected them personally, now they are pretty much screwed. The 50AE could be included as the bill winds its way thru the Calif. legislature, and/or due to the AG Bill Lockyer interpetation of the law.
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 6:47:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By warlord: ... I had a big argument with an exhibitor there about help us fight the assualt weapons ban here in Calif. His reply was that he is not going to help us because HIS gun was not an AW. ...I tried to explain to him that with a few minor wording changes in the law HIS 50-cal bolt action could be designated an AW...
View Quote
The joke is on him, as AB2222 is much worse than merely classifying .50s as Roberti-Roos or SB23 AWs. With an AW, you register it, and you can legally keep it. Here, you register it (apply for a permit), and will probably be denied. The anti black gun "hunters and sportsmen" types will probably not care about this law either. I won't be long, though, before we hear from Sacramento: "Why do you need a .30 cal or larger sniper weapon to hunt, they seem to hunt deer just fine in NY with 12Ga. slugs."
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 6:54:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By IAM_NAKID: [left]warlord: you hit the nail right on the head too many gun owners feel that ban's do not affect them because he/she own's a shotgun/ pistol or in this case a single shot 50cal rifle, so it does not apply to them, they don't have to worry about it, too many of them sit on there collective butt's.[/left]
View Quote
ThIS typical NRA "duck hunter" atitude started many years ago, remember the '94 crime bill? "68 GCA? "36 NFA? [B]THEY WILL NEVER STOP![/B] And after they have your guns, the fun really starts!
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 6:55:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MadMatt: [The anti black gun "hunters and sportsmen" types will probably not care about this law either. I won't be long, though, before we hear from Sacramento: "Why do you need a .30 cal or larger sniper weapon to hunt, they seem to hunt deer just fine in NY with 12Ga. slugs."
View Quote
Personally, I don't see that happening, BUT then you never know. The time to start fight the politicos is BEFORE they affect you, but now with the wolf at the door, we are pretty hosed. So better hang on to your NRA hat, because this is going to be a rough ride.
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 7:27:07 AM EDT
The Fifty Caliber Shooters Policy Institute is having a fundraising raffle to fight these laws. An entry form can be found at [url]http://www.50cal-policy.org/fund/[/url]. $25 to enter, entries must be received by 2/27, so send it today if you want to partake.
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 7:34:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By warlord: snip Goad: this sounds like a complete ban to me. snip
View Quote
It sounds like a complete ban to me also. If I owned a 50 cal and I was forced to apply for NFA government approval, personally I would not. So for me it would be a complete ban.
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 10:29:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SS109: Once agian a new law created when there was no problem. I really think legislatures should only be in session one month a year, so they only pass the laws that are really needed. [sniper]
View Quote
Many states limit the sessions of their legislatures. In Utah, the legislature meets once a year for only 45 days, per the state constitution. They have to get the essential business done in that time period. In California, there is no such limit, and the legislature stays in session all the time trying to solve the people's problems.
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 10:35:22 AM EDT
Guys, Regarding the 50-caliber issue, here is an excellent resource to email to your representatives, media persons and friends: .50 Caliber Liars https://[url]www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=2761[/url]
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 10:39:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hielo: SS109, an even easier and more effective way of passing laws is to require 10 old laws to be removed from the books for every new law enacted. Sure, they woudl cut the dead weight laws first, but then after a few years, tehy woudl have to really decide if a new law was worth losing the old ones.
View Quote
This is a great idea. Strangely enough, on an idle airplane flight a few months ago, I actually wrote up some text for a state constitutional amendment that would have the same effect: 1. Title This amendment shall be titled the “Removal of Restrictions on Conduct Act” 2. General statement Any restriction on the conduct of persons that is enforced by law or regulation, by the state or by any political subdivision of this state shall expire on the tenth anniversary of its taking effect. 3. Exceptions This amendment shall not apply: a. To restrictions on conduct that causes direct and actual harm, or substantial threat of direct and actual harm, to a person’s life, body, liberty or property. For a determination that a particular type of conduct meets this exception, the actual persons so harmed, or threatened by such harm, must be produced. b. To restrictions on conduct that are explicitly enacted by the Constitution of this state. c. To restrictions on the conduct of persons who are officials of the state or its political subdivisions, to the extent that the conduct relates to their official business. 4. Transitional period Restrictions on conduct having force of law on the date of enactment of this amendment shall be called pre-existing restrictions for the purpose of this amendment. a. Pre-existing restrictions shall remain in effect until February 1, 2007, unless modified, repealed, or reauthorized, pursuant to this amendment and the Constitution and laws of this state. b. The Legislature shall have the power to further extend, by a two thirds majority vote of both houses, and the assent of the Governor, any or all pre-existing restrictions for a period of one year. This power shall take effect on February 1, 2006, and shall cease to have effect on February 1, 2008. 5. Reauthorization requirements a. A restriction on the conduct of persons may be reauthorized pursuant to this amendment, and the Constitution and laws of this state. b. A restriction on conduct may be reauthorized for no more than ten years from its date of taking effect. c. No restriction on conduct may be reauthorized until at least two years have passed from its date of first taking effect, or if its date of expiry is less than six months distant. d. After February 1, 2007, the same constitutional, legislative and other applicable procedures required for a new restriction on conduct shall be followed for the reauthorization of a restriction on conduct. 6. Annotation of the code a. After February 1, 2003, every restriction on conduct listed in the code and regulations of the state shall be annotated with its date of expiry, and the most recent date of reauthorization. b. If this amendment does not apply to the restriction on conduct, then the annotation shall state that the restriction does not expire and does not need to be reauthorized. 7. Requirements for repeal The requirements of this amendment may be repealed or modified by a two-thirds majority vote of the people of the state.
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 10:47:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By godjack: so what do you want to do?
View Quote
[b]"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"[/b] --Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy p. 20, S. Padover ed., 1939 Or you can always take the easy route: "A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." --- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 11:09:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2002 11:11:48 AM EDT by LWilde]
You guys are screwed! Just another incremental step in the total banning of ALL firearms in California. Then the politicians will feel good...and so will the crooks. Won't that be nice? Time to move out. Glad I did...and here's why: Tomorrow, I'm going to rock and roll for the better part of the day...to the tune of about 1500 rds. I'm going to be with a bunch of friends doing the same thing too...including several LEOs. While we're there...not ONE of us is going to worry about breaking some crazy-assed stupid [unconstitutional] law about our possessing our ARs, Commie guns, FALs, or any other type of ugly, black, Kalifornia-illegal assault rifles! [pissed]
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 11:18:35 AM EDT
Where exactly do you think the idea for the FEDERAL "assault weapon" and hi-cap magazine ban came from? The tyrannical laws passed by the kaliban eventually work their way into the rest of the U.S. Where are you going to run to then? Kanada? Mexico?
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 12:09:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/23/2002 2:09:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 8:20:12 AM EDT
I believe there is/was new Fed rules in place for black powder guns. A crazy shot and killed his psychiatrist in New York hospital a few yaars back with a black powder revolver, and I think "they" tried to pass a new law that regulates those blackpowder guns. I don't know what happen to it.
Link Posted: 2/24/2002 10:06:45 AM EDT
sounds pretty simple to me, its time to shoot the basterds. we must shoot em now or try to shoot em later when they have outlawed all but .22 shorts and .410 ga. shotguns. war is on the horizon.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 1:44:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2002 2:03:43 AM EDT by mattja]
That Koretz character is a real piece of work. You know the ahole is in the same district as our friend Waxman? Gee, what a surprise. The thing that gets me, and it's predictable if you know these people, is tha f*cker's family escaped from Germany in the 1930's to avoid Nazi persecution and here he is today taking the same actions that Nazi's took to make that persecution possible. Banning all the guns! Talk about a shit bag. The sick part is the Jews and the homos will never vote their man out of office. Here's the scumbags web page. Feel free to post your opinions. [url]democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a42/[/url] Here's his e-mail. Assemblymember.Koretz@assembly.ca.gov
Top Top