Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/24/2002 4:25:20 PM EDT
[url]http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0201220170jan22.story[/url] I saw this topic on FSN. I questioned if since .50s would be MGs under this bill...if once amnestied you could legally convert say a .50AE AR-15 to a .50AE M16. Since you are making a MG into a MG and it would be registered as a MG, I don't see why not. So, the real question is if they will make the Upper a conversion part. If so, then the only legal way I see to do the conversion would be with a non-conversion part. I.E. a Pre-81 DIAS and M16 Parts. The guys over there couldn't get past the fact that it would be converting a semi to fully auto. But, if they in fact are redefined as MGs and amnestied and therefore become registered/transferrable MGs, why can't somebody make it fire FA. A MG, is a MG, is a MG...Wouldn't this be much like taking an Open Bolt Semi-Automatic MAC that was registered years ago and converting it to FA. It is a registered MG, so you are not making a new MG in violation of 922(o). So, what is your opinion ?
Link Posted: 1/24/2002 4:29:16 PM EDT
A bill sponsored by U.S. Rep. Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.) in the House of Representatives would reclassify the .50-caliber sniper rifle as a machine gun under the National Firearms Act, making it difficult for civilians to purchase, Rand said. Dave Schrank, of Schrank's Smoke 'n Gun in Waukegan, accused gun-control advocates of "selling one thing and delivering another" in their attack on the .50-caliber rifle. "The .50-caliber rifle used by civilians is a completely different weapon from the machine gun used by the military," Schrank said. "Civilians use a .50-caliber single-shot bolt action rifle for recreational target shooting." Tom Mannard, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said that regardless of whether the .50-caliber rifle is a single-shot or fully automatic weapon, it's capable of tremendous damage. "The U.S. State Department recently went so far as to ban the export of this type of weapon because it's a favorite of terrorist organizations," Mannard said. Mannard said State Department officials based the recent export ban on a report released in October by Rand's group. The report documents the use of .50-caliber rifles by terrorist groups, including the Irish Republican Army, the Branch Davidians and Al Qaeda.
View Quote
Also, when exactly did the Branch Dividians Become terrorists ?
Link Posted: 1/24/2002 4:47:56 PM EDT
I doubt they'd reclassify it as an MG - Destructive Device is another class of NFA weapon that would require the same registration and tax, but wouldn't create a bunch of grandfathered machineguns. The quote in the paper is either a stupid politician thinking all NFA weapons are machineguns, or a stupid reporter interpreting the stupid politician's words. Reclassification of the .50 to a DD is quite possible, though, and has been brought up by the antigunners at least several times before.
Link Posted: 1/24/2002 5:56:07 PM EDT
[b] Also, when exactly did the Branch Dividians Become terrorists ? [/b] The victors write history...and the Davidians lost.
Link Posted: 1/24/2002 6:03:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/24/2002 6:46:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2002 6:54:16 PM EDT by cc48510]
All current ones would be amnestied. That means registered tax free. But, as a DD you could also continue to build .50s as long as you file a Form 1 and pay $200. As a MG, no new civilian .50s could be made. But, both have ups and downs. A Type 10 FFL and SOT is cost prohibitive, so only a few major manufacturers will continue to produce, meaning prices will go up. As a MG, any Class 2 SOT could build one, but no more could be produced for civies. An 07/C2 is relatively cheap compared to a 10/C2. Worse yet is that there are nearly no DD Dealers as an 09/C3 costs $4,000 to start and $1,000 per year and $3,000 every 3 years to mantain.
Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer: what exactly would calling them a DD have on those that already own them? would there be a tax or license needed to keep one you owned before the ban?
View Quote
Link Posted: 1/24/2002 6:52:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2002 6:54:02 PM EDT by cmjohnson]
I just emailed that bitch, and I don't even live in her state! Here's her email address:[email]karenmay60@aol.com[/email] Here's the text of what I sent: ..............start of letter.............. I'm so glad I don't live in your state. Your proposed legislation to outlaw .50 caliber rifles is probably one of the three stupidest things I've ever seen in print. Why don't you do a little research before proposing something this idiotic? Never mind. I know why. You want to ban guns and aren't particularly interested in the truth because it just gets in your way. Such research would reveal that these rifles simply aren't used in the commission of crimes. They're big, heavy, expensive, very hard to conceal, can't be fired without attracting a LOT of attention, and to borrow Richard Pearson's comment, "These weapons are as clumsy as a cow on a fire escape" Criminals simply don't use them, and you can't come up with any evidence that they do. Not that I'd expect you to try, since truth is bad business for a gun-grabber like yourself. Fortunately, the state of Illinois is not completely full of idiots who'd support your anti-Constitutionalist agenda. With any luck, your bill will be laughed out of existence and you'll be laughed out of office. Why don't you and your fellow gun-grabbers ever stop to think that law-abiding citizens aren't the people you need to worry about? It's the criminals you need to worry about, and they're already disobeying the law. Do you think they'll obey another stupid new anti-gun law when they haven't been in the habit of obeying laws to begin with? Rather than try to criminalize a manufactured item, why don't you focus on effective enforcement of the laws already in place, of which there are already quite enough? Regardless of gun type, it's illegal to shoot somebody in most cases and that by itself is sufficient if the law is properly supported. Quit blaming a THING when it's a PERSON who's committing the ACT. Your feeble-minded attempt to justify this legislation as an anti-terrorism measure won't fool a smart six year old. NOBODY with a three-digit IQ believes for a moment that terrorists buy their guns in the US when they're a tenth as expensive in some other countries, particularly those countries where terrorists are usually armed and trained, like Pakistan and other parts of the Middle East. Legislation like you're apt to introduce penalizes nobody except for honest, decent, law-abiding citizens who just happen to enjoy the shooting sports and harm nobody in the process, and those who choose to be armed against the possibility of attack by the aforementioned criminal element, but have no criminal intentions. Gun owners across the nation are becoming more and more aware of the un-American activities of gun-grabbing socialists like yourself on a daily basis. You'll find less and less support for your harebrained schemes with each passing day. For your sake, if you want to have another term in office, you'll figure that out and reconsider your position in time for your re-election bid if you choose to pursue that path. Otherwise, those who are awake and aware WILL vote you out of office. (continued in next post)
Link Posted: 1/24/2002 6:53:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2002 6:54:25 PM EDT by cmjohnson]
(continued from last post) Keep in mind that gun owners constitute the MAJORITY of the adult population in the United States. We've lost some ground because too many got complacent and adopted a limited perspective, but those people are rapidly rejoining the voting segment of the population in response to your senseless attacks on our Constitutionally protected rights. Our voices will be heard at the polls, in addition to letters like this one. A personalized reply is quite acceptable to me. You may email it or send it via US mail. VERY sincerely, and with little tact, (signed) ...........end of letter............ You bet it wasn't particularly polite. I'm not playing politeness games with these assholes anymore. If they feel like we're getting angry, maybe it'll influence them to back the hell off. Go ahead, it's your turn! Write those poison pen letters, even if it's to another district or state! CJ
Link Posted: 1/24/2002 7:18:07 PM EDT
For the record, can anybody actually recall a violent crime being commited with a .50BMG? I really am curious, because I'm still a newbie to the firearm community. Does this legislative sludge include the .50AE?
Link Posted: 1/24/2002 7:47:07 PM EDT
I wonder if this would affect the .50AE Desert Eagles... That would suck if it did. - Dustin
Link Posted: 1/24/2002 8:40:02 PM EDT
As of this time, there has been NO reported criminal act committed with any of the legal .50 BMG chambered rifles on the market according to the FBI's reports. NONE. It's not about crime. It's about banning guns. Once you understand that, you'll understand these gun grabbing slimeballs. But most of them aren't brave enough to come right out and say it, so they hide behind 'anti-crime' and 'anti-terrorism' causes. CJ
Link Posted: 1/24/2002 8:49:02 PM EDT
If they ban .50BMG wouldn't they also have to ban .50AE and if they banned that wouldn't they have to ban most all of the blackpower arms too?
Link Posted: 1/24/2002 9:50:15 PM EDT
Now that would be funny as hell. Bring out a Civil War musket and say "They wish to redefine this as a Machine Gun" then show everybody how it takes forever to load. BUt, there is a list of guns the ATF has exempted from the NFA. Most are old antique rifles, etc...but there are a few that would be nice if they were available. There is some Semi-Automatic Beretta Carbine that has a 12.5" Barrel and is exempted from the NFA. They will probably make up a list of antique guns to exempt so that they don't look like fools.
Originally Posted By Green_Furniture: If they ban .50BMG wouldn't they also have to ban .50AE and if they banned that wouldn't they have to ban most all of the blackpower arms too?
View Quote
Link Posted: 1/25/2002 4:39:56 AM EDT
One thing I've got lying around here is a surplus barrel from a 20mm GE Vulcan cannon, from an F-4 Phantom's gun pod. It has occurred to me that I could make a legal cannon out of it if it fired BLACK POWDER and didn't take a cartridge. I can buy new target practice 20mm slugs for 150 bucks a hundred, and I've got access to a half million dollar machine shop for making the rest of the gun. I can't see any reason why I couldn't make an electrically fired breechloader. Oh, the barrel is rifled with GAIN TWIST! Very interesting design indeed! Given the current political climate, I'm really tempted to make it. Some engineering services may be required to design a truly GOOD cannon, but I think I can find a qualified engineer who'd help. Anybody know how many grains of Pyrodex would be a good starting point for a four ounce projectile at 4000 FPS?? [beer] KABOOM! [50] CJ
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 5:31:26 PM EDT
CMJ... "so the hide behind ...." You forgot "do it for the children."
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 5:43:40 PM EDT
If any of you remember the Texas Tower incident in the '60's... they made a movie of it... the shooter used a bolt action scoped deer rifle (in the movie he had a .30 Carbine). So, after that, there was a big move to ban "sniper rifles with telescopic sights". They wanted to ban scopes, too. It is a case of "flavor of the day". Whatever is freshest in people's mind, they want to ban ALL guns. That is their goal. Of course, like Rosie O'Donnald, or Hanoi Jane (when she had a gun violation problem in California), they do not think the laws apply to them... those laws are for us "little people".
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 7:16:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2002 7:19:10 PM EDT by cc48510]
And guess what that was just as stupid. I don't know how tall the tower was/is, but...it is very easy to figure out that if the tower was 100 feet tall, then the persons fired at could be 282 feet away and it would still have been a 100 Yard shot. I have taken 100 Yard shots with an AK-47 w/ Standard sights and been able to place headshots on a human size/shaped target. In fact, iron sights are more dependable than scopes which tend to get misaligned. Then again, this was another gym of anti-gun idiotcy. BTW, the formula is:     _________________________________________________________ \/((Height of Tower^2) + (Distance From Tower To Target^2))
Originally Posted By A_Free_Man: If any of you remember the Texas Tower incident in the '60's... they made a movie of it... the shooter used a bolt action scoped deer rifle (in the movie he had a .30 Carbine). So, after that, there was a big move to ban "sniper rifles with telescopic sights". They wanted to ban scopes, too. It is a case of "flavor of the day". Whatever is freshest in people's mind, they want to ban ALL guns. That is their goal. Of course, like Rosie O'Donnald, or Hanoi Jane (when she had a gun violation problem in California), they do not think the laws apply to them... those laws are for us "little people".
View Quote
Top Top