.50 Rifle Ban Called For Again

Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) wants a ban on .50 rifles. It's no wonder she has an F- rating from Gun Owners of America.

"Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney says under current federal law, .50-caliber armor-piercing sniper rifles are actually easier to purchase than a handgun. The weapons were first used by the U.S. military, because they can pierce tanks and aircraft."

Well they're "easier" to purchase than a handgun because you only have to be 18 & you can buy them in a state different than the one you live in. All other rules apply to .50 rifles as do to handguns or any other firearm (at least according to federal law; local laws may vary). You still have to pass the (unconstitutional) background check just like you would for a handgun.

They were used by the military because they could pierce tanks. The .50 Browning Machine Gun cartridge was introduced in John Moses Browning's (take off your hat when his name is spoken, ya dang heathen!) M2 belt fed machine gun. That was sometime in the 1920's. By WW2 tanks had developed armor so thick that a 20mm (.80) cartridge couldn't penetrate it. So the idea that they can still be used against tanks effectively is a wee bit - okay, not a wee bit, it's a blatent lie.

"Maloney says various terrorist organizations are now buying the weapons, and they can be used against the nation's aircraft and chemical plants."

So a terrorist is going to spend $1200 or more on a 30 pound 4+ foot rifle to shoot at airplanes & chemical plants with? I'll grant that a .50 BMG has a lot of range & delivers a lot of energy, but it'd take multiple hits to damage an aircraft to the point of noticing unless an incredibly lucky shot was made. Same with chemical plants. & that's if a terrorist would be dumb enough to set up a 30 pound rifle within a thousand yards or so of his intended target. There are many more effecient & economical ways to damage aircraft & chemical plants than sniping at them. I seriously question Rep. Maloney's critical thinking skills & I have no doubts on her ignorance of all topics martial.

"Maloney says the weapon, which doesn't fall under the current assault weapon ban, is so dangerous it deserves its own legislation.
'It's a deadly weapon. It’s a weapon of war. It should be regulated,' the congresswoman said Wednesday. 'It should not be sold on the Internet for as little as $1,200, and it should be removed from the market."

Nope, .50 BMG rifles generally do not fall under the AWB. In fact no weapon falls under the AWB by reason of caliber. The AWB is a measure affecting the way firearms can look for the most part. The areas of function it touches on have nothing to do with downrange performance unless you have grenades to fire from a banned feature (i.e. grenade launcher).

But yes, a .50 BMG, like any firearm, is a deadly weapon. & like any other firearm it can be used as a weapon of war. That's why it's protected, like any other firearm, by the 2nd amendment to the Bill of Rights. The Framers (actually the anti-federalists insisted upon the entire Bill of Rights) put the 2nd amendment in the constitution to ensure that idiotic fools like Maloney would never be allowed to ban a person from owning & keeping & carrying weapons of war. We've let ourselves down because we haven't pushed the matter when statist jack-asses like Maloney have encroached upon our Right to Arms.

"Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have legislation pending that would ban or restrict sales of the rifle."

That's no surprise. Every year the House & Senate have numerous bills on the calendar designed to strip away what's left of the respect for our Right to Arms. But seeing as how statist imbeciles like Mahoney are so keen on banning them, I think that should be an incentive for every person who reads this & is able to go out & purchase one immedietely. Not because it's likely the statist dog will get her way, but because everyone should own at least one weapon that scares their politicians like that.

S. 429 (which is sponsored by Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Corzine, Lautenberg, Durbin, Levin) is the Senate bill mentioned in the article. It's title is "The Anti-Terrorism Military Sniper Weapon Reclassification Act of 2003" If you click this link & scroll down to the bottom of the page you'll find Difi's address she used to introduced the bill. It continues on the following page. Needless to say don't read it with breakable objects within reach.

I couldn't find the House bill but I'm sure it's there someplace.

What's even sadder to me than this .50 caliber legislation being taken seriously by Congress is that the following bills will not be taken seriously by Congress:

H.R. 153 Introduced by Rep. Paul (R-Tx) - The Second Amendment Protection Act of 2003 (co-sponsored by Barlett, Cannon, Miller, & Otter)

H.R. 1146 Introduced by Rep. Paul (R-Tx) - The American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 (15 co-sponsors)

H.R. 3125 Introduced by Rep. Paul (R-Tx) - Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act of 2003 (53 co-sponsors)

Here are some of the other bills Rep. Paul has proposed. Hopefully it'll cheer you up a bit to know what he's attempting to do.

In 1775 the press was on our side. Not anymore. Now the press will keep running emotion filled bullshit stories about the need to ban or restrict certain types of weapons. Congress will ignore measures passed by its members that would restore the respect for our Right to Arms that Congress is mandated to show in the first place.

At least one thing is in our favor: Ron Paul will keep plugging away & convincing the few honest souls left in D.C. to back his support or opposition on the basis of our Rights. It may not be enough to help us materially, but when faced with the idiocy of those like Maloney it's somewhat of a comfort to know that a few in Congress are still on our side.

Posted by Publicola at August 20, 2004 06:01 AM