... and the push is back.  Representative Moran has introduced a bill that would ban the manufacture or sale of .50 caliber rifles, and require that existing examples be registered under the NFA rules.  And here I was thinking that the Democrats had figured out that gun control was a losing issue; not that I ever thought they weren't lying through their teeth about "supporting" the 2nd Amendment, I'm just surprised that they are willing to go back to their same old tricks openly.  Speaking of old tricks, he's also trying to resurrect the so-called Assault Weapons Ban.

Well, perhaps it's not quite so backwards as all that; apparantly the only organization willing to share the press release upon which this story was obviously based was the "Virginians Against Handgun Violence".  Notably absent are the Violence Policy Center, the Million-Mom-March-United-With-Somebody, and the Brady Bunch. 

I'm not too concerned about either bill with the current makeup of Congress.  The House is probably secure enough even if the Senate would be a close vote on the Assault Weapons Ban.  I'm a bit more concerned about what happens after the November elections.  If the Democrats take back some ground with anti-gun rhetoric, and both sides feel like that is the new winning formula, we could see Republicans caving to cowardice and some losses.

Time to start saving up for that Barret .50, just in case.

From a recent anti-gun newsletter (it's always good to keep an eye on them):

A terrorist armed with a .50-caliber sniper rifle and a scope could plunk away at a nuclear power plant without security personnel knowing what hit them or where the attack was coming from. By the time security officials could adequately respond to the sniper attack, it could be too late.

The only way to prevent this nightmare and other ".50-caliber terror" scenarios is for lawmakers to take action now and restrict these deadly weapons for use by the military and law enforcement officials  only.

It's not news that security is hard.  But asking us to believe that terrorists won't be able to get their hands on any small arm they want, regardless of a ban within the United States?  That's insane.

... by banning .50 rifles and ammunition, confiscating them from their citizens immediately (which prevents the citizens from selling them to someone who could legally own them).  For some reason they are also banning "cop killer" handguns, whatever those are.  

Thanks to Techno Gypsy for spotting it.  If you're in Massachussetts, you might want to contact your legislature.  It probably won't stop them, but it's worth a try.

... then I suggest you carefully read and understand this page first.  That is all.

So there's this fellow named Jake Harrera.  From his byline on the article, he is a junior majoring in "Middle East studies".  I don't know what kind of a useless major that is supposed to be; I'd expect a major in history or political science to be useful, but a major in "Middle East studies" sounds like a hotbed of left-wing cultural relativist propaganda.  But it gives him enough credibility for the media to print his editorial with a straight face, even though it has nothing to do with the Middle East -- it's just a call for more gun control, with a thin veneer of terrorism on top.

What's even more interesting is to look at the timing.  You might think that a college student with the time and energy to write opinion pieces for his newspaper about gun control is at least doing some useful learning.  He's supposedly researching the issues and writing an informative advocacy piece based on his research.  Nothing wrong with that.

But can it be fairly called a coincidence that his opinion piece was published on March 8th, just a single day after the website ".50 caliber terror" sent out an email broadcast  on exactly this issue?

With that as prompting, all an aspiring "journalist" needs to do is write in a few thinly-veiled insults about the National Rifle Association.

One would imagine that after Sept. 11, every conceivable effort would be made by state and federal authorities to limit the extent to which terrorists could operate in America. As far as ideas go, this one is far from revolutionary-it's common sense. Everyone, it seems, agrees that we ought to be gunning for more stringent national security measures. Everyone, that is, except for the National Rifle Association.

National security measures that make sense are one thing.  But gun control doesn't spell national security, and no amount of security is worth giving up our fundamental freedoms in order to obtain.

The NRA, not surprisingly, is acting aggressively to derail a proposed gun-control initiative in the Illinois state legislature. What is surprising, however, is the gun they are protecting is designed to destroy airliners. The weapon in question is the .50-caliber sniper rifle.

The .50 caliber rifle was not designed to destroy airliners.  It was designed for extreme long range shooting, by and for civilians.  You might be able to shoot at an aircraft on the ground with a .50 and hit it, but the odds are that you wouldn't hit anything vital, especially on a modern passenger aircraft; such aircraft are tremendously redundant.  You can poke a lot of holes in a passenger aircraft and accomplish nothing more than annoying the maintenance crew. 

The .50-caliber round, about the size of a man's hand, is enormously powerful.

Sure, it's big and powerful, but the size of a man's hand it's not.  Here's an article on several .50 rifles that includes a photograph of a man holding a .50 round in his hand.  Judge for yourself:

 
And that's really not all that much larger than other rifle ammunition.

The sniper rifle variant was originally designed for use in the U.S. Special Forces.  The rifle allows the lightly armed and armored Special Forces to contend with the armored forces of conventional units, like tanks. In the Gulf War, U.S. Marines used the weapon to destroy Soviet-made armored personnel carriers, complete with two inches of steel plating, from a distance of 1,700 yards: That's 17 football fields.

Designed for civilian use in long-range target shooting, and only later adopted by the military because it was such a damn good rifle.  The only people saying otherwise are gun bigots -- and that's clearly where this fellow did his "research".

While this rifle does allow an infantry force to engage some vehicles at close range if they are very lightly armored, it's insufficient to engage a modern tank at any range.  And of course, any discussion of armor is irrelevant when talking about aircraft.  Commercial aircraft have no armor.  Most military aircraft don't have armor, either.

Bear in mind that "destroy" in this context means "poke a small hole in". 

If I climbed up to the top of Section O in Camp Randall, I could put a round through Sellery Hall.

In today's zero-tolerance environment, shouldn't this statement earn the student a long discussion with the police?

In all honesty, I would hold the weapon in a geek-like state of reverence, if it weren't for the fact that any 18-year-old with sound immigration status and no felony convictions could walk into a gun store and walk out with a weapon perfect for a Grand Theft Auto-worthy rampage.

Sure, if that 18 year old could afford a $7,000 firearm, and wanted to carry a 30-pound rifle for his rampage.    How many people have done that?  Hello?  Anyone out there?

One of the more hackneyed responses in the NRA's arsenal is the claim that unrestrained access to firearms would result in a safer society-because if society is armed, an individual is less likely to act against society. In 2004, a journalist located the .50-caliber on the Internet (you can too, at www.gunsamerica.com), flew to Houston to purchase it from the seller, and returned home with the weapon without ever having to file any paperwork, except the cash he paid the dealer.

And if that was actually what the CNN reporter did, he would be guilty of several felonies.  It's probably not what the reporter did, but we'll let the BATFE investigation answer that question.  You can't legally buy a rifle outside of your home state, unless you do so from a licensed dealer, who will conduct a background check.

According to CNN, "A used .50 caliber rifle can often be purchased with no background check at all." Well, looks like the NRA's vigilante vision of society is already here. Are you feeling safer yet?

What does buying a rifle without a background check have to do with vigilantism?  For that matter, when has the NRA -- or any other pro-gun group -- advocated vigilantism?  Pro-gun types tend to advocate self-defense, which is something else entirely.

Since there is a resounding silence on the issue of actual crimes being committed with .50 rifles, I'm certainly feeling safer.  After all, if Mark Wilson had had a .50 rifle, he could have used it to save several lives.  Instead, faced with a criminal wearing a bulletproof vest, he gave up his life to buy a few extra seconds for strangers.

But I have to wonder how Barrett would describe their less benign clientele-like al-Qaida. It was proven al-Qaida purchased 25 Barrett rifles for $150,000, (whether the company knew at the time is unknown) between 1988 and 1989 during the investigation of the bombings of the American embassy in Kenya.

Astute observers will recall that the sale was made to the United States government, which then allegedly transferred the rifles to an Al-Qaeda associate... during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, when the mujaheddin were shooting at Russians and thus considered allies.

But why wonder what Barret would say?  His company has released a public statement.

Guns in general have an incredible shelf life, and these rifles are no exception. The 25 .50 caliber rifles represent a clear and present danger to the lives of American troops and civilians. It is clear the rifle has been recognized by al-Qaida as a weapon of choice, and this, if for no other reason, justifies banning the sale of the weapon in the United States.

25 rifles represent a clear and present danger to American lives?  Well, not really much more than any other rifle in enemy hands.  Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, had an entire army.  That includes a lot more than 25 rifles; it includes tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, artillery, explosives... if the .50 is such a weapon of choice for terrorists, and their continued availability to civilians such a threat, why has there never been a terrorist incident on US soil using one? 

No matter how much fearmongering the gun bigots can do, there are no terrorist incidents on US soil with this weapon. 

Speaking of which... when do we expect to ban boxcutters?

The question of the .50-caliber rifle is not one of gun control but national security. Our Founding Fathers did not intend the Second Amendment to allow private citizens to wield cannons designed for destroying British Men o' War.

Funny, private citizens owning cannon designed for destroying British Men o' War were exactly what the Framers were depending on when they gave Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal, a somewhat obscure provision of the Constitution that allows Congress to authorize a privateer (that's a private ship captain) to capture or destroy enemy vessels.

Note that the letters do not authorize a ship's captain to own cannon.  They authorize the ship's caption to use his ship's cannon to commit acts of war on behalf of the United States.

At least they have a fair amount of historical information about .50 rifles for those unfamiliar with the issue.

... and this one has some really funny bits.  Try this on for size:

What is the chief honcho for the National Rifle Association and key Bush supporter doing with a French name? I mean with a name like Wayne LaPierre, you'd think good 'ol Wayne would be buttering croissants with John Kerry instead of working to make it easy for terrorists to buy big guns.

... and that is coming from the supposed party of tolerance and diversity?  Maybe, just maybe, Republicans and gun-rights enthusiasts aren't so obsessed with race and class struggles?  The French government has been a real pain in the neck lately, to be sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all French are idiots -- just that the ones still in France have elected a government of idiots.  Those who left France in favor of American don't bear any personal stigma for their choice.

Oh, and we mean big guns. Like the .50 Caliber Sniper Rifle that a terrorist can use to shoot down a plane landing or taking off.

"Shoot down"?  Unlikely, even on landing or takeoff.  Even if you could hit the airplane at that point (and remember, it's thousands of feet away at best, moving about 200 miles per hour, probably at an angle, and you've only got one shot), a .50 bullet isn't going to do much more than poke a finger-sized hole in an airplane.  Just about every vital system on the airplane is duplicated, including the pilot, so a prospective terrorist would need to not only hit and disable a vital system on his first shot, but make a followup shot to hit and disable the backup for that system.No sane terrorist will try that.

Because of LaPierre's brass knuckle threats to Congress, he got them and the Justice Department to make it as easy for a terrorist to buy a .50 cal| as it is to buy a rifle.

"brass knuckle threats"?  What an imagination!  Congress has made no changes to existing law on this matter.  The same people prohibited from purchasing a firearm are still prohibited from purchasing a firearm.   Actual, convicted terrorists are prohibited from purchasing or even possessing a firearm, just like every other felon in the United States.  Alleged terrorists, on the other hand, may be subject to greater scrutiny in some situations but are still afforded due process of law.

Oh.  And before I forget, there's a reason the .50 caliber rifle is as easy to buy as a rifle.  That's because it is a rifle.

Because of the NRA, the Government Accounting Office said "47 known or suspected terrorists were allowed to buy firearms in the United States from February through October last year, including some who were under active surveillance." That's the way Wayne wants it.

Yup.  There's this little principle called innocent until proven guilty that comes into play here.

If your jaw just dropped and you break out in a cold sweat when your  next plane takes off, maybe you'll be wondering if the NRA is getting a little extra "dues" from Al-Qaeda. Because otherwise, how could anyone advocate a policy that makes us more vulnerable to terrorism?

"I have a list, right here in my hand, of known communists terrorists in the United States..."

Yes, the left is the new party of McCarthyism.  Can you possibly go any lower than this?  Alleging -- with no proof -- that the NRA receives funding from terrrorists in order to protect their access to firearms in the US?

Of course, the Bush Administration gives the NRA whatever it wants, even if it means putting a .50 caliber sniper rifle right in the hands of a terrorist.

Believe it or not, Bush has steadfastly maintained a centrist position on gun control.  He supports the assault weapons ban, which the NRA is uncomfortable with and the more hard-core gun-rights activists despise.  His Justice Department has put out an opinion stating that 2nd Amendment is an individual right -- the same position favored by honest historians and scholars.  Anyone who thinks that Bush would back off on his anti-terrorist policy in favor of gun rights is deluding themselves.  The truth is, terrorists will be able to acquire firearms in the United States -- or in any country -- by breaking the gun control laws in the same way they break all the other laws forbidding acts of terrorism. 

Remember, it's your life that's at stake -- and Wayne LaPierre couldn't give a damn, nor could the Bush Administration.

While the idea for this email was germinating in the mind of Tom Diaz and his fellow gun bigots, gun owner and concealed-carrier Mark Wilson gave his life to save the lives of strangers.  Military veteran Ron Martell, who had just watched several people murdered before his eyes, and despite being unarmed, followed the killer and pointed him out to police.  Who do you trust?  Who do you want next to you if a terrorist should decide you are his personal ticket to paradise?  Do you want a gun bigot? Or do you want a gun owner?

So I got my latest email from the gun bigot website ".50 Caliber Terror", and they are talking about a segment that is planned for this Sunday's 60 Minutes.  (That's March 20th, 7pm EST/PST).   That segment is a followup to CBS's earlier .50 "report". 

Since I gave up on television a long time ago, I won't be able to tape this report to analyze it.  But if there are any gunbloggers out there who can, now would be the time to step up to the plate. 

At a minimum, we need one or more gunbloggers who can watch the segment and post their thoughts immediately following the broadcast.  CBS may make the video or the transcript available digitally themselves.  But even if they don't, the blogosphere needs to have a response ready to correct the inevitable errors. 

Here's how CBS is billing the segment:

BIG GUNS - The .50-caliber rifle's long range and armor-piercing firepower would make it a potent weapon for terrorists. Add to that how easy it is to acquire in the U.S. and ship overseas, and some are worried it could become just that. Ed Bradley reports

Hmm.  So, suddenly exports are the problem?

SaysUncle watched the CBS 60 Minutes followup episode on the .50 caliber rifle and points out a lot of the problems with the piece.  Good work -- I'm glad someone was able to catch the episode, since I was not.

UPDATE: I wonder what the statute of limitations on exporting firearms without a license is?

Yet another email newsletter from those gun bigots.  I won't link to them, because they don't deserve the traffic... but I will fisk them.

We're back at www.50caliberterror.com offering you another update about one of the Gun Lobby's most ridiculous attempts yet to protect the makers of big guns like the .50 Caliber Sniper Rifle. How big are we talking? Oh, big enough to shoot a bullet that can pierce a tank at over a mile's distance.  Big enough to shoot across 20 NFL football fields. Big enough to keep out of the hands of terrorists.

Last I checked, terrorists seem to prefer using AK-47s and trusting to Allah to guide their bullets to the target.   I'm very skeptical about claims the .50 could pierce a tank made more recently than WWII at any range.  And shooting across 20 football fields (that's 2000 yards) isn't hard for the rifle; just point up and fire.  Simple ballistics.  Hitting anything at that distance is another matter, and that takes years of training. 

The NRA has a highly controversial and thoroughly discredited "academic" they trot out whenever they are in a tight spot. As such, it is no surprise that this hack, John Lott ([5]AKA Mary Rosh), reared his ugly head in an April 11 Washington Times (owned by the mysterious Rev. Moon)  editorial, defending potential terrorist's right to purchase 50 caliber sniper rifles -- and all the weaponry they can fit into the back of a white Ford pick-up truck.

To the extent Lott is controversial, it's largely because the left has manufactured the controversy.  While the man made some poor decisions trying to promote his books, the gun bigots have turned that into an all-out attack on his character -- most likely because they can't readily refute his research.  It's telling that this email newsletter spends more time trying to push the character issue than it does actually advancing counterarguments or rational analysis.

Lott's most famous research project (described in More Guns, Less Crime) found that concealed-carry laws significantly reduced crime rates.  The best the left has managed to do so far is to suggest that maybe the laws didn't have any effect, when you analyze the data differently.  That's not what I would call "discreditted".  More like "advancing the collective understanding of criminal behavior with innovative research".

As for potential terrorists purchasing rifles... well, we're all potential terrorists.  We have due process of law in the United States last I checked, and suspected terrorists get the benefits from it too. 

Most recently John "Mary Rosh" Lott, who has found safe harbor at the right wing American Enterprise Institute where he is apparently in charge of the gun industry shilling department, blamed the recent Atlanta court shootings on affirmative action:"You have a female officer who is about 5 feet 2 inches tall, versus a criminal -- in this case a former linebacker who is 6 feet tall," Lott told FOX News.  But isn't the gun that the deputy sheriff was carrying supposed to be the great equalizer against just such an unarmed assailant?

I don't see any relation to .50 caliber rifles here, but what the hell.  Yes, the gun the deputy sheriff was carrying is supposed to be the great equalizer.  But it's not a panacea. In this situation, where controlling a prisoner with non-lethal force is preferred, it offers almost no advantage at all.  It is not suitable for controlling a prisoner because it only has two settings: off and dead. 

Note also the the use of ad hominem rather than reasoned debate.  All too typical of the left in general, and the gun control bigots in particular.

The Fifty Caliber Institute warns us that Maine is considered a .50 ban that would not only ban future purchases, but also confiscate existing firearms and ammunition:

In the interim, the state of Maine began its movement towards not only banning ownership and manufacture of .50 caliber rifles, but of owning .50 caliber ammunition as well.  Even reloading your own casings is prohibited!  The proposal calls for confiscation without compensation.  Believe it or not, this piece of legislation is actually WORSE than California and Illinois.

Their bill, LD-1579, is in the Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety.  If you're from Maine, please contact your legislators IMMEDIATELY to prevent this piece of legislation from making you into a criminal overnight.

If you're a Maine resident, please contact your legislators  and tell them you oppose banning guns and ammunition, including the .50 rifles.

New Yorkers, contact your legislators immediately and instruct them to oppose A4471, legislation that sounds truly horrid:

Legislation is expected to be heard today (Tuesday May 17) in the New York State Assembly Codes Committee that will ban the .50 caliber rifle.  The legislation (A4471), does allow for compensation by the state to current owners, but only at a "fair market value" (translated: whatever they feel like paying you and not to exceed $8,500).  In addition, the law gives you only 30 days to dispose of your rifle and you must turn your rifle into the state police PERSONALLY.

Remember, .50 caliber ammunition has been around since the Revolutionary War.  Our founding fathers would have fought this ban with everything they had.  I know that because when King George tried it, that's exactly what they did!  Can we do any less?

According to Jed of FreedomSight, 60 Minutes will rebroadcast their propaganda piece on the .50 caliber rifle this Sunday.  Remember, you can trust what they tell you, because these are the same reporters who brought you RaTHerGate...

So, there was a bill in the House to ban the export of .50 caliber rifles.  No chance of passage in that body, of course, but it would be instructive to find out how your representative voted.  I'll need to chastise mine.  I'm a bit concerned that this didn't show up on my radar screen, but I've been busy lately and could easily have missed it -- especially since it's little more than a Democratic rude gesture towards the majority party.

Hat tip to No Quarters.

I suggest voting no while the poll is up.  However, as is fairly common in this sort of thing, there's no real pro-gun option.  Here are the two options:

YES!  The .50 caliber rifles have armor-piercing capability that can take down jetliners from over a mile away. Terrorists and overseas militia can purchase these exported rifles with astonishing ease. Outlaw the export of .50 caliber rifles to civilians!

All the typical lies and bullshit there.

NO!The U.S. government already has ample power to block the export of .50 caliber rifles. This amendment would only further restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners. The House said no to this rifle restriction. The Senate should also kill this bill!

While it's true that the US Government probably has ample power over arms exports, that doesn't mean it should use that power to actually block export of arms, particularly not on a blanket basis.

Right now, the poll is running at 25% YES, 75% NO.

The Geek with a .45 is reporting that there's a Senate deal in the works to trade manufacturer immunity for treating the .50 as an NFA weapon.  This is not acceptable. 

He got it from a thread on The High Road, which quotes from a Reuters article.  There's legislation associated with all the smoke and noise.  Developing...

GunWatch informs us that Dianne Feinstein is reintroducing the Assault Weapons Ban.  It's unlikely to pass.  Last year, it barely squeaked by as an amendment to the protection-from-liability bill for gun manufacturers.  The subsequent elections resulted in four pro-AWB votes being switched for four anti-AWB votes.  That should be enough, although it's still close and we will undoubtedly need to remind our Senators that we haven't forgotten the issue.

The gun bigot plan this time around is simple enough: throw a lot of amendments at the liability bill and hope they get a few of them to stick as "compromises".  If they can whip up public fear about the .50 they'll take that as a bonus, but Feinstein isn't ready to give up her signature legislation.  Although she may intend to use it as a bargaining chip to advance the .50 ban, since the .50 is a new issue compared to the Assault Weapons Ban (which has had 10 years to prove its worthlessness). 

If nothing else, she figures we'll have to use resources and political capital opposing both, and that will make it harder to push for new, favorable legislation.  Let's not let that happen.  We have an opportunity to take back some lost ground, and if we let them distract us into playing a defensive game we will continue to win the battles but lose the war.

Sigh.  This is definitely the big issue that the gun bigots are pushing, after the assault weapons ban expired.  They want this one badly, and they are pushing it in as many states as they think they can get it, plus introducing bills in Congress -- presumably to try to attach to the gun liability protection legislation. 

We need to tell our Congressfolk the same thing we did last year: no compromise on gun control!  If you have not already called your Congressfolk to tell them that this session of Congress, call them.  If you have already called, call them again.  And then send email.  And then write a letter.

Of course, they can't do it without lying:

.50 caliber sniper rifles, powerful enough to shoot down civilian airplanes during takeoff or landing, or taxiing on the runaway from over a mile away.

Even if you could hit an airplane while it was in the air, something that is practically impossible without a computer-guided machine gun and radar, all you would do is produce a few holes.  Passenger aircraft are simply not that fragile.

.50 caliber sniper rifles were designed as battlefield rifles to puncturearmor, attack personnel carriers and fuel tanks, and to be used forassassination due to the rifle's astonishing range and firepower, but areeasier to get in Illinois than a handgun.

Actually, .50 caliber rifles were designed as civilian rifles for long range target shooting.  The military adopted them after their invention.

"It is simply hard to imagine how anyone could be against preventing .50 caliber sniper rifles from falling into the wrong hands," said Thom Mannard, Executive Director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.

Somehow, I think that the wrong hands Thom Mannard is referring to includes any hands that aren't attached to a police or military uniform.

It is ironic that a man who personally owns an M48 tank feels that the citizens under his rule cannot be trusted with a target rifle. It is pathetic that he'd take money from schoolkids and teachers to fund a ban. Never mind that nobody has used a fifty caliber rifle in a crime in his state. Ignore the fact that no other state has given such a ban the slightest credit. In fact throw out altogether the statement made by Robert Johnson, chief spokesman for the TSA when he said "We just don't think fifty caliber rifles rank high on the list of possible threats." Neither did anybody else Governor - but a whole lot of parents are gonna wonder why junior has nothing to write on!

The Fifty-Caliber Institute has some biting commentary about Arnold's decision to sign AB-50, the California .50 rifle ban, despite all the arguments against the bill. If Arnold can't bring himself to stand up to the legislature against a bill this bad, how can he possibly bring their insane fiscal policies under control?

Worse, there are two more anti-gun bills on Arnold's desk: one requires registration and fingerprinting for all ammunition purchases, and the other bans gun shows at a large, state-owned facility (Cow Palace) that has traditionally been the site of many gun shows. Although the .50 caliber rifle ban has already been signed, it may not be too late to stop these other bills! Here are the details:

SB1152 - Registration on all ammunition purchases. This bill would require the disclosure of your name, address, birth date, and fingerprint for all ammunition transactions. Records would be available to law enforcement upon request.

SB1733 - Bans gun shows at the Cow Palace. If signed into law, it should be no problem banning gun shows statewide.

Telephone the governor's office at: 916-445-2841 ext. 7 to voice your opposition to both bills. You can also send email to the governor at governor@governor.ca.gov, or using the contact form. (Thanks to the Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for these alerts, and contact information for the governor).