Posted on 02/25/2008 8:38:35 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
A battle is brewing between the Honolulu Police Department and the Hawaii Rifle Association over a proposed ban of a high-powered sniper rifle.
KITV's Catherine Cruz reported that the 50-caliber rifle is dubbed the most powerful rifle on the market today, and the HPD said it is their worst nightmare. That is why they said they want it out of civilian hands.
It's a weapon that's long been used by the military and law enforcement, but in most states, a person can buy it over the Internet or from a gun store, which is making law enforcement uneasy.
"There is nothing we have that can withstand this. If you look at an armored car, those things have a half-inch of steel. These can go through 1 inch of steel at a thousand yards," HPD Major Gregory Lefcourt said.
The rifle can fire 10 rounds in 10 seconds, and the bullets can travel for miles, police officials said.
They said that a shot fired from the rooftop at police headquarters could precisely hit a target at the state Capitol, four-tenths of a mile away.
The National Guard calls the weapon a threat to homeland security.
"It does concern us -- shooting down airplanes four miles distances," Hawaii National Guard Gen.Gary Ishikawa said.
The National Rifle Association said that a ban would infringe on the right to bear arms. It argued that the weapon hasn't ever been used in a crime in the islands.
"We haven't had any incidents of robbers at banks or terrorist shooting airplanes -- it just doesn't happen," HRA member Mark Plischke said.
But police said they don't want to wait until then.
They said the proposed ban will die in the judiciary committee if they don't get enough public support for the bill.
The rifles are outlawed for civilian use in California, New Jersey and New York.
The HRA maintained that their members use it for hunting or eradicating goats. Others users of the rifle said they enter long range firing competitions
The rifle is so powerful that it has been banned from the Kokohead Firing Range, range officials said. The rifle is only allowed at military ranges, which are off limits to civilians.
It is also very expensive. One rifle will fetch about $8,000, officials said.
There are 125 registered owners of the high-powered rifle in the state, with 90 owners living on Oahu.
So, if they are made illegal, the criminals won’t be able to get one if the really want to?
MORONS!
What’s your cutoff for what civilians should be allowed to own? Should we be allowed to own, say a .338 or a Barrett .416 caliber rifle? They both qualify as deadly sniper rifles in military arsenals.
http://club.guns.ru/eng/barrett.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.416_Barrett
Sodomy kills more people in Hawaii thru HIV and STD and no one died from a .50 cal rifle, guess which will be banned. Left a old sofa on the curb and my town comes by an cites me for it plus made me cut my grass in Dec (we had a mild winter thus the grass grew) because it violates town ordnances on appearance or else further action will be coming (i.e fines, court appearance, and jail if I ignored it all). Not a problem, except I heard the town will not enforce occupancy codes as large numbers of illegals live in rental houses that exceed its code requirements. Town council hesitates because of pressure by the local Chamber of Commerce, prominent business men and PC concerns of enforcing the code. Joe citizen must follow ordnances to the letter immediately, and everything that Joe average owns that potentially is dangerous can be regulated or banned, however for the PC groups, known dangerous acts are ignored and violations are enforced if the public is pissed off and applies pressure. That is why this country is pissed off at the GOP and DNC.
Why would you stop there?
Why not 45 calibers as well?
Then 40s, then 35s, then 30s?
That would be a shame. When I lived in Hawaii in 1971 we’d often go down to the beach with our .50s and shoot-down airplanes taking-off from Hickam and Barbers Point. I bagged two P-3s and a C-141 on one fine Sunday afternoon. When I got tired of my .50 I sold it on the Internet to a swell 12-year-old in New York City. I heard from him that he had a lot of fun with it robbing armored trucks and shooting at satellites in low Earth orbit. I understand that he subsequently became president of the NRA and that he passed it along to his brother for help with his brother’s management of his bipolar psychotic disorder.
“Really? Wow! Please post website!”
Try gunbroker.com
You can buy one but it will be shipped to a licensed FFA dealer where you pick it up.
Well, then, I want my F-22. I want to be able to own an Abrams tank. I want to have a battleship or an Aircraft Carrier. Because, according to the logic being applied here, the only way I, or anyone else, can legitimately claim my 2nd amendment right is to have weapons which can be used to defend myself (and others) from our Government, and the only way in which to be able to defend ourselves from that Government is to have the same weapons they have as a civilian. I have a hard time with that logic.
Don’t worry about it. I do the same thing from time to time. Take care.
Ahem...clearly it's use is "legitimized" by the original intent of the second amendment depending upon what direction the US government might take...
I gotta think it would be useful to plug Rocky Mountain antelope, high-range mountain goats (mentioned above, I assume), moose, wapiti and other high-strung animals.
I took no rights away from you or anyone else. There are many weapon systems which are presenly controlled by the Government and not permitted to be obtained by civilians through legal means. That in and of itself does not violate the 2nd Amendment. Sorry, your argument has no validity.
“Well, then, I want my F-22. “
If you got the change, I see no problem with it. How about you FVF? DO?
But wait, gun registration is illegal...
I would be in support of this weapon not being available for civilian purchase.
Well then you, like too many others, abhor the Constitution of the United States. Let the chains that bind you hang loosely around your neck because you're just a sock puppet and a shill of an American.
Well you might have a hard time with that logic, but if you knew your history you would not have made this post.
When the second amendment was ratified, civilians owned cannon, mortars and warships - in short, if you could afford it, you could own it.
Such was the scope of the right protected by the second amendment.
I take it you have proof for this statement. It was not uncommon at past periods of our history for private individuals and organizations to have "weapons systems" such as artillery. The limitation seemed to be cost and logistics and not legal prohibitions.
Just curios, why do we have vehicles that go well over 100mph when the legal speed limit is much lower?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.