CRPA Sues Contra Costa County Over Large Caliber Rifle Ban

California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. ^ | June 23, 2004 | Chuck Michel

[kimber]

Recently the CRPA, along with a consortium of other plaintiffs including the California Side by Side Society, the California Association of Firearms Retailers, the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association, Double gun Journal, Sports Afield, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc., and several individual county residents, sued the County of Contra Costa and the Board of Supervisors over a newly enacted "large caliber firearm" ban designed to outlaw .50 caliber firearms.

The suit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, alleges that the ordinance is unconstitutional and in violation of the First Amendment because it bans anyone (even out of county or out of state publishers in their advertisements) from "displaying or offering" the firearms for sale.  Further, the suit alleges that the ordinance is preempted by state law, which draws the line at .60, not .50 caliber firearms.

The ban, which became effective in May, bans the sale of .50 caliber rifles in the unincorporated areas of the County.  But the ordinance outlaws something that almost never happens.  Only licensed firearm dealers can sell firearms, and due to excessive regulation, all but two firearm licensees dealers have left unincorporated Contra Costa County.  The only two licensed gun dealers left are Sport-Mart in Concord and Martinez Gun Club, a shooting range in Martinez.  Neither of the two sells .50 caliber rifles.

"The policy is in part symbolic," admitted Supervisor John Gioia.  That is a whopper of an understatement, in light of the fact that the two remaining Contra Costa County dealers aren't selling these guns, and the guns can be bought outside the County and brought in - a process which removes the sales from the oversight of the Contra Costa Sheriff, which could easily monitor the two remaining dealers.

The County Board of Supervisors passed the law even though a .50 caliber firearm has never been used in a crime, and despite the fact that law enforcement officials admit that the cost and weight of these firearms makes them undesirable to criminals.

Proponents have shamefully sought to characterize these proposals as a terrorism prevention measure, but much more powerful firearms in larger calibers are available to terrorists - along with explosives, shoulder launched rocket propelled grenades, and for that matter, suitcase nuclear "dirty" bombs.  Despite threat assessment mechanisms, neither the FBI, the Transportation Safety Administration, nor the Department of Homeland Security has issued any warnings regarding the potential for terrorists to use a .50 caliber firearm.

"Characterizing the .50 caliber rifle as a terrorist tool is nothing but shameful political opportunism," said Chuck Michel, CRPA spokesman.  "A .50 caliber rifle would be a pea-shooter for terrorists."

False claims about the firearms' capabilities were rampant at the Supervisor's meeting.  The Supervisors based their decision largely on misrepresentations about these firearms from the gun ban lobby -- having been supplied by the proponents of the ordinance with a Marine Corps training video that demonstrated the capabilities of a .50 caliber assault weapon (already illegal to even possess) firing explosive ammunition (already illegal to even possess).

[kimber]

FYI

[longtermmemmory]

on the issue of false claims:

The movie "last action hero" has an appropriate, though cinimatic example. The hero's desert eagle, played by ahhhhnold, is able to blow up the bad guys with bazooka like results inside the movie reality. When the hero leave's movie reality and goes into the real world, the desert eagle is unable to do more than poke holes in the metal of a taxi. no kaaaaaaboooom.

Seems like these government officials are afraid of something.