Posted on 12/22/2006 10:15:46 AM PST by neverdem
It is long past time for the state Legislature and Congress to enact more effective bans on high-powered, military-style assault weapons.
New Bedford police were overpowered and outgunned when they went to the Foxy Lady strip club last week to respond to a domestic violence incident that turned into a deadly and frightening rampage.
The gunman, Scott Medeiros of Freetown, had obtained a Class A license more than a decade ago that allowed him to purchase any legal gun in the state, including the AR-15, a military-style semiautomatic assault rifle that is banned in California.
It is true that without the AR-15 rifle, Mr. Medeiros still might have used deadly force to kill the two Foxy Lady employees he apparently intended to murder. But he would not have overpowered police on patrol. And as one letter writer pointed out this week, "He definitely would not have been able to accomplish the life-threatening terror that took place outside the club."
We applaud New Bedford Mayor Scott W. Lang for urging legislators from SouthCoast to push for a more effective assault weapons ban in the state, and we urge him to use his influence with our congressional delegation to revisit the federal assault weapons ban that was allowed to lapse in 2004 under the Republican-controlled Congress.
Massachusetts is such a small state and so near states with much weaker gun laws that a stronger federal policy on assault weapons is necessary to protect the Bay State.
The 10-year federal ban halted the manufacture of 19 of the most deadly military-style assault weapons and banned their sale across the nation. Critics say there were significant loopholes in that ban. For example, the weapon used by Mr. Medeiros was banned only when it included certain components, such as a bayonet, flash suppressor and other devices, according to Freetown Police Chief Carlton Abbott. The basic weapon designed to replicate the military M-16 was still for sale across much of the nation.
Chief Abbott agrees with Mayor Lang that it is time to revisit regulations on assault weapons. He also suggests that the state re-examine classifications of gun licenses. Under current law, anyone with a Class A or Class B license can purchase a military-style assault weapon.
Weapons bans open up a raging debate about the meaning of the Second Amendment "right to bear arms." But this debate should not keep us from looking at the disturbing reality that it is too easy for civilians to purchase and use weapons designed only to kill and terrorize people, weapons that provide a civilian with more firepower than local city and town police. We must then enact sensible regulations to protect all law-abiding citizens, whether or not they choose to own a gun.
Short answer: an assault weapon is a term that a politician uses to try to disarm the public.
In the Miller vs United States (1939) the Supreme Court ruled that only weapons suitable for use by the military are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
in providence we have an openly gay mayor,former official of the aclu,member of a family connected to organized crime,and this little scumbag rants about banning assault weapons in the state of rhode island-he has no local authority to do so,and our governor won't sign any such bill-believe it or not we have some excellent democrats(!)in the state legislature who support gun rights very strongly-some of our worst anti-gun types have been republicans(lincoln chafee,lila sapinsley,nancy mayer)-this little stinker of a mayor hates guns unless they're in the possession of mafioso or hispanic drug dealers(his strongest supporters from whom he made tons of money as their attorney)-he like other gun grabbers likes to define "assault weapon" in their own terms-to me an assault weapon is something that has full auto capability as a minimum-and those are already illegal in many states,and even where legal there are tons of federal red tape in order to possess one
You do not need any license to purchase a machine gun. The procedure is this: 1) find a machine gun for sale 2) find a Class III dealer to do the transfer 3) fill out paperwork including photograph, fingerprints, and permission of the chief LEO for your residence 4) send off paperwork along with $200 transfer tax to the ATF, 5) wait approx 6 months for them to approve it 6) pick up machine gun. 7) have fun
Note: if the mg in question is more than 50 years old, it qualifies as Curio & Relic and persons with a C&R license can transfer them to each other without a Class III dealer involved. It will still take 3-6 months, though.
The anti-gunners tried to define armor piercing as any round that would pass through soft body armor. Which is literally any hunting rifle round.
Assault weapon will be whatever they want it to be. For starters, any weapon that "looks scary." It won't matter how it shoots. But, in the end, it will be everything. That is really the end goal. Ban everything. That has always, and will always be the end goal. Disarm the people. As they pass more and more laws to regulate and watch every aspect of our lives, they continue to enrich themselves with our money and our property. We should never forget, that as we see them in front of the cameras, the expensive suits and red dresses they wear, the gold watches and fine jewelry, the $500. haircuts and new hairstyles, the expensive dinners and vacations, all paid for with money they take from us. Sorry, I felt like a rant. I feel better. It is actually not a bad idea for some of these gun companies to start naming their guns "non-assault weapon." Engrave it right on the barrel. It would be humorous to watch the commie libs scream.
Mortars are high angle cannons. Enter Cannon M30 in a search engine. You'll eventually find 4.2" mortar, aka 107 mm mortar.
However I am quite positive that any heavy-handed enforcement would result in quite a few high-profile disasters which could not be kept under wraps.
Feeling better now after your rant?? :-) I am retired military. I know whats and whats not an assault weapon. I also know and understand what you said in the rant. I agree.
Whats that saying? "When Guns are outlawed...Only Liberals will have power"
NOPE: It goes like this:
When guns are outlawed...Only the criminals will have power. Sorry, same difference.
Thats the truth.
Of course. In the heat of battle, you're doing your best to KILL the other guys.
But a clearly DEAD enemy soldier can be left for the graves registration detail. MOST armies are the proverbial "Band of Brothers" and his comrades will USUALLY leave the fight long enough to ascertain their fallen brother's condition and, if appropriate, carry him to safety, a job often tying up two other troopers.
'You knew that was my nature when you elected me.'
(Tale of the scorpion and the fox.)
I realize that, I was talking about the fact that the SKS is one of the few that aren't your typical "military style" rifle that they try to claim is an "assault weapon".
That is one that I would like to get also.
I thought the two were different.
... no longer in effect ...
Yeah, it is true - they have no clue. Next thing they want to outlaw will be spitballs and rubberbands.
Just thought it odd, that you were stating the obvious.......
FRegards,
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.