Posted on 02/27/2002 11:57:33 AM PST by 45Auto
AB 2222, as introduced, Koretz. .50 caliber sniper weapons.
Under existing law it is a crime to manufacture, cause to be manufactured, import into the state, keep for sale, or offer or expose for sale, or to give, lend, or possess certain dangerous weapons, as specified.
This bill would add to the list of dangerous weapons subject to those prohibitions, small arms armor piercing ammunition, as defined.
By changing the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law generally regulates the manufacture, possession, transport, and sale of machineguns, as defined.
This bill would similarly regulate .50 caliber sniper weapons, as defined. This bill would also provide, subject to exceptions, that any person who manufactures, causes to be manufactured, distributes, transports, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives or lends a .50 caliber sniper weapon is guilty of felony punishable by 4, 6, or 8 year imprisonment in the state prison.
This bill would further provide that, subject to exceptions, possession of a .50 caliber sniper weapon in violation of law would be punishable by imprisonment in state prison or in a county jail, not exceeding one year.
By creating new crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires, except as specified, for the destruction, as a nuisance, of a machinegun possessed in violation of law.
This bill would similarly require, except as specified, for the destruction, as a nuisance, of a .50 caliber sniper weapon possessed in violation of law.
Existing law provides that persons may arrange to relinquish an assault weapon to a police or sheriff's department. This bill would similarly permit persons to arrange to relinquish a .50 caliber sniper weapon to a police or sheriff's department.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm
BTW, the 2nd Amendment is not about sport hunting or target practice, either. If you dislike the American way of life, well, you know where you can go. About anywhere else. It's a big world, with many places that outlaw firearms. Each one demonstrates its fear of its own people.
Wonder why?
You have not a single idea about the meaning of the word "right". A right is something we're born with, they are not granted by anyone. Even an animal has the "right" to protect it's life, it's family, it's home and it's territory.
I ususally don't even bother arguing anymore with people like yourself. How absurd it is to think that certain "special" people can be selected by other "special" people to be allowed to defend themselves.
Why is it that you think certain persons lives are more important than others?
Why is it you feel that uniformed government employees are will somehow use a weapon in a more moral fashion than your next door neighbor or yourself?
I honestly have no patience for such an asinine and elitist thought process.
Guns are used many times every year to save people from criminals. Usually, displaying a weapon is enough to get a criminal to stop. Many times, no shot is ever fired, but the crime is averted.
I'm glad you think they are ok for the military to have. Does that mean the reservist can buy his own AR-50 and keep it at home?
Usually, prarie dogs are the noxious pest of choice for long distance shooters. It doesn't matter whether they get hit with an .18 caliber bullet fired at almost a mile per second, or a .50, at 2600 ft/second. They always explode.
/john
This is the Bill Of Rights. I wouldn't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, any more than I'd go blasting someone for no reason. Yet speech, arms, rights under accusation, etc, are otherwise essentially inviolable...or should be, if this is America.
What's more, an armed citizenry through the Second Amendment, undergirds and buttresses the rest of the Bill Of Rights.
I think I'd just rather die - in a gunfight, I guess - rather than ever surrender my weapons on first principles.
The Japanese Admiral Yamamoto once remarked: "We could never invade America. There'd be a sniper behind every blade of grass."
No fifty caliber rifle can destroy a tank or armored personnel carrier, not even at point blank range. The way you describe it, why, the Army doesn't need howitzers or 150mm tank guns. Why, the soldier with his little peewee .50 could wipe out a regiment. The .50 has been replaced by much heavier weaponry since WW II. This is plain silly, and I'm not going to discuss it with anyone as ignorant of ballistics as to believe any of this.
Disrupter alert!
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.