California's Assault Weapons Ban does Indeed Violate the Constitution

http://www.sierratimes.com ^ | Tuesday December 31, 2002 | By Robert Greenslade

[Long Cut]

"In a city setting, the bullets bouncing off of concrete and hitting others is a concern to me. "

If ricochets are a concern, I would choose something with less of a tendency to do so (NOTHING is immune. See the above post re: safety rules), such as a pistol-caliber carbine like a Thompson semi-auto or a Winchester lever gun, or better yet a shotgun with #3-6 shot. However, when the "balloon goes up", you may have little choice except whatever is at hand.

Thus, the solution is to have a wide range of options (and ammo) at hand. For example, with an enemy firing AT YOU from behind a wall or vehicle, the penetration of a rifle cartridge might indeed be necessary.

My ideal "home defense" battery is (MINIMUM), one pistol, one rifle, and one shotgun, all with a wide variety of ammunition and feeding devices handy.

[Double Tap]

You do realize that machine guns are perfectly legal to own so long as you jump through all the NFA rules? And that probably the most law abiding folks in this country are those that own legal machine guns. My best guess is that there are 100's of thousands of legal machine guns in this country, owned by every day folks like us of FR. And they are "NEVER" used in crimes.

So why shouldn't we be allowed to own them?

[Long Cut]

Only ONE legally-owned machine gun has ever been used in a crime, and that was in the '50s by a COP.

There are approximately 750,000 legal, civilian-owned machine guns left.

[Double Tap]

And unfortunately, they get more expensive every day.

I need to win a lottery. Then I could spend a big chunk of it on NFA weapons!

[A CA Guy]

I think I am with you in not chasing anything by law but full automatics.
If it were my choice, I wouldn't ban the semi-automatic weapon based on what has been presented to me at all and am surprised at how aggressive laws are getting.

[A CA Guy]

I think automatic weapons could become out of control. Bullets spray and people can die who weren't targets of self defense.

As a reasonable man, I think the guns are great in general and have no problem if people were all allowed to conceal and carry. I just think automatic weapons are going too far for my taste.

[A CA Guy]

I think after reading posts to me here I am only against the full automatic weapons and actually think it is out of line to attempt to go after other types.

Bullets are only of concern for me if they can pierce armor from a distance that is not close to the target. I imagine any bullet can pierce from a few feet, but I can see restricting bullets that only pierce armor from a couple of hundred feet away or more.

If someone is firing from you from behind a wall, I suggest you run, duck and find better position. Citizens should not be running around with bullets that pierce walls. If there is less than stellar targeting, so many unintended targets can die.

Everything I wrote about would not be concerning our military, as far as I am concerned, they should be armed to always win.

[A CA Guy]

People react differently to crisis situations. You can be trained to the gills and be dangerous still.
We can't know how people react until faced with a situation.

I wouldn't trust ANYONE not fighting a war in the military with such advanced weapons that they can shoot through walls or automatically fire a gazillion rounds in a short period. Sounds way out of control to me.

I think going after non-automatic stuff as assault weapons is nuts though.

[BikerTrash]

..but does not having what is called an assault weapon a real big deal?

Well yeah! Who could stand to not have one of these beauties?

[Double Tap]

Fortunately, your fears are not supported by fact. As has already been stated, there are hundreds of thousands of legal machine guns already in the hands of civilians in this country, with no ill effects.

Your mistake is in thinking that rights are subject to arbitrary rulings of what might be dangerous or not. That is not the case.

[A CA Guy]

For the same reason why we can't drive certain race cars under street conditions legally, they can be abnormally dangerous in the publics hands and conditions. In the case of guns, certain things need to be left for military use.
The concept of a gun unloading a large amount of bullets very quickly seems less than safe to me.

PS: If a criminal comes up with a nuke, I wouldn't suggest the public should have one to by the way. Criminals are not reasonable, we have to be and though you have the right to debate and fight for what you wish, I think legalizing automatic weapons isn't happening any time soon.

I would like conceal and carry permits. Criminals would think twice before acting if the victim could have a gun.

[A CA Guy]

If automatic weapons are outlawed, how do they get machine guns out there?
Were they grandfathered in before current laws took effect or are automatic weapons allowed now?

I ask because I hear yes they are banned, then no they are not...which is it?

[A CA Guy]

LOL

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

STATEMENT:"California's Assault Weapons Ban does Indeed Violate the Constitution."

RESPONSE: So what?

COMMENT: I support the right of the people to keep andbear arms. But again I ask so what if it unconstitutional? What are you going to do about it. By the way I note in Maryland the round up of arms is starting. So again so what?

[Double Tap]

The National Firearms Act of 1934 made it a law that anyone purchasing a weapon that was classified as an NFA weapon, such as machine guns, silencers, short barrel shotguns, had to pay a certain tax and register the weapon to get it. It use to be $200, but I don't know what it is now.

In 1986, the Firearm Owners Protection Act was passed. It basically stated that no new NFA weapons could be entered into the registry to be bought and sold to individuals. In other words, those NFA weapons already on the registry could still be transfered to and from ordinary individuals, but no more new ones could.

So you can still buy a machine gun, but the supply is fixed, so the price is ever escalating.

[antaresequity]

Oh, and BTW, civilian military lookalikes are not only extremely difficult to convert to full auto in the first place (and felonious to do so, with your reward being ten grand in fines and ten solid in the hoosegow), but the weapon, not being heat-treated OR stressed for such work, becomes both UNRELIABLE in the extreme and HIGHLY DANGEROUS to the operator.

Wrong. Less then 5 minutes if your good. 4 parts turns most any AR variant from single to either full auto or 3 shot burst...depending on the parts you have...

Once configured...they work flawlessly...

[xm177e2]

(You have to die to win one)

You don't actually have to die.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

I support the right of the people to keep andbear arms. But again I ask so what if it unconstitutional? What are you going to do about it. By the way I note in Maryland the round up of arms is starting. So again so what?

Just a another lovely couch potato comment? be assured whatever i do ! i wont be running to inform YOU of it !