Assult rifle ban...

Here we go again with this poorly written piece of legislation, HR 1022. The best place to get the text and information on a bill is from the Library of Congress. First of all an assault rifle is a Sturmgewehr 44. This is the gun that originated the term. The basic specs of such an arm are, as based upon the originator's design:

1) Fires and intermediate powered cartridge. Examples of these cartridges are 5.56x45/.223(M16/M4), 7.62.39 (AK47, 6.8 SPC (M16/M4), 7.92 Kurtz (Stg.44), etc. Full power rounds such as 7.62x51 (.308win) and pistol rounds such as .357 magnum are not in the same class. The .30 M1 Carbine is in a middle ground since it was developed for a long arm, but it has about the same energy as the above mentioned .357 Magnum.

2) Selective fire. This mean that the gun can be set for semi-automatic or full-automatic/burst.

3) Fires form a detachable box magazine

4) I'll give them full pistol grips. The wording in the bill ("(42) Pistol Grip- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." [sic]) is so ambiguous as to effectively ban all guns except for cannon, since they need to be held some how.

It is important to note that the Stg. 44 did not have provisions for a bayonet or a flash hider. The AK47, as to most military long arms, has a bayonet lug. This mostly due to every military's conservative nature and bayonets have been relegated to mostly ceremonial roles. Assault rifles do not make good pikes. Flash hiders are mostly for the benefit of the shooter since a bright ball of fire can really hamper your night vision. The possibility of limiting your visibly to your enemy is a bonus and not something engineered into all flash hiders. Muzzle brakes important on som guns and they are lumped in with flash hider since they do redirect the flash.

Select fire, and therefore fully automatic, arms are already covered under other extremely restrictive legislation. Try to go to your local gun shop and by a machine gun and tell me how that works out for you. It is damn near impossible, unless you have a lot of money and a perfect criminal record or an FFL. Id love to have an original Thompson, but I don't have $20,300 lying around.

This bill is silly for a couple of more practical reasons. One criminals very, very rarely use rifles, in any configuration, in the commission of a crime. They are to hard to conceal vs a handgun, to cumbersome in tight spaces, and ammo is more expensive. There was no decrease in crimes involving "assault weapons" due to the bill and no similar rise after its sunset. The number was so small as to be barely significant.

What is even funnier is the inclusion of the Ruger Mini-14 in this list. The late Bill Ruger pushed for a magazine limitation and other such restrictions so that his rifles wouldn't be included on such a list. It is funny that they include the Dragunov SVD/U, but not the M1 Garand, M1A, SVT 40, G41 which have nearly identical capabilties.

Section five could be easily interpreted to effectively ban 99% of all sporting long arms.

I fail to see how any of the listed features:

`"(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.

"

Make the the gun any more deadly. This a bill written by people who know nothing about guns, are scared of guns, and scared of gun owners. These people wouldn't trust them selves with guns and so how can they trust you.

I wonder how many people will loose their job if this passes? How much tax revenue will be lost?

This is a shameles attempt to get votes in an election year and I pray to God that this joke of a bill doesn't pass. Liberals seem to forget how well the passage of the '92 ban worked out for those who voted for it.

Did a liberal get it?

Here is the EDITORIAL:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/...lame.html#more

A liberal's lament: The NRA might be right after all
By Jonathan Turley

This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Of course, the very idea of finding a new individual right after more than two centuries is like discovering an eighth continent in constitutional law, but it is hardly the cause of celebration among civil liberties groups.

Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington.

The D.C. law effectively bars the ownership of handguns for most citizens and places restrictions on other firearms. The District's decision to file these appeals after losing in the D.C. appellate court was driven more by political than legal priorities. By taking the appeal, D.C. politicians have put gun-control laws across the country at risk with a court more likely to uphold the rulings than to reverse them. It has also put the rest of us in the uncomfortable position of giving the right to gun ownership the same fair reading as more favored rights of free press or free speech.

The Framers' intent

Principle is a terrible thing, because it demands not what is convenient but what is right. It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.

Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.

Another individual right

More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that ... here's the really hard part ... the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
--

Just remember there is still the UN to worry about.

Here's some additional reading.

Most people keep arms for the defense of the their life and property and sport. Sometimes you don't even need to shoot the bugler. Though, shooting the car might be a bit much.

Progress

I replaced the grips on my Cobra with some nice Colt Compacts and, damn did that make shooting that little snubbie easier.



This is what I can make it do at 21 feet. The 8-ring is 3 1/2" in diamiter and I know that I can do better. This 11 shot group is about 2" center to center at the widest point. The load is Magtech's 130 FMJ. The one problem with Magtech's ammo is the filler they use doesn't burn well and fouls the chambers making reloads and extraction difficult. It is a bit of a pain, even for practice.



As a bonus the Phillies are tied for first in the NL East with the Mets. Now if the Eagles can win two in a row I'll be happy!

Automatic Safeties

Why do European shotguns have automatic safeties? I can see it on a field gun but not a target gun. Are they concerned with one of us shooing our selfs? I have guns with no safeties (except the one between my ears) and that was just fine for centuries. It is just one more thing to think about on the line.

A new toy.

I just bought a Finnish M39. For those who Don't know the M39 is a Russian Mosin Nagant that was captured by the Fins during the Winter War. They actually captured so many rifles (and other stores) that they stopped production of their own rifles and switched to refurbishing Nagants. The re-arsenaled rifles were then pressed into service against their former owners. Most of these guns had little, if any thing, changed in their configuration beondhavinf the hammer in sickle ground off the receiver. Later the Fins decided to update and upgrade their captured stock of rifles with beefier stocks, heavier barrels and improved sights. The result was the M39: A national match Mosin Nagant. Mine was (re)built by Sako in 1942.

I've had the rifle a couple of weeks and tried a variety of surplus 7.62x54R in it. I haven't "out it on paper" yet, but it seems fairly accurate. I can regularly hit clays at 100 yds. with it. The fatter, heavier stock makes it fairly pleasant to shoot. (That isn't saying much - I like to volley-fire my SMLE No.4 Mk1* 'till the hand guards start to smoke.) It also points more naturally than a standard m1891 Nagant rifle.

In the same vain: Last Sunday I had the opportunity to shoot two other interesting Mosin-Nagant rifles. The first was and original, non-import marked, Czarist rifle. The sights were marked in arshiens; meaning that rifle left Russia before the commies took over. The other was and M44 that a friend of mine affixed a PU scope to. It need some more coming, but I think it would make a handy brush gun.