Monday, February 11, 2008

Sniper Rifle Ban

The myth that gun grabbers are only only after certain types of weapons should be apparent to everyone now- do you think the English hoplophobes are any different from their US counterparts?- but it seems that some gun owners either just don't get it or think that the NRA is going to do all the heavy lifting for them. Guys, it doesn't work like that- do you want America to end up like Britain?

If you're still in any doubt about what they're trying to ban then this notice from the VPC should be something of a wake-up call-

Therefore, a useful strategy for effective control may lie in civil litigation, a strategy that would be enhanced if states passed legislation clearly establishing strict liability for damages resulting from the use or misuse of such weapons. Such litigation could impose tort liability, including punitive damages, for manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, importers, retailers, and any others who participate in bringing to the civilian market any sniper rifle (in any caliber) or associated gear (such as ammunition or optics) that is used to kill or injure a human being or to damage property.

As Days of Our Trailers points out this would include pretty much all optics and bolt action rifles, as one of their tactics is to re-classify rifle ammunition as armour piercing if it defeats body armour, even if that body armour is only designed to protect against handgun ammo only.

Worth mentioning this again- In S.397, the bill to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits, there was some very vaguely worded language on banning armour piercing ammunition. I blogged about it back in 2005. As I mentioned at the time the lowest level of armour, type I, is only intended to protect against .22LR. So a test to discover which ammo was armour piercing would in effect ban everything more powerful than that if that was the medium they used to conduct the test.

We've already seen attempts to go after ammunition- the ammo tax, for example- so I would expect this to be a tactic they attempt again. Especially if the Heller case turns out to be successful; after all, they'll argue, the Constitution doesn't say anything about a right to "armour piercing" ammunition.

2 comments:

Murdoc said...

I suspect that the antis are ramping up for an anti-ammo campaign, to begin with regulation and then banning of 'assault weapon'-class ammo. Once this is accomplished, they will suddenly notice, for the first time ever, that hunting rifles are far more powerful than 'assault weapons.'

"If the 5.56 was so dangerous it needed to be banned, surely the .308 and .30-06 should be, as well..."

Jay.Mac said...

I think you're right- I'm amazed that so many lies about the AWB continue to this day- and here they are trying to re-define the term "sniper rifle" (just in time fora Democrar President perhaps)- and all the while HR1022 is hanging in the background.

You'd think that with the examples of the UK and Australia that the millions of US gun owners would realise that they have to be pro-active to secure their right to keep and bear arms.

Think of the power the "gun lobby" really would have if all gun owners- or even a big majority of them- became more politically active.