LA Times Letter to the Editor: “All Rifle Purchases Should be Relegated to Single Shot, Bolt-Action Receivers”

Bolt action rifle (courtesy The Truth About Guns)

John Charles Lemr of Seattle wrote the following Letter to the Editor at latimes.com:

As a gun owner, it was interesting reading about the regulations being considered in California. (“California’s proposed gun laws won’t change our culture of violence, but they will make us safer,” editorial, April 22). I take exception to SB 1407, which would require that gun parts like a lower receiver be registered by the owner. This places the burden on the wrong party. There is no way to ensure the buyer will follow through and register a receiver . . .

The burden to register should be on the manufacturer, which should be required to affix a serial number to the part. Any California purchase should automatically be recorded with the state Department of Justice.

I see SB 1446, which would ban the possession of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds, as a futile exercise. The only real solution would be to ban the sale of all semi-automatic rifles. All rifle purchases should be relegated to single shot, bolt-action receivers.

Playing around with magazine capacity and detachment controls is simply doomed to fail.

comments

  1. avatar JohnO_inTX says:

    Because criminals WILL comply with this law!!!!!!

    1. avatar Richard Staccone says:

      He is another idiot. They just don’t want to leave the 2nd amendment alone. They insist on punishing law abiding people.

  2. avatar N64456 says:

    I’m sure if you track down this toad’s social media pages; you would be shocked, SHOCKED! I say, to find he’s not really a gun owner at all. And; most likely, just a fluffer for Gavin Newsom…….. How convenient…

    1. avatar Tex300BLK says:

      I actually wouldn’t be surprised at all if he is a gun owner. There are plenty of selfish elitist pricks out there who own handful of break action shotguns or some other elegant non-threatening sporting guns and think that by throwing the more “extreme” gun owners under the bus that they will somehow stave off the day that the government will eventually come for them. Unfortunately, So far it has worked out in places like England and Australia.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        “Sacrificing” other elements to (hopefully) save yourself is unfortunately common in sporting organizations, and even within individual clubs.

        In the 1990s, the Australian chief FUDD organization the SSAA decided to support a ban on military style self-loading firearms. They had a sudden loss of membership and the remaining members voted out the executive.

        The NSW Rifle Association has many members in the full-bore clubs who think if the service rifle shooters are removed from the organization, they will be left alone. It took a few statements from the Greens for them to realize ALL shooters are under threat.

    2. avatar Anonymous says:

      He’s probably just a FUDD with bolt action rifles just saying nobody needs anything more than a bolt action rifle. We have the same kind right here on TTAG – they are called concealed carriers who don’t support open carry.

      1. avatar Warren says:

        I’m a concealed carrier who probably won’t ever open carry, but I support open carry 100%. I don’t understand WHY folks would want to open carry, but I absolutely think they have the right to do so if they so choose. Honestly, I cannot wait until the day when it’s constitutional carry in all 50 states, where you can carry what you please, in whatever manner you please. Whether or not that will actually ever happen in my lifetime, I don’t know. But that’s what I’m rooting for.

        I still don’t understand the compulsion to have a gun out in the open though.

        1. avatar Andrew Lewis says:

          Here are the top three reasons why I prefer open carry.
          1. A gentleman of good intentions does not hide his weapons.
          2. Statistically we are more likely to need to defend ourselves from shit weasel thugs than from hardened terrorists. Anecdotal evidence reveals that most shit weasels run away after merely seeing the gun. So while open carrying the shit weasel never approaches you in the first place.
          3. Despite what the current crop of concealed carry tailored sidearms would show, guns and holsters can be very attractive. They are legitimate decoration and a valid fashion choice.

          Honorable mention: Open carry is also an effective political tactic. Every day the common plebe is forced to witness guns not committing crime will desensitize them to the calls for hysteria that are the underpinning of the leftist anti-freedom platform.

          Hope that sheds some light on why.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          “Open carry is also an effective political tactic”

          Oh, well, shit. The picture that brings to mind is fantastic. Picture a TV interview on MSNBC, for example, where the POTUS, say Trump or Cruz, decides to get more comfortable and sheds his jacket, exposing a 1911 in a shoulder holster, with custom leather tooling and some gold and silver inlay visible. I mean, just PICTURE that!

        3. avatar Scoutino says:

          Ability to comfortably carry full size pistol that has larger capacity and is easier to shoot even in large caliber comes to mind. Also easier and faster presentation unhindered by covering clothing.
          But you can keep hiding your weapon as if it was something shameful and enjoy your tactical advantage of surprise.

    3. avatar Richard Staccone says:

      High odds that you are correct.

  3. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

    Solution to what?

  4. avatar Vhyrus says:

    Gun owner, thy name is fudd.

  5. avatar NineShooter says:

    Two words: Pedersen device.

    1. avatar Specialist38 says:

      Don’t know how many folks will get your reference without a description of the device. The Pedersen was a long time ago.

      1. avatar NineShooter says:

        I’m trying hard to think of an electronic device that would allow a person to read an entry on the Pedersen device, but NOT allow them to research and find out more about it. And I can’t think of one. Everybody has a friggin’ computer in their pocket/purse nowadays, and if they don’t know how to run a search for more info on an item that someone has already given them the name of, well, maybe it’s time they learned how.

        Heck, I learned about it before there was pixels and pocket computers, way back when you had to read books or listen to old folks to get new knowledge.

        Sorry, I have to go; I need to chase the neighborhood kids off my lawn… 😉

      2. avatar Advocate says:

        Need more info? Click here: http://bfy.tw/5T4x

    2. avatar ACP_arms says:

      here’s a guns.com story on the Pedersen device.
      http://www.guns.com/2013/06/22/perishings-super-weapon-the-pedersen-device/

      Now that’s cool!

      1. avatar kenneth says:

        Here’s a good vid on it too:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLzdGPzHL8U
        No range time tho 🙁

        1. avatar NineShooter says:

          Good stuff, thanks to you both!

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I had to try that link, just to be sure it worked. Because, unless I’m mistaken, the link itself misspells the name of General Pershing.

        1. avatar NineShooter says:

          Heck of a typo in that URL; good catch!

  6. avatar Another Robert says:

    Is it possible this guy may just be illustrating the foolishness of the Cali proposals? Like, taking their rationale to its absurd conclusion?

    1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      Do you mean inadvertently?

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        No, I just can’t believe even a Fudd would be that stupid. But I could be wrong.

        1. avatar OODAloop says:

          No, I just can’t believe even a Fudd would be that stupid. But I could be wrong.

          Dude, he’s from SEATTLE. Seattle has *mandatory* composting. If they find food in your trash, they fine you. It’s the greatest concentration of granola, Birkenstocks and burned and bitter coffee (looking at you Starbucks!) in the United States. Seattle exports weird to Austin. They have trolls under their bridges (Freemont), host Hempfest, parades of nude bicyclists, etc… This is 147% believable.

        2. avatar 16V says:

          Never been to Portland, I take it?

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      No, the ‘absurd conclusion’ will be that since most center-fire ammunition can penetrate body armor, .22lr shall be the only caliber allowed for sale…

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Body armor, in almost every case, does not cover 100%. A well placed shot with .22LR hollowpoint can be incapacitating and even fatal.

        In Africa the natives are known to have taken down elephants with a muzzle loader – single shot to the front leg to incapacitate, then close-up shot through an eye.

        1. avatar What The Heck Is That says:

          Then I guess we’ll just have to get rid of .22LR as well! Hooray, our wonderful gun-free paradise awaits where nobody will ever be shot to death ever again!

    3. avatar Ironhorse says:

      You mean Poe’s Law?

  7. avatar Bruce Abbott says:

    So my Savage 300 Win Magnum model 112SSVB, 26″ SS fluted barrel with 14X scope and bipod would be legal in California by his standards, an honest-to-god 1000yd rifle against which the only defense is large masses or movement, because it is a single-shot? Okayyyy….

  8. avatar ACP_arms says:

    Never herd of the “mad minute” then…

    1. avatar WRH says:

      Never heard of Charles Whitman either.

    2. avatar SelousX says:

      The mad minute is done with a SMLE British bolt-action rifle with a 10-round magazine. I believe when the “gentleman” said single-shot, he meant rifles that held only a single round, that which is in the chamber without a magazine.

      1. avatar ACP_arms says:

        Well the mad minute with a single shot sounds like a fun challenge.

        1. avatar ACP_arms says:

          I will ad that I thought at first he was talking about single shot AND bolt-action guns with my mad minute comment, not single-shot bolt guns only.

        2. avatar anonymoose says:

          I’ve tried it before with my M44 nugget and a .32 chamber insert. I can sling .32 Longs downrange at a rate of about 10-12 a minute.

    3. avatar Richard Staccone says:

      You must have fought in the Korean war.

      1. avatar ACP_arms says:

        Nope, I’m born in ’96 so I missed out on the Korean war by a few years. I’ve just read about the mad minute online.

  9. avatar Ralph says:

    Hey, what about break open single shot rifles? I tell ya, they don’t get no respect.

    And since when don’t gun manufacturers serialize their receivers?

    Lemr seems to be an architect in Seattle. Would you trust him to design an extension to your garage?

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      If he’s writing this seriously, I wouldn’t trust him to go to the bathroom by himself.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      ” Would you trust him to design an extension to your garage?”

      I wouldn’t trust him to design a litterbox.

      And speaking of litterboxes, I had a wisecrack all lined up for your “something smells like an uncleaned litterbox” comment in the ‘Cats with guns’ article this morning, then TTAG yanked it.

      What gives?

      1. avatar NineShooter says:

        Just between you and me, I think somebody may have discovered and mentioned that the date on the referenced article was 2005.

  10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Is it me or does this guy seem to be rather incoherent?

    “There is no way to ensure the buyer will follow through and register a [lower] receiver . . . The burden to register should be on the manufacturer, which should be required to affix a serial number to the part.”

    Manufacturers already do that.

    “Any California purchase should automatically be recorded with the state Department of Justice.”

    And licensed gun dealers already do that.

    “… ban[ning] the possession of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds, as a futile exercise.”

    Don’t ban magazines because criminals don’t follow the law.

    “All rifle purchases should be relegated to single shot, bolt-action receivers.”

    Sell single-shot rifles because criminals will follow the law and laws work!

    “Playing around with magazine capacity and detachment controls is simply doomed to fail.”

    Don’t mess with magazines and bullet button because criminals don’t follow the law and laws don’t work.

  11. avatar kevin says:

    Dear Washington,
    It comes to our attention that one of our villages has lost their idiot, and that he was last spotted in your state. Please keep him, or else we will send you six more.

    Signed, California

    P.S. hasn’t this guy ever heard of Charles Whitman?

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      The only people in Seattle who read the LA times are the transplants from California.

      I hope we’re in for a cool, drizzly summer. The californication is getting out of hand.

      1. avatar Kevin says:

        Just for that, I am going to send to you three more idiots.

        Trifle with me no more!

  12. avatar int19h says:

    The guy is 100% correct. If you read closely, what he is saying is that AWB and magazine capacity bans are pointless even if they are implemented fully (i.e. even if no-one has “assault weapons” and “high capacity mags”), because none of this stuff is what enables spree killing. And then he explains that for such restrictions to actually make any difference at all, they need to ban everything other than single-shot rifles – because anything else is still “good enough” for a spree.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      aha–you said it a lot better than I did.

  13. avatar PATRON49 IFT says:

    What a load! If he wants only a single shot, that is what he should buy. And for eating he should only be allowed to use a Spork. Anything else is likely too dangerous for him.

    1. avatar Timmy! says:

      Oh, how I HATE “sporks.”
      Worst.
      Utensil.
      Ever.

      Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

  14. avatar pdoggeth says:

    “The only real solution would be to ban the sale of all semi-automatic rifles. All rifle purchases should be relegated to single shot, bolt-action receivers.”

    What a moron. Doesn’t he know that there’s already a bill going through the State Legislature that will essentially do that? SB 880

  15. avatar Wood says:

    You can’t force me to buy a single shot bolt gun. What a steaming pile. I want a falling block dammit!

  16. avatar Adrik says:

    Tons of Fudds out there; so long as you don’t mess with their Remington 700’s, Mossberg duck guns or break action trap guns they don’t give a crap about our 2A rights. Most of them don’t care about registration either because they don’t buy many firearms.

  17. avatar Scottlac says:

    Apparently this guy is saying all rifles should be “sniper” rifles. Then we could demonize and ban those too.

  18. avatar Accur81 says:

    Today I read an arrest report about a man in LA with 8 felony arrests and 4 misdemeanor arrests on his record. The charges included ADW, burglary, robbery, and weapons possession charges. The guy is only 29 years old. He’s not going to obey a new crop of gun laws.

    Nor is the at-large suspect with the stolen Glock Gen 4 who fled on foot from one of our officers attempted to conduct a DUI investigation.

    And if these guys, and thousands more like them, don’t give a sh!t about gun laws, then I don’t see the point in disarming decent people with families, job, and a functional moral compass.

    1. avatar Mudshark says:

      Because they can. Laws to pass and prisons to fill. Money. Seperation of the wolves and sheep. And sadly this country and any country needs the wolves. Not for the money, or politics. The wolves are rebellious freedom, unconformist, creatures not easily caught or caged, animals that work in unison to accomplish a goal. Baaaaa d for Big Brother.

  19. avatar T Rogers says:

    He should consider shoving an aids infested cactus up his ass.

  20. avatar Salty Bear says:

    If the cops aren’t going to abide by these rules, how can we expect the criminals to do so?

    1. avatar pod says:

      The fun fact is that every current police-issue weapon in California is not compliant for civilian use. Watch as thefts and below-the-radar sales continue to rise if these nonsensical policies are enacted. If a cop can sell his duty sidearm for $2000 and report it as missing or whatever (with scant consequences as it seems to be now) then he’s more inclined to do it.

      1. avatar Royal Tony says:

        It has happened twice in Salinas in the span of 3 or 4 weeks.

    2. avatar Jon O says:

      I haven’t read the bill but I’m sure there is a “carve out” for police off duty and ex-police along with anybody that has held a public office. They pass laws but leave loop holes in the law to protect themselves.

  21. avatar Alphonse says:

    On one hand, the guy’s a fudd-beast. On the other, hey, at least there are people beyond the thing where they come up with a relatively small (relative to banning all repeaters that is) infringement, like 15 round limit or 30 day waiting period, and promise that it will save so many lives and act like it’s the last gun reg that will ever be pushed. That was getting ludicrous. It seems like now the two sides of gun rights are becoming polarized, more open about it, which is fine by me. It’s more honest, transparent.

  22. avatar pod says:

    Most of what he wants is already in place. And it does nothing.

    Limiting sales to single-shot firearms will do nothing.

    Irish democracy (thank you TTAG!) will kick in. People will buy what they want anyways, regardless of intent.

    Gun control is pointless. Even if you hate guns, it’s plain as day it will accomplish nothing with nearly 400 million items out there in the civilian inventory.

    Again, the smart gun controller is playing the long-term game. A little here, a little there. The whole idea is to purge the civilian inventory in the US over the course of 100 years. Ladd Everitt will die and there’ll be no noticeable change in the US with regards to guns. His children (if he has managed to breed…) might see a different world, one where their father’s diseased imaginings are realized.

    We must be careful, consistent, and most of all, pass our beliefs down to the next generation. The schools and media are collectivist indoctrination centers. That is our biggest battle.

  23. avatar Mudshark says:

    Im going to buy 30 bolt action single shots and duck tape them to a shopping cart. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII BANG

  24. avatar Phil says:

    I’ve said it a hundred times.

    Fudds are our worst enemy.

    Worse than any urban liberal anti-gun mom.

    Worse than any billionaire surrounded by bodyguards.

    And I’m talking about every flavor of Fudd out there. Yes, I mean you, mr “I support the second amendment but I make fun of Glocks and don’t see why anyone needs an AR”.

    Hey Fudd, single shot bolt action? You mean a “sniper rifle” right?

    Idiots.

    1. avatar Andrew Lewis says:

      So I guess I’m a FUDD then too huh? I make fun of glocks because they are fugly as hell. Very durable, reliable, accurate, cheap and easy to produce in great quantity. Additionally their inherent Model T like sameness has breed a vast thriving aftermarket industry. All of those great attributes aside I will probably never purchase one (The Nintendo Duck Hunt glock is the only one I would even consider owning) I spend my scarse few and hard earned gun dollars on guns I can enjoy looking at when I can’t afford range time.
      Lol even my custom built AR will be pretty.

  25. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    The Founding Fathers only had in mind that you could only buy guns available in the 18th Century.
    Lancaster rifles anyone?

  26. avatar JJ48 says:

    Neither muzzle loaders nor trapdoor Springfields are bolt-action. Sounds like this would put a lot of strain on collectors of antique firearms.

  27. avatar Moe Sizlak says:

    Either A He’s just a Fudd
    Or B This was a crap “modest proposal”

  28. avatar Don J says:

    I felt it was a tongue in cheek statement

  29. avatar glenux says:

    LA Times Letter to the Editor: “All Rifle Purchases Should be Relegated to Single Shot, Bolt-Action Receivers”

    I’m OK with that after the LA Times should be Relegated back to using
    NO computers and
    NO internet and
    be forced to going back to Typewriters.

  30. avatar LarryinTX says:

    People who write letters to the editor which advocate unconstitutional laws should be prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned. So much for YOUR constitutional rights!

  31. avatar Bruce Webb says:

    I agree with SB 1407. All weapons should be single shot. No more than one bullet should come out of a barrel at any time. Two or more bullet coming out at the same time will be very inaccurate and waste ammo. That is what they means, isn’t it?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email