In last night’s debate, President Obama repeated his belief that “weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets.” He was referring to AK-47s and, presumably, “assault rifles.” But make no mistake, the CIC’s comment puts sniper rifles squarely in the crosshairs. ‘Cause if All The President’s Men can’t see any reason for a civilian to own an AK, they sure as hell don’t want Joe. Q. Public to own a bad-ass big-bullet sniper rifle. The one featured today at thefirearmblog.com—the Truvelo Sniper Rifle firing the ever-popular 20x110mm Hispano, originally developed in WWII as an anti-aircraft round—is already off the menu. But note: even now you can’t buy a proper .50 BMG rifle in California. Or a Smith & Wesson 342. But that’s another story. Or is it?
Home Gun Control If Assault Weapons Are Banned, Sniper Rifles Are Next
Doesn’t that qualify as an Any Other Destructive device, since it has a caliber higher than .50? Of course, in gun grabber terms, a sniper rifle is a centerfire rifle with a scope.
Good point. Amending text.
I prefer to pronounce it “Sniper’s Rifle”. Simo Häyhä didn’t need 20x110mm Hispano or a telescope.
There was a great article in the American Rifleman this month about the Rigby Match Rifle. The marksmen who shot at the Creedmore and Leech competitions shot at 1000 yards prone and unsupported with iron sights, and they didn’t miss very much. The Leech Cup is still contested at 1000 yards with iron sights, prone and unsupported.
In my advanced age, I can’t see a target 1000 yards downrange without magnification, and what I can’t see, I can’t hit. But the current and six-time Leech Cup champion, Nancy Tomkins, can hit that target all day long.
What you can’t see, you can still hit. You just won’t know about it till later.
You must use the Force Ralph. Use the Force.
By “force” you mean Lippard majick .45…
Use the shwartz.
The same lowlifes who defined “assault weapon” will also define “sniper rifle.” In other words, Mr. and Mrs. Hunter, turn them all in.
You stole my point. My NA big game rifle better known as Winchester Model 70 chambered in 300 win mag with 3 x 10 50mm scope can be used as a sniper rifle. So could my Remington 700/308 ( aka known as an M-24) or my Model 70 243. I guess we will have to go back to iron sights to own them.
Agreed. If “assault weapons” are banned then everything else is on the table in descending order of “fear factor”.
Absolutely. Then ammo taxes, then semi autos, then pistol grips, then detachable mags…
Maybe if we’re very nice, they’ll let us keep our twenty-twos and shotguns.
With permits, of course.
Nope, sorry, .22 cal single shots, plus shotguns, being used in armed conflict, by military forces in 1801 or after, will now be defined as “Assault Weapons”.
So, turn them in Bubba.
License’s Ralph. And only after the mental health evals. And don’t forget the license for the ammo and also the home inspections.
It might not get that extreme here, but why risk it. I live in California, same as Difi and Boxer and they’ll have the man’s ear if barry gets another term.
Oh Ralph, forgot to mention. After the Assault Weapon Ban, you will only be allowed to hunt rabid squirrels, that are endangering human life. Only with a stick. And please, do not tell anyone, show anyone, or talk about it.
In addition, you will be required to buy a permit ($220), to kill the squirrel. Have your stick registered and inspected ($150). Once squirrel is killed, you must pay restitution for the support of the squirrel family ($25 a week, for life).
Like in England. Was it here on TTAG that I saw they want to make gun mags “age appropriate materials” like Playboy?
Shortly after Clinton’s AWB, they started parading out hunting rifles with wood furniture and 6 power scopes talking about sniper rifles. It happened before, it will happen again. They’re trying to get the camel’s nose under the tent.
you guys are getting your undies in a bunch… there is a way around this…..vote “Romney for 2012” it’s that simple….. we have to get this anti constitution following jackass (obama) out of office…
I’m a registered Republican, but I may switch to Independent. Either way, I’ll vote for Mittens because he is Obama’s biggest challenger. I don’t expect Romney to be a great president, but I have a high level of respect for Paul Ryan.
I don’t trust him, especially with his record and with his all-over-the-map answer in the debate last night.
You aren’t supposed to trust politicians, you are supposed to hold them accountable for their promises and their actions. And because you aren’t supposed to trust politicians (don’t worry, the Founding Fathers didn’t trust politicians either), there are 3 branches of government, two of which are elected and the third is selected by those who win elections.
So you don’t trust Romney, that’s fine, he wasn’t my first choice, but I think he will be better than the incumbent. And that is why I am working in my area to help get elected conservative Representatives and Senators who will work to hold Romney to the bounds of the Constitution.
What is sad slash maddening is that these “assault rifles” have very legitimate uses as target, competition, and hunting rifles. These uses are of course not acknowledged by the assault rifle ban argument.
I am very interested in this segment, specifically the AR. It is nice to know that for the purposes of common sense gun control, my perfectly law abiding uses are not considered. The tool is evil and must be banned.
It is nice to see this subject come up on the national stage again. I makes a mockery of the intentions of anyone who advocates common sense gun laws. Common sense is a code for incrementalism, and cannot be tolerated.
Me too, though I’m more of a Sig man myself. It’s even more maddening to hear people use hunting as the only legitimate example of gun use. I’m not a hunter… I prefer targets and tin cans… does that mean my guns don’t have legitimate uses?
Don’t forget their ligitimate uses to ensure “the security of a free State”. As nice as shooting paper can be it isn’t protected by constitutional amentment. Perhaps you should look deeper into the “purposes” of so called common sense gun control.
Sorry mikeinid, looks like I misread part of you comment up there.
And apparently you didn’t read mine at all.
I agree with you — shooting sports are nice, but the framers had much more serious purposes in mind.
Again, you apparently didn’t read my comment, and are attributing to it statements that I didn’t make. I didn’t say anything about the fundamental right to KABA. I said that politicians tend to use hunting as the be all and end all of firearms, and with good cause – hunters are a major subgroup of firearms owners. I merely said that I am not a hunter, but that does not make my firearms use any less legitimate. That is all.
“A well regulated militia” is what is being referenced as being necessary to a free state, by the way. Not guns. Firearms are specifically mentioned, protected and enshrined as an inalienable right in the following section: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” If you’re going to talk down to people, at least make sure you know what you’re talking down to them about.
You’re right, Pete. I didn’t read your post at all. I’m too slow of a commenter and finally posted after yours was up. I think we’d agree if I could get the tone right and explain myself further.
I wasn’t trying to disparage you or any recreational use of firearms. I was just trying to point out that “Legitimacy” of firearm sports is irrelevant re 2A and claims to their legitimacy only reinforce the notion that we should have a “good reason” (beyond self/freestate protection) to KABA. We need to resist the incremental regulation of any use before our benevolent overlords nickel and dime us into a corner where our weapons become less useful. We have the moral high ground in that citizens as a whole are responsible enough to maintain weapons, and we shouldn’t pussyfoot around the fact that they are weapons with capabilities protected in the Constitution.
It’s hard to make short arguments without sounding like an asshole. I’ll work on that.
That is one bad-ass looking pipe right there, if I do say so myself.
The statists want the government to force you to comply with whatever they personally believe and they don’t care if the government has to arrest or kill you to stop you from enjoying things you own or like to do that they don’t approve of.
This is why I’m leery of the police profession, because cops are the ones that the statists want to enforce all the mala prohibita crap that they come up with. No offense to the perfectly good officers that routinely comment on this site. Good lot, most of you.
Anyway, if they get their AWB it’ll be something else soon after. They never just stop at one kind of gun.
Semi-autos with detachable magazines? Assault weapons
Scoped rifles? Sniper rifles
Cheap pistols and revolvers? Saturday Night Specials
Double barreled shotguns? Sawed-off shotguns.
Soda, pornography, junk food, cigarettes, alcohol, guns, “disruptive” speech, medical privacy, various prescription drugs, some cars, some trucks, some light-bulbs, etc. are all targets of these control freaks.
If we’re getting rid of weapons that were designed for soldiers, I guess we all have to give up our 1911s. We can’t have dangerous weapons with high capacity 7 round magazines and those wild manual safeties.
I’ve got a K bar and they can’t have that either. Or my framing nailer.
Given enough time and success, they’d try, though.
Mit said that he got the antis and pro-gun folks together and crafted a bipartizen AWB in MA.
He’s proud of the damned thing.
Sorry, it’s hard for me to trust a man who can say that and still say he’s pro 2a.
Sigh, as Ralph has pointed out to us, sometimes you have to read a little deeper than the headlines to get to the truth. See here: http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html for Romeny’s AWB record.
Is he a great crusader out to roll back all gun laws all the way back to only the 2A? No, but he has said he doesn’t want any new laws, unlike his opponent.
I saw this same photo on http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/ Is that where you got the pic?
Speaking of weapons bans and sniper rifles, I have something to chime in with. I may be new to carrying and firearms as a whole but we enthusasts are so devided that sometimes I wonder if we will win this battle.
To keep on subject of the articles title I draw on my prime example. I know hunters and have heard plenty of stories from freinds about hunters who do not support the 2A. Basicaly they have their rifle and/or shotgun for hnting but are one of thoes types that dont see why we should carry handguns 24/7. They are all for some restrictions or are indifferent about the subject.
For any hunters who use a 308 and have such feelings, what do you think a 7.62 round is?
The gun grabbers are not going to stop with one type of gun. Had the 94 ban proven to be successful and not allowed to sunset, they would have gone after more. At least they would have tried.
We as firearms enthusasts be it hunters, preppers, competition shooters or just family men/women protecting what we have NEED TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE!!! We will all lose if we do not make a stand against the banning of even one item.
NOTE: I know my rant does not apply to ALL hunters, so no offense if you do support the 2A
NOTE 2: Give me two howitzers, a large chunk of land marked as a grid, a buddy with a good competitive atitude and I will justify why we should be allowed to own artilery as well.
“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!”
I wonder what will happen if they enact the AWB with mandatory forfeiture of our AR’s? I shudder to think about it.
Just what the heck is a 20×110 Hispano round? Never heard of it, but it must be massive. And no, the .50 BMG has no legitimate hunting purpose, not if you plan on eating what’s left (not much–stew meat maybe). Yes they have legitimate long range shooting uses. Funny thing about the .50 ban in California is that Barrett is located there, and after Arnie signed off on the law (they could be used to shoot down jet iners!!!), Barret has refused to sell or service any weapon his company previously sold to any California LEO. Priceless!
Remember that the prez says that in his opinion, most crime is committed with “cheap handguns” which takes us back to the “Saturday night special” laws that were so often talked about in the 1970’s and 1980’s. So if your handgun costs less than “X” dollars, it must be a handgun designed for criminal activity. If your handgun is semi-auto, it’s probably bad as well, especially if it has or can be used with an easily detachable “assault capacity” magazine. And of course they will be coming for any gun that can fire “cop killer” bullets.