.50 Caliber Gun Ban Legislation Text

[LAR-15]

The one recently proposed by Rep. Moron:

____________________________________

50 Caliber Sniper Rifle Reduction Act (Introduced in House)

HR 4292 IH


108th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 4292
To ban the transfer of 50 caliber sniper weapons, and otherwise regulate the weapons in the same manner as machine guns are regulated.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 5, 2004
Mr. MORAN of Virginia (for himself, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. NORTON, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. EMANUEL, Mrs. MALONEY, and Mr. VAN HOLLEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To ban the transfer of 50 caliber sniper weapons, and otherwise regulate the weapons in the same manner as machine guns are regulated.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `50 Caliber Sniper Rifle Reduction Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that--

(1) certain firearms originally designed and built for use as long-range 50 caliber military sniper weapons are increasingly sold in the domestic civilian market, and there are fewer legal restrictions on their possession or transfer than there are on handguns;

(2) the intended use of these long-range firearms, and an increasing number of models derived directly from them, is the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including armored vehicles and such components of the national critical infrastructure as radars and microwave transmission devices, in addition 50 caliber sniper weapons pose a significant threat to civil aviation in that they are capable of destroying or disabling jet aircraft;

(3) these firearms are neither designed nor used in any significant number for legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and are clearly distinguishable from rifles intended for sporting and hunting use;

(4) extraordinarily destructive ammunition for these weapons, including armor-piercing and armor-piercing incendiary ammunition, is freely sold in interstate commerce; and

(5) the virtually unrestricted availability of these firearms and ammunition, given the uses intended in their design and manufacture, present a serious and substantial threat to the national security.

SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF 50 CALIBER SNIPER WEAPONS UNDER THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.

(a) In General- Subsection (a) of section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining firearm) is amended by striking `(6) a machine gun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device.' and inserting `(6) a 50 caliber sniper weapon; (7) a machine gun; (8) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (9) a destructive device.'

(b) 50 Caliber Sniper Weapon-

(1) In general- Section 5845 of such Code is amended by redesignating subsections (d) through (m) as subsections (e) through (n), respectively, and by inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection:

`(d) 50 Caliber Sniper Weapon- The term `50 caliber sniper weapon' means a rifle capable of firing a center-fire cartridge in 50 caliber, .50 BMG caliber, any other variant of 50 caliber, or any metric equivalent of such calibers.'.

(2) Modification to definition of rifle - Subsection (c) of section 5845 of such Code is amended by inserting `or from a bipod or other support' after `shoulder'.

(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 5811(a) of such Code is amended by striking `5845(e)' and inserting `5845(f)'.

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. COVERAGE OF 50 CALIBER SNIPER WEAPONS UNDER THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968.

(a) In General- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(z)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a 50 caliber sniper weapon.

`(2)(A) The prohibitions of paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.

`(B) The possession prohibition of paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to the otherwise lawful possession of a 50 caliber sniper weapon that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.'.

(b) 50 Caliber Sniper Weapon Defined- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(35) The term `50 caliber sniper weapon' has the meaning given such term in section 5845(d) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(d)).'.

(c) Penalties- Section 924(a)(2) of such title is amended by striking `or (o)' and inserting `(o), or (z)'.

 

[Diggler]

Interesting

that the .500 Nitro Express would be a 'long range sniper rifle' regulated like a machine gun, but that a .600 Nitro would not.

 

[RealGun]

This is why it is so important to overturn the 1934 Act. This new bill is based squarely upon that precedent, yet a .50BMG is not the same type of weapon previously addressed. In effect, the 1934 Act is now being said to address any "scary" weapon.

Banning the .50 BMG, essentially a conventional shoulder fired rifle design, is a direct frontal assault on the 2nd Amendment, much worse in my opinion than the AWB. This law is clearly saying, why does anyone need such a weapon. Once it passes, the same question will be applied to progressively smaller calibers and range capabilities.

Our drawing a line in the sand for the .50 BMG is just as important as if they were after the .308. Next they will ban scopes because they are not sporting and are only needed by snipers. See how this goes?

It should be noted that the 1934 Act has already been tested in Federal Court. The reasoning was in favor of owning and transporting a weapon of the type used by the military. Transporting a sawed off shotgun was disallowed because the judge's opinion, widely discredited, said that such a weapon was not used by the military and had no association with militias. While the .50 BMG did not originate as a military weapon, it is certainly now used by the military. They can't have it both ways. If anything, applying the 1934 Act supports ownership of the .50 BMG. However, I would much prefer the defense against this bill to be addressing the 2A directly.

 

[Daedalus]

50BMG on the NFA list now, "Assault Weapons" later? THe gun grabbers are definitely on the lookout for a new strategy.

 

[flatrock]

(2) the intended use of these long-range firearms, and an increasing number of models derived directly from them, is the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including armored vehicles and such components of the national critical infrastructure as radars and microwave transmission devices, in addition 50 caliber sniper weapons pose a significant threat to civil aviation in that they are capable of destroying or disabling jet aircraft;

What exactly is this finding based upon? How many 50 cal guns have been sold in the US? What percentage of them have been used for the purposes they list?

Obviously since the facts don't support their findings there much be some other purpose for those weapons.

 

[Third_Rail]

I really doubt this will go through... if it does, we've lost the war completely, as it'll only be a matter of a few years to ban it all.

Then we'll see how well this works to get rid of all crime!

 

[Diggler]

You know, 50 BMG uppers for the AR-15 are available over the counter...

SHHH....

 

[Third_Rail]

...which will mean that AR-15s and all variants will get banned too.

 

[Wildalaska]

There goes the 50 Alaskan

WildbettergetonenowAlaska

 

[Third_Rail]

And the .50 S&W, the .50 Action Express, and anything else that's .5 inches in diameter.

Then we'll lose the .49, .48, .47, .46, .45 caliber stuff, then the .44 caliber stuff....

And then they'll say .22 caliber plinking rifles are too small to be useful, and they'll ban that.

Then centerfire cartridges will be declared too "effective at killing".

Then rocks will be banned.

 

[Diggler]

Uppers don't have serial numbers.

I bet a person could make a lot of money doing cash sales at gun shows if this picks up steam.

 

[HiWayMan]

can i have a .499 or a .501 "sniper" rifle??

 

[Standing Wolf]

...certain firearms originally designed and built for use as long-range 50 caliber military sniper weapons are increasingly sold in the domestic civilian market...

Wrong! They were initially developed for the civilian market, and later sold to the military.

 

[SOFDC]

Argh, I suppose it's letter writing time again then?

They just won't learn. :banghead:

 

[TCD]

sigh

it truly is a never ending battle???


On a side note, I just joined the NRA yesterday, hopefully my money will be spent on issues such as these.

:banghead:

 

[SOFDC]

Quick, someone give me a sample letter, it's 11:33 PM and i've suddenly developed writers block.

 

[RealGun]

GOA Legislative

I think you would have to consider and incorporate points which addressed all the legislation in front of it. That bill is likely to be proposed as an amendment to something else, AWB for example.

Everything you say will fall on deaf ears, if the reader believes that the 2A applies only to militias, and considers a militia an arcane concept. Your elegant arguments would be completely dismissed on that basis alone. We make arguments without well established contexts. Too few assumptions are accepted by your reader.

You could focus upon any such legislation being a direct infringement upon RKBA, forgetting about the specifics of .50 BMG. In my tendentious opinion, it is un-American to propose such legislation. So a little shaming doesn't hurt either. But that would require good arguments and civility, or it too would be dismissed as just some gun nut rant.

I guarantee you that what they are after is sniper rifles in general, including scopes and including any smaller caliber. Most any rifle would qualify, wouldn't it. Since a .50 is not a "machine gun", it only serves as an extreme example door opener, smaller calibers to be questioned immediately thereafter.

Don't forget that the Ammunition Study was passed, the premise being that a round's capability to penetrate body armor is at question, not for what the round is lawfully and typically used or whether Congress can even properly entertain the question. They're doing it.

We can't stop this stuff without either educating Congress, as if that should be our job, educating the President in hopes of a veto, educating the public, or backing an argument targeted for the Supreme Court. I wouldn't rely upon the ambitions of an idealistic third party or the tyranny of the majority, which doesn't always do the right thing. I would have a plan to let the revolt begin.

Personally, I would put all my money and effort into harassing the Supreme Court and discrediting Congress for even entertaining a bill that is so boldly unconstitutional. I also hold bill sponsors personally liable and would discredit them without mercy. If I had my way, they would be subject to impeachment for not serving the Constitution, indeed for attacking it. Gun bills are fashionable, quite precedented, but none of them are appropriate, even pro-gun bills that seek to affirm rights we already have. They are just as bad because they try to establish the scope of our rights, a backhanded way of limiting them.

I can't implement such an attack, unless the validity of my reading of the 2A is firmly established. It seems to me that if it were, the US Supreme Court would have long ago applied the 2A to all States via the 14th amendment, so perhaps that fight needs to be fought first. Otherwise, the .50BMG issue is just another wolf at the door, and to get all in a fluster about it or AWB etc. is to be lost in the trees. Congress is building upon precedents, so those precedents need to be directly attacked in an attempt to bring down the whole house of cards.

This bill explicitly relies upon the 1934 Act, although in clearly bogus fashion, so I would start there. The question I can't address is procedure and organization.