Why are .22 caliber rifles always exempt from gun bans?

[danez71]

Danez: That's odd; my recollection was pretty clear. I went a'googlin.

You are certainly correct about the current law - it specifically allows certain competition pistols. Thanks for pointing that out.

But I think that is a recent revision, that is, I believe there was a period when Hammerlis et al were banned. I couldn't find a site that had the history of revisions explicitly, but found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberti-Roos_Assault_Weapons_Control_Act_of_1989

and followed some of it's footnotes to e.g. this:

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf

That was written in 2001, and lists the generic language "(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip" without the 'olympic' exceptions.

Disclaimer: I'm not from California, so I don't follow stuff there closely, but my memory of the AG's dismissive comment stood out at the time. Goodness knows my memory isn'r perfect, but the memory of that comment is pretty clear.

Perhaps I shouldn't worded that way.

Perhaps, and wouldnt surpise me, that some jack hole politician made a comment like that.

I don't remember that and I don't remember the Olympic type pistols ever being included and then excluded.

 

[Mk VII]

Divide and conquer. Too many .22's out there to take on. For now.

 

[PabloJ]

Now, I understand that a 22lr is no 5.56, and you can't hope to get through any armor with it. Definitely not a first choice for world domination. But I just can't wrap my head around why countries and states that are so strict with rifles don't include .22. For example: ALL semi-auto and pump action rifles are banned in England..... except for .22's. A British citizen can have an M&P Sport 15-22 with 25/30 round magazines. WHAT!? And I believe in Canada, all semi-auto rifles are restricted to 5 round magazines except for... you guessed it... .22 caliber! Could someone explain to me the reasoning behind this? Is it that they think a .22 is so weak, there's no point in restricting them? You would think people so scared of guns wouldn't care what size round your firing. Someone determined with a .22 would still be able to inflict a lot of damage to a lot of people. Keep in mind that a .22 magnum (still .22 caliber) can put out around 300 ft/lbs of energy. Very similar to a .38 spl +P. I just don't get this.

That is good because when our system finally breaks down we will be able to shoot: squirrels, rabbits, crows,..... to make delicious stews and wonderful English-style rook pies. Guess no rooks so we would have to substitute with crows, doves or rock pigeons. Now you know why we have few or no English Restaurants in USA and why in Europe they are called Pub & Restaurant or Bar & Restaurant. First you drink hard then you eat so you don't realize or can taste what you're eating.

 

[mjsdwash]

you can't fight a war with 22's, and most countries governments will at some point in their recent history acknowledge that gun control was about preventing revolution. On top of that, its a round than generally cannot be reloaded, and the only round made today that goes bad after sitting in a basement for a few decades, so controlling the access to ammunition is fairly easy. It also is useful in shooting competition, one of the few lobbies that advocate firearm ownership. Its quiet enough to not justify an honest attempt by local politicians to outlaw it over noise concerns.

 

[pintler]

Danez: Not exactly authoritative sources, but FWIW:

https://www.elitefitness.com/bodybuilding/bodybuilding-chat/10-2000/004582.html
http://www.newsweek.com/crack-shot-caught-gun-control-crossfire-158141

 

[Walkalong]

Every gun I own is for hunting, pest control, target practice and all of the other stuff one can do legally with a fire arm.
They will one day come for the .22 the lever action, shotgun and the single shot. It`s a long term plan.

Exactly.

 

[Hokkmike]

In 2014 the New Jersey legislature forwarded a bill to Governor Christie that would have banned common .22 rifles. It was only following "push back" from irate citizens that the bill was eventually amended to exclude such arms. Don't ever say that the .22 is or will be exempt.

 

[RedlegRick]

... On top of that, its a round than generally cannot be reloaded, and the only round made today that goes bad after sitting in a basement for a few decades,

Last weekend I shot two boxes of WW Super-X dated 1962, and a few years ago, one of the fellas in my club brought in some pre-war (as in WW2) Remington to shoot up. The 55 year old stuff all fired perfectly, and the '38 vintage stuff only had a few FTFs. Just saying.
And as for not being viable in a revolutionary context, while not a main battle round, it is a piece of metal injected at high speed into a body where no piece of metal was before and shouldn't be, so consider that. .22 may not be a stopper, but it is a killer and a wounded soldier ties up more personnel than dead ones do.

 

[mjsdwash]

Last weekend I shot two boxes of WW Super-X dated 1962, and a few years ago, one of the fellas in my club brought in some pre-war (as in WW2) Remington to shoot up. The 55 year old stuff all fired perfectly, and the '38 vintage stuff only had a few FTFs. Just saying.
And as for not being viable in a revolutionary context, while not a main battle round, it is a piece of metal injected at high speed into a body where no piece of metal was before and shouldn't be, so consider that. .22 may not be a stopper, but it is a killer and a wounded soldier ties up more personnel than dead ones do.

one of the few rounds that can be brushed off by even light body armor, while offering very little destructive impact. Its not worthless as a combat caliber, but its far less effective than a crossbow, or rocks against police or military. As far as viability at age, I have heard that pre 80's 22 was better due to higher quality of brass (it matters on a rimfire) and bullet coating better sealing the cartridge, and perhaps higher quality control on the priming compound. I know that I see about a 1% failure to fire per year on bulk grade ammo. People are not storing hundreds of thousands of Eley Tenex, or Wolf Gold in their dank country basements after all.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Yes, but neither is a 25 acp. They put out around 65 ft/lbs. Same with .32. They put out less than or equal energy to a .22lr, yet both of those would still be banned.

.32 ACP was and maybe still is a popular military and police cartridge in Europe.

 

[danez71]

Danez: Not exactly authoritative sources, but FWIW:

https://www.elitefitness.com/bodybuilding/bodybuilding-chat/10-2000/004582.html
http://www.newsweek.com/crack-shot-caught-gun-control-crossfire-158141

Pintler +1

Decent enough source to at least give you you props for remembering something that I don't recall.

 

[RedlegRick]

one of the few rounds that can be brushed off by even light body armor, while offering very little destructive impact. Its not worthless as a combat caliber, but its far less effective than a crossbow, or rocks against police or military. As far as viability at age, I have heard that pre 80's 22 was better due to higher quality of brass (it matters on a rimfire) and bullet coating better sealing the cartridge, and perhaps higher quality control on the priming compound. I know that I see about a 1% failure to fire per year on bulk grade ammo. People are not storing hundreds of thousands of Eley Tenex, or Wolf Gold in their tank country basements after all.

I understand it's shortcomings against body armor, but it's impossible to armor everywhere on the body.

I've heard the same thing about vintage ammo as well, but I'd need to see something definitive on the matter.

 

[mjsdwash]

I understand it's shortcomings against body armor, but it's impossible to armor everywhere on the body.

I've heard the same thing about vintage ammo as well, but I'd need to see something definitive on the matter.

but from the perspective of a government, its still hard to see it as a viable weapon of an insurgent army. They only need to bad guns that exceed the lethality of unbanable weapons, such as rocks, bows, cars, axes. I know a guy who had a 8 foot ReBar rammed through his body armor (intentionally)

 

[RedlegRick]

I'll concede that point. And regarding your associate, I don't know what to say about that. On the one hand, I hope he survived, but considering the horrific nature of such an injury, I'm not sure if that's the right thing to say.

Perhaps we should abandon this track of conversation before it devolves further.

 

[James3008]

Don't ever say that the .22 is or will be exempt.

But it is exempt from several laws. I understand where you're coming from, that it's not automatically exempt, but "Don't ever say it is.." is a little much. It's clearly exempt from many gun bans. The question was everyone's opinion as to why. I'm not saying they haven't or won't try to ban it.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Why are .22 caliber rifles always exempt from gun bans?
Well the original 22" barrel full tube magazine Marlin Model 60 .22 semi-auto with 18 round magazine was banned by New Jersey.
That's why Marlin went to a 14 round magazine with the Model 60 with 22" and 19" barrel in post ban production.
.22 rifles are usually exempt from gun bans but not always.

 

[2ifbyC]

I mean, your grandma swallows pills larger than a .22lr cartridge

Add grandpa to that list since three of the pills I take fit that category. I’m glad they are color coded because as I advance in age, I fear loading my riles with one (a rare case of ballistophobia).

 

[toivo]

I want to know why a citizen of the UK can still buy a Smith and Wesson M&P 15-22 rifle, but I, a resident of the People's Republic of New York, cannot.

Don't say "One day they'll come for the .22s too." They already have.

 

[vito]

I think some people put 22's in the same category with BB guns and paint guns, albeit foolishly. I have a son-in-law who says he doesn't like guns and does not want guns in the house because of his children. I asked him, what about your 22LR rifle? He replied, "oh, its not like its a real gun, its just a 22". While I would not consider 22LR a good self defense tool, I would far prefer to have just my "target gun", a Ruger Mark IV when a bad guy breaks into my home that no gun at all. In fact, since I am more accurate with this gun than any other that I own, maybe my Mark IV should be my go to gun and my loaded Glock 17 be the back up gun instead of it being the primary gun.

 

[Walkalong]

I have more than one .22 LR that no sane person would want me to be shooting at them with.

As to this thread, they are just way down the list for the antis. Make no mistake though, they are on the list. There is nothing that isn't on the list.

 

[entropy]

Several years ago, California banned (well, classified as 'assault weapons') pistols where the mag wasn't housed in the grip. The intention was to ban Mac-10's

Which have the magazine in the grip, as does the Uzi. I'd say more the TEC-9 was in mind.

As to this thread, they are just way down the list for the antis. Make no mistake though, they are on the list. There is nothing that isn't on the list.

Yep.

 

[JTHunter]

one of the few rounds that can be brushed off by even light body armor, while offering very little destructive impact. Its not worthless as a combat caliber, but its far less effective than a crossbow, or rocks against police or military. As far as viability at age, I have heard that pre 80's 22 was better due to higher quality of brass (it matters on a rimfire) and bullet coating better sealing the cartridge, and perhaps higher quality control on the priming compound. I know that I see about a 1% failure to fire per year on bulk grade ammo. People are not storing hundreds of thousands of Eley Tenex, or Wolf Gold in their dank country basements after all.

As another poster noted, body armor doesn't cover everything. They also don't wear it 100% of the time. You also don't have to "kill" them but incapacitate instead. If you have a reasonably accurate rifle, it is possible to put a bullet in their face causing all kinds of mayhem. If you and your rifle are particularly good, you can put one in their eye. Not only does this take them out of the fight for a good long time, their depth perception has been ruined. Or the knees. Or the foot/ankle. Anything to incapacitate and immobilize your opponent.
Add to the ability to shoot multiple rounds quickly (like from a 10/22) and to carry a couple of thousand rounds in a small container, .22LR is definitely overlooked as a defensive round.

 

[pintler]

"Which have the magazine in the grip, as does the Uzi. I'd say more the TEC-9 was in mind"

Right you are. Mac-10, Tec-9, too many numbers .

 

[Prijador]

It's ironic, in the larger sense: the attempt on President Reagan was carried out with a .22 RG-14 revolver.

22's are sometimes not covered by a ban... and revolvers are sometimes not covered by a ban.
At some level, it's like some leftists are trying to ban everything *but* the weapon used on President Reagan.

 

[entropy]

It's ironic, in the larger sense: the attempt on President Reagan was carried out with a .22 RG-14 revolver.

22's are sometimes not covered by a ban... and revolvers are sometimes not covered by a ban.
At some level, it's like some leftists are trying to ban everything *but* the weapon used on President Reagan.

Or RFK, who was killed with an Iver Johnson Cadet. so whatever inference you were attempting, it's a wash.