It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


POLITICS: California Sniper Rifle Ban Goes Into Effect

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Damned
In some states, it's actually legal for women to shoot people in self defense. In other words, as long as they say they were being attacked, shooting is justified. I've always been leary of that one, since it could easily be abused by any angry woman.

In America as far as I know its legal for ANYONE to shoot in self defense. He is talking about the Netherlands

posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Fry2
Not to mention that ALL armor piercing ammunition is already heavily regulated.

Cabelas .50 AP rounds

690 grain .50 Armor Piercing rounds 50 for $159.99

not too hard to get them, even ships to most states w/o problem.

posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 05:20 PM
Hmm. I'm proven wrong. I could have sworn there was a law passed on "black talons" and the like about ten years ago. They called it the "cop killer ban" or somesuch.
I, personally, have never been in the market for anything armor piercing.

Sorry for the mis-information.

posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 05:23 PM
I think that was for the "teflon" bullets, still a stupid law, almost ANY rifle round will go through a bullet proof vest which is what the so-called reason for the law was

posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 05:24 PM
Hrm, I've heard of the black talon issue, but other highly lethal rounds like Federal Catridge Co's HydraShok are still available for most handguns, so I'm not sure just how they determine which ammunition is too dangrous for normal civilian posession.

posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 05:36 PM
I have Hydra Shok loaded daily
. The Black Talons were a teflon coated pre-fragged round. I guess specifically made to defeat body armor and cause massive trauma.
I was under the impression that they oulawed all armor piercing rounds with that one. I guess I was wrong since I can't find it and the ATF is WAY behind on updating the website...

posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 06:09 PM
Hydra Shok is nothing super special or extra lethal. They claim that the little post in the hollowed out area allows for greater penetration while maintaining good expansion. Just depends on the use, I don't want high penetration rounds for around the house use. They are not necessarily more lethal and they offer no special armor piercing capabilities.

Black Talons are not illegal to own, at least not federally. I don't think they still manufacture them under that name, I think they call them ranger SXT now, but not sure. The box now says "for security and law enforcement use only" because certain states have banned them or banned their civilian use, but I have purchased them over the counter.

On topic, California has no legal rights to outlaw any weapon of military significance. The .50 enjoys the same level of protection as a 9mm or a shoulder fired heat seeking anti-aircraft rocket. The 2nd amendment applies to us even if we are not in the Army or NG, and the Supreme Court has stated as much. Any of you who choose to honor California's attempts to get around the 2nd by means of the laziness of the American people do so of your own accord. The 2nd has not been overturned, so anyone who says that California's (or any other state's) gun laws are legitimate is lying to you.

posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 06:14 PM
Black Talons for sale

Still can't figure out how to edit a link into a post, but the above link says it all.

posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 12:17 AM
on the post 'mystery'

clcik EDIT on someone's post you want to use as an example- copy and paste to a word processor.

examples 101 for me

posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 03:23 AM
guess I failed 101

use the QUOTE button

[edit on 8-1-2005 by JoeDoaks]

posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Amuk
In America as far as I know its legal for ANYONE to shoot in self defense. He is talking about the Netherlands

Not exactly. If a man shoots an unarmed person, he's going to be charged with murder, no matter what. If a woman shoots an unarmed man, it's almost always self defense. In effect, women can shoot men for practically any reason, as long as they say it's self defense. A man better be beaten within inches of his life before he shoots an unarmed person anywhere but in his own home.

posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 09:50 PM
The 10 shot .50Cal Barrett Model 82A1 has already been banned in my state CT. Has anyone ever been killed with this gun in my state or even robbed with it? Nope the guns huge its 57 inches long almost weighs 30 pounds and cost about $8,000 bucks yet they attack this gun because it was a scary round used by the military.

The military also uses the Remington M24 sniper rifle they even use the Remington 700 action as the basis for this gun. So when they get all the .50 cal out of the peoples hands expect them to start comming for the Remington model 700, and they will use the same process to get rid of this gun.

posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 02:34 PM
In Florida the standard was if you feared bodily injury to yourself or another you could use deadly force in your home, in a public setting you had an obligation to try to remove yourself first. Recently the standard was relaxed and you may resort to deadly force without trying to walk away. We're lucky here most DA's are not going to go after someone who caps a criminal, of course this is a state where Democratic Congressional candidates have quail hunts or skeet shoots for fundraisers. I can't believe Cali has a Republican Gov that supports gun control, medical pot, and gay rights!

posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 03:08 PM
Actually I find this funny, because Barrett is going to release a new round shortly called the 416 Barrett. It is lighter, faster, and longer range, its also LEGAL in california. Plus all Barretts can be converted to fire this round.

Here is a comparison between the two rounds.
50BMG vs 416 BARRETT

The whole thing is ridiculous because first the gun has not been used in any crimes. For the argument of shooting down an airplane, I can think of some better ways than relying on ONE shot. What ONE critical part can you hit on a MOVING airplane that will make it go down? REMEBER: mythbusters proved that you cannot shoot a gas tank and make it expload, bullet just punches through, no spark or flame.

Yes the gun is a bit excessive, but so are alot of trucks on the road. Do you really need 34s? Probaly not, just let them have their fun.

posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 03:18 PM
I have been assured by my local gang that they will be able to continue to import any kind of desired firearm into the United States for resale to any person that desires it.

With an open border ... who needs gun laws?

posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 03:39 PM
yes this is pretty sad. we should be allowed to own any gun or weapon, reguardless of if we need it. as long as there are other people and government we may need it. the second amendment wasnt made for hunters and such, it was made for defense against ALL threats. who is to say we should have them?

they should be more strict with executions and such, if the person is clearly guilty of murder, they get killed. also if more people had guns most would be less likely to shoot. chances are you wont shoot some one if you know 3 people around you also have guns. thats the sad fact, unless they are suicidal they arent going to go killing, not in public. plus if they want to kill some one that bad, chances are a gun law isnt going to stop them.


posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 05:06 PM
Well maybe a .50 cal has'nt been used in a crime over there, but i was in Crossmaglen, S. Armagh for 2 years during which the IRA thought it was a good crack to shoot at us with these. They used it on numerous attacks and a mate of mine was shot with an .50 cal AP round from no more than a couple of hundred yards, needless to say he's not around anymore.

I understand that the gun culture here in the UK is very different to the US, but i find it extremely difficult to see why anyone except the military or maybe certain law enforcement units may need one of these. Therefore whilst i know i'm probably in the minority here, i support a ban of these weapons to anyone but those units neccessary. Just my opinion though.


[edit on 5-3-2006 by CX]

posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 05:28 PM

Originally posted by FredT
Im a gun owner myself, and is thier a legitamate use for a 50 cal sniper rifle outside of bringing down a plane, assasinations and the like?

... but is there really a need for them?

Depends on who you think might have a better clue, the weak-minded who blame weapons on all crimes, both psat, present and in the future, or the Founding Fathers who thought that the right to keep and bear arms should not be tampered with in ANY way so that we could take back our country from tyranny and arbitrary rule.

Why is it that your government out there in the Loony Left Coast are worried about a crime that hasn't even occured yet?

As a criminal justice professor told us a few years ago, when your government tries to take away your guns you'd better ask yourself, "Why?" and stop them.

posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 06:29 PM
If an Arab buys any guns capable of assasination or terrorism they will be red flagged instantly so this point is CRAP.

they would MUCH rather buy a Stinger/SA-7 or another MANPAD then going through the red tape with a rifle that has to be aimed manually, chances of failure are VERY high.

Bombs are MUCH more effective in assasination than any firearms, and you don't need a Barrett to kill someone, any 7.62mm NATO or 7.62x54mm soviet rifle will do exceptionally well with assasinating someone.

A concealed pistol would be better YET, remember how Lincoln got killed? how did Reagan and the late pope almost gotten assasinated? ofcourse in Cali they banned compact pistols.

posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 08:35 PM
The title of this post is misleading... it isn't a ban at all. It's just making owners pay $25 to have them.

I also think that guns serve no useful purpose except for hunting. And even that you could do with just a crossbow. Rifles and shotguns only at the max. There is no need for having an automatic weapon, or anything super powerful. Pistols, while they look cool, are only used primarilly to kill PEOPLE. If nobody had them, you wouldn't need one to defend against other people with them. And a sniper rifle... come on. What use is a sniper rifle in a city?

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in