Congress and the 50 caliber question

A little while ago, several members of congress proposed a "Long Range Sniper Rifle Safety Act". Bear in mind, this is an idea from congress. Anything with "safety" or "security" or "children" in the title is not necessarily a good thing coming from these people.

The gist of the bill, as listed on congress.org, is as follows...

"Long-Range Sniper Rifle Safety Act of 2007 - Amends the federal criminal code and the firearms registration provisions of the Internal Revenue Code to classify the .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle as a destructive device. Modifies the definition of "rifle" to include a weapon intended to be fired from a bipod or other support. Directs the Attorney General to implement regulations for notice and registration of .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles as destructive devices and require the registration of unregistered rifles within seven years after the enactment of this Act."

Now with 11 co-sponsors, this bill is still on the floor waiting for review.

I wonder if this .50 BMG rifle was singled out because of the recent featuring of this rifle in several popular movies this past year. The last gun ban started off focusing on the AK-style rifle. Why not re-visit that stance? The AK packs a massive punch and is available all over the United States. Why all the focus on .50 BMG rifles all of a sudden? .50 BMG rifles are not easy to come by, and the ammunition for these rifles is very expensive. Plus, they are massive rifles. Much larger than most 7.62, .308, or other similar rifles with a good deal of power behind them. So why the intense focus on this particular rifle?

Admittedly, the .50 BMG is an incredible weapon, but labeling it as a "destructive device"?

Destructive devices are explosives. C4. RPGs. Things that do not need to be pointed directly at a specific target to destroy it. If you aim one foot to the right of a target with a .50 BMG and fire the weapon, your target will be just fine. If you aim one foot to the right of a target with an RPG, chances are your target will be damaged. That's a destructive device.

Aside from completely missing the boat on what a destructive device is, under this new proposal, the definition of a rifle will be changed to include not only firearms used off the shoulder as support, but also "from a bipod or other support".

Its that "or other support" part to watch out for. Sometimes I use my opposing hand to steady my handgun when I fire at a target at the shooting range. Would that be considered an "other support"? Seriously.

How about a sling or holster to hold a firearm to your body as you walk through a field? That sounds like "other support" to me. I didn't see any barrel or stock length requirements or any kind of specific measurements for any firearm in the bill, so who gets to define what "other support" is?

Finally, all .50 BMG rifles will need to be registered as destructive devices. Right now, to register as a owner of a destructive device, you have to adhere to very, very strict regulation by the government. Multiple thick books concerning detailed regulations and very stringent rules that must be followed to the letter. Plus the background check for destructive devices is even more exhaustive than the check for a Federal Firearms License.

Classifying this rifle as a destructive device will dramatically increase the associated costs of owning this rifle, and by proxy, force some owners of this particular rifle to surrender it just out of financial necessity.

You can read the text of the bill here, or by clicking the link in the summary post of the bill.

Hopefully this bill will remain dormant. It looks like the bill's supporters are going to wait until there is a great majority of their peers to try and push it through. Or they may try to slide it through under another bill that has a more broad appeal. Regardless, this bill is bad news. Poorly written, dramatically overreaching, and completely misguided.

Then again, it is from congress.

-end-