Field and Stream Article on Politics (Guns)

[bread_and_roses]

This article was referenced in another thread;

http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/columnists/article/0,13199,548173,00.html

(I would thank the poster but I have lost the thread)

After reading it I am curious. I realize these are old issues to most of you, but I have been too busy with OTHER issues to "study up" on the pro/anti gun arguements. So if anyone is willing to help, I have a question: Why do hunters (at least according to the F&S article and to other scattered references I have come across) think that banning assault weapons or hand gun laws will mean they can't own hunting guns (shotguns?)? I realize this must be a really stupid question, and my total ignorance about guns is obvious, but in my defense I do know a number of hunters and ex-hunters, and none has ever expressed the slightest concern about this.

[slackmaster]

1. Generally it's a slippery slope argument

A fear that people who work toward banning one type of gun or another will never stop, that once one kind of weapon is banned they will continue on to what they perceive as the most dangerous of remaining makes and models.

...that banning assault weapons or hand gun laws will mean they can't own hunting guns (shotguns?)?

Some kinds of rifles that are clearly designed and intended for hunting differ from rifles presently classified as "assault weapons" only in minor cosmetic features. A slight tightening of the definition would cover some popular hunting rifles. And some that clearly fit the definition of "AW" now have legitimate uses in hunting. For example, an AR-15 makes a nice varmint or medium sized game rifle. It's easy to wield and has sufficient power for animals like coyotes or wild pigs. Some people even hunt deer with them.

Handguns ARE used for hunting, BTW.

...I do know a number of hunters and ex-hunters, and none has ever expressed the slightest concern about this.

They probably use bolt-action rifles and many of them won't wake up until someone tries to ban firearms based on their ballistic power or accuracy to keep "sniper rifles" out of the wrong hands. If that happens prepare for membership in groups like the NRA to mushroom.

[MrSandman]

7. From HR 2038(AWB)

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.


"...firearm procured by military or federal law enforcement..."

Rem 870
Mossberg 500
that new Benelli

"...based on the design..."
Aren't a lot of semi auto's based on designs of Garand or Browning? I don't know enough about "hunting rifles" to really comment.

"...as determined by Attorney General..."

A firearm suitable for use in a sporting event is not suitable for sporting purposes?

[Mikimouse]

2. Outstanding question...

I didn't read the article, but will respond to your question (time is short). Most of the hunters I know wouldn't hunt with an assault weapon, under any but the most pressing circumstances. They are not reliable (without a great deal of modification) past short ranges and were not designed to be precision weapons. I will include myself in the hunting category, as I do hunt with some frequency, to fill the larder (I prefer game to domesticized meat, it is healthier). Like so many other hunters, I prefer to use a weapon that has an effective range of 200 yards or slightly more, which would exclude all, so-called assault weapons. I resigned my membership in the NRA over the assault weapons debacle, because I don't support the 'need' for these types of weapons to be available to the general public. Most of the gun owners I know, who support the ownership of assault weapons, are the types that simply want to be able to shoot X number of rounds "...as fast as you can pull the trigger", the wisdom of which escapes me in the hunting realm. Why fire 5 times, in rapid succession, when one well-placed shot from a precision weapon will do a better job?

[alwynsw]

3. The general thinking in my circle is simple

Pleas bear with me because I'm about to butcher a well written thought. The wording escapes me, but you will likely recognize it. The parallel is assumed to be likely among gun owners, myself included. The idea comes from pre-WWII Germany.

They came for the jews. I was not a Jew so I said nothing. They came for the Gygsies. I wasn't a Gypsy so I said nothing. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me.

As I said, badly butchered, but you should get the drift. There are many ways to say it - "Give 'em an inch and they'll take amile" comes to mind.

[Mikimouse]

4. Doesn't hold water...

I am the child of Axis parents who related to me the entire sequence of confiscation and population 'cleansing'. As far as the gun ossue is concerned, the authorities disarmed everyone, of all the weapons. I understand what you are trying to state, but if what you say is true, then I would argue that the time for asserting the power of the people would be at the voting booth, at the earliest opportunity, rather than allowing such a potential to exist. I, too, own guns and would be loathe to hand them over to any of the agents of social control, but assault weapons? I have to ask why? Even in the old country, my family members used 'normal' weapons, not the usual 8x50 Hungarian Mannlicher used by the military. It was a joke. I have shot targets for my father's publications in American Rifleman and other magazines for many years and the only really decent military weaapon I have found was the 1891 Argentine Mauser, not what one would call an assault rifle. What I am saying, in sort, is this:why bother with an assault weapon? Even on the AK-47, the slide mounted scopes tend to loosen very quickly, causing the shots to migrate around the target.

[slackmaster]

6. I don't mean to insult you, but do you really know what an AW is?

First of all I vehemently disagree with your previous statement that "AWs" are inherently inaccurate out of the box. I have an ArmaLite M15A2, completely unmodified, with which a 400-yard shot at a 12 inch square steel plate is a "gimme" shot with ordinary surplus ammo. It's certainly accurate enough for deer at reasonable ranges. And it has absolutely no problem with reliability.

Now I have to play a little technical hardball with you here:

Even on the AK-47, the slide mounted scopes tend to loosen very quickly, causing the shots to migrate around the target.

A true AK-47 is a selective-fire weapon intended for military use. Because of its full-auto fire capability it is by definition not an assault weapon, it is legally a machinegun anywhere in the US, and covered by the National Firearms Act of 1934. They are deliberately made loose to avoid jams when they are dirty, but that is moot because they aren't AWs anyway.

Some semiautomatic-only variants of the AK are designed for hunting, fitted with more conventional-looking hardware, and are quite accurate.

[Mikimouse]

8. In fact,I do...

And I would very much like to see your targets from your M15A2. I will continue to argue against such things as the SKS, AK-47 (full auto is illegal for civilians, as I understand it, and that was not part of my argument), and the like. Now, as to your other statement, "Some semiautomatic-only variants of the AK are designed for hunting, fitted with more conventional-looking hardware, and are quite accurate.", I would have to ask, up to what range? The 7.62x39 has been used in one of the Ruger rifles (not sure if it was the M77 or the Number 1), and while I am intrigued by the load, it was found impractical. In short, I know enough about these things to know that they (assault weapons) do not qualify as anything that I would encourage anyone to purchase.

[Withergyld]

10. see post 5

Instead of retyping the whole post, see post #5 about AW

[slackmaster]

11. Thanks for the reply

And I would very much like to see your targets from your M15A2....

I don't keep old targets. Please accept my word that the rifle, when held properly, groups about 2.5 inches at 100 yards and is probably capable of better with higher quality ammunition. The weakest link is my skill.

...I will continue to argue against such things as the SKS,

Not to be nit-picky but in standard configurations the SKS is not covered under the federal AWB or any of the state AWBs. You can still buy brand-new ones in California and even New Jersistan.

...AK-47 (full auto is illegal for civilians, as I understand it, and that was not part of my argument),

Not really true, but that is a separate subject and since you say it was not part of your argument we can let that one slide. In technical discussions I insist on people specifying "semiauto AK variant" or similar to distinguish them from the classics.

...I would have to ask, up to what range?

It depends on what terminal ballististics are appropriate for the target and what you are shooting at. Accuracy and effective range are only loosely connected.

The 7.62x39 has been used in one of the Ruger rifles (not sure if it was the M77 or the Number 1),

You are probably thinking of the Mini-30. I agree that the 7.62 Soviet round has too little power for hunting deer, and many US states agree. The minimum in California is I believe the 30-30 Winchester which is only a little more potent. But power and range are separate issues. In any case the Soviet round and AK-47 rifle were designed specifically to kill or wound humans out to a few hundred yards.

...In short, I know enough about these things to know that they (assault weapons) do not qualify as anything that I would encourage anyone to purchase.

I maintain that you are speaking in generalities, and question whether your lack of encouragement would extend to support for a legal ban on AWs, whatever definition we are talking about.

The term assault weapon is a contrived legal one based either on cosmetics or brand name, not a technical classification of a kind of firearm. The fact that a rifle is classified as an assault weapon inherently has nothing to do with its power, accuracy, effective range, or utility for any particular purpose.

Oddly enough, gun control advocacy groups like the Million Mom March, Brady Center, and Violence Policy Center make contradictory claims about AWs. For example, the Bushmaster rifle used by the DC "snipers" has been maligned both as being highly accurate, and for being designed to accomodate random rapid "spray-fire" from the hip and therefore unsuitable for sporting purposes like hunting or target shooting. Both positions cannot simultaneously be true.

[Withergyld]

19. About the SKS

Even the stricter version of the AWB states SKS rifles with FIXED mags are not AW.

[souphound]

12. 7.62x39

The ballistics of 7.62x39 is very similar to 30-30, the 30-30 has probably killed more deer than any other rifle.

[alwynsw]

14. Upon its introduction in 1893, the .30-.30 Winchester

almost immediately became the firearm of choice for most big game hunters on all continents. It even replaced the good old 10 gauge rifle for elephant, rhinocerous, etc. It's a dandy! Got several of 'em around.

[Withergyld]

20. .30-.30 vs 7.62x39

The .30-.30 has slightly more power at the muzzle then the 7.62x39, but because the .30-.30 is flat nosed the 7.62x39 has more energy down range due to less wind resistance.

[alwynsw]

36. Thanks, I meant to add that, but

I was distracted by my lunatic asswipe wife doing her version of "Stacked and Packed".

(She bought me a new toy for Christmas, but couldn't seem to wait until the 25th to give it to me.

What is it, you ask? Just a little someting she picked up from her gun toting dentist (he has an FFL). Can you say "Kimber"? Sure, I knew you could.

[the_acid_one]

15. i know....

..a ton of people that use the SKS for hunting. It's one of the most common rifles used for hunting in my state.


Personally, I dont hunt. Dont care to, really. The only reason I own guns is A: Defense of self, and B: For fun.

A bolt action doesnt make a great defense gun, and isnt very much fun (Unless maybe it was a .50 BMG....)

Contrary to being unreliable, "assault weapons" ussually operate on the same basic principles of their military counterparts. With some modifications to prevent converting them to full auto. Military rifles are designed to be A: Easy to shoot. and B: Reliable.

I have never experianced a jam in any kind of "Assault weapon".


But of course, the point is not "What do hunters need?". To be blunt, I couldnt give a shit what hunters "need". In the event that I would "need" a gun, a hunting rifle is not going to be sufficient to my purpose. Which would be, home defense, self defense, or common defense.

But...to be honest. I dont suspect I will ever "need" a gun at all. Irregardless, The Constitution guarentees my right to own one is protected. Note, the Constititon doesnt "grant" the right to own weapons. Only protects it.

In the end, I dont see why these two goons:



Get to decide what I get to own, when they have never seen me, never met me, dont know my name, or even give a shit about me or my friends and family.

At such time when I start using my "assault weapons" irresponsibly, then uncle sam will have reason to confiscate them. As is, assault weapons comprise less then 1% of firearms crimes, there is no compelling reason to ban them beyond the "baby steps" approach. Which Josh Sugarman of the VPC (anti-gun group) has said himself.

[Superfly]

27. Wow...

All I have to say is "Wow"

That was very well written.

[alwynsw]

13. It holds water

What doesn't hold water is the argument that a "little" control is a good thing. A modicum of reasonable control can be good. Unfortunately, the government of this nation as well as others can't seem to leave well enough alone.

The progression that many of us expect:

AW's need to be banned.
All semi-autos need to be banned.
All handguns need to be banned.
Anything more than a single shot rifle or shotgun needs to be banned.
Anything but black powder needs to be banned.
etc.

[KS_44]

39. AR15 Groupings

My chrome lined, 16 inch bushmaster AR15s grouping.

That black blob is a quarter.

Distance: 100 yards

Ammo: Winchester Value pack

1 Flyer

[Withergyld]

5. WHY should "assault weapons" be banned

They are rarely used for criminal purposes. To ban something based on someones "need" sets a dangerous precedent. Does anyone "need" a Ferrarri or a Porsche? They have the ability to exceed the speed limit. They should be banned because no one has a true "need" for them.

The 2nd Ammendment guarantees a right to keep and bear arms. Some feel that it is a collective right. I feel that it is an individual right. Regardless all agree that it guarantees the right of the "militia" to keep and bear arms. Title 10 section 311 of the United States Code defines "militia"

"Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes


(a)

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)

The classes of the militia are -

(1)

the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)

the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia"
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

Any male from 17 to 45 is a member of the "militia"

In US v. Miller the Supreme Court found that a sawed off shotgun was not protected under the Second Ammendment because it was not a military arm and would not be usefull to the military.

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense"
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm

The assault weapons ban prohibits firearms based on features that would make them useful to the military.

Looking at these combined facts, the AWB is Unconstitutional because it prohibits members of the "militia" from owning weapons that would be usefull for military purposes.

This is true no matter which side of the collective/individual rights theory of the 2nd Ammendment.

Not necessarily the exact reply you are looking for, but the 2nd Ammendment has NOTHING to do with hunting.

[MrBenchley]

16. And that's why the Supreme Court....Oops!

Not even the Rehnquist court wants to pretend there's anything unconstitutional about the AWB....what a shame for gun nuts that Chimpy wasn't able to shove another crooked far right wing nutcase like Scalia or Crossburning Pickering on there.

[Withergyld]

18. And your point is......

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

22. Thuddingly obvious

the AWB is no more unConstitutional than it is mint-flavored.

[Withergyld]

24. Then it must be mint flavored

:hi:

[MrBenchley]

28. Not even close to true

But cheer up, maybe this unelected drunk can wedge some piece of shit like Crossburning Charlie Pickering on the Supreme Court and you can get the ruling you want.

[Withergyld]

30. I have presented evidence to show that it is Unconstitutional

and you have done nothing to refute the evidence presented, yet claim that it is Costitutional.
What evidence do you base your claim that the current AWB IS Constitutional??

[RoeBear]

31. I think I'll try...

...it's constitutional because it hasn't been overruled by the SC.

Any stupid law is constitutional till proven other wise.

[MrBenchley]

33. Too TOO Funny...

What the hell other evidence is needed? The ban was UPHELD in the Supreme Court, which is the most conservative-leaning Court since the 1940s. It's NOT unconstitutional. The Constitution allows a ban on assault weapons. The only way the ruling is going to change is if it arises again after pResident Turd is able to stick some far right wing nutcase like Cross Burning Charlie on the Court.

[Withergyld]

34. when was it upheld??

:hi:

[MrBenchley]

37. Hell-o!

"High Court Won't Review Ban on Assault Weapons
Mon Dec 1,10:20 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons and declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031201/pl_nm/court_guns_dc_1

It was discussed here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=25577&mesg_id=25577

prior to THAT...

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Two gunmakers who challenged Congress' authority to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons lost a Supreme Court appeal Monday.
The court, without comment, rejected an appeal that said Congress exceeded its power to regulate interstate commerce when it outlawed such weapons in 1994."

http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=142796

(Notice the gun manufacturers didn't even TRY to challenge on Second Amendment grounds. Why do you suppose that was? Do you think they and their lawyers forgot about the second amendment? Do you think it was a typo in the filing?)

[slackmaster]

38. Earth to MrBenchley

Silveira v. Lockyer concerned a STATE law, not the federal AWB which was the subject of the Field & Stream article. And the Court's denial of Certiorari does not mean they "let the ban stand", it means they aren't going to hear the case. Someone else could submit another case raising exactly the same legal issues today and it would NOT automatically get thrown out in initial review, as would any case attempting to re-hear a recently settled matter.

Notice the gun manufacturers didn't even TRY to challenge on Second Amendment grounds. Why do you suppose that was?

Obviously because they are corporations, not individuals, and lack STANDING. A corporation has no hands and therefore is incapable of "bearing arms". That's obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about Constitutional law. If you lack standing and have a clue, you don't even bother bringing a case before SCOTUS otherwise you will be shouted, not laughed, right out onto the street.

:dunce:

Do you have ANY evidence that a case involving constitutionality of the FEDERAL assault weapons ban on simple possession by an individual has ever been heard by the Supreme Court of the United States? It really doesn't matter anyway because the ban is going to expire in just under nine months.

[slackmaster]

35. Do you have data to suppport that claim?

MrBenchley wrote:

...The ban was UPHELD in the Supreme Court...

Cite please.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

23. Moot point

The ban is going to expire regardless of what the court would have said about it.

[CO Liberal]

25. But If It HAD Been Unconstitutional......

...wouldn't you think Billy Rehnquist and the Supremes would have struck it down by now?

[slackmaster]

26. Not necessarily

The SC doesn't do anything until someone presents a suitable case. They hear only a small fraction of possible cases. You really can't read anything into what they have not said.

The Justices’ Caseload

The Court’s caseload has increased steadily to a current total of more than 7,000 cases
on the docket per Term. The increase has been rapid in recent years. In 1960, only 2,313
cases were on the docket, and in 1945, only 1,460. Plenary review, with oral arguments by
attorneys, is granted in about 100 cases per Term. Formal written opinions are delivered in
80–90 cases. Approximately 50–60 additional cases are disposed of without granting
plenary review. The publication of a Term’s written opinions, including concurring opinions,
dissenting opinions, and orders, approaches 5,000 pages. Some opinions are revised a
dozen or more times before they are announced.

(The foregoing was taken from a booklet prepared by the Supreme Court of the United States,
and published with funding from the Supreme Court Historical Society.)

Source: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/justicecaseload.pdf

[ruralpro]

32. keep pecking away

I assume that there are tons of people reading these threads that do not post anything and those are the people that take reasoned responses to heart and might start to adjust preconcieved notions

[MrBenchley]

29. Not in gun nut fantasy land

where everybody who can clutch a popgun instantly becomes a historian, metallurgist, and Constitutional expert rolled into one.

By the way,, I wonder which Supreme Court Justices would be counted to be pro-gun?

[bread_and_roses]

9. Thank you all.

Very interesting, and I appreciate your time.

[MrBenchley]

17. Strange article

At the same time that it urges readers to get involved in the political process, it expresses such bitterness and cynicism that it would tend to drive one out. At least he makes an attempt to be even-handed with his slurs.