California just passed a law that expands the definitions of assault weapons to include .50-calibur sniper rifles. If you own one already, you have until April 30th to register it and pay a $25 fee.
This law should not have been passed- it's needless and silly. My reasoning... below the fold.
I realize I may be coming in at a stance held contrary by many Kossacks, since a great deal of you are probably in favor of gun control. I, however, defend the right of the citizen to bear arms, despite the fact that I don't even own a firearm myself. If you can't deal with it, I will leave a tip jar below, so feel free to slam me there.
At any rate, this is not only about gun control, it's about personal freedoms, something which the Republicans have whittling away at since that fateful September 11th a few years back. To opt into a cliche- every time we use terrorists as an excuse to limit our freedoms, the terrorists win.
Rifles which fire 0.50-calibur BMG ammunition (see link for one example) are generally military issue sniper rifles, with a maximum potential range of four miles. The ammunition is powerful enough to penetrate armored vehicles, and certainly concrete walls; it's certainly powerful enough to instantly turn a deer into venison jerky, which does make it a bit useless for hunting. There is no real, legitimate reason to own one of these weapons. So who would buy one? To quote the article:
"The lawyer, Chuck Michel, said the BMG, a 30-pound firearm that costs between $2,000 and $8,000, is typically purchased by collectors, shooting-range enthusiasts and skilled competitors."
Obviously, the article is paraphrasing him, since 0.50-calibur BMG is a type of ammunition, not a gun. Nevertheless, weapons which shoot this size of ammunition have never been used to commit any crime. Simply put, they're too heavy and expensive, and the ammunition itself is sufficiently rare, that no street criminal would want to use one.
Why would anyone want to buy one? Why would a weapons collector want to buy an authentic Japanese katana for $10,000+? Why would a herpetologist own a king cobra, one of the most lethal snakes on earth? Why would a philatelist pay thousands of dollars for rare stamps? All four questions have essentially the same answer. If you don't know it, ask your neighbor who collects stamps, or maybe the one who's restoring a vintage Model-T Ford, or the one with that bizarre piece of modern artwork hanging over the mantle, bought from an unknown artist for a few thousand dollars.
The reasoning behind the law is to supposedly keep this weapon out of the hands of terrorists. Obviously, the people using this argument were ill-informed: the infamous Washington Sniper used a .223 calibur (standard NATO rounds) Bushmaster rifle, much cheaper, lighter, and easier to maintain than a rifle such as the Barret M95. True, as is claimed by proponents of the ban, a weapon such as the Barret could be used to shoot down an airplane. However, this is just about as likely as blinding the airplane's pilots with a laser (which, despite news articles to the contrary, is nigh impossible), or throwing a single nail into the street to specifically give your neighbor a flat tire.
Perhaps more telling is the fact that current owners of weapons such as the Barret must register their weapons. To bring up an old arguement against gun control and registration, when the French Government surrendered to Nazi Germany in World War II, the Germans just checked the gun registration records, and easily rounded up any potential "dissidents". Sure, but that was Nazi Germany, right? We're not about to be invaded by Germany, are we?
Well, wait a second- who must owners of 0.50-calibur rifles register with? The United States Department of Justice. Yes, the same folks who brought us the Patriot Act, and who our good friend Alberto "Fry-and-torture-'em" Gonzolas is about to step in and head. Do you still think it's a good idea to have American citizen's names on this roll call?