Yes, this question is really a gun control issue, but that section doesn’t get much attention, plus the members who frequent this section are more likely to be attuned to the issue I’m raising.
What is your assessment of the likelihood that bolt action rifles would become the target of antigun efforts in the US? And if they did, what would be the claimed rationale(s) for the efforts—other than just that they are guns and all guns are equally bad?
At one time I saw reference to “sniper” (bolt action) rifles in private ownership and the implication at least was that they were a menace to society just as semiautomatic rifles are commonly claimed to be today.
And if some possibly temporary sop would be offered to the countless owners who use their rifles for hunting, how would hunting rifles be differentiated from “sniper” rifles? I can think of a number of features myself that would distinguish between the two, just as many jurisdictions have attempted to describe “assault” rifles based on their features, but I’m curious what the rest of the membership thinks.
Closely allied to the rifles is the issue of scopesights. We already have many sights and even more innocuous accessories that are subject to ITAR restrictions, so could we see something similar domestically? Could we expect to see restrictions on smart sights for hunting? (Colorado, for example, restricts the use of illuminated reticles for hunting.)
(This question isn’t, BTW, about my personal anxieties, so although I appreciate your concern, I don’t require any reassuring words of the, “There, there; everything will be okay,” sort. It’s simply a question of how a ban on precision rifles and accessories might be justified to the public and what it would involve.)
“The terror of the Roman arms added weight and dignity to the moderation of the emperors. They preserved peace by a constant preparation for war; and while justice regulated their conduct, they announced to the nations on their confines, that they were as little disposed to endure, as to offer an injury.”
— Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
|Go ahead punk, make my day|
I think they would target "evil looking sniper rifles" first, ie ones with the latest tactical looking stocks, bipods, pistol grips, and adjustable stock portions. Threaded barrels, muzzle brakes, flash hiders, detachable magazines, etc, etc
If they had the gumption to look at scopes, evil features would be adjustable turrets, illumination, and other tactical features. Laser rangefinders, NVDs, etc, etc.
Anything that makes it not look like a simple bolt action, wood stocked rifle with a glossy fixed power scope.
Leftists raising the issue might be one way to engage the idiots that equate the second amendment to hunting rights. The ones that think targeting “evil rifles” as opposed to traditional hunting guns.
"Live every day as if it's going to be your last, and one day, you'll be right.”
It would not surprise me if the libs frame restrictions as LEO safety issues, claiming the HIGH POWER rifles fire bullets that will PENETRATE POLICE BODY ARMOR.
I think they start with calibers. First .50bmg (nobody needs that for hunting), then .338LM (same) then any of the .3xx magnum ones. Then the smaller ones. Backed on top of that would be 5 rnd mag restrictions so the removable mag bolts (think MRAD)go by by. Then no removable.
Lastly they could then do the whole registration thing on certain equipment (like high power scopes),NV, etc. etc.
It doesn't seem too hard since they are willing to confiscate AR's house to house. The facts that they sweep a few hunters into the mix certainly isn't going to bother any of these people.
“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”
Let's start with: You look down one end at something at the other end that might indicate where a shot would go. That shouldn't be legal. Duh. Yeah, right.
You can't truly call yourself "peaceful" unless you are capable of great violence. If you're not capable of great violence, you're not peaceful, you're harmless.
NRA Benefactor/Patriot Member
It will fall under the typically ignorant "common sense" arguments. Why does anyone need a rifle that can shoot out past 1000 yards? Nobody hunts at those distances, they'll say.
|quarter MOA visionary|
It's why we must oppose every little law in every way.
If "give 'em an inch - they'll take a mile" was ever more evident in our 2A rights it is here.
YES, even the 'bump-stock' ban was wrong even though we ALL know it is not a serious product.
Nevertheless they keep trying.
Now any bolt action is a Sniper Weapon.
More or less, this has been my thought as well. The uber evil "high powered" .50 pick-your-flavor caliber will be the focus of anti-gunners first (after they check off their wish list on higher priority items such as a ban on so-called assault weapon), with the caliber and feature dominoes falling from there.
Years ago I recall watching some sort of gun control hit piece on TV, in which video of a jet airliner took off while the narrator mentioned that the .50 caliber sniper rifle was capable of bringing down a passenger jet.
Possible...perhaps...but likely, no.
|Powered by Social Strata|