A better method of banning dangerous weapons of war

[CarinKaryn]

The major failing of the AWB was that it banned some weapons by name, and others by defining them as having certain characteristics or features. All a manufacturer had to do to evade the ban was change the name or slightly alter the existing weapon (for example by grinding off the bayonet mount) and the weapon (with the exact same killing power as before) was now legal.

The definition California is using to ban the .50 cal weapons of war also seems to fall into the same trap. As many of the gun nuts have pointed out, by altering one or two features of the bullet (for example, by making a .49 caliber bullet instead of .50) the ban can be legally avoided.

Here is the definition currently being used by California:

(26) As used in this section, a .50 BMG cartridge means a
cartridge that is designed and intended to be fired from a center
fire rifle and that meets the following criteria:
(A) It has an overall length of 5.54 inches from the base to the
tip of the bullet.
(B) The bullet diameter for the cartridge is from .510 to, and
including, .511 inch.
(C) The case base diameter for the cartridge is from .800 inch to,
and including, .804 inch.
(D) The cartridge case length is 3.910 inches.
(E) It is a centerfire cartridge of .50 caliber or .50 BMG.

How can we craft a bill that has the intended outcome – to ban large caliber, high power weapons from civilian ownership? I think we need a better definition, one that will be much harder to evade. I’ve got a much simpler way to define what would be banned and what would be ok for citizens to own. Ban by kinetic energy produced by the bullet.

Any bullet that produces over 5000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy as measured at the muzzle is BANNED.

This would allow handgun shooters of the .45 (a very popular size) to keep their bullets as the .45 pistol does not have the bullet weight or velocity to push it over the ft-lb energy limit. If a shooter wants to compensate for the small size of their own weapon buy firing larger bullets, for example a .46 or .50 or .51, fine, as long as the total energy of the bullet does not exceed 5000 ft-lbs. (if the size of the bullet is bigger, the speed of the bullet must be slower to stay under the 5000 ft-lb limit).

Black powder shooters (people who shoot 100 year old guns loaded by hand, instead of from a pre manufactured bullet) could still shoot their old rifles for hunting or target (these rifles are often large caliber, like .55 or ever .69) but their low velocity means low total energy also, so they would be not banned.

Using this system the high ENERGY bullets, the ones that can do the damage, like those sold to Osama and those in the arsenal of the Waco gun nuts, would be banned and no one would be able to evade the law by simply designing a .49 cal bullet that is in effect the same thing as the .50.

What does everyone think? How can we improve this definition?

[LibraLabSoldier]

1. Here is how we can improve things....

by getting you a better way to spend your time. The muzzle velocity, size of the round, ect...HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A WEAPONS LETHALITY, OR HOW IT IS USED. A PERSON HAS TO DECIDE HOW TO USE A WEAPON. WHY DONT YOU TRY TO WORK ON GETTING TOUGHER SENTENCES FOR CRIMES COMMITTED WITH A FIREARM?

[Worst Username Ever]

2. I like ice cream.

I'm just sayin.

[goju]

3. yummy

[CarinKaryn]

4. Thanks for your input!

:)

[Worst Username Ever]

7. And

I think your proposal makes sense. We will never ban guns (and frankly, I don't want to) but at least we can put limits on them. The distance a stray bullet can fly makes a huge difference, as does the damage a close-range bullet can do with the velocities you mentioned. I'd rather be shot in the shoulder by a .50 cal muzzle loaded that lose my entire arm to a Barret Light .50.

[MrBenchley]

11. Geeze our "pro gun democrats" are getting way snappish lately...

Guess they don't like getting their lethal toys banned in California...or having such a public champion as nutcase Alan Keyes sounding off on the noble cause.

[CarinKaryn]

5. Thanks for your input!

:)

[Lefty48197]

33. WHY DON'T YOU JUST SHUT UP?

That was a brilliant response. Are you running for Wayne LaPierre's job?

[goju]

6. And that 308 I have?

Is that NOT a "lethal" weapon, not even approaching 5000 ft lbs?

[CarinKaryn]

8. What ft-lb of energy does it produce?

Of course it's lethal.

Your 308 won't punch through the armoured limo of the president or a senator. A .50 cal will.

I don't even want to debate why bazookas or TOW missiles or .50 cal weapons should be banned - I'm just trying to figure out how to do it.

[goju]

20. Oh yes it will

It will go through damn near ANY armor made with the right ammunition and at the right distance. But I applaud your efforts. You are coming to understand just how slippery this slope is.

"I don't even want to debate why bazookas or TOW missiles or .50 cal weapons should be banned - I'm just trying to figure out how to do it."

I want to help. Here is the answer you seek. Gun controllers will NEVER be happy until every gun is out of the hands of citizens, regardless of the ballistics/cosmetics/names/ etc. "Lethality" or "stopping power" crap they pitch so frequently is nothing but a marketing tool used by gun grabbers to fool the frightened, ignorant masses, and you can tell from the uber intellectual quotes by our gun grabbers on this forum that their propagand works very well.

If you want to curb violence in society, attack the problem at its SOURCE. Dont waste time trying to regulate the tools of violence, just address the "causes" of violence and everything else will fall into place. And, you will have the support of those of us who uphold the constitution as non-negotiable rather than subject to the interpretation of the courts (2000 election, A not so subtle a reminder of the courts "apolitical" nature)

[Vladimir]

23. Any armour? Really?

So a 0.308 could penetrate an Abrams at the right distance?

[Jack_DeLeon]

45. Can a .50 cal?

no.

[Vladimir]

47. Was that my point?

He said any armour, I called him on it. When I make an assertion, feel free to call me on it too...

[goju]

63. You just did, I am calling you on it

"He said any armour"

Really? Is that what I said?

[Vladimir]

64. Ok, ok, you said damn near any armour

it was the bit where you capitalised the ANY which made me read from that point on...

[goju]

66. That is not uncommon with some of our happy gun grabbers

Selective reading 101. Dont take it personally, at least YOU can admit it.

[goju]

62. Read my post again

This time, try to read ALL the words

[Lefty48197]

35. This is the nonsense that earns the NRA members the "gun nut" label

The poster is talking about banning 50 cal center fire weapons, and your response is to say that,
"Gun controllers will NEVER be happy until every gun is out of the hands of citizens" shows that you don't even listen. My personal experience has been that listening is 1/2 of an intelligent conversation. Without it...

[MrBenchley]

36. Somebody last week mentioned the "biggest mistake gun controllers make"

which is obviously to think that our trigger happy chums are here in good faith...

[goju]

65. Ok, I will go slower, and with crayons this time

The poster said:

"I don't even want to debate why bazookas or TOW missiles or .50 cal weapons should be banned - I'm just trying to figure out how to do it."

Its quite apparant from that statement that s/he is not interested in "conversation". S/he is not going to entertain any discussion on "why" s/he wants to take guns away from citizens, only "how" s/he can do it effectively. I thought I would help clarify his/her brainwashing thought process, just in case s/he has any illusions about the goal of the gun grabbing club of which she has become a hapless member. S/he seemed genuinely concerned about gun control, but positively ignorant.

S/he has made the unfortunate choice of handing over his/her critical thinking skills to the likes of the VPC. I think its best s/he clearly understands their goals, dont you?

[Lefty48197]

74. Ok, I think I understand your position clearly now...

attempts to ban tow missiles and bazookas infringe upon your rights as an American Patriot right?
Of course, that still doesn't change the fact that you ignored the content of the post. Better resharpen your crayoln son.

[goju]

79. "I" didnt understand the post?

You better clean your glasses "son" LOL. Clearly the poster has shut down that part of his/her brain which might allow for re-evaluating his/her position on gun control. Am I to encourage that?

Im not here to help gun grabbers reach their goals "son". Im here to help gun grabbers understand the absurdity of their jihad.

[Lefty48197]

80. Well, when you're done with all of that

you can feel free to join us here on planet earth again.

[goju]

81. Well be specific, which one?

Are you referring to the planet earth where the VPC and Brady Regime spreads lies and propaganda, relying on the fear and ignorance of the masses, in order to further their fascist agenda? Or the planet earth where our constitutional rights are defended by a strong, educated and vocal citizenry that "understands" an infringement when they see one?

Which one are "you" on? Or are you not "permitted" to speak freely already?

[LibraLabSoldier]

9. A weapon has no choice if it is used for a lethal purpose.

Gee, how about some regulation...Oh, wait, .50 cals are some of the most expensive and heavily regulated weapons on the market. Did you realize that ammo for it costs up to 10 bucks a round? No? Did you also realize that the gun is huge, and very heavy, and would not be used to go "spraying through a school yard"? Quit blaming the guns for peoples criminal actions. That will go a long way to solving the problem. Then, we could actually try putting criminals in prison for a long enough period for it to actually be a detterrent. Just a though.

[MrBenchley]

13. Oh the poor little weapon...how tragic for it!

Why, I'm getting all misty at the though of these poor little misused weapons....accused and slandered by heartless liberals....



There, I'm over it.

"50 cals are some of the most expensive and heavily regulated weapons on the market. Did you realize that ammo for it costs up to 10 bucks a round?"
Wow, good thing Osama's not a billionaire and Al Qaeda's not funded by oil-rich Saudi Arabians...oh wait!

[Jack_DeLeon]

10. The best way to get rid of weapons of war...

is to ban war.

Instead of just trying to cure the symptoms lets cure the disease.

I propose that the US passes a federal law to ban war.

Once war is outlawed there will be no need for weapons of war.

[LibraLabSoldier]

12. Right after that,

the Pave the streets with gold project will begin.....

[MrBenchley]

15. Finally someone pimping the RKBA cause will say something honest

don't hold your breath, though...

[Jack_DeLeon]

46. actually...

I think its alot more likely that streets would be paved with gold before war and human violence was completely eradicated.

After all I'm sure someday we will be able to mine more gold from asteroids and whatnot, or make more with future technologies.

[FatSlob]

14. I think it's awful.

What's the purpose? Hi, let's ban stuff because, um, someday, somebody might think about doing illegal, um, stuff with it...and, um, that would be bad, so...um, let's ban them, so that, um, people won't, you know, do something bad.

[CarinKaryn]

17. In case you hadn't noticed, we already ban TOW missiles

and other weapons of war (and yes, I realize they are just heavily RESTRICTED by having a $200 per bullet tax placed on them but that is the same thing as a ban).

I'm just talking about placing a reasonable limit on these weapons instead of allowing anyone with money to get one. Same thing the state of Calif is trying to do.

[FeebMaster]

16. Congratulations

you managed to ban the .50 BMG and a bunch of hunting rounds. No other dangerous weapons of war, though.

"Any bullet that produces over 5000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy as measured at the muzzle is BANNED."

The problem with banning the bullet is that muzzle velocity is dependent on barrel length. What length barrel are you going to use when doing your tests to determine muzzle energy? Also, even if you ban the ammunition, the rifles will still be around and people will simply make their own ammunition.


How did you decide on 5000 ft-lbs anyway? Why not 6000? or 4000?



"What does everyone think? How can we improve this definition?"

I've explained a number of times how you can regulate .50 weapons, there's even a bill in the house and senate right now that has the basic idea for doing it right, although it goes about it in a moronic way.

Change the definition of destructive device from

any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes;

to

any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of one-half inch or more in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes;


Give people a month or two where you waive the $200 tax for registration and watch as all these law and order loving gun owners dutifully register their weapons. Later on you could pull a Reagan and ban the civilian manufacture of the .50 caliber weapons or if you want confiscate them at your leisure. You'll have the owners' names, addresses, pictures, fingerprints. Piece of cake.

Then once you've got the definition of destructive device set as a weapon with a bore a half inch or greater, it's a fairly simple matter to reduce that half inch to .45 caliber or .30 caliber or whatever. Don't forget to let people register them for free after each change, though.

[CarinKaryn]

18. Thanks for your input!

you managed to ban the .50 BMG and a bunch of hunting rounds.

Well that was the goal. What other hunting rounds produce that much energy?

What length barrel are you going to use when doing your tests to determine muzzle energy?
That's why I'm asking for your input. What length barrel is reasonable. I'd say a standard length rifle barrel. Tell us what that is.

the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of one-half inch or more in diameter
The problem with your definition (as the gun nuts pointed out) is that then someone will make a bullet that is .49 is size and thus evade the ban.
Doesn't my definition avoid that problem and simply ban the high powered weapons, without changing the definition by .01 inches every other week?

[FeebMaster]

21. It's my pleasure.

Well that was the goal. What other hunting rounds produce that much energy?

Big game cartridges mostly although a few smaller calibers might be inccluded if their muzzle velocity is high enough.


"That's why I'm asking for your input. What length barrel is reasonable. I'd say a standard length rifle barrel. Tell us what that is."

There is no standard length rifle barrel. Rifle barrels are 16" and up for our purposes here, since shorter than that is already NFA registered. I expect you'd have to use the longest barrel available or run tests on a number of barrels for each cartridge and just use the one with the highest velocity.


"The problem with your definition (as the gun nuts pointed out) is that then someone will make a bullet that is .49 is size and thus evade the ban."

That's only a problem for something like the California ban where they narrowly define what is being banned. While it's true someone may develop a .499 caliber cartridge to sidestep the regulations of .50 calibers, that doesn't really matter with my proposal, since the whole point is to continually lower the bore diameter in the definition of destructive device. If someone develops a .499, it will just get registered when you lower the DD definition to .45 caliber. By the time you get the definition down to .30 caliber, you'll have registered most of the rifles in the country. If you could push it down to .22 caliber, you'll have registered almost every gun in the country.

[CarinKaryn]

29. Thanks for helping to refine the definition.

well that was the goal. What other hunting rounds produce that much energy?
Big game cartridges mostly although a few smaller calibers might be inccluded if their muzzle velocity is high enough.
Unless someone can tell me explicitly, which cartridges should be EXCLUDED from my proposal and why, any thing exceeding my energy limit is banned.

For barrel length let's use 18" as a purely arbitrary number. Any cartridge exceeding my energy limit at the muzzel of a 18" barrel is banned.

We're not intending to ban all guns as your proposal to contiunally lesson the caliber diameter would do, just trying to set a reasonable limit on dangerous weapons. So I think that banning based on a maximum level of power is more reasonable that banning all the .50s, than .45s, than 40s as a .45 blackpowder flintlock doesn't present the same level of danger to the community as a .45 cal high powered rifle.

[Vladimir]

31. Thing is, different bulets bleed energy at different rates

for example, the 0.408 caliber used in the CheyTac Intervention rifle delivers more energy onto a target beyond 700 meters than the 0.50 caliber. Also, one has to consider the shape of the bullet because that will determine the area over which this energy is delivered. I like your proposal, but I don't think it will solve the problem you want to solve.

[CarinKaryn]

39. So we measure the energy at the muzzel of an 18inch barrel

How much of an effect does the bullet shape have on energy of the bullet?
Since we are measuring the energy befor the round impacts, the "pointyness" of the bullet wouldn't matter, would it?

If so, is it a matter of a percentage point up or down in the energy of the bullet? Enough to worry about at 6000 ft-lbs or not? If significant, let's just change the limit up or down a bit and bullet design will be a factor the manufacturer will have to consider when determining if a certain cartridge is legal to sell.

[Vladimir]

43. I don't know the details

but my point was that we will, if anything have to be conservative in the energy delivered at the muzzle. Say we put the limit at 5000, someone could design a bullet with a muzzle energy of 4500 which retains more of this energy beyond a certain distance than the 5000.

About the shape, I am not an expert on bullets or indeed guns but I would guess that if you deliver the same energy over a smaller surface area you will penetrate whatever you are hitting more easily. But I don't know.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

76. Here's some data for you

Hunting rounds, mostly African big game cartridges that exceed 5,000 ft/lbs of energy according to the Speer 50th Anniversary reloading manual:

.378 Weatherby Magnum - generates 5601 ft/lbs

Admittedly, my data is old enough that some of the newer big bore cartidges aren't listed, like some of the big Lapua Magnums and the necked down Weatherbies.

Regardless, there are numerous rounds generating 4,000+ ft/lbs easily. All one needs is a long enough barrel and these rounds will likely surpass 5,000. Some won't be practical, some would be though.

Bullet design plays a major role in exterior ballistics. Bullet diameter, length and shape all play a role in defining the efficieny of a bullet in flight, known as the Ballistic Coefficient (BC), a measurement of a bullet's drag in flight. Spitzer (pointy) bullets have a higher BC that flat nosed bullets, all else being equal. Heavier bullets usually have a higher BC than lighter bullets of the same caliber. Length of a bulelt also contributes.

For example, I could have two bullets of exactly the same weight, fired at exactly the same velocity. If one was a large caliber, short, flat pointed bullet and one was a smaller caliber, longer spitzer; the spitzer will be moving faster at 500 yards and, therefore, retain more energy at that distance. In fact as distance increases, so does this disparity in favor of the more efficient bullet design.

I'm sorry. I don't think that you will be able to pick a muzzle energy number and have it be hugely meaningful. When penetration of armor is considered, the composition of the actual bullet can and will make more of a difference than muzzzle energy. Though it would be illegal to do so, custom making some bullets on a lathe out of a solid, hard metal like steel or solid copper could cause a rather anemic cartridge to penetrate much more armor than it should. All without coming close to 5,000 fy/lbs of energy. An hour or two on a machine lathe turning out some armor piercing bullets wouldn't be a huge setback for someone looking to pierce the armor on something, an already illegal act anyway.

IMHO, there just isn't a simple solution such as the one you are proposing.

[MrSandman]

77. Introducing Facts?

[FeebMaster]

49. I'm happy to help.

Unless someone can tell me explicitly, which cartridges should be EXCLUDED from my proposal and why, any thing exceeding my energy limit is banned.

Well other than the .50 and maybe it's russian equivalent, which I don't think is very popular in the US and may already be a DD since it's a bit over .50 caliber, pretty much all of the weapons that would be affected are used for hunting. Mostly big game hunting and most of it not in the United States.

Specifically, most of the Nitro Express cartridges probably produce over 5000 ft-lbs. Some of the .338s might be close. Some of the Weatherby Magnums. I don't know really, I don't particularly care to look them all up.


For barrel length let's use 18" as a purely arbitrary number. Any cartridge exceeding my energy limit at the muzzle of a 18" barrel is banned.

Any number you pick is a purely arbitrary number. Using 18" may exclude some cartridges on the edge of the envelope, since a shorter barrel is almost always going to result in a lower muzzle velocity. If you want to use a single barrel length, I'd make it at least 24" or even 26".

Really it would depend on whether you were banning the cartridges or banning the weapons. If you were banning the cartridge, you could just use one long barrel length. If you were banning the weapons you'd have to test all the barrel lengths.

We're not intending to ban all guns as your proposal to continually lesson the caliber diameter would do, just trying to set a reasonable limit on dangerous weapons. So I think that banning based on a maximum level of power is more reasonable that banning all the .50s, than .45s, than 40s as a .45 blackpowder flintlock doesn't present the same level of danger to the community as a .45 cal high powered rifle.

Come now, let's be honest here. You have, in the past, advocated banning bolt action .30 caliber rifles as weapons of war, after all. Let's also not forget the propaganda coming out of the pro-gun control side exaggerating the power of the .223 cartridge. My proposal doesn't ban anything, it would register .50 caliber weapons initially and smaller calibers after that. Banning them would come later, if that's what the pro-control side wanted.

Black powder muzzle loaders aren't currently regulated as firearms so wouldn't be effected by either of our proposals.

I'm not sure banning them by power is going to be effective. There are too many variables involved. Barrel length, bullet weight, powder charge. If you just ban the cartridges, that's not going to necessarily stop people from buying the weapons and reloading those cartridges unless you make that illegal too. If you ban the weapon you're probably going to end up with some weird situations with some calibers where a rifle with an 18" barrel is legal but a rifle with a 20" barrel isn't. If you just ban the weapons, the cartridges could still be produced. If you ban both, then some weapons that are still legal based on barrel length will be unable to get ammunition.

On top of all of that, I think it would be far more difficult to pass a ban on a bunch of rifles, even not particularly popular ones, than it would be to register them now and maybe ban them down the road. When the ATF decided that Street Sweepers and Striker-12 shotguns had to be registered as destructive devices, there was hardly a whimper about it, at least that I recall. Granted, none of those shotguns were massively popular even at the time. The key to my proposal is that you allow the weapons to be registered for free for a couple of months. Waiving the chief law enforcement office sign off probably wouldn't be a bad idea either during that free registration period. You basically give the current owners no reason not to register their guns.

If you ban rifles that have a certain muzzle energy your options are to tell people who currently own them to turn them in or grandfather the currently owned ones. Telling people to turn their guns in is probably a bad idea. It's going to generate massive backlash from the NRA and all of the other gun groups. It's exactly what they've been saying the Democrats are trying to do for years. Grandfathering them doesn't get rid of the ones that are currently out there, and there are quite a few of them out there. There will be a rush to buy more if it looks like your ban is going to pass too. Banning the cartridges doesn't stop reloaders.

My proposal, on the other hand, registers them all. It doesn't stop them from being sold, other than in places that don't allow destructive device ownership. There will be a few hold outs who don't register them, of course. They'll bury them or whatever, but they might as well be confiscated if they're buried away where no one can use them. As long as you make the initial registration process as painless as possible, you can minimize the number of people who won't comply.

[LibraLabSoldier]

22. How about this

You maybe try to find a subject you actually have done some research on to get involved with. Have you ever fired a gun? Have you ever seen a gun outside of a Hollywood movie? I seriously doubt that you have. There is no "standard" size rifle barrel. There are many, many rifles for many different LEGAL uses. So why dont you just make it easy on yourself, and try to get all the SCARY guns banned before us SCARY GUN NUTS might maybe possibly consider maybe doing something that might be illegal.

[MrBenchley]

25. us SCARY GUN NUTS

Ahem...

"LibraLabSoldier
66. Simple, I dont.
My children have been taught gun safety and responsibility since they were 18 months old. They know to treat all guns as loaded, and guns are not toys. It is really not that difficult to raise your kids to understand this. Besides, my shotgun that stays under my bed is difficult for even my wife to operate, much less one of the kids.

LibraLabSoldier
69. My kids
Are aged 7 and 3. "


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=80606&mesg_id=80606&page=

[CarinKaryn]

34. How about you keeping quiet unless you have an informed opinion.

I've done quite a bit of research on this, and am quite knowledgable on firearms in general. You obviouly have no clue about which you speak.

As stated elsewhere, 16" is the minimum for a rifle barrel that can be sold over the counter. So that can be considered "standard."

I've already stated that 18" sounds reasonable to use for purposes of this definition. If you have a different idea let's hear it, otherwise....have a nice day. :)

[LibraLabSoldier]

37. If you have done your research, please cite your sources.

I am curious to see where you got the idea that this would solve anything except harrass law abiding people. .22 cal is used in the bulk of crime, to include murder and suicide. So why ban the .50? Does is just scare you, or something?

[CarinKaryn]

44. Your spewing makes no sense

I've stated the goal of the proposal initially: develop a definition that will ban powerful weapons as an replacement to Calif's weak definition.

Your rudeness just detracts from your credibility and your nonresponseiveness to specific questions makes it obvious that you are a one issue voter.

Let me guess. You are voting against Sen Kerry because you feel the 2nd Amend is more important?

[Vladimir]

48. I'm afraid our intrepid freedom fighter

won't be able to respond to that... shame really, it was getting sort of charming towards the end.

[CarinKaryn]

51. Another way of wording it:

He's voting FOR the shrub because he thinks the shrub supports the RKBA.

[FeebMaster]

53. Lot's of people are voting for Bush because they think

he supports the RKBA. They're just fooling themselves. There are lots of people who aren't voting for Bush but still claim he supports the RKBA. The dungeon is full of them.

[MrBenchley]

54. Then there are "pro gun democrats" voting for pResident Turd because...

Oh that's right...they never did come out and say...but we can guess...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=72427

[FeebMaster]

55. Yeah I remember that poll.

Of course, we don't know who voted for the Bush option in that poll. Could have been trolling Republicans or whiny gun grabbers for all we know.

[MrBenchley]

56. Gee, feeb....

It's only the gun nuts who have no compunction about pretending to be something they're not....

[FeebMaster]

57. Of course.

All gun owners are racists, after all.

[MrBenchley]

58. And I'm supposed to dispute that because....

[FeebMaster]

59. Why would you dispute it? (nt)

[MrBenchley]

60. Gee, feeb...why did you say it?

[FeebMaster]

61. Because you said

"It's only the gun nuts who have no compunction about pretending to be something they're not...."

[MrBenchley]

67. And its clear they don't....

Of course, your response makes no sense in that context...

[FeebMaster]

68. Sure it does. (nt)

[Lefty48197]

38. This is the NRA, "Why don't you just shut up" argument #4B

You don't know as much about guns as me, so you should shut up.
That's what the oil industry tells us too, "You don't know as much about oil as us, so why don't you just leave all the regulation to us?"
Sorry dude, we're not going to shut up. Get over it.

[MrBenchley]

41. Yes, but if only you actually SHOT a gun...

You too would be seized with an overwhelming feeling that would make you realize that those hundreds of thousands of Americans shot each year is just an excuse for liberals to take your penis, er, gun away from you...

At leat that seems to be what this idiotic "you never shot a gun" argument amounts to.

[skippythwndrdog]

75. What other hunting rounds produce that much energy?

Two come to mind. I own one of them.

The Weatherby .460, which is commonly used for big game, usually Alaskan Browns, bison, and African big game, regularly produces muzzle energies in excess of 7,000 ft. lbs.
http://www.weatherby.com/rifles/ball_460.shtml

The Winchester .458 also commonly produzes muzzle energies in excess of 5,000 ft. lbs.
http://www.cpcartridge.com/458win-B.htm

Both are effective rounds for big game. Neither are generally under attack by the control troops. Why? I have no idea.

Personally, I'd prefer to see no bans on any rifles, handguns, or shotguns. I also prefer no registration or licensing (read tax and registration) for any firearm - including select fire arms.

[MrBenchley]

19. That sounds like a pretty good start to me...

[slackmaster]

24. Good to see someone thinking outside of the box

You seem to have developed an understanding of the kinds of unintended consequences that make most gun control schemes fail to achieve their intended results. It's painfully obvious that (assuming AB50 gets signed into law) gun makers will immediately start producing .49 or .499 caliber rifles that fall just outside of the definition of .50 BMG, and just an aside here: They will do so because there is a DEMAND for powerful rifles. Banning things does not address demand for those things, so people almost always find ways around bans.

You've even stated the goal clearly, i.e. "to ban large caliber, high power weapons from civilian ownership", but IMO your solution is begging for a problem. More unlawful shootings are done with the humble .22 Long Rifle than any other caliber; I believe that little round has been used for more murders by far than any other.

If it could be shown that it was in the public's interest to limit the destructive potential of firearms, a physical limit on muzzle energy would be one way to accomplish that goal.

[LibraLabSoldier]

26. Personally, I would prefer

that these so called crime control measures actually controlled crime.Maybe if the concentration of wealth was progressing so rapidly, the people at the bottom wouldnt feel that the only way to get their peice of the pie is to take a gun and take it by force.

[slackmaster]

27. I believe most people who commit robbery are seeking money for drugs

Narcotics (e.g. heroin) or amphetamines.

If those were legalized or decriminalized (no matter how repulsive that idea sounds to some of us including myself) it would go a long way toward reducing the motivation of some people to steal from others.

[LibraLabSoldier]

30. I agree.

Not to mention the added benefits to the government on regulatory monies...and the decreased mortality from turfwars, robberies, and adulterated product....But if you address the root cause of crime, you address the root cause of addiction and urban decay as well. Address the hopelessness of poverty and lack of education, and many of these other things will reduce.

[Lefty48197]

40. add cocaine to your list, and full funded drug rehab for everybody that

wants it, and I'll be in agreement with you.

[slackmaster]

42. Yes, cocaine too

And pretty much anything else classified as Schedule I or II right now.

[MrBenchley]

28. "gun makers will immediately start"

And of course, they bear no responsibility whatsoever...and cannot be faulted by our "pro gun democrats" for deliberately evading a law and continuing to create a public menace. For the first law of the gungeon is "Nothing must ever threaten to impact gun industry profits."

"More unlawful shootings are done with the humble .22 Long Rifle"
And I'm sure slack will be rushing to produce proof of this peculiar claim any minute now just like he did last ti...oh, that's right, he failed to do so then...

[DavidMS]

50. What about Crystal Meth?

Banning weapons by KE @ the muzzle is an intresting idea, however I feel that it would be better to do somthing like this:

1. Improve the Criminal Justice system so that economicaly the prisions empty (because the criminal justice system is set up with rehab and reentry in mind for first time offenders). There was a paper on the economics of crime and punishment: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040812.html

2. Drug Tratment on Demand (see above)

3. Agressive enforcement of child abouse / spousal abouse laws.

4. Weight 20 years for a new generation that has been socialized to be less anti-socialy agressive.

[MrBenchley]

52. What ABOUT Crystal Meth?

Again, it's truly wonderful that our pro gun democrats are willing to take any step, no matter how drastic, as long as it's something that doesn't threaten gun industry profits...or hold them accountable for their actions...

"Weight 20 years for a new generation"
Uh-huh...and meantime, let's just shrug our shoulders and mutter to ourselves about how wrong it would be to assign the gun industry and it's scummy practices any responsiblity whatsoever for the Americans shot over those 20 years....

[Lefty48197]

32. The center fire stipulation already allows the black powder 50 cals.

.

[MrSandman]

69. What is the difference between evasion and compliance?

one that will be much harder to evade.

[MrBenchley]

70. That's easy....

People who are decent, honorable citizens strive for the common good and obey the law....they don't hunt out tiny loopholes and continue to behave in a manner soceity has proscribed.

A savage cares for nothing but his own selfish greed. He seeks out ways to evade the law through technicalities, regardles sof the risk to others.

There's a reason Smith & Wesson's chairman was an armed robber and Reverend Moon owns a gun factory...and it's the same reason these scumbags are the nexus of the RKBA cause....

[minavasht]

71. You can ban the SALE

of such bullets, but what about the people who load their ammo?
If your "post-ban" .50 is 4999ft/lbs, how do you stop somebody from adding a little more powder?

[MrBenchley]

78. Koresh knows

no gun owner would ever do anything as wild-eyed and crazy as obey a law....or anything.

[MrSandman]

72. Better get rid of optical sighting systems...

With a scope, a slightly-trained monkey could shoot 4 MOA groups at 100 yds.

[RoeBear]

73. If it's to be done...

..your idea is better than the California legislature's idea.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

82. I found some better data on factory loadings

Here are the factory loadings I have found that would be banned according to a 5,000 foot pound muzzle energy cap. Data is from the 2004 Shooter's Bible Ballistics tables of factory loaded ammunition.

Caliber - Muzzle energy (ft/lbs)

.338 Lapua - 5223
.338-378 Weatherby Magnum - 5197
8.59 Titan - 5336
.338 A-Square - 5440
.338 Excaliber - 5863
.416 Dakota - 5330
.416 Weatherby - 6474
10.57 Meteor - 6621
.425 Express - 5115
.458 Winchester Magnum - 5088
.458 Lott - 5872
.450 Ackley - 5947
.460 Short A-Square - 6501
.450 Dakota - 6663
.460 Weatherby Magnum - 7504
.470 Nitro Express - 5132
.470 Capstick - 6394
475 #2 - 5158
.475 Jeffry - 5373
.495 A-Square - 6989
.500 Nitro Express - 5850
.500 A-Square - 8127
.505 Gibbs - 6166
.577 Nitro Express - 6998




These are loads that are extremely close to the cap, and could easily pass the cap with careful ahndloading:

Caliber - Muzzle energy (ft/lbs)

.300 Pegasus - 4896
7.82 Warbird - 4808
.358 STA - 4959
.450 Nitro Express - 4952
.500/.465 - 4926

Two dozen hunting calibers go bye bye in addition to the .50 BMG. Five more are close enough to be handloaded past the cap. Keep in mind that this is a partial list as well, as my data does not include calibers such as the .577 Tyrannosaur as the bore diameter makes it illegal in the US.

If you are looking to ban just the .50 BMG, set your cap at 11,500 foot pounds. The military loading for the .50 BMG generate 12,000 foot pounds of energy.

[CarinKaryn]

83. Thanks - I'd ban all of these.

and would consider lowering the ft-lb limit to also ban the last group of bullets that approach the 5k cap.

As you state, the .577 Tyrannosaur is banned in the US, for good reason. Your list is a perfect example of how the AWB and .50 cal ban have/will fail. I'm simply recommending a more rational method of removing dangerous weapons from society than banning a specific caliber by name.

Anyone who wants to travel to Africa to kill big animals there can also buy the ammo there. Any hunter in the US can easily find a bullet/gun combination that will kill the animal without resorting to anything on the "banned bullet" list.

[FatSlob]

84. I'd want something that powerful...for Grizzlies and Polar Bears.

Maybe even buffalo too.

[CarinKaryn]

88. You have all the gun you need

already available to you without using anything on the banned list. My proposal does not ban weapons commonly used for sport or hunting big game in North America. It only sets a sensible upper limit on the power available to the individual shooter and avoids the problem of manufactures making slightly different weapons with different names as they did when evading the AWB.

[FatSlob]

92. Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

I find that your proposal has no point, excepting the "slippery slope". I find that your proposal would be an unnecessary infringement of freedom. I find your proposal to be a solution seeking a problem. I find it to be imposing upon law-abiding citizens. I find it to be against the interests of personal freedom. I find the proposal, while proposed with good intentions, is wholly without merit. Carin, there isn't a problem, please don't invent one.

[slackmaster]

93. FatSlob has expressed my opinion precisely

"...a solution seeking a problem...."

:toast:

[CarinKaryn]

98. Sorry boys, find new toys.

The problem, and the solution, have already beed identified, defined and debated.

California thinks these instruments do not belong in polite society and is taking steps to ban the high powered bunker busters. I just think my METHOD of doing so is more likely to eliminate the guns without immediately being drilled by hundred's of loopholes.

[MrSandman]

99. High Powered Bunker Busters...

I hear VPC needs copy editors...

[slackmaster]

103. No, CarinKaryn - You have not identified a real problem

Present law limits it (by defining any firearm over .50 caliber that fires fixed ammunition as a destructive device, and imposes restrictions similar to those for automatic weapons.

If it was in the public interest to limit the muzzle energy of firearms to some level lower than present law has done, your approach would be reasonable.

You have completely skipped the identification stage for your "problem".

[CarinKaryn]

105. I guess you didn't notice...

California is banning .50 cals.

I'm not interested in debating the "problem" as they have already id'ed the problem and are well past that. They are now working on a solution. My method of banning based on energy produced by the loaded cartridte avoids those who will evade their flawed definition.

I get the feeling you know this already and just want to argue.
You're in Calif, right?

[slackmaster]

109. The California legislature does a lot of silly, pointless things

Some of the same members of our state Senate and Assembly who are pushing for a ban on .50 BMG rifles supposedly to prevent them from being used in "terrorist" attacks is pushing a bill to give driver's licenses that are indistinguishable from those issued to legal residents to illegal aliens. That will make it trivially easy for illegal aliens to buy guns in California.

I'm not interested in debating the "problem" as they have already id'ed the problem and are well past that....

The .50 BMG ban bill failed two years in a row in the Senate Public Safety Committee, which of course is 2/3 Democratic, after owners and shooters of actual .50 BMG rifles presented a rational case against the bill. This year it got jammed through with no public discussion; IMO a perversion of the adversarial process.

It makes no logical sense to extrapolate that a problem exists based on the behavior of the California state legislature.

[CarinKaryn]

111. Thanks for supporting the Dems!

forming 2/3 of Senate Public Safety Committee, and their PERVERSION of the adversarial process.

It's great to have you on our side!

[slackmaster]

113. Maybe you mis-read what I wrote

Two years in a row the Senate Public Safety Committee with a 2/3 Democratic majority REJECTED AB50 after hearing both sides of the issue in public debate.

This year, in the absense of any debate they heard only the opinions of the bill's author Senator Paul Koretz, who has been pushing the bill as one of his pet issues for three years in a row.

Of course they did what their fellow Democratic Senator wanted. This year's committee has only heard his viewpoint on the issue.

[iverglas]

145. that's so lame

"Some of the same members of our state Senate and Assembly who are pushing for a ban on .50 BMG rifles supposedly to prevent them from being used in "terrorist" attacks is pushing a bill to give driver's licenses that are indistinguishable from those issued to legal residents to illegal aliens. That will make it trivially easy for illegal aliens to buy guns in California."

And amazingly, we've been through it all before.

Back last September it was, when you first threw it out; lucky I have such a good memory ... and a gold star:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=9086

slackmaster:
Possession of a valid driver license is adequate under federal law to establish residency. Now the California driver license does not necessarily mean someone is a legal resident. It's a terrible mistake IMO."

iverglas:
The mistake lies in allowing driver's licences to be used for identification for this purpose. The fed. govt. has no control over who gets a driver's licence -- obviously -- so should not incorporate them in its legislation as proof of legal residence, which is a federal and not state jurisdiction.

... There never *was* a legitimate "connection between having a California Driver License and being a US citizen or resident alien", if you ask me. ... How about a simple solution -- like driver's licence (or whatever other form of picture ID a state might offer) to establish identity, PLUS social security number to establish legal residence?

The "problem" you identified was NOT the fault of the California legislators. They have jurisdiction over the issuance of licences to drive on the public highways of California, and they exercised that jurisdiction entirely properly.

The actual problem appeared to be that some entirely different level of government has apparently chosen to recognize a state-issued driver's licence as proof of legal permanent residence, which it is not and has never been. That decision is not under the jurisdiction of the California legislature, and was essentially stupid in the first place.

But in fact, in that thread you went on to research further, and to point out that a driver's licence is NOT "adequate under federal law to establish residency" for purchasing a firearm; that proof is made by way of affidavit. The driver's licence (photo ID) is offered as proof of IDENTITY, not of permanent residence/entitlement to acquire a firearm.

And yet here you are, dragging this old news back up again here, and acting as if the Democrats in the California legislature have caused some great big problem, when all they have done is exercise their jurisdiction over the issuance of driver's licences in a perfectly reasonable and decent way.

So it looks like you'll just have to find some other example of the "lot of silly, pointless things" that the California legislature allegedly does.

(typo fixed)

[slackmaster]

147. CA Driver's License is the ONLY acceptable form of ID for gun purchase

But in fact, in that thread you went on to research further, and to point out that a driver's licence is NOT "adequate under federal law to establish residency" for purchasing a firearm;

Whoop-dee-shit Iverglas. Maybe you should write a letter to the BATFE and let them know the state of California accepts its Driver's License as de facto proof of residence. If you don't have one you can't buy a gun here. A US Passport is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

...that proof is made by way of affidavit.

Yes, the buyer's signature on a one-part paper form that gets filed in the dealer's records and stays there unless it gets subpoenaed or the dealer goes out of business.

The driver's licence (photo ID) is offered as proof of IDENTITY, not of permanent residence/entitlement to acquire a firearm....

I don't know how this could be made any clearer:

- If you have a California Driver's License and a US taxpayer ID number (which anyone can get easily) and you aren't on record as being a prohibited person, you can buy a gun in California.

- If you don't have a California Driver's License you cannot buy a gun in California.

[iverglas]

150. lemme see ... how this could be made clearer

First:

If you don't have a California Driver's License you cannot buy a gun in California.

-- gimme a fucking break. I didn't get a driver's licence until I was 27 years old. Even then, I only got it so that I could write cheques for retail purchases, which my "Barrister and Solicitor" business card wasn't much assistance for. (That was long before we had things like debit cards, even in my city, which was one of 3 Canadian cities that were first in North America to have those things.)

Are you seriously telling me that a person who chooses not to obtain a licence to drive a vehicle on the public highways of the state CANNOT buy a gun in that state? I would have had to learn how to drive, and pass a driving test, in order to purchase a firearm??

Forgive me if I don't believe that. It's too absurd.


Second:

If you have a California Driver's License and a US taxpayer ID number (which anyone can get easily) and you aren't on record as being a prohibited person, you can buy a gun in California.

-- under what law?

Your entire thesis in the previous thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=9086
appeared to relate to the requirements under US federal law for purchasing a firearm (e.g. the BATF form you reproduced, relating to someone living in Texas).

So let ME make this clearer:

- If the law under which a driver's licence is regarded as proof of legal residence, for the purposes of purchasing a firearm, is a US FEDERAL law, then it's the morons who made THAT law you should be pointing your finger at, since a driver's licence is obviously NOT proof of legal residence in the US under the laws of California, the govt of which has jurisdiction over driver's licences but NOT over immigration status in the US.

- If the law under which a driver's licence is regarded as proof of legal residence, for the purposes of purchasing a firearm, is a CALIFORNIA law, then you have a point.

Now maybe you can make your answer clearer, simply by identifying which of the above two possibilities is in fact a fact.


Maybe you should write a letter to the BATFE and let them know the state of California accepts its Driver's License as de facto proof of residence. If you don't have one you can't buy a gun here. A US Passport is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

You appear to be talking about some California law regarding the purchasing of firearms in California.

Of course a passport is not proof of legal residence in California, if that is what California requires -- i.e. proof of legal residence in the state, and not merely proof of legal residence in the United States.

The plain and obvious fact is that a California driver's licence is not proof of legal residence in the state of California, where "legal residence" means "legally admitted to the US as an immigrant or temporary resident and domiciled in California", which are what I assume to be the twin issues.

Apparently, to acquire a firearm in California, one must be both legally admitted to the US as an immigrant or temporary resident and domiciled in California.

A California driver's licence has never been proof of the former, because California does not have jurisdiction to grant such status or to make a determination of such status. How much clearer could THIS be made??

If you are saying that the California govt did/does accepts its own driver's licence as proof of legal residence status in the US, for any purpose including firearms purchases, then the California legislature would have been an ass long before it changed the rules to allow "illegal aliens" to obtain driver's licences.

If you are saying that the US federal govt did/does accept a state driver's licence as proof of legal residence status in the US, then the US govt is the ass.

I really wish you'd make this clear.

[slackmaster]

153. I read just up to your first misunderstanding

Are you seriously telling me that a person who chooses not to obtain a licence to drive a vehicle on the public highways of the state CANNOT buy a gun in that state? I would have had to learn how to drive, and pass a driving test, in order to purchase a firearm??

Pardon me for trying to keep my reply brief.

Here is a complete list of the only acceptable forms of identification for gun buyers in California:

- California Driver License
- California ID Card
- US military ID.

The California ID Card is issued by the state Department of Motor Vehicles for non-drivers. A US military ID would never be issued intentionally to an illegal alien.

I've lived in California most of my life and have bought many firearms here. As a gun collector and owner I have to be aware of applicable laws in order to stay out of trouble.

Please see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=12001-13000&file=12070-12086 - All of the licencing requirements for gun sellers, ID requirements for buyers, procedures, etc. are described there in detail.

- If the law under which a driver's licence is regarded as proof of legal residence, for the purposes of purchasing a firearm, is a US FEDERAL law, then it's the morons who made THAT law you should be pointing your finger at...

The federal requirement for proof of legal residence consists only of an affidavit as you mentioned earlier. The state of California decided what it would accept as acceptable ID for people buying guns here.

Are you now bashing the Democratically controlled California state legislature? They wrote the entire Penal Code. :D

If you are saying that the California govt did/does accepts its own driver's licence as proof of legal residence status in the US, for any purpose including firearms purchases, then the California legislature would have been an ass long before it changed the rules to allow "illegal aliens" to obtain driver's licences.

Yes, you are bashing the California legislature. But under PRESENT law it is not possible for an illegal alien to obtain any of the three types of ID acceptable for buying a gun. It seems to me likely that a terra-ist bent on causing mayhem and destruction in the Golden State would likely not be a legal US resident. Remember, several of the 19 9/11 hijackers were here on EXPRIRED visas.

BTW - It's not as dire as you've painted it here. To obtain a California Driver License or ID card today you have to provide proof of legal residence - A birth certificate, student visa, work permit, etc. So although the Driver License isn't a perfect primary form of ID, it's considered good enough for bank accounts.

I work for a company that does defense work. As part of my security check I had to provide proof that I am legally eligible to work in the USA. The Canadian company of which my employer is a subsidiary cheerfully accepted my California Driver License. I offered to show them a US Passport but they didn't want to look at it.

If you are saying that the US federal govt did/does accept a state driver's licence as proof of legal residence status in the US, then the US govt is the ass.

The whole system is messed up, and the California legislature is working hard to make it even worse through their misguided attempt to pander to Hispanic voters.

[FatSlob]

146. Why don't you tell us what the problem is?

Or are you unable to?

[slackmaster]

148. She's given the same LAME answer several times already

The California legislature has moved to ban them, therefore there must be a good reason to ban them.

:dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

[CarinKaryn]

149. You are absolutely correct

I'm not addressing the root of the problem, only its solution. As Mr. Slack says, that issue has been discussed and debated by the CA legs and they have decided to ban the Bunker Buster.

I'm only addressing a better method of defining these types of weapons than the one the CA legs has come up with, in order to prevent a bunch of weapons with similar characteristics, but different names (the bunker breaker, bunker blaster, bunker banger,etc.) from being developed in order to evade the law.

So please, no more discussion on what the problem is, or if one REALLY exists. This thread was started to discuss the most logical way of defining the weapons that are to be banned.

The banning itself, is a done deal. :toast:

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

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

[Inbetween]

85. What purpose would this ban serve?

Carin,

Could you please explain why this is necessary? Our elected officials are in session for only limited time, and you seem to be trying to use that limited time to legislate away a caliber that is almost 100% in use by long range target shooters.

I understand that this caliber is MORE effective on armored vehicles, but as the last two attempted Presidential assissinations were performed with .22 revolvers, how pressing could this possibly be?


Also, do you believe such a ban would prevent a machinist or smuggler from getting around it, if they wished? Even basic machine lathe skills would be all that's required to make a .99 caliber anti-tank rifle, if some terrorist wanted to bother. But that's only if someone wants to go to that kind of trouble; there are lot's of other easier and cheaper ways of killing one person than huge bore rifles.

[CarinKaryn]

89. As previoulsy stated,

CA is already getting the ban. My proposal only seeks to write a bill that can't easily be evaded or loopholed away as the AWD ban was.

CA already has a junk gun ban on cheap 22s.

I don't for one second think that you believe people will be making anti-tank guns in their garage. Sorry, you are just spewing.

[MrSandman]

96. The slope is getting slippery...

...would consider lowering the ft-lb limit to also ban the last group of bullets that approach the 5k cap.

[CarinKaryn]

97. Not a slippery slope

We're trying to set a dividing line between what is ok and what is not. It's as arbitrary as saying age 18, ok-17, not; 55mph ok-56 not.

[MrSandman]

101. You established 5000...

now lower to what, 4500 to close loopholes. What about those in the 4000 to 4500 range that could be wildcatted to 4600?

[MrSandman]

86. Weapons of War?

Wouldn't this miss the deadly 5.56, 7.72, 9mm?

[goju]

87. Not to mention a whole host of...

more likely weapons used for terrorist activities.

The way I see it, if terrorists are willing to spend the time and money learning to fly airplanes, with all that it entails, they wont be stopped by a gun regulation.

[MrSandman]

90. Why did the Chechens...

Bother with HE instead of standing off with a pair of Barretts?

[MrSandman]

91. Chechens and al Qaeda...

or so the news reported this AM.

[happyslug]

94. Does this bill ban .50 BMG Ammo or weapons that uses the ammo?

This is important, for if the ammo is what is banned than all you have to do is buy some sub-caliber ammunition. The US Army developed one in the 1970s for the Browning Machine Gun (BMG), it was a 7.62mm round with a Nylon sheath that permitted it to be used in .50 caliber weapons. The purpose of the round was to INCREASE penetration. The 7.62 sub caliber round would be a good bit lighter than a regular .50 caliber round and being pushed out of a .50 caliber barrel you have increase speed (thus increase penetration). Once the bullet is outside the barrel the nylon sheath would Peel away and you have a super fast bullet (Tank Projectiles use this same technology to increase the penetration of their own guns, the Nylon Sheath is called a "Discarding Sabot" in military lingo). The US Army seems to have dropped the round more do to having to change the sights on the .50 whenever the sub-caliber round was used than in anything wrong with the round itself (The sub-caliber round had a flatter trajectory than the regular .50 caliber round and thus to hit anything the sights on the Machine gun had to be changed whenever you changed between the two types of ammo).

Thus if the .50 caliber round is banned you can still use the same weapons but just produce a more lethal round (The .50 caliber Rifles being used today tend to use telescopic sights and once zeroed in for a particular round tend to use that round. If a new round is used the rifle is re-zeroed for that round. Thus the change in trajectories is less a factor in such rifles than it was for the .50 Caliber M2 Machine gun based on how each weapon is generally used).

My point here is if this is a ban on Ammo, than it is easy to bypass and maybe with a more lethal round. You can bypass the ban and do not even change the weapon.

Now if this is a ban on a WEAPON that an FIRE such a round, than you run into more difficulties. For example the British during the early days of WWII used .55 caliber bolt action rifle as their main anti-tank weapon (it was affective against the tanks of the mid to late 1930s but not the tanks of WWII, and less effective as WWII continued) Nonetheless such rifles were sold at surplus after WWII. In the USA these were re-barreled from .55 caliber to .50 BM not so much do to the greater access to .50 BMG ammunition but that the .55 caliber round exceeded the limits set forth in the 1968 Federal Gun Control Act (and to avoid that ban, these guns tended to be re-barreled to .50 caliber).

Thus if the ban is against the weapon, all one has to do is re-barrel the rifle to some sort of "necked down" .50 caliber. Most users of such rifles tend to reload (Ammunition is expensive so it is one way to cut costs) so making the ammunition to a "necked down" is not going to be that much more expensive than re-loading .50 BMG is today.

Thus the situation, this law can be bypassed by the simple means of re-barreling the rifle to a round based on the .50 BMG round but necked down to below legal limit in a barrel designed for that necked down round. Given the prices of such rifles (Starting at $2100 +) the additional costs of a new barrel and re-loading dies will NOT add excessive costs to the users of such weapons (Providing that the uses do not just take their rifles to Nevada and shoot them in the Nevada Desert instead of the California Desert, shooting and storing such weapons in Nevada may be more cost effective than re-barreling).

Prices of .50 Caliber Rifles:
http://www.50bmgstore.com/50bmgcurrentprices.htm

Given the "Ease" (This is a relative term remember we are talking of weapons costing over $2000, with some costing over $10,000) to make these weapons "Legal" the law will be ineffective. People will either store the weapon in Nevada (or some other state) OR make the changes to make the weapon "Legal".

The problem here is one of HOW do you ban this weapon without banning other weapon that people want to keep? This is complicated by the fact that since the Civil War the biggest change in Weaponry has been the adoption of Smokeless powder in the 1880s. Smokeless powder permitted higher velocities in weapons and thus smaller calibers, but some people liked the larger calibers and slower speeds of the previous black powder cartridges. These Black powder rounds tend to be .45+ (with some of the African "big game" rounds exceeding .600). For example the US army has used 6 rounds since the Civil War, the 50-70 (about 1866-1873), the 45-70 (1873-1892), .30 Krag (1892-1903), the 30'06 (1906-1957), 7.62 NATO (1957-1964) and 5.56 (1964-Present). If we ignore what I call the "experimental" rounds (Rounds that lasted only a few years before replaced by a different round), you only have three, 45-70, 30'06 and 5.56mm (Also called .223 Remington). These three rounds have had weapons produced for them since each were introduced (There may be a gab between the 1930s and the 1970s for the 45-70, but a gab only in production of rifles NOT ammunition).

The 45-70 is a large black powder round that has been around for over 130 years. Rifles are still produced for it (It is a good round given its limitations, limitations made up for by the weight of its bullet). The 45-70 is the round that is causing most of the problem with banning .50 caliber Rifles. No one wants to ban the 45-70, but is case size is NOT that different from the big .50 (This is result of the fact that the 45-70 was a black powder round and black powder is a bulker powder than the smokeless powders used in the .30 Krag, 30'06, 7.62 NATO, 5.56 and the .50 (12.7mm) Browning Machine Gun Round).

A similar problem occurs with the 10 and 12 gauge shotguns, a 10 gauge shotgun as a bore of .75 while a 12 gauge has a bore of .729, both exceeding the size of the .50 BMG.

Information on the 12.7x99mm (.50 BMG) Round:
http://www.hevanet.com/temple/50BMG.html

For information on the 45-70-405 Round (2.1 inches long, or 53.34mm long.
http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.45-70government.html

For list of Shotgun Gauges:
http://www.hallowellco.com/bore_size_chart.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.com/intro_gauges.htm

Thus the various terms to make sure something like the 45-70 (and the 10 gauge Shotgun) is NOT banned but the .50 BMG round is banned.

I question the "need" to ban such weapons, but if you believe in such a ban you still have to work around the 45-70 and Shotgun Shells (Which also can come close to the size of the .50 BMG) The existing Federal Ban on large caliber weapons (i.e. 20mm and up) was the result of a similar problem, wanting to avoid banning 10 Gauge shotgun (nominal caliber .75 inch) but banning 20mm (.787 Inch) cannon rounds. The decision was to ban anything larger than .75 but that left open the use of .50BMG. California is trying to do what the Feds thought impossible to do in 1968, ban a weapon on a combination of restrictions, where not one restriction is illegal, any weapon with all of them would be illegal.

The Solution? (Again I am addressing the issue of HOW to ban .50 BMG round not if such rounds should be banned) I do not know. Combination rules just invite people to work around the restriction (I remember the British in the 1700s taxing animals with tails, but no tax on animals without tails, this started people to breed animals without tails and thus produced the various dogs, cats, horses and other animals without tails, all of this to get around one of the requirements of the Act and thus making the animal "tax exempt"). People will work around the restrictions and sometimes produce items worse than what was banned (Look at prohibition and the alcohol produced during Prohibition, the Feds biggest problem during prohibition was trying to collect all of the methyl alcohol people were selling, and causing blindness and death, as beer or hard liquor, this problem more than the crimes of the Criminal was the reason Prohibition was repealed).

People will work around restrictions, thus when you impose a restriction you have to be careful that the restriction is not worse than the disease being restricted.





As you can

[CarinKaryn]

100. What bullets approach the 5000 ft-lb limit?

You know alot about weapons and shooting, so let me ask you. What rounds other than the .50 BMG and the list of 15 or so other rounds posted about approach the 5k energy threshold I've proposed? Isn't is a relatively small number? The 45-70, for example, doesn't develop anywhere near that energy.

Is 5k a good limit point to use?

[CarinKaryn]

102. What bullets approach the 5000 ft-lb limit?

You know alot about weapons and shooting, so let me ask you. What rounds other than the .50 BMG and the list of 15 or so other rounds posted about approach the 5k energy threshold I've proposed? Isn't is a relatively small number? The 45-70, for example, doesn't develop anywhere near that energy.

Is 5k a good limit point to use?

[happyslug]

143. Remember Muzzle energy is the product of the Bullet weight and Speed

Remington Firearms has a good set of Ballistic tables and a Calculator:

http://www.remington.com/ammo/ballistics/ballistics.htm

Lets look at three calibers
Caliber Velocity Muzzle Energy
338 Remington Magnum 2690 4337 (250 Grain Bullet)
375 H&H Magnum 2840 4540 (270 Grain Bullet)
30'06 2700 2913 (180 Grain Bullet)

Remington also has an energy calculator on its site but the formula is as follows:

(Bullet weight x Velocity x Velocity)/ 450400 = Muzzle energy:

Velocity of the bullet affects the energy, velocity is affected by the powder used but mostly by the length of the barrel. As you increase barrel length you increase velocity and thus energy. Remington's tables use 24 inch as the nominal barrel length but you can go up as high as 36 inch barrel and still have increase in bullet Velocity (at about 36 inches the powder has expanded as much as it can and thus longer barrels no longer increase velocity unless "slow burning" powders are used, powders used in the long barrel cannon of the Military). Roughly at the speeds mentioned about you re looking at increase speeds of 20 ft/Sec per inch a barrel length.

So lets increase the barrel from 24 to 29 inches (5 inches or 100 ft/Sec):

338 Remington Magnum 2790 4016 (250 Grain Bullet)
375 H&H Magnum 2940 4835 (270 Grain Bullet)
30'06 2800 3361 (180 Grain Bullet)

So lets increase the barrel from 24 to 34 inches (10 inches or 200 ft/Sec):

338 Remington Magnum 2890 4636 (250 Grain Bullet)
375 H&H Magnum 3040 5540 (270 Grain Bullet)
30'06 2900 3361 (180 Grain Bullet)

The max loading of a 30'06 of 220 (the heaviest bullet the 30-06 was designed for) and 3000 ft/sec (Generally a very UNSAFE loading given the weapons the 30'06 was made in) gives you a energy of 4396.

Winchester loads in 458 Winchester Magnum with a 510 bullet going 2040 ft/sec (Muzzle energy using Remington Calculator: 4712 in a 24 inch barrel. In a 29 inch barrel: 5186, in a 34 inch barrel 5682 foot pounds.

http://www.winchester.com/products/catalog/catalog.aspx

Now most people do NOT use barrels over 24 inches (the Weapon is to awkward to use) but barrels of 29-30 inches were used in WWI and pre-WWI Military arms (In WWI it became clear shorter barrel lengths made the weapon easier to handle so it is rare after 1918 to see barrels over 24 inches).

My point here is many rounds gets close to the 5000 ft pound limit, even the 30'06 (The most popular caliber in the USA) in certain (Generally hand loaded) loadings.

[MrSandman]

95. Uh, the bullet won't deliver kinetic energy...

Without the cartidge. Will you outlaw sabots as they can be used to push the velocity of a smaller bullet in a rifle designed for a larger bullet?

[CarinKaryn]

104. I'm talking about the entire loaded cartridge.

I realize I've been saying bullet but the correct term, I think, is cartridge.

"It would be illegal to manufacture, transfer or possess a loaded cartridge that produced xxx ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle of a xxx inch barrel."

So this definition takes into account someone using a saboted round to decrease the diameter of the bullet (to .49 or smaller in order to evade a ban on .50 cal weapons) because doing so without also decreasing the powder charge would not decrease the energy produced by the round.

[MrSandman]

106. Enforcement would then be a problem...

How would you test handloaded rounds?

[CarinKaryn]

107. Not a problem

How do the cops test for banned substances now?
If necessary, they arrest for suspicion of possession, substance is tested, suspect is charged or released based on results of testing.

[MrSandman]

108. What is PC for arrest/confiscation?

A brass case with propellant and bullet?

[slackmaster]

110. Only way to determine the muzzle energy of a cartridge is to fire it

That destroys the physical evidence and leaves the door open for a good defense attorney to challenge the testing protocol: What were the exact chamber and barrel dimensions of the test weapon? What was the ambient temperature, humidity, etc.? How was the energy measured on what kind of instrument? Who took the measurements? What are that person's qualifications to use the equipment? When was the measuring instrument calibrated, and by whom? What are THAT person's qualifications to calibrate that specific kind of instrument? etc.

It's possible to overcome those kids of challenges but it would be expensive and labor-intensive to prosecute.

[CarinKaryn]

112. Sure, just like everyone wins their cases against

radar guns, photo enforced traffic lights and the FBI crime lab.

Thanks for your input!

[slackmaster]

114. A lot of people DO win those kids of cases

By using exactly the kinds of technical challenges I presented.

Most people don't have the time or the inclination to challenge traffic tickets. If you make a violation of your 5,000 foot-pound limit a felony, people will be highly motivated to challenge it.

[CarinKaryn]

115. Not a problem

Pull the bullet from the case. Identify and weigh the powder charge. Weight the bullet. Calculate the energy. Preserve evidence and present report for court.

My proposal is a good one. No one has uncovered significant flaws in it. You and your friends are rejecting it, and will continue to do so, because you want your rifles available in case the "guv'ment jist needs o'rthrowin'"

[slackmaster]

116. Even the best powders behave differently from batch to batch

You cannot predict with precision the muzzle energy of a loaded round by the procedure you described. To enforce a specific, measurable physical limit you have to actually measure a suspected item to see if it actually exceeds the limit. Your "dump and weigh" procedure which destroys the physical evidence would be wide open to a challenge by a defense attorney; one of the factors that determines ballistic performance is how firmly a bullet is seated in the cartridge case. That plus the thickness of the case neck wall influence the ease with which the bullet can begin its travel and therefore the chamber pressure, which in turn affects external ballistics.

My proposal is a good one. No one has uncovered significant flaws in it.

Technically your proposal is good. You are definitely thinking about it in a way that is better than anyone in Congress or any state legislature has done.

But you still are addressing a non-problem IMO.

You and your friends are rejecting it, and will continue to do so, because you want your rifles available in case the "guv'ment jist needs o'rthrowin'"

That is a 50-foot high Straw Man. I have never made any such assertion about why I want to keep my rifles.

I oppose restrictive laws that limit freedom without sound justification. I think YOU want to restrict the power of firearms because you are afraid of them.

[FeebMaster]

117. A number of flaws have been identified in your program

My proposal is a good one. No one has uncovered significant flaws in it.

that you haven't responded to.

Are you banning the cartridges or the guns that fire them or both?

How are you determining the muzzle energy since it varies based on a number of factors from barrel length to atmospheric conditions and a bunch of others?

How did you decide on 5000 ft-lbs?


p.s. I think you might have missed this post of mine. It got buried between a few other subthreads.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=82494&mesg_id=82587&page=

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

118. Lots of problems

with your pull and dump method of identifying an offensive load. There are a large number of things that can and will affect the velocity of a bullet in any given firearm:

1. case thickness/internal case capacity
2. bullet seating depth
3. bullet crimp/pull
4. bullet geometry/length of bearing surface
5. coated or uncoated bullet (molybdenum disulfide)
6. freebore (the length the bullet travels before it encounters rifling in the barrel
7. chamber dimensions
8. age of the powder
9. type of primer used/batch of primers used/age of primers
10. actual bore diameter
11. lined/unlined barrel
12. number of rifling grooves
13. rate of twist
14. length of barrel
15. temperature
16. humidity
16. atmospheric pressure/elevation above sea level

These are the things that will affect bullet velocity, some more than others of course but in aggregate they cast a large doubt on any investigator's ability to "pull and dump" to tell what the velocity should be. If a round is well above your cap, say 6,000 foot pounds +, then yes this could work but the only way to be sure of the velocity and energy levels would be to fire the round AS IT WAS FOUND.

One other thing of note. Some rounds that are borderline to your arbitrary 5,000 foot pound rule would break that rule in other areas. At sea level the round would travel slower than it would at higher elevations. Are you willing to compensate for this? How about rounds that were loaded in the winter time. They will generate higher velocities in the summer. Are you willing to compensate for this too? If not, I expect you will have wrongful prosecutions. If you will compensate, then you are writing your first loophole in this new law.

Speaking of which, where did this 5,000 foot pound number come from? Some arbitrary number? Here's an arbitrary number to chew on.

Weight : 21,000,000 grains
Velocity : 80 f.p.s.

Given that M=MV^2/450400

Energy = 298,401 foot pounds.

This is my 3,000 pound truck doing roughly 55 mph. I wonder which would be better for attacking a limo, a 50 BMG or a vehicle?

EN EDIT: What I am trying to show in the above example is that you cannot equate energy directly to ability to penetrate armor. A 50 BMG will penetrate more steel than my truck will. My truck will bend the hell out of it yes, but I doubt it will punch a hole in it like my truck. I like the fact you are thinking, but I'm not sure that your muzzle energy catch-all is going to be effective.

[slackmaster]

120. I have a book titled "The ABCs of Reloading" that gives a related example

The author shows that the muzzle energy of a .460 Weatherby hunting round is about the same as the kinetic energy of a Volkswagen Beetle going 24 MPH. Either could do serious damage to an elephant. Maybe ot the shooter or driver as well.

:D

[CarinKaryn]

123. You are proving my point

This bunker buster is powerful enought that there is no legitimate lawful use for it in the US. Ain't got elephants here.

[slackmaster]

126. Shooting at a paper target 1,000 yards away is legitimate and lawful

If you believe otherwise please provide a statement of principle to back up your opinion.

[CarinKaryn]

130. I defer to the State of California

They've determined Bunker Busters are to be banned. End of story.

[slackmaster]

139. The Governor hasn't signed AB50 yet

Your celebration may be premature.

I and many others are asking him to veto AB50.

"Bunker Busters", eh? Maybe you could get a job writing propaganda for the VPC.

[CarinKaryn]

122. Commercially loaded ammo...

is loaded so that the ammo is consistent from shot to shot.
I say that for the commercially loaded ammo, we can all feel comfortable with the data published by the ammo manufacturer on the energy produced by each round. We would very clearly know if the commercially loaded ammo was banned or not.

How much of an energy increase or decrease could their be due to atmospheric conditions? Plus or minus 5%? We simply set the energy limit high enough to account for this very slight difference.

If the suspect wanted to claim that their handloaded ammo was within spec, or that the commercially loaded ammo was less powerful than the published specs, they could. In which case the situation woudld handled like any other evidence. Defense could hire any labs they felt necessary to refute the govts. claim that the ammo was excessfully powerful. Evidence could be presented and the jury decides.

I'm guessing that the number of prosecutions for hand loaded ammo would be a small percentage of the total prosecutions.

[MrSandman]

119. How do you get my cartridge to test?

No PC. You cannot have a database of all wildcat rounds.

[MrSandman]

121. Assault weapons and .50 Cal rifles...

weren't/aren't needed by the Gunny or other determined marksmen.

[CarinKaryn]

125. Gee, what a swell link

to a Viet Nam sniper. Brags about killing 93 people. Thanks so much.

[slackmaster]

128. We were at war in Vietnam

We had an enemy that shot at our soldiers and killed them. Our Presidential candidate killed when he was serving in Vietnam.

Killing an enemy during armed conflict is very different from murdering an innocent person.

Mr. Hathcock may have saved the lives of hundreds of his fellow soldiers.

[MrSandman]

135. so welcome

[CarinKaryn]

124. Bunker Buster Ban

Just to compile all the objections, revisions and qualifications in one place, I've written a rough definition that I think would be successful in banning excessively powerful weapons of war from civilian possession:

This bill bans any assembled cartridge (cartridge being defined as a bullet, casing, powder & primer combination), that when fired from an 18” barrel, produces total energy (as measured from the muzzle) in excess of 5000 ft-lbs. This measurement takes place at sea level with an ambient temperature of 85 degrees.


This definition is written to ban only the ammo. If necessary, it would be a simple matter later to add an ammendment:
Any weapon capable of firing banned "Bunker Buster" ammunition (ammo falling under the definition above), is also banned.

How's this? Good to go?

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

127. Okay

I still don't see this as doing anything more than making something that is already illegal, more illegal.

This whole episode is aimed at stopping armor piercing rifles by banning the ammunition, correct? If someone was intent on shotting into an armored limo or passenger plane, would it be beyound the realm of possibility to load up a couple of rounds and do it anyway? Sure you can tack on a couple of more years after the fact, but it doesn't do squat to stop them beforehand.

[slackmaster]

129. I think you should submit it to your Representative or Senator

See how far it goes and get back to us.

[CarinKaryn]

132. California already has a ban based on size of bullet.

But I think this definition could be used in addition to that one.
Anyone see any other holes in the basic definition?

[slackmaster]

138. NEWS FLASH!

"California already has a ban based on size of bullet."

So does the USA: Any firearm that uses fixed ammunition with a bullet more than .5 inches in diameter is a destructive device.

California's present definition of destructive device includes firearms that use fixed ammunition with a bullet more than .55 inches in diameter.

That's right - Federal law is stricter than California's in this regard.

[FeebMaster]

131. That's great.

You even came up with a cute name for it and best of all you left the name out of the law. It's much better than the .50 caliber ban in the senate now which creates a legal definition of .50 caliber super sniper rifle or something equally idiotic.

Of course your law does nothing to stop people from reloading their own ammunition or companies from selling them the components to do so.

As for the amendment to ban the guns that fire the ammo, how would that work exactly? People who own them turn them in to get melted down?

[CarinKaryn]

133. Bunker Buster Bill v2

This bill bans the manufacture, transfer or possession of any assembled cartridge (cartridge being defined as a bullet, casing, powder & primer combination), that when fired from an 18” barrel, produces total energy (as measured from the muzzle) in excess of 5000 ft-lbs. This measurement takes place at sea level with an ambient temperature of 85 degrees.

Part II
Any weapon capable of firing banned "Bunker Buster" ammunition (ammo falling under the definition above), is also banned.

[FeebMaster]

134. See now you've got the cute name in the definition.

So we're going to have somewhere in the US Code

922 (z)etc. etc.: Definition of Bunker Buster -

Whatever floats your boat I guess. Personally I'd keep the cutsie names out of the legislation and save it for the propaganda you use to try and get it passed.


Any weapon capable of firing banned "Bunker Buster" ammunition (ammo falling under the definition above), is also banned.

So by banned, do you mean owners of those weapons have to turn them in to be melted down or what?

[CarinKaryn]

136. How are guns that are banned usually handled?

All the street sweepers or junk guns that were legal once but are banned now, are they just outlawed overnight or grandfathered in so you can register and keep (but never tranfer) or what?

Seems like I've heard it going several different ways, but I'm not sure how it usually works.
So we'll just do it the "usual" way, ok?

[FeebMaster]

137. There is no usual way.

No gun has ever been banned at the federal level. They've banned the manufacture of some and the importation of others and required others to be registered, but they've never said "you can't own that gun, turn it in."

Street sweepers were classified as destructive devices in 1994 and had to be registered like any other destructive device or machine gun. "Junk gun" bans, as far as I know, only prevent them from being sold in the places with the bans.

[slackmaster]

140. California has ordered SKS Sporters to be turned in or destroyed

Or sold out of state, but it has made zero effort to enforce that order.

Why? Because they'd have a huge evidenciary problem. Owners of those rifles were first told they didn't have to register them. Then the next AG decided they did have to be registered and extended the AW registration period. Then Handgun Control, Inc. and their little buddies sued the state for "illegally" extending the registration period. They won.

SKS Sporter owners are in legal limbo. They are criminals simply by possessing the rifles they bought legally even though they made a good-faith effort to comply with the law. But the state really can't prosecute them because it told them they didn't have to register, AND it accepted registrations.

That sordid affair doesn't do much to inspire confidence or trust in the state government.

[CarinKaryn]

141. So there is precedent

Turn them in or prove them destroyed.

[slackmaster]

142. Did you read my entire post?

The order to turn them in or get rid of them was issued on June 11, 1999. Notifications were sent by ordinary mail (not formally served, therefore not very convincing as evidence in court) to known owners, i.e. the people who registered them. The people who registered them DO have official correspondence from the state saying their registrations were accepted.

Nobody has turned them in.

Nobody has been required to provide proof that they've been destroyed or sold.

Nobody has been arrested and tried for possessing an SKS Sporter, or even threatened with arrest.

There is no precedent because the state put itself into a legal bind. It cannot prosecute. It cannot confiscate.

[iverglas]

144. very interesting

I don't have the technical expertise to offer, or comment on, a solution to the problem, but it's certainly one I've identified in reading these discussions: how to define what is being regulated/prohibited.

The Canadian solution wouldn't work for the reasons you outline:

The major failing of the AWB was that it banned some weapons by name, and others by defining them as having certain characteristics or features. All a manufacturer had to do to evade the ban was change the name or slightly alter the existing weapon ...

Here, we *do* define "prohibited weapons" by listing names:
http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-462/
Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted

-- although the definitions do say things like:
http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-462/part84530.html

3. The firearm of the design commonly known as the Franchi SPAS 12 shotgun, and any variant or modified version of it, including the Franchi LAW 12 shotgun.

...7. The firearms of the designs commonly known as the Benelli M1 Super 90 shotgun and the Benelli M3 Super 90 shotgun, and any variants or modified versions of them, with the exception of the
(a) M1 Super 90 Field; ...

-- because, basically, we don't have to worry about any manufacturer varying or modifiying its design to get around our laws, because
(a) our market is too small to make it worthwhile; and
(a) our laws are stricter than the laws in the most significant market, so we aren't likely to be affected by design modifications implemented to get around laws somewhere else.

Obviously, the incentive for manufacturers to circumvent any rules made in the US is much greater, and therein lies the problem.

Just fyi, here are the Canadian regs on prohibited ammunition, from the link given above:
http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-462/part84658.html

1. Any cartridge that is capable of being discharged from a commonly available semi-automatic handgun or revolver and that is manufactured or assembled with a projectile that is designed, manufactured or altered so as to be capable of penetrating body armour, including KTW, THV and 5.7 x 28 mm P-90 cartridges.

2. Any projectile that is designed, manufactured or altered to ignite on impact, where the projectile is designed for use in or in conjunction with a cartridge and does not exceed 15 mm in diameter.

3. Any projectile that is designed, manufactured or altered so as to explode on impact, where the projectile is designed for use in or in conjunction with a cartridge and does not exceed 15 mm in diameter.

4. Any cartridge that is capable of being discharged from a shotgun and that contains projectiles known as "fléchettes" or any similar projectiles.

[CarinKaryn]

151. Pls see post 133

for the most up-to-date version of the Bunker Buster Ban.
I bet your legal eye can find a loop hole or two. A lot of the gun huggers contributed toward tightening up the definition, but I'm not sure how much they were really trying to help...:evilfrown: