Arnie Bans Sniper Rifles in California

Agree2Disagree Forum

Arnie signs sniper rifle ban

CALIFORNIA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, despite his gun-toting Terminator image, signed a law banning powerful sniper rifles, just after a US federal ban on assault weapons expired.

The governor's signature to the law yesterday meant that California became the first US state to ban 50-calibre sniper rifles, which opponents say can shoot down aircraft and penetrate armour plating.

The film action star who recreated himself as a Republican politician yesterday signed into law the new ban that highlights his policy differences on weapons with the administration of President George W. Bush.

A US federal ban on the manufacture and sale of military-style assault weapons ended yesterday with proponents and foes of the measure locked in a bitter dispute over whether it should have been renewed.

Republican leaders fervently oppose the ban, signed by former US president Bill Clinton in 1994, and while President George W. Bush said he would support extending it, he did not press Republicans to do so.

By signing the first law outlawing 50-calibre sniper rifles, Schwarzenegger, a moderate Republican, has pitted himself against the party's conservative core on the sensitive issue of gun control.

Traditionally liberal California also passed the United States' first ban on assault weapons in 1989, which Mr Clinton made national five years later.

Supporters of restricting the right of Americans to possess certain high-powered weapons said Schwarzenegger's move would help defend the US from both gun violence and terrorist acts.

"California has once again confirmed its status as a bellwether state in preventing gun violence,"said Tom Diaz of the Washington-based Violence Policy Centre.

He said the move "not only protects the police and public, but stops the sale of a confirmed tool of terrorists. We look forward to other states, and eventually the US Congress, following its lead".

- News.com

Please explain to me why a civilian needs a sniper rifle anyway?

I've said it over and over again: home protection...

Against WHAT?

Please post the desciption of what is considered a sniper rifle in Kolifonia.

I thought sniper rifles were intended for snipe hunting.

I think it is scary that a member of the public can buy a Sniper rifle, these wepaons are powerful, dangerous and can kill from a long distnce. You need a lot of training to be lern how to operate them safely and to make sure you hit the right target.

What possible need can anybody have for owning one of these?

Does anyone know the criteria for a rifle being a sniper rifle? Is it the caliber, or what? I will look for it when our NRA magazine comes.

From what I remember Snipes can fire bullets faster and further than your average rifle, it also has the sniper scope which makes it possible to get a kill shot from long range which makes it a favourite for most special forces and FBI agents, although you need specail training to use one.

There is probably a lot more to it than that but that is all I know.

Modern Western standards require sniper rifles to be capable to put five shots within 1 inch (or less) diameter circle around the target at 100 yards (1 MOA accuracy).
Optical sights are used by default.
Most used ammunition: 0.308Win, 0.300Win Mag, 0.338 Lapua Mag.
Typical range for police operations: 300-400 meters, 800+ for military operations. .50BMG rifles extend the effective range up 1800 meters.
Civil use: hunting in grassland, mountains, don't know about BMG, maybe bears? Also sport.

I gotta say I kinda wanna get my hands on some of these powerful weapons before they are all banned

it's like investing in stock that you KNOW is gonna go up

wtf do you need a sniper rifle for in california?

The whole gun issue is retarded. The second amendment is friggin old and was made when there was no handgun capable of firing multiple rounds in a small time range. You had a friggin musket. Then there was the whole threat of invasion thing.

We've got an army now guys, nobody needs an M-16. Rifles are okay, because rifles are mostly used for hunting. Handguns are not. You don't need a handgun for anything, unless you intend to shoot someone.

Everybody says how it's their right to carry a gun. Sure it is, it's in the constitution to "bear arms". Running with that, let's see how you guys feel when I bring a rocket launcher to the local walmart to buy some bullets for my 9mm.

The founding fathers were smart because they knew that the constitution would have to change as time went by. You know, like the whole gay marriage ban. Apparently, during the presidential election, gay marriage (mostly the hate of it) was more of an issue to the public than foreign policy.

I just don't get it. I'm not for banning all guns and all that, but c'mon, be sensible.

But there's that statistic or whatever that you're more than likely to shoot someone you live with than shoot an intruder and you're more likely to get killed with your own weapon than to kill someone else. Or something. It'sdefinately dangerous to even own a gun and have it in your home, let alone have everyone actually using them all the time.

What about when handguns get in the wrong hands? it took 20+ dead five year olds in a school for the UK to realise that handguns were a bad idea, is that what you want in the US?

Go Arnie! Sorry if I start sounding a bit anti republican now, but at the moment I am. Guns are a bad idea. Lodgebo's right - they're just going to cause trouble for you.

Owning a gun and using it in time of need are two very different situations. A basic training about handling a gun and firing may not be difficult, but using it in an actual situation, where someone else is about to shoot you (and you are about to pee in your pants) is very different. Talking about it is one thing, but the actual act of shooting someone, even in self-defense takes a lot more than talk. I have never held a gun or shot someone, but I know people who have handled guns, and it is quite different to shoot someone (or even something) than just owning a gun. An average gun owner maybe able to intimidate someone, but that is about it. It takes balls to actually shoot a person, even though you are not the aggressor.

M.

p.s. The ban on sniper rifles is very much valid. Are people so insecure that they need to assasinate each other from long distances? Also, being a sniper requires much more skill than just taking a gun and firing it. Civilians will be much better off investing their time in something else than learning how to snipe other people.