:: 1.10.2005 ::
Arnold does something right
CA just became the first state to ban a .50-caliber armor-piercing rifle from commercial sales. Scary quotes from this CBSNews article:
"It is clearly a weapon of war, a round to be used in a wartime situation. It’s appropriate for the military. The effective range is about 2,000 yards. It’s a very formidable weapon."
Wait, what? Ashcroft made it more difficult for the FBI to check up on gun sales? I know he's got some weird ideas about civil liberties, but how does this change do anything but make us less safe? Link found on... Fark!
This is exactly what the FBI learned in 1993 at Waco when Branch Davidians fired a Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle at them.
In response, the FBI deployed Bradley fighting vehicles for protection. But even that wasn’t sufficient, and heavier armor was brought in.
What happened at Waco was one of the arguments made for banning the weapon in California. Other states are now considering a similar ban for fear of potential terrorist attacks.
[Tom Diaz, a gun control advocate who was an expert witness in the California campaign to ban the gun], wants Congress to pass a law requiring, at a minimum, records to be kept of who’s buying .50-caliber rifles.
"The real question here is we do not know who has these terribly destructive rifles," says Diaz. "No one in the United States government knows who has these guns."
"Aren't records kept when a gun is sold," asks [60 Minutes Correspondent Ed Bradley].
"The answer is no," says Diaz.
Under the Brady Bill, sales records of guns used to be kept for 90 days, which enabled the FBI to check the names of gun purchasers against terror watch lists.
A year ago, at Attorney General John Ashcroft’s initiative, Congress reduced the period of record keeping from 90 days to 24 hours. That’s the policy that’s in effect today.
:: Deb 1:10 PM :: permalink ::
 comments ::
Links to this post: