Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tsod275
thanks
However, thought I would go ahead and correct you on at least one of your comments.
This is probably one of the most important things that was needed for this class. This was a very needed part in determining the difference between types of firearms. You are also incorrect in your statement that there are not clear distinctions between "assault style rifles" and regular long guns. For several states, the law specifically states the differentiation of the two. For some states, this is important, because there are additional requirements depending upon the type of firearm. In Minnesota for example, you are required to have a "Permit to Purchase" if you are going to purchase a handgun or an "military-style rifle". For that state,......
"Subd. 7. Semiautomatic military-style assault weapon. "Semiautomatic military-style assault weapon" means:
(1) any of the following firearms:
(i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK-47) semiautomatic rifle type;
(ii) Beretta AR-70 and BM-59 semiautomatic rifle types;
(iii) Colt AR-15 semiautomatic rifle type;
(iv) Daewoo Max-1 and Max-2 semiautomatic rifle types;
(v) Famas MAS semiautomatic rifle type;
(vi) Fabrique Nationale FN-LAR and FN-FNC semiautomatic rifle types;
(vii) Galil semiautomatic rifle type;94 semiautomatic rifle types;
(ix) Ingram MAC-10 and MAC-11 semiautomatic pistol and carbine types;
(x) Intratec TEC-9 semiautomatic pistol type;
(xi) Sigarms SIG 550SP and SIG 551SP semiautomatic rifle types;
(xii) SKS with detachable magazine semiautomatic rifle type;
(xiii) Steyr AUG semiautomatic rifle type;
(xiv) Street Sweeper and Striker-12 revolvingcylinder shotgun types;
(xv) USAS-12 semiautomatic shotgun type;
(xvi) Uzi semiautomatic pistol and carbine types; or
(xvii) Valmet M76 and M78 semiautomatic rifle types;
(2) any firearm that is another model made by the same manufacturer as one of the firearms listed in clause (1), and has the same action
design as one of the listed firearms, and is a redesigned, renamed, or renumbered version of one of the firearms listed in clause (1), or has a
slight modification or enhancement, including but not limited to a folding or retractable stock; adjustable sight; case deflector for left-handed
shooters; shorter barrel; wooden, plastic, or metal stock; larger clip size; different caliber; or a bayonet mount; and
(3) any firearm that has been manufactured or sold by another company under a licensing agreement with a manufacturer of one of the
firearms listed in clause (1) entered into after the effective date of Laws 1993, chapter 326, to manufacture or sell firearms that are identical or nearly identical to those listed in clause (1), or described in clause (2), regardless of the company of production or country of origin.
For forensic students and law enforcement, this is more than "semantics". By law, there are definite distinctions between many firearms. The Minnesota state laws which I have listed are only one state.
|
I take it that the rest of my comments were not worth your attention?
You may say whatever you wish, but functionally, there is no real difference between the operation (and military effectiveness) of a BM-59 and an M1A; an SKS with a ten round mag or an SKS with a 30 round mag; a field model Benelli M1 Super 90 versus one with a mag extension and pistol gripped stock, etc., and to say that there is plays into the hands of anti-gun advocates nationwide.
I am no less effective with a neutered AR-15 without a bayonet lug, a flash hider, a collapsible stock, or a carrying handle. BTW, have you seen a lot of civilians bayoneted lately? Trouble picking up a shooter because of his flash suppressor?
The functions and features listed are nothing but a laundry list of features that the bill's authors copied from the expired AWB, and have little, if any effect on the effectiveness of the weapon.
Frankly, I would rather that the bad guys had a MAC-10 than an M-1 Garand. The latter is more effective and more dangerous in the hands of a criminal.
If you are teaching people that possession of a weapon with minor cosmetic differences from another model creates a criminal, then I shudder to think what is happening to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution there.
In that case, I am sorry to have provided you with any additional information, and hope that you ignore all of my comments and proceed teaching whatever you think should be the real deal on firearms and ammunition.
When someone is arrested or killed by a person you trained for possession of a weapon essentially no different from a model not on the list but for a few minor bits and pieces, I hope that you feel real satisfaction in the role you played as an expert in helping them bring down ruthless firearms owners whose weapons had features that drove them to theoretically be able to commit violence against others. The Constitution obviously is nothing but another old piece of paper to you.
Congratulations. In another 30 or 40 years, we might be able to get all guns out of the hands of honest citizens nationwide.
Great work. Drive on.
TR