BIG SIG: the SIG50

[Dr Mordrid]

SIG Sauer's new .50 BMG tactical rifle; fluted barrel/bolt, 3.5 lb trigger, etc. etc.

Just $9,325

Me want

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProdu...ils/sig50.aspx

[Jammrock]

As cool as it looks, I don't know why you would want it. You shoot a deer with it and it will likely explode. And the cost of ammo has to be astronomical.

[Dr Mordrid]

Why does Elie lust after cars that can do 200 mph?

Because they're there, and are cool to play with.

Sometimes my buds and I go to a range where we can shoot Class III (military) weapons. Some guys have Browning .50 machine guns, some have guns like the SIG50 and others have chain guns, AK-47's or other full auto hardware. Targets are junked cars & trucks, or just long range targets in the case of these big sniper rifles.

Yes, it's legal to own them. If you meet the following criteria and pay a one-time $200 Transfer Tax you can legally own a Class III weapon: a machine gun (fully automatic), suppressor (silencer) or a short barrelled (sawed-off) rifle/shotgun etc. -

* US citizen
* at least 21 yrs old
* state law allows Class III weapons (these may be challenged soon)
* never been convicted of a felony or domestic violence
* never been disshonarbly discharged from the military
* never been adjuticated mentally defective

More than 35 of the 50 states (and counting) allow individual ownership of Class III weapons, so in those states if you can legally purchase a pistol you can also purchase them too. As noted state laws that don't allow Class III weapons will probably be challenged on Constitutional grounds (Equal Protection clause), and lose for the same reasons that state/city gun bans have recently been overturned.

[cjolley]

...Class III weapons will probably be challenged on Constitutional grounds (Equal Protection clause)...

Non-discrimination against inanimate objects?
You know, it wouldn't really surprise me with this court.

I guess congress doesn't really have the power to regulate anything.
All inanimate object must be treated the equally.

Can't discriminate against chromate in the water for example, chromate molecules have rights too you know.

[Dr Mordrid]

It's not discrimination against inanimate objects and you should know that.

Equal Protection means that a Constitutional right, or any privilege guaranteed under the US Code, has to be equally available to any US citizen. Location should not matter.

An example is the ability to purchase Class III weapons; if a state law limits the right of an otherwise qualified US citizen in one state (or city) when a similarly qualified US citizen in another state can freely exercise it, then it should be ruled an Equal Protection violation.

Same logic that's been applied to voting rights, school desegregation etc., as well as in District of Columbia v. Heller (DC gun ban) and McDonald v. Chicago (Chicago gun ban) - the Supreme Court cases that finally settled the Second Amendment rights issue.

[cjolley]

...
An example is the ability to purchase Class III weapons; if a state law limits the right of an otherwise qualified US citizen in one state (or city) when a similarly qualified US citizen in another state can freely exercise it, then it should be ruled an Equal Protection violation.
...

So if a single State, say Arizona, were to legalize open carry of machine guns then it would be ruled legal everywhere in the United States due to Equal Protection?
Crazy as this Court is, it is not going to make that ruling.

[Jammrock]

Why does Elie lust after cars that can do 200 mph?

True true... I've actually always want to shoot a .50 cal rifle. I've always wanted to blow something up from 1 km away through two feet of cement.

[Dr Mordrid]

So if a single State, say Arizona, were to legalize open carry of machine guns then it would be ruled legal everywhere in the United States due to Equal Protection?

FYI: open carry is only fully illegal in 6 states and the District of Columbia;

Texas, Oaklahoma, Florida, Illinois, New York, South Carolina and DC.

Arkansas is slightly less restrictive, but more than most other states. Many of the southern states that are restrictive are so as an after effect of reigning in rogue Confederates and the KKK during and after Reconstruction.

Of these Texas, Oaklahoma, South Carolina and Arkansas are preparing to go open carry in the near future. I would be shocked if Florida didn't join in. NY and Illinois will probably have to be dragged in via the courts.

Other states have restrictions ranging from California's 'rural only' rule to other states that require having a concealed carry permit, which in ~38 states is easy to get if you pass a background check.

As for carrying a Class III: CCW's don't specify what kind of gun you can carry, only that it be leagally obtained and, if required, registered. Ditto with silencers. There was an open carry support rally in Detroit last year where several folks carried AK-47's with folding stocks.

[cjolley]

My point was that it sounded to me like you were saying that whichever State has the most permissible law wins, all the other States are bound by that public policy due to Equal Protection.

I don't think it works like that.

[Dr Mordrid]

It's covered 5 ways to Sunday via equal protection but only because the right to Class III's and 2nd Amendment rights are Federal. A State restricting a Federal gun right is no more on legal grounds legal than if they were imposing a poll tax.

BTW: here in Michigan -

it is legal for a person 18 years of age or older to display his own registered pistol in a completely visible holster without a special permit, as long as he does not venture into a state designated pistol-free zone.

Meaning CCW/CPL's are only required if the gun is truely concealed.

[cjolley]

"A State restricting a Federal gun right is no more on legal grounds legal than if they were imposing a poll tax."

"it is now legal for a person 18 years of age or older to display his own registered pistol in a completely visible holster without a special permit, as long as he does not venture into a state designated pistol-free zone. "

These two statements seem contradictory to me.

And even if they weren't, wouldn't one State removing all it's location restrictions invalidate all location restrictions in every State, according to your theory of Equal Protection?

[Dr Mordrid]

It is contradictory, which is why there are bills in the legislature to eliminate the zones. The feds tried to implement gun-free zones around schools back in 1995-ish and the Supreme Court held them unconstitutional.

[cjolley]

It is contradictory, which is why there are bills in the legislature to eliminate the zones. The feds tried to implement gun-free zones around schools back in 1995-ish and the Supreme Court held them unconstitutional.

OK, so what about my other point?

[Dr Mordrid]

What? That I put in 1 too many "legal"s?

The analogy comparing a state restricting a federal granted right to a poll tax, which restricts voting rights, is a good one - both involve preemption.

[cjolley]

Doc, voting rights is a great example of why your "lowest common denominator" theory of Equal Protection rights is not how things really work.

...
Equal Protection means that a Constitutional right, or any privilege guaranteed under the US Code, has to be equally available to any US citizen. Location should not matter.

An example is the ability to purchase Class III weapons; if a state law limits the right of an otherwise qualified US citizen in one state (or city) when a similarly qualified US citizen in another state can freely exercise it, then it should be ruled an Equal Protection violation.
...

How could any State have it's own voting laws if the above statement of yours was true?
Voter ID, hours of operation, density of polling places, etc, etc laws would all be subject to the policies of whichever State had the least restrictive laws.
It just doesn't work like that.

On a more germane note, it would be fun to go plinking using that on cars.
All I need for another hobby is a 34 hour day so I could fit it in. sigh...