APRIL 2005

Why The Proposed .50 Caliber Ban Is Really A Rifle Ban
By James O.E. Norell
April 5, 2005

The anti-gun Violence Policy Center is dishonestly branding the .50 caliber as a “terrorist” weapons, because it’s a hair’s breadth larger that other rifles. But their language reveals their true strategy: to ultimately ban all rifles as being “sniper rifles,” no matter the size.

“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 Bradley.

“The answer is no,” says Diaz.

That exchange between CBS “60 Minutes” correspondent Ed Bradley and Tom Diaz, the self-styled Violence Policy Center (VPC) “expert” who wants to ban high-power rifles beginning with .50 calibers and going all the way down to your hunting and target rifles, ended a broadcast segment Jan. 9, which served as the opening big-media salvo in what is becoming a one-sided propaganda campaign to demonize and then ban high-power rifles based on a new and expansive criteria—bore dimension.

In every respect, Diaz’ response and his claims are false. The “60 Minutes” segment, which was nothing more than a showcase for the VPC’s latest demonization scheme, is typical of all that will be passed off in coming months by a duplicitous media as another gun control crisis.

Clearly—as anyone who has bought a firearm from a licensed dealer since 1968 knows—the Diaz answer is an outright lie. Of course there are records—millions of them. Think 4473. A CBS puff piece touting the broadcast gave reason to that lie by dissembling, “Diaz is hoping Congress will pass a law requiring that the names of owners of .50-caliber rifles be kept on file.”

In fact, Diaz and the VPC actually cooked up legislation of a different sort, with the operative core language, “It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a .50-caliber sniper weapon.”

Obviously, that’s not merely keeping records. That VPC legislation, introduced by arch anti-gun-rights water-carrier Jim Moran, D-Va., is called the “50 CALIBER SNIPER RIFLE REDUCTION ACT.”

It is an excellent example of how gun-banners continually seek legislation that would ban many guns in addition to those they are actually targeting in their rhetoric. A ban on rifles with a bore of more than .5 of an inch also would include many antique and black powder rifles and a number of big-bore rifles used by those hunting dangerous game.

In addition to a flat ban on possession and transfer of any centerfire rifle with .5-inch bore diameter, the legislation requires existing guns be placed under Title II of the Gun Control Act, and be treated like machine guns. If Diaz gets his way, the ban language will not permit any legally registered rifle to be bought, sold, given, traded or willed.

The “reduction” is accomplished with the death of the registered owner, at which time the legal gun becomes the presumed property of the U.S. government and is slated for disposal.

All of this is clouded in a fog of ugly hype about “heavy sniper rifles” and possible “terrorism,” none of which has anything to do with the peaceable Americans who own large-bore rifles or any other firearms. That hype is designed to frighten the unknowing public and cloud the vision of gun owners. It may even provoke an act of terror.

VPC Terrorist Manuals?:

The centerpiece of the “60 Minutes” broadcast—as with the core of the entire VPC anti-rifle campaign—is the wholly provocative VPC rap about how terrorists could use a .50-caliber rifle on U.S. soil.

Such rifles have been in civilian hands for the last 20 years, and it’s never happened. In fact, the .50 BMG cartridge has been in existence since WWI.

With video of tank farms and rail cars as the CBS visual backdrop, Diaz says, “If you go through virtually any industrial state, you'll see right off the highways all kinds of highly toxic and/or flammable materials stored in big tanks. These are ideal targets … the point is you can plan your attack from a longer distance. It's the combination of range and power.”

Then, with long-lens shots of commercial airliners on taxiways, Diaz says, “I could take you to places in Washington, D.C., where I'm absolutely certain you could shoot an aircraft with one of these guns.”

“60 Minutes” correspondent Bradley then added a disclaimer:

“Diaz told ‘60 Minutes’ about other much more specific scenarios in which terrorists might use the weapon, which we chose not to broadcast.”

Yet the folks at VPC don’t hesitate to point out—even seemingly suggest—such scenarios. If you go to the VPC Web site, there are a series of “studies,” including a creepy invitation to terrorists called Sitting Ducks: The Threat to the Chemical Refinery Industry from .50-Caliber Sniper Rifles. It might as well be an instruction manual. It literally spells out inviting targets—complete with maps. Try this: “TANK FARMS ARE IDEAL .50-CALIBER TARGETS,” or “POTENTIAL ATTACKS ON BULK TRANSPORT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.”

In his appearance opposite Diaz on the “60 Minutes” segment, firearms designer Ronnie Barrett, who created his series of Barrett .50 rifles as civilian target rifles long before they were adapted by the military, told Bradley:

“I know a lot of things, but I'm not going to go on the television and tell people what the capabilities of equipment are and possibly give ideas to people.”

In response to the question from Bradley, “Is what Diaz is saying accurate?” Barrett replied “Yes, it could be. But it is also, seeming begging someone to commit this crime. Somebody please commit this crime so I can validate what I've been saying so long. … And it's repeated over and over, and I fear that somebody will answer that call.” (Emphasis added.)

Media Complicity:

Barrett’s answers were right on point, but the show was heavily weighted to make the phony Diaz case about terrorism. Just how weighted the broadcast was can be seen in the Violence Policy Center’s characterizations.

When the National Shooting Sports Foundation contacted CBS demanding that a correction be broadcast in response to Diaz saying no records are kept on gun sales, the VPC shot back hysterically with a press release headlined: GUN INDUSTRY TRADE ASSOCIATION RESORTS TO DECEIT AFTER CBS NEWS ‘60 MINUTES’ DOCUMENTS DANGER OF FIFTY CALIBER ANTI-ARMOR RIFLES.

“Stung by a CBS News ‘60 Minutes’ documentary that reported the looming danger of terrorist use of powerful .50-caliber anti-armor sniper rifles that are freely sold to civilians, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a gun industry trade association, has posted an egregiously dishonest misrepresentation regarding the lack of federal records kept on the sale of such firearms.”

In fact, the NSSF was correct about the records, while the VPC was lying. Yet, “60 Minutes” failed to take any corrective action concerning the erroneous report.

The press release—as with every utterance from the VPC—is a poisonous fog, nothing more; a fog designed to shroud what the VPC is actually attempting to do—disarm innocent Americans of accurate rifles whose only distinctive feature is caliber. For now—and only for now—that number is .5-inch.

When you turn on the fan of truth and blow away the fog—when you clear away all the jihadist hype about what a terrorist could do—what you see is just another group of law-abiding gun owners being culled out for extinction for the same old phony reasons.

As for what terrorists do, CBS is not about to run a segment touting a Web site that shows terrorists how they could make a car bomb by implementing a certain chemical formula, or could best place the bomb by parking it in the most conducive locations. Yet they gave Diaz a coyly instructive platform.

Same Song, Second Verse:

On the “60 Minutes” broadcast, Diaz’ smug summation about .50-caliber rifles was:

“I just think that there are certain occasions when we say in our society, this product is such a threat to our health and safety, and in this case, our national security, we will not allow it.”

Hold on a minute! Isn’t that what the VPC has said about all handguns in peaceable private possession?

Exactly.

In a 2000 paper titled, “Unsafe in Any Hands: Why America Needs to Ban Handguns,” the VPC says the “call to ban handguns” … “is a response to the blood price that our nation has paid for the explosive growth of the handgun population over the past generation. … ” (Yikes! handguns are breeding.) “The modern handgun has been honed for decades by the firearms industry to the highest possible level of lethality …

“A clear-cut plan to ban handguns should be developed and implemented soon.”

Another of those VPC “certain occasions when we say in our society, this product is such a threat to our health and safety … we will not allow it,” covers the group’s demand for expansion of the Clinton gun ban to raise it to confiscatory levels.

Targeting All Firearms Ownership:

All told, so far the “analysts” at VPC have attempted to create a national calamity over big-bore rifles, semi-autos and handguns. What about little guns with low-power cartridges? The VPC has them covered with demon paint as well.

In another paper—“Gunmakers Urge that Children as Young as Four Years Old Get ‘A .22 for Christmas’”—the VPC rails that “smaller low-caliber handguns can be used to fit the small hands of children.” The diminutive “Chipmunk,” that .22 “first rifle” that my wife thought was so “adorable,” is seen as a grave danger to society as well.

For the give-your-kid-a-gun-for-Christmas crime, the VPC has a solution. “The VPC recommends that federal law be changed so that possession restrictions (for children) match those for sales.”

Let me translate that. Simple possession of any firearm by any person under 18 would be made a criminal act punishable by five years in a federal prison. Presumably, under those strictures Santa would be a felon as well.

All this might be funny if these people were not deadly serious. In the case of the big .50s, they have met with success in at least one state.

In banning what the VPC labels “.50-caliber Sniper Rifles,” or alternatively “heavy sniper rifles,”—most models of which are magazine-fed bolt-action or single-shot rifles—the California legislature simply declared them to be “semi-automatic assault” weapons.

Where the VPC and its willing handmaidens in the media see no difference in the impending danger to society from little guns, big guns, weak guns, powerful guns, junk guns and priceless guns, they do have a problem defining traditional sporting guns.

A friend in the National Shooting Sports Foundation calls it the “Goldilocks Syndrome,” but without the “this porridge is just right” part. There is never a gun that is just right, and all these ugly lies about “sniper rifles” prove that point once and for all.

Congressman Moran’s congressional rifle “reduction” legislation touts among its “findings” that guns in the banned category are “neither designed nor used in any significant number for legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and are clearly distinguishable from rifles intended for sporting and hunting use …” (Emphasis added.)

In the case of the big bores targeted for banning, since we’re talking about single-shot and bolt-action rifles, “clearly distinguishable” is discovered only by someone willing to measure the bore diameter. The gun-ban crowd will be on patrol with their micrometers. Count on it.

Intermediate Sniper Rifles (You Probably Own One!):

That gets us to the truth buried in “studies” and “conclusions” by the VPC concerning its vision of which “sniper rifles” it feels should be wrested from private, peaceable hands and homes.

To understand why gun owners across America should be very personally concerned about the so-called “.50-caliber sniper issue,” just one phrase hidden in the phony terrorism hype of the Violence Policy Center should slam the door on any second thoughts. That phrase is “intermediate sniper rifle.”

Beware, it is the future of the gun-ban movement.

For a practical definition, look no further than the average hunter’s gun cabinet. If you own a Remington 700 or a Winchester Model 70, a Weatherby or a Savage 110 variant, or any number of ubiquitous bolt guns, especially in a magnum caliber, you own what the Violence Policy Center would ultimately have the government treat in the same category as a machine gun—or ban altogether.

Don’t take my word for it; read the words of the VPC in its 2001 rant ostensibly against .50 BMG rifles titled, “Voting From the Rooftops”:

“Survivors in the gun industry do not rest on their laurels. The entrepreneurs who powered the .50-caliber wave are already working on new designs …”

“Some manufacturers may choose to refine the .338 Lapua Magnum, an intermediate round … . (Emphasis added.)

“According to Forbes (magazine), sniper magnate Ronnie G. Barrett plans later this year to make his ‘boldest move’ yet, when he steps out of the .50-caliber niche with a new .30-caliber tactical rifle designed for police SWAT teams … The magazine does not say whether Barrett plans to offer the new SWAT sniper rifle to civilians, but if the past is any guide, it will be.” (Emphasis added.)

The VPC continues, “What is clear is that the American people will remain prey to whatever more deadly innovation the gun industry comes up with until a change is made.”

This is exactly what the VPC and the Brady Campaign have been saying all along about handguns. So now they claim that the .30-caliber Magnums are a “more deadly” innovation than the nearly 100-year-old .50 BMG.

The paper refers to what VPC calls “the severe and immediate threat that heavy and intermediate civilian sniper rifles pose to public safety and national security.” (Emphasis added.)

For any of your friends who aren’t convinced this issue is important to them, read that to them again: “the severe and immediate threat that heavy and intermediate civilian sniper rifles pose.”

Now read it to them once more, this time dropping the “heavy” part. They should now understand what the future holds for their tack-driving magnum big game guns, varmint rifles and target guns.

The VPC demands that these guns be brought under the control of the National Firearms Act. On its face, that would mean that owners of such rifles, whatever the design criteria—from semi-autos, to bolt actions, to falling blocks, to tilting blocks, trap-doors, to multiple barrels—would have to register their firearms and themselves; submit to photographs, fingerprints and a rigorous FBI clearance process that could last up to six months; then pay a $200 fee for a federal tax stamp.

Yet that’s just the beginning. The VPC is proposing that existing guns be registered but demands, “any grace period for registration should be very short.” Failure to comply would be a major federal felony. Needless to say, an unregistered “heavy or intermediate sniper rifle” would be contraband.

However, there’s even more. Treating rifles in the same light as machine guns or destructive devices creates a whole new set of strictures for the peaceable gun owner. Under Title II of the Gun Control Act, any infraction, no matter how innocent—say, transporting a registered firearm across a state line without explicit written permission of federal authorities—could bring a 10-year prison term and stark fines.

Who would care about a gun owner “arrested for illegally transporting a ‘heavy sniper rifle’ or an ‘intermediate sniper rifle’ across state lines”? Such a headline sounds ominous, and the media would have a field day with it. Your non-gun-owning neighbors would likely shrug and say, “He was so quiet. We never knew.”

For now, the VPC and its allies in Congress, by targeting only .50-caliber rifles, are settling for just a small piece of what they are really after. This may appear to be a “surgical” strike that only affects a few law-abiding gun owners, but it is much, much more.

This is the gun-banners’ divide-and-conquer strategy at its worst. Vilify one group, and others are supposed to be repelled. United opposition will wither away to piecemeal civil disarmament. That’s the strategy.

Targeting Small Bores:

For anyone who imagines that this war of attrition on firearms ownership by caliber won’t reach the smaller bores under the rubric of “sniper rifles,” tell them to read what the empress of the world gun-ban movement, Rebecca Peters of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), said about the .223 rifle used by the “Beltway sniper.”

In an Oct. 23, 2002, appearance on “CNN International Interview,” she once and for all times set the parameters for her notion of an international “sniper rifle ban.”

In response to questions about the Washington, D.C., “sniper,” Peters, who heads the powerful United Nation’s-connected global gun-ban group IANSA, said:

“… in order to prevent things like this, we need to have fewer guns, but the guns that are in societies need to be under better control.

“And that means that civilians should not have sniper rifles, or rifles that they can kill someone at 100 meters distance, for example.” (Emphasis added.)

So Peters is demanding a ban on “sniper rifles” that will shoot 100 meters (read as any good big game or target rifle).

The VPC claims that the big .50 BMG is the favorite of terrorists and assassins.

In truth, “sniper rifle” is an utterly elastic, all-encompassing term. The word these gun-banners are really focusing on is “rifle.”

The strategy to spread enough venom about a category of firearms to demonize the private ownership of those arms by peaceable people is nothing new. For the VPC—who always has a willing accomplice in the big media—the use of this strategy is a staple.

Banning Guns One Caliber at a Time:

The gun control dragon always has a need for steel and wood, polymer and alloy, and glass. It has even more voracious appetite for freedom.

This time, it culminates with what the gun control crowd always promised it would never go after—hunting rifles.

Contrary to the “findings” of the Moran legislation—that the so-called sniper rifles they wish to ban “are clearly distinguishable from rifles intended for sporting and hunting use”—the only difference between those gun-control targets of opportunity and any other rifle in private hands is a matter of a mere fraction of a millimeter or a fraction of an inch in the bore.

If such a restriction becomes law, that likely will be the beginning of attrition based on bore size. For those who might not believe this, remember England’s handgun ban.

In the beginning, when licensed gun owners fought valiantly to stave off confiscation of their registered handguns, the government threw them a bone—it only banned guns of a bore size larger than .22.

When honest British licensed gun owners turned in their “large bore” handguns—38s, .25 ACPs, 9 mms, .45s, .50s and everything in between, all slated for destruction—they hoped it would be the end of it. Indeed, they were told they could keep their .22s, but only in government-approved lockups at government-certified gun clubs.

Yet, that “bore reduction” gun control had barely been in place when the poor Brit handgun owners were told the government was going to collect their registered private property from the approved armory sites. The rest, as they say, is history.

Recently, in the Kings College London debate where NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre crushed IANSA’s Peters, she answered a question from a British citizen—a former handgun owner. Her reply was:

“I’m sad for you. I suppose if you miss your sport, take up another sport. Take up a sport that does not require a weapon invented for the sole and specific purposes of killing another human being.”

That’s “firearms reduction” by caliber. That’s history. That’s reality. That’s where all this is headed—under the smokescreen of protecting Americans from terrorists with big-bore rifles.