On 1/15/2020 11:48 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 20:02:24 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 9:10:31 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 19:02:28 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 1/15/2020 5:59 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 06:33:20 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 9:54:26 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 21:27:19 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 8:45:09 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:27:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 1/14/2020 9:14 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I own guns, including vintage steel guns and spent a lot of time shooting with friends when I was a kid. I had a gun lunatic friend as well as a SWAT officer friend and shot a lot of crazy guns. AR-15s are cool transformer guns and real hobby items. I get it. I just don't view them as religious icons. They should be subject to regulation like every other device used for killing each other, like cars.

And the "religious icons" bit is a big art of the problem. To a sad
number of gun nuts, any mention of any restriction on any type of gun or
ammo is blasphemy. It's not based on data or reason or science or logic.

Gee, it sounds just like the anti-gun fraternity who want to outlaw
the AR-15 because it looks like an assault rifle.

No, its just not a sacred cow. We regulate studded tires but not guns? We can, as a nation, decide based on accurate information, that certain firearms pose an unreasonable risk to the general population. The founding fathers contemplated private ownership of flintlocks for use in well regulated militias and did not foreclose the regulation of easily modifiable, high capacity, rapid firing carbines favored by lunatic mall shooters. Legitimate, law-abiding AR15 owners take a little hit with smaller mags, and maybe a few people at Cinnabon get away while crazy guy is reloading. It seems like a reasonable trade-off.

-- Jay Beattie.

A number of states currently have laws that regulate the possession of
fire arms based on specific physical shape, size, attachments, etc.
For example: Connecticut defines and bans weapons as follows -

Any "selective-fire" firearm capable of fully automatic,
semi-automatic or "burst fire" at the option of the user;
Any semi-automatic centerfire rifle, regardless of the date produced,
that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least
one of the following features: 1) A folding or telescoping stock; 2)
Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, thumbhole stock, or
other stock that would allow an individual to grip the weapon,
resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger
finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon
when firing; 3) A forward pistol grip; 4) A flash suppressor; or 5) A
grenade or flare launcher;

or
A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has: 1) a fixed magazine that
can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition; or 2) an overall length
of less than 30 inches;

note: there are other conditions which I did not include due to space.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assaul..._States#1 989

I have no idea whether this law has been tested in the court but I
believe that it is presently enforced in the state. And I read that
the Maryland's law was upheld in the courts:

The United States Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the
Maryland ban in November 2017. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th
Circuit in Richmond had upheld the ban, stating that: "[A]ssault
weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second
Amendment." Attorneys general in 21 states and the NRA had asked the
Supreme Court to hear the case.[38]

FYI. https://lawcenter.giffords.org/dunca...pacity-limits/ I haven't looked at the Ninth Circuit docket to see where this case stands.

-- Jay Beattie.

Given that .22 caliber rifles with tube magazines holding more than 10
rounds have been manufactured for years and years the banning of
magazines simply on the number of cartridges held might be a bit
problematic. Note: The Henry rifle, the first lever action, made in
the mid 1800's held 16 rounds :-)

Do you suppose there might be some difference in lethality between the
Henry's 22 caliber bullet and that of the AR-15?


Geeze Frank, you gotta do a little research. The Henry rifle of 1860
fired a .44 caliber bullet at 1,125 ft/sec with a muzzle energy of 568
ft.lbs. Approximately the same power as the .357 magnum pistol
cartridge. The .357 magnum was the most powerful handgun made, until
about 1955 when the .44 magnum was introduced.

The question then is, in modern terms, a 357 magnum more deadly then
the 5.65 x 56 NATO that was the original cartridge that the AR-15 was
designed for? Well, in technical terms the 5.65 has a muzzle energy
roughly 3 times the power of the .357 magnum. But is this
significant? The wound channels are more severe with the AR-15 but the
.357 will completely penetrate the thickest part of your body.

An example: using my father's 25-06, a wildcat using a .25 caliber
bullet and a 30-06 case, I once hit a woodchuck in the chest area and
literally blew it into two pieces. Using my own 22-250 wildcat I have
hit woodchucks in the chest area and blew abut 50% of the chest area
away.

Is one woodchuck more dead than the other?.

If not, I'm surprised that the military doesn't use Henry 22 rifles
exclusively. They're pretty inexpensive. Think of the tax money to be saved!

Err... a 1860 model Henry sells for $39,999.99 these days. See
https://www.gunsinternational.com/gu...c502_p1_o6.cfm
and a M-16 is about $700, as made by Remington under contract to the
Army.

Come on, John, you're changing the subject as quickly as Tom! Above,
you said "Given that .22 caliber rifles with tube magazines holding
more than 10
rounds have been manufactured for years and years the banning of
magazines simply on the number of cartridges held might be a bit
problematic."

No Frank. I said (copied from above)
Given that .22 caliber rifles with tube magazines holding more than
10 rounds have been manufactured for years and years the banning of
magazines simply on the number of cartridges held might be a bit
problematic. Note: The Henry rifle, the first lever action, made in
the mid 1800's held 16 rounds :-)

You talked about .22 caliber rifles. So I talked about .22 caliber
Henry rifles. Now you're jumping to .44 and .357, 1860 antiques, etc.

Actually I was talking about large magazines, which have been used on
.22 rifles for years. And I included a note (and labeling it so) that
large magazines had been used on one of the first repeating rifles
made in America, in 1860.

You then assumed, for whatever reason, that a Henry .22 ( a rifle
that has never existed) was the subject under discussion...

A Henry .22 has never existed?? Good grief!

https://www.henryusa.com/rifles/lever-action-22-rifle/


--
- Frank Krygowski