[Letter by Bill Caffrey in reponse to San Jose Mercury News
 editorial calling for greater restrictions on .50 caliber 
 rifles in California at:
  
   http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/6400612.htm

 Note that the .50 BMG rifles Bill refers to are the modern
 ones the supported legislation seeks to effectively ban. ]


To: ca-firearms
From: "dragon13" 
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:04:27 -0700
Subject: [ca-firearms] .50-CALIBER RIFLE IS TOO POWERFUL EVEN FOR HUNTING


Editor, San Jose Mercury;

The Monday posted editorial "50-Caliber Rifle is Too Powerful 
Even For Hunting" would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact 
that some people will believe it.  Not too surprising, the 
article misses on just about every point about the .50 caliber 
target rifles.  

A good many high powered hunting rifles, if used improperly could
also punch a hole in an oil tank. Most modern high powered rifles
can hit a target a mile away if you have the patience to learn 
how. But bringing down an airplane?  As the son of a decorated 
WW-II aviator, I can say that bringing down an airplane, even a 
civilian plane, with a single shot would be the wildest of luck.  

Somehow the writer wants us to believe that the weight of that 
massive 28 pound rifle is ill suited to carrying afield becomes a 
huge advantage when used by a terrorist or assassin. And if the 
writer thinks the State of California does not keep permanent 
records of every firearm transaction, handgun, rifle or shotgun, 
I think they are in need of a serious reality check.  Since 
California's handgun laws are some of the strictest in the nation, 
certainly one can exaggerate the claim that the .50 BMG rifle is 
"easier" to purchase.  It's also harder to conceal, carry, set 
up, aim and fire than most firearms.  

The .50 BMG was NOT developed by the military, but by several 
enterprising shooting enthusiasts. Only after considerable R&D 
and the production of several prototypes did the military take 
notice when they saw these rifles being fired at civilian ranges. 
And these civilian enthusiasts were more than happy to support 
their armed forces by providing them with data and information to 
make the rifle perform for the Special Forces. 

Most importantly, the Mercury News Editors have it backwards. In 
a Democratic Republic such as ours it is the government who must 
bear the burden of proof in denying any citizen their rights. 
Otherwise, the next proposal should be for news media to prove 
that they indeed serve the public interest in protecting the 
rights of all, rather than serve as a propaganda machine for 
those in power. 

Bill Caffrey
San Jose, Ca.