A very serious question for my friends here

[thaddeus]

Hello,

I need some soothsayer advice.

My dad is thinking of investing in a serious rifle. His price range is around $2500. Why does this belong on the Legal and Political forum you ask? Because he wants to buy a rifle that isn't going to get confiscated and have him lose his investment. The people on this forum are some of the most knowledgeable in the world of the law and political climate in America. I think that only you guys could even hope to tell me what the future legal and political situation could bring in this situation.
With the way things are going in this country now, I cannot say whether or not certain guns are going to end up being banned and collected, including semi-auto rifles and pistols, within the next decade. On the other hand, my dad said that in his youth he thought the same thing, and they still haven't been banned 40 years later. He really thought that all guns would be gone by now, so who knows.


His choices have come down to two rifles:
The one he really wants is the Knights Manufacturing "Stoner" SR-25 carbine. It holds sub-moa groups out to 600 yards or more and IMHO is the ultimate battle rifle. The problem is, it looks like an assault rifle and I could see it being confiscated later. The problem being, if it is confiscated, even with a buy-back they would probably treat it as a AR-15 and give him like a few hundred dollars for it.
The other option is to get a more benign looking Steyr Scout. This is a bolt action rifle that is made for a little closer range work, but fills the same task for him. Let's not get into what he really needs, but stick to the Legal/Political side. Not that I don't welcome advice, but he has specific needs in mind, and both these rifles fit the medium range, light, fast rifle role. The SR-25, IMHO, fills the bill better because with the right optics on top, it does everything the Steyr can do, but it can do it in Semi-Auto.

Anyway, he wants the SR-25 but is nervous because it looks like an "assault rifle", and he might invest the cost of a small car into it, and then get it confiscated a few years later from the gun grabbers. At least if he bought the Steyr, it is a bolt-action rifle and will probably never get taken because it is a "hunting" rifle. By the way, he is going to use the SR-25 "assault rifle" as a hunting rifle. So, anyone out there that happens to read this and say that the "assault rifles" are "no good for hunting" is full of beans. Just because it is black and has a handle does not mean it is only made for killing people or make it any different than any other rifle. This rifle would make an outstanding hunting rifle, it just "looks scary", but fills the same exact role.


So, what would you do? Do you think that assault rifles are going to be confiscated in this country in the next few years or so? What about in the next decade? If "assault rifles" are banned, do you think they would be grandfather claused so at least he could keep it?
If it were just an inexpensive Colt Sporter, it would not be such a concern, but to have a $2500 rifle confiscated because it "looks scary" is a real concern.

thanks,
thaddeus

[This message has been edited by thaddeus (edited August 10, 1999).]

 

[JJR]

It sounds like your planning on being a good Californian. I think all "assault rifles" will eventually be banned and ultimately confiscated (the ones they can find). In California this will happen twice as soon. The NRA and the hunters will probably cave in and offer up "assault rifles" as a sacrificial lamb in order to save the rest of the guns for a few more years. If you can find an SR-25 that doesn't exits (no papers) then I'd buy it (but you couldn't take it to the range ). They'll let you keep the bolt-gun a little longer but it's not as fun. Just my opinion (and a pretty weak one at that). Good luck.

 

[dZ]

A modern production rifle is not much of a financial investment...
My dad has a couple of fox & parker shotguns

they are investments

dZ

 

[DC]

Thad...
I believe CA will attempt to ban all semi-autos within 5 yrs. Whether there will be compliance isn't germane here. If successful, even if one didn't turn them in, you couldn't really use it in case. If your Dad is that worried and that possibility is a major factor then the Steyr is the choice.
Personally I would get what I wanted and screw them...in that climate.......'nuff said

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!

 

[alan]

Thaddius:

See comment by DZ. On "investments", I believew that he is correct.

As far as guns themselves, should the anti gunners ever get their way, all will be gone, except for those held by CRIMINALS.

Consider also the following, which may unfortunately, not be of much help.

The SR being a semi-auto, and "military looking" is "bad" from the get-go. Of course, the "Scout Rifle", with a bi-pod, perish the thought, and a telescopic sight, evil abounds, is obviously a "sniper weapon". Your father could probably, legally, hang onto a bolt gun longer than to a self loader, of military appearance, such is the state that this country has fallen to.

The only solution is to beat the anti gun rabble. Realistically, I wonder if this can be done, unfortunately, and forgive me, for I digress, gun owners, hunters, shooters and so forth tend to be their own worst enemies.
This unfortunately arises from the sad fact that all to many of them are to damned lazy, or is it dumb to do anything as simple as writing a letter, let alone to paying attention when they vote, and quite a few don't bother to vote, I suspect.

 

[HankL]

Thad, There is no reason to believe that your government will ban Red Riders!
IMHO Hank

 

[Phillip]

Thad, that "hunting" rifle your father feels so safe purchasing now could later be labeled a "sniper" rifle and be confiscated down the road.
Tell him to buy what he really wants and to be happy with it. If CA bans everything (which it sounds like is being attempted) move to Texas.

[This message has been edited by Phillip (edited August 11, 1999).]

 

[thaddeus]

The SR-25 Carbine will NOT be kept in Kalifornia. It will reside in Arizona or possibly Oregon or elsewhere, but never in Kalifornia. I am talking about gun bans on the Federal level. I would never think of bringing a gun like that into Kalifornia. Only the bad guys will have any sort of "assault weapon" in California in the near future. Good guys like me and my dad just decide to move to a different State.

What may help the situation is that I am planning to go into Law Enforcement of some sort. LEO's seem to have special priviledge and although I don't agree with it, it might help me out if I end up with the rifle.

A $2500 target/hunting rifle would do me or my dad no good if we could not take it out to the range. I could see some people burying a $700 Bushmaster AR or something in their yard for a rainy day, but it would bew a shame to own a rifle like the Stoner and have to keep it hidden and never get to shoot it. I would hope that it would never be banned and collected so that our family can target shoot and hunt with if for many years to come.

 

[Long Path]

This one's a real toughy.

For practical purposes, I'd say get the Scout. A rifle, tactically, is an offensive weapon. If the fire is aimed and brought forth with reasonal rapidity (say 1 shot every 2.5 seconds, it is adequate.) The main issue of a battle rifle is that it be able to project adequate power to a specific point with the maximum practical efficiency. The Scout does that really very well!

It's also a heck of a hunting rifle.

However, the Stoner *does* look really quite nifty, and it gets my Irish up when someone implies that I "can't" or "shouldn't" because it's not PC. Merely by refusing to keep it in CA, you're succumbing to the very sad "California Tendancy," wherein gunowners in CA cave in to the rabid anti-gunners by moving elsewhere or not voting, or avoiding trouble. My reaction there is "Stand up an fight like a man! Get your Stoner and shoot it at every public range you can find!!!"

Whatever y'all get, shoot it, and often. Defend it, too.

------------------
Will you, too, be one who stands in the gap?

 

[WOLF]

Thadeuss, you seem to be very concerned, and rightly so....And your farthers choice in a new rifle should be taken very seriously.

The cost of a new rifle is always a factor in what we purchase. And your concerns about spending so much for something that may well be asked to be surrenderd in the forseable future are not to my own great dismay , fantasy.
As to the selection advice you asked for , allow me to make the following comments.

You and your farther should always only spend what you are comfortable in spending on any firearm.
Never put so much money into anything that you cannot aford to loose by any means. Be it fire,theft,confiscation,or sale due to financial hardship.

As to choice of weapon I was not clear as to weather you would be relying upon this weapon as a defense weapon.
For some forceable bad times to come, or was this weapon merely to continue enjoying quality farther and son enjoyment of the shooting sports.
You also failed to mention how old your farther is and if any physical handicaps may apply to his enjoyment of this weapon.
Can your farther shoot prone,does he have a bad back, will you need optical sights, does your farther have good eyesight...you see what I mean.
All these things and many you will be only qualified to list should be taken into your decision.
As to a weapon for defense....NO $2500 dollar Stoner or a Steyr Scout , or a Bushmaster, will be effective if you do not practice with it till you are completely comfortable in its function,use,limitations...etc.

Remember this :
Many men died to prove this point.
"It does not matter how many bullets a gun holds, It does not matter how fast it can fire, or how accurate the weapon is. What matters is who hits the target FIRST.! He Wins.! "

So you see even if you decide on a simple lever action hunting rifle, If you become very good with it, you have the right weapon in your hands.
And if the SHTF, like many people beleive it may.
In the I hope & pray far distant future.
There will be plenty of opportunities to gather or take for yourself a battle rifle.

WOLF

 

[John/az2]

He needs to buy the gun that would be most effective for his uses, and physical capabilities, as Wolf has said. Then practice, practice, practice. Then, when it comes to a federal confiscation, he can use it effectively, and his "investment" will pay off.

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..."

http://www.countdown9199.com

 

[Paul Revere]

Thad? 96 the paper trail! Don't buy the weapon from an FFL, buy it from a private party. Even if you have to drive into Nevada for there next BIG gun show. Sight it in there too. So if you do it this way, it really doesn't matter what he buys, it will just be a matter of finding one from a private seller. Go with cash. You won't find too many folks at gun shows walking around with $3000 in their pockets, therefore competition on an expensive piece will be nil. Laws you say? Which laws? You mean the un-Constitutional gun laws that infringe upon our 2nd Amendment freedoms? Zactly!

If your Dad fills out the ATF yellow form and takes a NICs check, you can kiss that doodad goodbye should things ever get hairy. We all know that this is American Gun Registration by now, right?

But on that point. Why have a weapon if you're not going to use it against the tyrant's guards when they come bursting in your private residence? Don't friggin bury it...lock and load!

 

[dZ]

another possibility is to wait for the y2k deal to blow over and watch joe geek divest of the ar-10 & 1000 rounds of .308 he bought with a credit card...

how low will they go
1000 bucks?

a bunch of over payed induhviduals have bought these cause they are the most expensive biggest black rifle on the rack

IMHO, there will be great deals on NIB AR-10s

dZ

 

[chink]

Long Path
I have yet to succumb to the Cali Gun grabbers. the weekend after SB23 passed I went out an bought a new AR so that I would have it for my kids. But having kids is like 10 years down the rod for me.
Thad

go with the Stoner. If your not gonna have it in CA, wait until after Y2k. if nothing happens, t\or the extent of the problems is small, (I think it an over rated problem) then there will be a lot of cheap stuff on the market. If your gonna have it in CA, then get it now before you can't

------------------
It ain't mah fault. did I do dat?

 

[dZ]

here is an sr25 discussion board: http://www.biggerhammer.net/stoner/wwwboard/

dZ

 

[Futo Inu]

JJR, I take strong exception to your soothsaying about what you think the NRA will do. "Hunters" will cave, but the NRA would never in a million years "cave in" to laying down on an "assault weapon" ban. You totally misundertand the NRA's beliefs. The "modern" NRA (post-60s) has never caved in on a distinction of this magnitude or anything close. Losing the "assault weapon" battle is tantamount to lose the entire RKBA war, and the NRA knows this. The NRA has and does cave on minor points as a last straw in order to increase our ultimate long-term rights, primarily because these "caves" actually help us in the long-run (the truth is, even though guns bought at gun shows and later used in crime are a drop in the bucket of the real crime problem, the fact remains that extending NICS to gun-shows - something NRA "caved" on - will in fact reduce somewhat more the amount of guns procured and used by criminals -which in turn will reduce the strength of the antis' arguments long-term. Enhanced sentencing for crimes in which a gun was used is another example of something that does not seem right, but in truth will help us long-run). But on something as fundamental as our right to own any type of firearm, whether "sporting" or not, whether semi-auto or not, whether PC/Ugly/pretty or not, this may as well be for all the marbles, and NRA would never "agree" to such a ban/restriction for the sake of hanging on to "hunting rifles" or "sporting arms". They know that if we lose such a fundamental battle, then they may as well not exist, because once the public/courts/legis accept the notion that the second is about hunting, then its just a matter of (short) time before we're dead in the water. Please study the NRA's tactics and history in more detail. The modern NRA would have fought tooth and nail to stop the full-auto ban of 1939 or died trying IMO, as this is a fundamental infringement on our RKBA as well (but too late now).

Thaddeus, I would go for the SR-25, because I think in most states anyway (not Cali I suppose), any weapons "banned" will be grandfathered. This is the slow approach the feds/antis take. Also, non-compliance would be an option: "I sold that damn Stoner gun years ago - couldn't hit the broad side of a barn [under your breath] at 2000 yards".

I'm of the opinion that infringements will generally take place slowly, and thus you can "always" buy that Steyr Scout (for at least 25-50 more years IMO, so get the to-be-banned stuff now). It really comes down to grandfathered-or-not liklihood, doesn't it? Well, the 94 ban only prohibited manufacture of new "ugly" guns, so I would think the antis will continue down this path as they managed to squeeze this one by the sheeples successfully. BTW, the NRA fought hard against the 94 ban, and fought hard for its repeal, which almost passed the House. The antis in Cali are too zealous. The gun turn-ins are going to arouse those formerly-apathetic hunters and result in a backlash IMO (wishful thinking maybe). But of course I'm no expert on California politics.

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited August 16, 1999).]

 

[Ivan8883]

Buy the Stoner, but if you can, be like the Mexican bandit in the movies"Treasure of the Sierra Madre" He tells Humphrey Bolgart: "I dont need no stinking papers!" good advice in the climate of gungrabbing America.This way the policia wont know you have it and perhaps it will be used to help restore America some day.

 

[JJR]

Futo Inu,

I apologize if I offended you. Perhaps I spoke out of turn when I suggested that the NRA will "cave" as far as assault rifles are concerned. I don't so much feel that they give in on that issue, but I have a difficult time seeing them peruse it with as much vigilance as other issues. Like politicians, they endeavor to keep their voting constituents happy. A large number (dare I say.. majority) of NRA members are hunters, trap shooters, and competition folks. Many of those people feel the same about "assault rifles" as the anti's do. Ak-47's and HK91's are just not the NRA's top priority. In my opinion, they "walk on egg shells" around politically incorrect issues such as modern military-style weapons. I think public opinion is where this issue will ultimately be settled. The NRA does a good job of lobbying the government, but I don't see any serious efforts in lobbying the people.

I have been a member of the NRA for fifteen years now and I will continue to do so. However, I have not been overly impressed with them for quite a while. I hope my feelings are wrong about this. They will continue to get my support, but I would very much like to see a change in direction as far as their efforts are concerned.

Oh, and, Buy the stoner!

 

[Daren Thompson]

This is a sad day in American when this conversation of confiscation is even brought up. Buy what your heart desires. TO HELL WITH THE FEDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Later
Daren

 

[thaddeus]

Yes it is a sad day, and it really tears at me that we have to even have this converstation.

Thanks for all the advice, and thanks for the Stoner link!