jkh@jade.UUCP (10/17/86)
In-Reply-To: your article <1418@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Article: 10:32 The article referring to the problem facing Hollywood by the ban on new transfers of fully automatic weapons to private parties, brings out the fact that the so-called "gun owners rights" law that was so widely acclaimed is, in fact another step toward a total gun ban on the federal level. Clearly the law is unconstitutional, but so is the Morton Grove, IL, ban on handguns. Meanwhile, they are on the books and being enforced. The legal precedent of banning fully automatic weapons via a closed door, VOICE vote in commmittee, means that the same thing CAN, and WILL be done at a later date, to ban all private ownership of firearms. What's going to stop them? The Supreme Court is a joke when it comes to upholding the Second Amendment. The NRA has already shown itself to be a paper tiger, representing only "responsible sportsmen." The most amazing thing about the machinegun ban is that there is NO RECORD OF ANY CRIME HAVING BEEN COMMITTED WITH A REGISTERED MACHINE GUN. Just think of that when they decide that "nasty" guns, suc has pistols and rifles, should be banned because they HAVE been used by criminals to commit crimes. So, WHAT DID GUN OWNERS GAIN BY THE NEW LAW? Nothing that I can see except that I can now buy a rifle or shotgun in Billings, MT, if I should ever pass that way. Let's face it: WE'VE BEEN SUCKERED AGAIN. Jon Kaplowitz cbosgd!erc3ba!jfka #! r