Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03232004 - D4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS s_ Contra FROM: John Gioia, Supervisor, District 1 Gayle B. Uilkema, Supervisor, District 2 i Costa DATE: March 23, 2004 ' °`�A ' .� ' ),qC�~�� cru my SUBJECT: Large Caliber Firearms Ordinance SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: 1. INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 200410 to prohibit the sale of large caliber firearms in the unincorporated area of the County, waive reading, and fix April 6, 2004 for adoption. 2. DECLARE intent to adopt findings in support of Ordinance No. 2004-10. 3. ENCOURAGE all cities in Contra Costa County to adopt an ordinance prohibiting the sale of large caliber firearms. BACKGROUND: On August 12, 2003, the Board of Supervisors directed the County Counsel to draft an ordinance to prohibit persons from selling, giving, transferring, offering for sale, and displaying for sale any large caliber firearm in the unincorporated area of the County. The attached ordinance defines a large caliber firearm as any rifle capable of firing a center-fire cartridge of at least .50 caliber and prohibits the conveyance of these firearms. The County is authorized to regulate .50 caliber rifles because state law does not currently regulate the sale of these weapons. Under general principles of preemption, the County may exercise its police power except as to matters where the state has occupied the field. —if an ordinance duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by state law, it is void. Because state law has not occupied the field with respect to .50 caliber rifles, the County may regulate these weapons. Certain classes of firearms are not regulated under this ordinance because they are strictly regulated by state law. The ordinance does not regulate .60 caliber weapons, because Penal Code section 12301 prohibits the possession of"destructive devices,,, which includes weapons capable of firing ammunition .60 caliber or larger. The ordinance also does not regulate assault weapons, because Penal Code section 12260 prohibits the manufacture, transportation, sale, or possession of assault weapons. The ordinance further exempts machine guns from regulation. Machine guns are defined as weapons that shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. Penal Code section 12220 prohibits the sale of machine guns without a license. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: -___------_---------------..---------- -------------------------- --------�-------------------------------------------------- ---------- RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTYADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S)/ ---_____------_----------------------------------------------ACTION OF BOARD ON PPROVE AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFYTHAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPYOF AN ACTION TAKEN X UNANIMOUS(ASSENT III ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE ALES: NOES: SHOWN, ABSENT: ABSTA ATTESTED Larch 23, 2004 CONTACT:Supervisor John Gioia.(510)374-3231 JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COU NTY�A D M I N I S TRATOR CC: Sheriff' , 13Y ,AEPUTY ;i The attached ordinance also does not regulate handguns. Handguns are regulated by Penal Code sections 12125 et seq. Under these Penal Code sections, a handgun may not be sold in the state unless itrhas been determined to be a "not unsafe" handgun, All "not unsafe" handguns that are authorized for sale in the state are listed on a roster compiled and maintained by the California Department of Justice. One .50 caliber handgun model is currently listed on the roster, and therefore may be sold throughout California. State law prohibits any other .50 caliber handguns that may exist from being sold in California. The ordinance does not apply to certain purchasers or transferees of .50 caliber firearms, including law enforcement personnel, properly licensed and permitted firearms dealers, purchasers of curio or collector firearms, and museums. The ordinance also does not apply to a person who inherits a large caliber firearm. SPEAKER LIST DA Melissa Sheppard, 715 Alhambra Road, El Sobrante Leverette"Lefty"Curtis, 1901 Lopez Drive,Antioch Jerome Smith, 927 Ventura Street,Richmond Marilynne L. Mellander, 7010 Monte Verde Road, El Sobrante Joseph J. Congi, 1.813 Crestwood Court, Concord Al DiPrima, 1229 Roanwood, Concord Jeffrey Taylor, 1398 Danville Blvd.,Alamo James Marchetti, 4860 Valley Way, Antioch Darryl Phillips,404 Bay Crest Drive,Pittsburg Bruce Johnson,2.801 Carmona Way, Antioch Robert Fahey, 4538 Dam Read, El Sobrante Bill Tharp, 3412 Java Drive, San Ramon Wally Shoults,2977 Grant Street, Concord John Moreno, 1859 Lacassie 47, Walnut Creek Ralph Hoffman., 50 Saint Timothy Court,Danville Barry Hinds, 3973 Bolinas Place,Discovery Bay Mrs. Marlys Fankhouser, 3242 Estates Avenue,Pinole Efrairn Lubliner, 381 Read Drive, Lafayette William Cottrell, 2.372 Walnut Blvd,, Walnut Creek Michele Milam, The East Bay Public Safety Corridor, 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Oakland Jim Mellander, 7010 Monte Verde, El Sobrante Juliet Leftwich,Legal Community Against Violence, 721 Spruce Street, Berkeley Diane Barde, Contra Costa Million Mom March,P.O. Boy 2278, Orinda Andres Soto,Trauma Foundation, 2420 Lowell Avenue,Richmond Tony Mortarella, 1399 Candelero Drive,Walnut Creek Roberto Reyes, 845 B Brookside Drive, Richmond Lorrain Taylor, 728 Blossom.Way, Hayward The following persons did not address the Board,but left written comments: Dr. John Steward,Alamo Karyn Fankhouser, 3242 Estates Avenue,Pinole Phyllis Ceaser, 22 San Jose Court,Walnut Creek ORDINANCE NO. 2004-10 LARGE CALIBER FIREARMS--CONVEYANCE PROHIBITED The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code); SECTION L SUNWMARY. This ordinance adds Chapter 54-22 to the County Ordinance Code to prohibit the sale of.50 caliber firearms in unincorporated areas of the County. SECTION II. Chapter 54-22 is added to the County Ordinance Code, to read: Chapter 54-22 LARGE CALIBER FIREARMS—CONVEYANCE PROHIBITED 54-22.002 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of Contra Costa County by prohibiting the sale of.50 caliber firearms in unincorporated areas of the County. (Ord. 2044-10 § 2.) 54-22.004 Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) "Firearm" means any device, designed to be used as a weapon or modified to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel a projectile by the force of explosion or other means of combustion. (b) "Large caliber firearm"means any rifle capable of firing a center-fire cartridge of.50 caliber or larger or .50 BMG caliber or larger either by designation or by actual measurement. (c) "Rifle"means any firearm that is designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and is designed to fire only a single projectile through a rifle bore for each single pull of the trigger. The term "rifle"does not include any shotgun. (Ord. 2004-10 §2.) 54-22.006 Conveyance Prohibited. No person shall sell, give, transfer ownership of, transfer, offer for sale, or display for sale any large caliber firearm. (Ord. 2004-10 § 2.) 54-22.008 Exemptions. (a) The provisions of this chapter do not apply to any of the following: (1) Any sale or transfer of a firearm that is prohibited under state law. ORDINANCE NO. 2004-10 1 (2) The sale or transfer of any destructive device as defined in Section 12301 of the California Penal Code. (3) The sale or transfer of any assault weapon as defined in the California Penal Code. (4) Any firearm approved for sale pursuant to Section 12131 of the California Penal Code. (b) The provisions of Section 54-22.006 do not apply where the purchaser or transferee is any of the following: (1) A law enforcement agency. (2) An agency duly authorized to perform law enforcement duties. (3) A state or local correctional facility. (4) A person described in Section 12302 or 12322 of the California Penal Code. (5) A federal law enforcement officer. (6) A person who is properly identified as a full-time paid peace officer, as defined in Section 830.1, 830.2, 830.4, or 830.5 of the California Penal Code, and who is authorized to, and does, carry a firearm during the course of his or her employment as a peace officer. (7) A firearms dealer who has been issued a Federal Firearms License, a Certificate of Eligibility by the State of California, and a permit by the County of Contra.Costa to engage in the retail sale of firearms. (8) A purchaser of a curio or collector firearm. A firearm will be deemed a curia or collector firearm only if it falls within one of the following categories: (A) It was manufactured before 1899. (B) It is classified as a curio or relic pursuant to Title 27 Code of Federal Regulations section 178.11, and the purchaser maintains a current federal firearms collector license. (C) It is a muzzle-loading firearm. (9) A federal, state, or local historical society, museum, or institutional collection that is ORDINANCE NO. 2004-10 2 open to the public,provided that the large caliber firearm is used for display purposes, is secured from unauthorized use, and is unloaded. (10) An entity or establishment engaged in the business of motion picture, television, or video production,provided that the large caliber firearm is used only as a prop during the course of motion picture, television,or video production, is secured from unauthorized use, and the person charged with maintaining custody of the firearm while it is not in use maintains a current Certificate of Eligibility issued by the State of California. (11) A person who obtains title to a large caliber firearm by bequest or intestate succession. (Ord. 2004-10 § 2.) 54-22.010 Enforcement. A violation of this chapter is an infraction. If a violation of this chapter occurs, the County may seek compliance by any remedy allowed under this code and any other remedy allowed by law. (Ord. 2004-10 § 2.) SECTION III. EFFECTIVE `©ATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for or against it in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on ,by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: JOHN SWEETEN, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Board Chair and County Administrator By: [SEAL] Deputy TTG: HA2004t13oard of5upervisoMargecaliber firearms ord-rifle.wpd ORDINANCE NO. 2004-10 3 FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF ORDINANCE NO. 2004-10 (Large Caliber Firearms) 1. The design of the .50 caliber sniper rifle enables the destruction of aircraft,heavy machinery, and infrastructure from long ranges. 2. The .50 caliber sniper rifle was originally designed for use in the military but is increasingly sold in the domestic civilian market. 3. The .50 caliber sniper rifle has the capacity to accurately hit targets from a distance of one mile and has a maximum range of approximately four miles. 4. Ammunition for the .50 caliber sniper rifle has more than seven times the power on impact as the .30-06, five times that of the .308, and more than three times that of the .338. 5. The .50 caliber sniper rifle uses different types of ammunition, including ball ammunition, armor- piercing ammunition, and armor-piercing-incendiary ammunition. Ball ammunition is for use against personnel and light material targets. Armor-piercing ammunition is for use against armored aircraft-and lightly armored vehicles, concrete shelters, and other bullet-resisting targets. Armor-piercing-incendiary ammunition is tipped with phosphorus and explodes on impact. 6. One ball cartridge can penetrate two inches of concrete from 220 yards and one inch of concrete from 1,640 yards. From 38 yards, 50 rounds of ball ammunition can penetrate 10 inches of concrete and 15 rounds can penetrate 12 inches of a triple brick wall. One armor-piercing cartridge can penetrate one inch of armor plate from 220 yards and 0.3 inches of armor plate from 1,640 yards. 7. The United States Government Accounting Office, Office of Special Investigations, determined that .50 caliber rifles have been linked to terrorist groups, international drug cartels, domestic drug dealers, and violent criminals. 8. Contra Costa County has a high concentration of chemical and refinery facilities, which could serve as targets of terrorist attacks with .50 caliber rifles. March 23,2004 Good afternoon, I am deeply troubled that you,our Board of Supervisors,are spending valuable time and County tax money doing what you're doing today! The ban on large caliber firearms you are considering is a totally unnecessary waste of resources....with no demonstrated need. While our county REELS from a projected budget deficit of tens- of-millions ens- ofmillions of dollars,you complacently sit here following an agenda of ever-increasing loss of freedoms for law abiding citizens. Instead of being instrumental in solving our monetary crisis with thoughtful and aggressive leadership,you insist upon being followers of left-wing extremists who are bent on disarming America,one step at a time. You are acting much the way the laughing-stock politicians of Berkeley often do! You ought to be busy renegotiating county worker contracts and perks to correct excessive employment costs,that you complacently have approved in the past. You ought to be looking into possibilities of cutbacks in unneeded and underutilized county employeesjust as financially strapped corporations have been doing,and continue to do. You ought to be using clever and innovative ways to bring spending under control before Contra Costa County reaches insolvency,such as our new governor is doing for the state. I strongly urge you to do as the leaders of Dong Beach,Ca.lifornia have done before you....shelve this pointless and unnecessary legislation...and move on to what you are here for. Take care of governing our county. William Cottrell Resident of Walnut Creek ten trut6s 't : pr n Written ln: Matt Giwer J Submitt(Nl bj,. Shelly Thompson . Any low the electorate sees as being open to being perverted from its original intent will be perverted in a manner that exceeds the manner of perversion teen bt the time. Any law that is so difficult to past it requires the citizens be assured it will not be a stepping stone to worse laws, will in fact be a stepping stone to worse laws. Any law that requires the citizens be assured the law does not mean what the citizens fear, means exactly what the citizens fear. Any law passed in a good cause will be interpreted to apply to causes against the wither of the people. Any law enacted to help any one group will be applied to harm people not in that group. . Everything the government says will never happen, will happen. What the government says it could not foretee, the government has planned for. When there is a budget short f all to cover non-essential government ' services, the citizens will be given the choice between higher taxes or the lass of essential government services. Should the citizens mount a successful effort to stop a piece of legislation, the same legislation will be passed under it different name. All deprivations of freedom and choice will be increased rather than reversed. + _. ... .. ...._.. .. _. ......... ......... ......... .....__.. ........... ............ ........ ........ ..... ..... ........_.. ._....... REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) KINUTE LIXIT) Complete this farm and place it in the box near the speakers' Name: Phone.*be re: .addressing the Board'.. PhGli]e. Address.*- `` 'r �2 ' I am speaking for myself or organization: (name of orianfrati*n) CIMCK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # bate My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of I circ not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to considers DR.JOHN L. STEWARD Alamo, California 94507 March 22, 2004 TO: Contra Costa Board of Supervisors RE: .50 Caliber Rifle Ban 4 (I, John L. Steward, authorize Wally Shoults, to read this letter to the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors in regards to the .50 Caliber Rifle ban whenever the hearing(s) are held.) As a Clinical Psychologist, I have worked extensively with criminals and I am very familiar with the criminal mind. I have also been a supporter of reasonable laws. Terrorists want to make a very dramatic splash with the unmistakable assumption that they committed the murderous acts. All evidence leads us to conclude terrorists will use planes, trains and automobiles loaded with jet fuel, dynamite, or C-4 to make their point. Psychologically, a .50 Caliber Firearm is a pathetic peashooter to them. The psychology of terrorists, as we have all seen, is not to hide in bushes and take pot shots at targets in America. Terrorists did not hide in bushes to snipe at the World Trade Towers and our Pentagon. They used three planes weighing 191,000 lbs with 8,000 gallons of fuel. They did not pick up a measly 40 ib rifle to shoot a projectile to make a mere 112-inch hole. They wanted to make a 1f2 mile hole. In the streets of Palestine and Israel, the terrorists have driven 2500 lbs cars and 5000 lbs trucks filled with explosives to make a much bigger assured explosion, killing as many as possible. They did not walk around with a single rifle that does minimal damage. You, the Supervisors of Contra Costa County, have created emotional terrorism for the innocent people of Contra Costa County with an antigun agenda, having them believe terrorists want to use a gun; while you ignore the real threat. The success of the terrorist's today does not depend upon hiding with a rifle. Their psychological I success requires them to cause enormous or demonstrable damage, with as much fanfare as possible. The technique and manner best suited for this is to use easily ac uired mobile bombs loaded with fuel or explosives in a suicide/murder. If the terrorist hides and shoots a small 1/2 inch hole in a steel container, it defeats their very purpose of making a dramatic public statement where they may be seen and identified. IF you, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisor's, want to protect us, then base policy on past known terror attacks and not on whimsical fantasy to support your anti-gun agenda. it is a foolish and absurd policy to assert you are fighting terrorism when you want to ban a firearm never used to commit a terrorist act. Further, did you heed my words the last time I was here, that you need to protect our oil tanks and refineries with barricades, against the obvious known vehicular threats used by terrorists' Or have you continued to spin your anti-gun wheels and ignore the true threat to our people whom you swore to serve? When a terrorist drives a truck or car into one of these oil refineries or oil tanks that pollutes, maims and kills innocent people, this letter, this testimonrecorded here today will stand as a record against you and as the basis for legal action against you, because you have been derelict in your duty. And all of this damage will occur because of your myopic prejudice and discrimination against guns and law abiding gun owners, sportsmen and sportswomen. In addition, you will also be spending taxpayer money to defend an absurd policy when this money is needed to fund programs for children, families of our county. Be careful how you tread, for you bear responsibility for your actions. John L. Steward 60 2 Consider with D.4 Phone calls OPPOSING item DA 3/23/04 Dern D'Angeles 925-673-0972 Donald R. Smith 443 Tayberry Lane Brentwood 925-240-1706 "Oppose .50 Caliber Rifle ban". Robert Riggins 228-7592 "NRA Member, longtime Martinez resident. Oppose, does not own such a gun, sees no reason to ban". Michael Redmond 925-837-6125 Jerry Kunzman 510-232-6272 Robert Dattle 925-671-0803 Dan Westfall El Sobrante "Against ban on .50 Caliber hunting and target practice„ Mitchel Setencich 925-933-8894 Gary Rossi 925-686-6424 Scott Gillette 925-283-9145 page 2/Phone calls OPPOSING item DA 3/23/04 Harm Wynn. 925-757-5255 Fred Davis 925-689-6095 George Richards 1700 Libery Street Bl Cerrito 510-233-7874 Mark Vergeron 925-229-3634 Ann & Sheldon Moore Members of NRA 510-724-6691 Ken Meyer 925-439-3662 Paul Bostwick 925-939-9217 Philip Mentz 160 Arapaho Circle San Ramon Harry Lee Spitt 1822 Blossom Drive Antioch 925-757-0453 Page 3/Phone calls OPPOSING item D.4 Fred Weller 61 Weller Lane Danville 837-1710 (Res.) 838-2124 (Bus) "Would like to keep the guns at home" Jack Wessman 925-672-5225 Ted Mavrakos 925-674-8661 Don Fautt 925-673-1983 925-381-1020 (Cell Phone) Dan Miller 674 Baldwin Drive Brentwood 925-240-1477 William.D. Lyons 131 Park Avenue Walnut Creek 925-934-0956 Steve Harrin 925-254-0181 Jackie Cloldt 154 Amber Valley.Drive Orinda 925-254-6069 "Unfair to law abiding citizens" Ray F. Bonnell 128 Raven Hill Road Orinda 925-254-4112 Wayne Michael Becker P.U. Box 415 Lafayette 925-284-5193 David J. Murray 2019 Oak Grove Court Concord 925-798-3169 William Ellis 287 Kingston Way Walnut Creek 935-4286 "Unrelated to public safety and is unconstitutional, urges Board of Supervisors to vote it down" Norman Tolly 925-672-0970 "doesn't want any legislation regarding .50 Caliber" Lee Gladden 310 West Street #11 Crockett David Boone 9 Carrmman Drive Concord CONSIDER WITH D4 In Favor of Ordinance Omosed to Ordinance 1. Thomas Doherty 925-634-0784 2. 'Walter Howard 925-672-7669 3. Kenneth Butori 925-687-4302 4. Gerald Stoodley 925-932-3169 S.Sam Bort 925-798-0475 6.Skip Cressman 925-935-6270 7. David Elmore .510-222-7901 8.Fred Tenderson ** No phone** 9.Leslie Leale 925-837-1272 lO.Florence Leale 925-837-1272 1LEd Crump 925-672-3040 12. Dan W. Lem 925-680-1515 VOTES ON ORDINANCE NO. 2004-10 CONSIDER T LARGE CALIBER FIREARMS-CONVEYANCE PROHIBITED IN FAVOR OF THE AGAINST THE ORDINANCE ORDINANCE Larry Swick 925-828-2195 Steve Hansen 925-250-5333 (CP) Darryl Hosier 925-743-8469 Norman L. Byars 925-228-6207 Steve Sauter 925-625-1282 Hilma Byars 925-372-9022 Bob Rapasky 925-825-9623 Strongly Opposing Herbert Lederman 925-631-0229 Raymond Corrie 925-240-8580 Earl Pukushirna 925-370-6296 P. 01 T2s s-zz 13�� 925 672 1378 , 03 MAF2- 1- - 17 PM JAGlC. WeSsMFilJ �a V * 335 b e� � ct U% ' '- '' it - Bills Page 1 of 3 'otk State New I Friday, March 19, 2004 Bill Summary - A07039 Back I New York State Bili Search I Assembly Home See Bill Text A07039 Summary: SAME AS same as S 4453 SPONSOR Eddington COSPNSR Bing, Lifton, Bradley, Ramos, Lavelle MLTSPNSR Carrozza, Clark, Diaz R, Dinowitz, Englebright, Click, Greene, Hoyt, john, Koon, Ortiz, Paulin, Perry, Pheffer, Sanders, Scarborough, Stringer, Weinstein, Weisenberg Amd Pen L, generally; add 5231, Exec L Bans the sale, use or possession of 50--caliber or larger weapons and directs the division of state police to embark on a program whereby persons currently in lawful possession of such weapons may be reimbursed for the fair market value thereof upon turning such weapons in to a designated officer. A07039 Actions. 03/18/2003 referred to codes 05/13/2003 reported referred to rules 015/27/2003 rules report cal. 154 05/27/2003 ordered to third reading rules cal.154 01/07/2004 referred to codes 03/02/2004 reported referred to ways and means 03/1.0/2004 reported 03/11/2004 advanced to third reading cal.84 03/15/2004 motion to amend lost 03/15/2004 passed assembly 03/15/2004 delivered to senate 03/15/2004 REFERRED TO CODES A07039 Votes: Abbate Y Carrozz Y Farrell Y Hooper Y McEneny Y Prentis NO Sweeney NO Acampor NO Casale NO Ferrara Y Hoyt Y McLaugh Y Pretlow Y Tedisco NO Alfano Y Christe Y Fields NO Jacobs Y Miller NO Raia Y Thiele Y Arroyo Y Clark Y Finch NO John Y Millman Y Ramos Y Titus Y http:/./assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=a07039 3/19/2004 Bilis Page 2 of 3 Auberti NO Cohe A Y Fi4tzpat NO Karben Y Mills NO Reilich NO Tocci NO Aubry Y Cohe M Y Galef Y Kaufman Y Mirones NO Rive J Y Tokasz NO Bacalle NO Colton Y Gantt Y Kirwan ER Morelle Y Rive PM Y Tonko NO Barclay NO Conte NO Gianari Y Klein Y Nesbitt NO Robinso Y Towns Y Barra Y Cook Y Glick Y Kolb NO Nolan Y Saladin Y Townsen NO Barraga NO Crouch NO Gordon Y Koon Y Norman Y Sanders Y Warner NO Benjami NO Cusick NO Gottfri Y Lafayet Y Oaks NO Sayward NO Weinste Y Bing Y Cymbrcw Y Grannis Y Lavelle Y O`Conne Y Scarbor Y Weisenb Y Boyland ER DelMont NO Green Y Lentol Y O'Donne Y Schimmi NO Weprin Y Bradley Y Destito NO Greene Y Lifton Y Ortiz Y Scozzaf NO Winner NO Brennan Y Diaz LM Y Grodenc Y Lopez Y Ortloff NO Seddio Y Wirth ER Brodsky Y Diaz R Y Gromack NO Magee NO Parment NO Seminer ER Wright Y Brown NO DiNapol Y Gunther NO Magnare Y Paulin Y Sidikma Y Young NO Burling NO Dinowit Y Hayes NO Manning NO Peoples Y Smith NO Mr Spkr Y Butler NO Eddingt Y Heastie Y Markey Y Peralta Y Spano Y Cahill Y Englebr Y Higgins NO Mayerso Y Perry Y Stephen NO Calhoun NO Errigo NO Hikind Y McDonal NO Pheffer Y Stranie NO Canestr Y Espaill Y Hooker NO McDonou Y Powell Y Stringe Y A07039 Memo: TITLE OF BILL : An act to amend the penal law and the executive law, in relation to banning the sale, possession or use of 50-caliber weapons PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL To ban the possession, sale and use of 50--caliber weapons in the state of New York, to impose additional penalties for the use of a 50-caliber weapon while committing certain felonies and to implement procedures for public compliance with this statute. SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS : Section 1 Legislative findings and declaration Sections 2-3 Definitions Sections 4-19 Crimes of possession, use, display or transport of 50-caliber weapon Sections 20-21 Exceptions to felony classifications Section 22 Compliance provisions Section 23 Effective date JUSTIFICATION : The 50-caliber weapon is one of the most dangerous weapons in the U.S. military's arsenal. These weapons are used for long-range tactical assassinations and assaults in the U.S. Military. These deadly weapons are accurate for up to 2000 yards (20 football fields) , or over one mile, and are effective up to 7,500 yards (75 football fields) , or over 4 miles. http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=a07039 3/19/2004 Bilis Page 3 of 3 Although these powerful anti-personal weapons were designed for military purposes, these weapons have appeared in the civilian market. These weapons of war are readily available on the Internet and in gun stores. Records obtained by the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) indicated that the largest manufacturer, the Barrett Company, manufactured and sold over 2, 800 50-caliber rifles between 1987-1998. Investigators found that some of these weapons ended up in the hands of domestic and international terrorist organizations, religious cults, international drug traffickers, and violent criminals. These weapons serve absolutely no legitimate non-military purpose. The 50-caliber bullets from these military weapons travel at a tremendous velocity and can travel miles even after passing through a target. A prudent target shooter aiming at a wooden target should be certain that no one is within a distance of 4 miles beyond that target. On April 28, 1999, the United States Marine Corps Scout Sniper Schools invited the Democratic minority staff to its training facility in Quantico, Virginia, to see a demonstration of the fifty caliber weapon. During the demonstration, the Marine instructors discussed the destructive power of several fifty-caliber rounds. They showed how an armor piercing round penetrated one inch thick rolled homogeneous armor found on armored vehicles throughout the world, a three and a half inch thick steel manhole cover, a two inch thick steel track from a tractor, a piece of three quarter inch bullet-resistant glass, and four cinder blocks with three quarter inch walls laid end to end. Finally, a Marine shooter fired multiple shots in rapid succession completely through a six--hundred pound safe. - Congressman Henry Waxman According to a report by the Violence Policy Center, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization, purchased at least twenty-five 50-caliber weapons from a U.S. manufacturer. This fact came to light at the trial of terrorists convicted of the American embassy bombings in Africa. Al Qaeda also purchased range finders, night vision scopes and night goggles which the manufacturer boasts will make the weapon "even more effective under cover of darkness. " This bill will ban the possession, sale and use of 50-caliber weapons in order to protect our citizens and our law enforcement personnel who risk their lives to keep us safe. EFFECTIVE. DATE Immediately Contact Webmaster http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=a07039 3/19/2004 DAN BURTON,INDIANA, HENRY A WAXMAN,CALIFORNIA. CHAIRMAN RANKING AMLORITY MEMBER BENJAMIN A.OILMAN.NEW YORK ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS TOM LANTOS,CALIFORNIA CONSTANCE A.MORELIA,MARYLAND MAJOR R.OWENB.NEW YORK CHRISTOPHER SHAYS,CONNECTICUT ;ILEANAw�rfw�},y�f�t'yyy ,■ems■ #L J(�{+�� }j,YA 1Lte5yr ,,Va.L�7 PAUL 9.EDCLPHUR TDWNS.PENNSYLVANIA NEW YORK a JOHN M.McHUM44,NEW YORKDA ona, rtoev.V of tbt utteb btat fd PCAROLI'HMALONEY,NEW YORK f STEPHEN HORN.CAUFORWA .V JOHN L MICA,FLORIDA ELEANOR HOLIAE AKJIRTOlL t (HO"M.DAVIS,VIAOIN1A �y�t�t �y y. + }/.y� �/ DIST=OF COLUMBIA MARK E.SOLIDER.MOIANA *aide of paltntatibe# DEWSH .CUCINICK,MARYIAND STEVEN C.LATOURETTE.OHIO DEWS J.KUCMXCN,DHKS BOB BARB,MAGIA t�tt� { ROD R.BLARROJEVICK ILLINOIS z DAN MUJ.ER,FLOR10A C V IYI�+N E � '�� "�� �� DANNY K.DAVIS.ILLINOIS Dow OSE,CALIFORNIA JOHNF.TiERNEY,MASSACHUSETTS ,. RON LEWIS.KENT"Yb JAMTURNER.TID(AS JO AM DAVIS.WAGNIA 2157 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE SUiLDING THOMA$H.ALLEN,MAINE: TODD RUSSELL PLATTS,PENNSYLYANIA JANICE D.SCHAKOWSKY.ILLINOIS DAVE WELDON.FLOWDA V"LACY CLAY.Mt•39OlJtit a t;t#Ri9 CANNON,UTAH WASHINGTON,DC 20515--6143 DIANE E.WATSON,CALIFORNIA .� ADAM N.PUTNAM,FLORIDA STEPHEN F.LYNCH.MASSACHUSETTS C.L SLITCH`OTTER,IDAHO M''10R �2�d0]3 EDWARD L SCHROCK,VM110A Fa IMI 7 T6 M.Ot)f11T/ t2MZM-W2 BERNARD SANDERS.VERMONT. ' JOHN J.DUAfCAN,JR.,TENNESSEE Try (2M S2 INDEPENDENT r WWWAOUSe.gm/refon41 r Transcript of Marine Corps Video Demonstration of Long Range Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons Background: On May 3, 1999,members of the House Committee on Government Reform held a x Special Investigations Briefing on long-range,fifty caliber sniper weapons. At that briefing,the ' U.S.Marine Corps Scout Sniper Instructor School provided a video demonstration of fifty caliber sniper weapons. The demonstration included an explanation of the tremendous range of these weapons,as well as a firing range display of theirphysical capabilities. Following is a verbatim41 transcript of the Marine Corps demonstration. The video version is available at http•Ilwww.house.&M/reform/min/inves duns/mums fiftyhtm. Transcript• [ATTRIBUTION SLIDE: [TITLE SLIDE: ] mj For Official Use Only M82AIA Property of SASR UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS TERMINAL , Scout Sniper Instructor School BALLISTICS {- Weapons Training Battalion DEMONSTRATION MCCDC Quantico, Virginia 22134-5040 Attention: OIC Snipers r Good morning,I'm Captain Ukeiley,the Officer In Charge of the Marine Corps Scout Sniper Instructor School. Welcome to Range Four,Weapons Training Battalion,home of the Marine Corps Scout Snipers. 4 What we're going to demonstrate here for you today is the capabilities and terminal ballistics effects of the M82A1A Special Application Scoped Rifle used by the Scout Sniper Platoons of the infantry battalion within the Marine Corps. The M82A1A Special Application Scoped Rifle itself. this weapon is 28.5 pounds empty,it is 57 inches in length,with a 29-inch IA, barrel,with a 1 in 15 right hand twist. Moving from front to rear,there's a muzzle brake on the �a end that eats approximately 40 percent of the recoil. The barrel itself slides back and forth, eating further recoil. The upper receiver. The bi-pod legs. V lt} E�y There is a ten-power fined Unertl scope,allowing us to engage maximum effective range on the targets to 2,000 yards. This weapon will fire a standard .50 cal bullet out to 7,454 yards. If you can picture 75 football fields laid end-to-end,that's how far the bullet will travel. A Anil- spec rail,a ten round magazine,a stock and pistol grip, similar to the M16. It also has front and F A rear iron sights and a thick recoil pad. The most commonly available ammunition for the.50 cal SASR is standard.50 cal Browning.machine gun ammunition. This one fires a 660-grain bullet at 2,800 feet per second. A Another type of round is the 118 Armor Piercing/Incendiary[API]round. This round provides limited armor piercing and limited incendiary effect against lightly armored targets. A third type of round,which cannot be fired from this.50 cal weapon,but however can be fired from others, is the SLAP round. SLAP,standing for Sabot Light Armor Penetrator. This is a Tungsten r Carbide dart. What happens upon firing of the round,the plastic shoe is discarded out the side, and this small dart travels at over 4,044 feet per second to penetrate armored targets, "t The primary round for[the] M82A1A Special Application Scoped Rifle is the Mark 211 Mod-4 Raufoss ammunition,Raufoss being the town in Norway where the factory is located where this round is created. This round provides armor piercing,incendiary,and high explosive effect as noted by its green and silver tip. The way this round works is as follows. When the round is fired,it creates a spin. In the front of this round is an incendiary mixture. That in ; will form a cone. Behind that is Composition A4,which gives high explosive effect through Zirconium particles for sustained burning. There is also in the back of the round a 7.62 millimeter Tungsten Carbide penetrator. Upon hitting an armored target,an incendiary mix will � form adiabatic pressure. That pressure needing to be released will propel the 7.62 millimeter 1 k Tungsten Carbide penetrator forward at over 4,004 feet per second,providing armor piercing effect on a lightly armored target. Following in the wake of that Tungsten Carbide penetrator n through that hole will follow the incendiary mixture,time Composition A4,which will provide small high explosive effect, and the Zirconium for incendiary effect inside the target. An example of what this ammo can do. This is a one inch thick piece of rolled homogeneous armor found on armored vehicles throughout the world. We fired two rounds through it: the M8 Armor Piercing/Incendiary[API]round on the right;and.the.54 cal SLAP All round on the left. As you can see,the Armor Piercing/Incendiary[API]round penetrated,but slid not continue through. The SLAP round,moving at over 4,400 feet per second,came in and exited completely through this block of armor. [Sniper on ground prepares to demonstrate.] Target two is a manhole cover,21 Y2 inches diameter by 3%z inches thick. Target two, i observer up. Ready. Fire. [Sniper shoots.] Two o'clock. Target two,observers up. Ready. Fire. [Sniper shoots.] Center mass. Target four is the steel track from a Ford tractor. Two inches thick, 16 inches by 12 inches dimension. Target four. Ready. Fire. [Sniper shoots,] Target down. n ri Target five is bullet resistant glass,31.E inch thick, IS inches by 40 inches dimensions. a<, r>y y ;lt �s <;a Target five,observers up. Ready. Fire. [Sniper shoots.] Center mass,slightly left. Target six is cinderblocks. Cinderblocks are eight inches thick with 3/4 inch walls, 16 inches long. Target six,observers up. Ready. Fire. [Sniper shoots.] Cease-fire. Target seven. Fire ten rounds at the steel target. Target number seven,observer is up. Ready. Fire. [Sniper shoots ten rounds.] [Captain Ukeiley shows targets.] 4K,here are the entrance holes on the 3'/z inch thick manhole cover,at a 30 degree obliquity,and the exit hole. Note the secondary fragmentation pattern and the effect it had on the wood behind the target itself. jos The entrance hole from the .50 cal and the two inch thick steel track —note also the crack------better witnessed from this view. You can notice the.50 cal exit hole, the limited g secondary fragmentation and the cracking of that plate. �4 The incendiary effects of the.50 cal Raufoss round demonstrated here,Zirconium +;y F particles and the remnants of that round continuing to burn a full 30 seconds after bullet strike. £1 And down range 30,yards past the impact. [Range personnel use fire extinguisher to put out fire down range.] The cinderblocks. The Raufoss round did penetrate through four of the blocks,and their through tumbling and yawing action exited through the top. [Sniper fires ten rounds.] „3 5 The entrance holes within that 600-pound safe. The petal-looking-like objects are actually the jacket being stripped away from the Raufoss round. And the exit holes. Demonstrated here are six of the seven exit holes. Three of the Tungsten Carbide penetrators did not penetrate out the back half of that safe. On the top part of the screen you can see one Tungsten Carbide penetrator that impacted the back end of the safe but did not penetrate. At the lowest part of the screen you can see one Tungsten Carbine penetrator that actually carne through f the back end of the safe,parallel vice perpendicular to the target. Pending any questions you might have,this concludes the M82AlA Special Applications Scoped Rifle Terminal Ballistics and Capabilities Demonstration. x [Shots fired.] United States Marine CorpsJg 'f Combat Camera Unit MCCDC Quanntico,Virginia [FN] a �y iin+ NewsLibrary: Document Display Page I of 2 NewsBank InfoWeb NewsLlibrary Estimated printed pages: 2 Docs remaining: 8 Subscription until: 04/09/2004 13:31:55 Kansas City Star, The(MO) February 27, 2004 Page: A6 .50-caliber weapon packs lethal punch Author: HIKE McGRAW Article Text: A.50-caliber rifle like the one found at 9400 Grandview Road this week is an awesome weapon that fires the largest commercially available ammunition in the United States. And the bullet blasts a very big hole. Firefighters and police officers who dodged a hail of.50-caliber gunfire Monday will attest to that. The slugs left gaping holes in several of their fire trucks and an ambulance. The muzzle flash from a.50-caliber weapon-which fires cartridges 6 inches long and a half-inch in diameter- is the last thing Saddam Hussein's sons Odai and Quasi probably saw before their deaths at the hands of U.S. soldiers. When the Army asked one of its snipers about the weapon's effectiveness on an armed Iraqi insurgent, he responded: "I engaged the target(standing in a water tower almost a mile away). The top half of the torso fell forward out of the tower and the lower portion remained in the tower." Obviously the military favors the heavy firepower. Some law enforcement agencies also use the big- caliber weapons. Osama bin Laden reportedly bought 25 of them made in America. But the .50-calibers are also available to gun enthusiasts such as Donin Wright, who police suspect fired at them before dying in Monday's fusillade, Under current laws,anyone who can purchase a .22-caliber single-shot for plinking can also buy a .50-caliber rifle with telescopic sight and tripod. "The .50-caliber round was designed to be armor-piercing and anti-tank," said Joe Vince, former chief of the crime guns analysis branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Vince, now president of Crime Gun Solutions in Frederick, Md., added: "This is a very dangerous weapon. You can see that by what it did to your fire trucks there." The .50-caliber weapon found in.the ashes of Wright's home this week was made by Barrett Firearms of http://nI.newsb ank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=print&p_doeid=10107B 71403 8... 3/10/2004 NewsLibrary: Document Display Page 2 of 2 Murfreesboro, Tenn. The company's vice president, Bob Gates, said Thursday that the weapon- which sells for$7,300 retail - "is a civilian-legal gun and complies with all ATF rules and regulations." Barrett Firearms,which sells to the military and to law enforcement, also makes the weapons for big- game hunters and long-range target shooters, Gates said. "This thing weighs approximately 33 pounds and is 6 feet long," Gates said. "It is not something you would use to hold up a(convenience)store or pack in your Buick for a drive-by shooting." To reach Mike McGraw, , call (816) 234-4423 or send e-mail to mcgrawkcstar.com. Police on Thursday displayed a .50-caliber round found in the rubble of Donin Wrighfs home. Photo CHRIS OCHSNER/The Kansas City Star Copyright 2004 The Kansas City Star Co. Record Number: 1394395 http://nI.newsbanLcom/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action�print&p_docid=10107B714C3 8... 3/10/2004 NaewsLibrary: Document Misplay Page 1 of 2 NewsBank YnfoWeb NewsLii3>C ary Estimated printed pages: 2 Docs remaining: 4 Subscription until: 04/49/2004 13:31:55 The San Diego Union-Tribune August 2, 2003 Edition: 1,2,6,7 Section:NEWS Page: A-11 3 suspected traffickers killed, 6 wounded in shootout in Medco Author: t4SSOCL4TED PRESS The Dallas Morning News contributed to this story. Dateline:NUEVO LAREDO, Mexico Article Text: Police and soldiers returned fire against suspected drug traffickers in this border city early yesterday, killing three and wounding six others, the state attorney general said. The deaths occurred when a fleeing vehicle exploded in flames during the shootout, Tamaulipas Attorney General Francisco Cayuela Villarreal said. It was unclear what weapons were involved in the incident. Authorities initially said a bazooka was used by soldiers to stop the vehicle but later said the gas tank exploded after being hit by a projectile during the fighting. Cayuela said army troops opened fire with rocket-propelled grenades because the traffickers were heavily armed. "The forces of public order have to respond with the same level of equipment that these criminals have," he said. Other authorities indicated the rocket-propelled grenades were not used. Six people believed to be drug traffickers were hospitalized, Cayuela said. The bodies of two other men who had been handcuffed and executed were found south of the city later in the morning, but it was not clear whether that was related to the shootout. The shooting began at about 2 a.m. when Nuevo Laredo city police began chasing a convoy of armed men, who began shooting at them. http://nI.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=print&p_docid=OFCB 9703 07 l E... 3/10/2004 NewsLibrary: Document Display Page 2 of 2 Officials said police called for backup and state and federal police and soldiers rushed to the scene. News photographs of the scene showed two corpses were charred beyond recognition. Cayuela said the convoy appeared to be linked to an attempt by the Pacific Coast drug gang led by Joaqun"El Chapo" Guzman to move into drug territory controlled by Osiel Cardenas, who was arrested in March. Nuevo Laredo,just south of Laredo,Texas,has seen more than 40 killings so far this year,most of them attributed by authorities to drug trafficking disputes. The shootout carne less than a day after U.S. and Mexican officials announced that they had arrested more than 240 people in a 19-month "Operation Trifecta" aimed at another drug cartel. Cayuela said 198 local police officers were being suspended as part of a corruption investigation by federal authorities. It is directed at police suspected of taking kickbacks from traffickers in the border city. He gave no further details. Cayuela declined to identify the bodies but said none of the dead belonged to the police or army. The state attorney general said authorities found powerful weaponry in the suspects'cars, including .50- caliber rifles, whose cartridge is the size of a common anti-aircraft round. State police said two armored light trucks that had apparently been involved in the shootout were found later near the Polvo Enamorado Park in the southern part of the city. Copyright 2003 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. Record Number: UTS 1751519 http://nl.newsbank.corn/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=print&p jocid=OFCB97C3071 E... 3/10/2004 NewsLibrary: Document Display Page 1 of 3 NewsBank InfoWeb N ewsLiblrary Estimated printed pages: 3 Docs remaining: 3 Subscription until: 04/09/2004 13:31:55 Connecticut Post(Bridgeport, CT) September 21, 2003 Section: Local/Regional News Was nuke plant test rigged? WASMNGTON Article Text: The Indian Point nuclear plant, 50 miles upwind of Bridgeport, Conn., recently passed a Nuclear Regulatory Commission security test,but critics say the exam was rigged. In August, the NRC told Congress the plant, located along the Hudson River in New York,had a"strong defensive strategy and capability" based upon the completed force-on-force tests. Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, complained in a recent letter to the NRC that the "force-on-force" test was too easy to adequately determine whether Indian Point security could repel a terrorist threat. "This dumbed-down test cannot offer any assurances of adequate security," Brian said. Among POGO's complaints was that the force-on-force tests took place in broad daylight using a handful of under-armed terrorist attackers. Most intelligence experts, Brian said,believe that a terrorist assault on a nuclear plant would occur at night with at least a dozen terrorists armed with rocket- propelled grenades or.50 caliber rifles with armor-piercing incendiary rounds. Moreover, Brian said that the "mock terrorists" used in the drills were security officers from another plant who had no training in terrorist tactics. In two of the three drills the "mock terrorists" crossed open fields in broad daylight in order to reach the protected areas, Brian said. New York Sen. Charles Schumer told the New York Times that the NRC should be testing for the "worst-case scenario" and not the best case. "Any test that doesn't rely on the elements of surprise is completely suspect, and I wish they'd do another one," Schumer said. NewsLibrary: Document Display Page I of 2 NewsBank InfoWeb NewsLibrary Estimated printed pages: I Does remaining: 1 Subscription until: 04/09/2004 13:31:55 Press of Atlantic City, The(NJ) October 10, 2003 Edition: Cape May Section: Region Page: C I LOWER TWP.MAN CHARGED WITH THREATENING MAIL CARRIER Author: TRUDIGILFILLMN Staff Writer, (609) 463-6716 Dateline: WILDWOOD CREST Article Text-, A U.S. Postal Service letter carrier was threatened as he made his rounds in the borough Wednesday afternoon,police said. According to police reports,the mail carrier had just put some mail through a slot of the front door of an Atlanta Road home when a large,longhaired dog came around the side of the house and began growling at him. The mail carrier took out a container of mace from his bag and pointed it at the dog. Police Lt. David Mayer said a man, who was visiting the home,then came around the side of the house and told the mail carrier that if he sprayed the mace on his dog,he would shoot him. The mail carrier left and contacted police, who soon arrested the man,identified as Peter F Jargowski, 65, of Lower Township. Police searched Jargowski's pickup truck and reported finding a Colt .22 caliber handgun, a Remington .12-gauge shotgun, a Thompson.50 caliber rifle with scope and a hunting bow with arrows. Police said Jargowski was arrested without incident and charged with illegal possession of a handgun, illegal possession of a shotgun and making terroristic threats. Additional charges are pending. He remained lodged in the Cape May County jail Thursday in lieu of$25,000 bail. To e-mail Trudi Giffillian at The Press: TGilfillian@pressofac.com crime Copyright, 2003, South Jersey Publishing Company t/a The Press of Atlantic City http://nI.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p__,action=print&p_docid=OFElE5CAAEF... 3/10/2004 NewsLibrary: Document Display Page I of 2 NewsBank InfoWeb NewsLibrary Estimated printed pages: 2 Does remaining: 5 Subscription until: 04/09/2004 13:31:55 St. Petersburg Times August 231,2003 Edition: 2 LATE TAMPA Section: TAMPA& STATE; CITY& STATE; METRO& STATE Page: 313; 3B; 313 Man pleads guilty to weapons charges Author: GRAHAM BRINK Dateline: TAMPA Article Text: Once again, Samuel V. Shannahan has pleaded guilty to providing guns later linked to a plot to blow up Islamic centers and mosques. Shannahan told a federal judge Friday that he wanted to plead guilty to 10 counts of illegally transferring weapons. His original plea, given in April, fell apart as he was about to be sentenced last month when the prosecutor accused Shannahan of changing his story and misleading investigators about a document pertinent to the whereabouts of one of the weapons. Shannahan's attorney countered last week that Shannahan did not change his story or commit perjury.It was the prosecutor who misrepresented the facts, he said. Even though Shannahan decided to plead guilty rather than go to trial Monday,his lawyer vowed to follow up on his allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. Jeffrey Brown said if he had done what he accused prosecutor Colleen Murphy of doing,he would have faced charges. Murphy said she could not comment about an ongoing case. Shannahan was arrested in September, after authorities found an arsenal that included two light anti- armor rockets, handguns, a.50-caliber rifle and homemade bombs in the Seminole home of Robert Goldstein. Goldstein pleaded guilty to plotting to blow up a mosque. He was sentenced to 12 years and seven months in prison. There was no evidence Shannahan knew about Goldstein's plot. http://nI.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p__,action=print&pjocid=OFDlFD5CFAE... 3/10/2004 Supplemental material for SOS 3/23/2004 meeting item D.4; page 1 of 2 .50 Caliber Cartridge Identification and Specifications N-A%o , D ry BLACK RLur LOW ALU"UM BLM NEW NATUAk �:D�AH�c � �,UE +41,IJEd�3,l4*M A1.tNaf'u11At RAM, I RACIER ARMOR. WAWXARY Amt. MmOt; 7DkN AY &►.MK 't A^CE3# Ammunition for the M2, The caliber.50 cartridge consists of a cartridge case, primer, propelling charge, and the bullet. The term bullet refers only to the small-arms projectile. There are eight types of ammunition issued for use in the caliber.50 machine gun.The tips of the various rounds are color-coded to indicate their type. The ammunition is linked with the M2 or M9 metal€ic links for use in the machinegun. The ammunition can be used in all standard 12,7 mm (.50 cal)weapons like Browning M2 and M3, M3P, sniper rifles similar to Barrett M82A1 and can also be with changed cartridge case used in 12,7 x 107 weapons. Cartridge Use M2 Ball In marksmanship training, against personnel, and light materiel targets. M 1 Tracer To aid in observing fire-secondary purposes are for incendiary effect and for signaling. M2 Armor-piercing Against armored aircraft and lightly armored vehicles, concrete shelters, and other bullet-resisting targets. M1 Incendiary Incendiary effect-especially against aircraft. M8 Armor-Piercing Combined armor-piercing and Incendiary effect. M20 Armor-Piercing Combined armor-piercing and incendiary effect,with the additional tracer feature. M1 Blank For simulated fire(contains no bullet). M2 17ummy For training (completely inert). M903 SLAP Raufoss Next generation of multipurpose ammunition Supplemental material for SOS 3/23/2004 meeting Item DA; page 2 of 2 hftp://www.iidbs.com/hitech HPLIVNANIVONITIOW 12844 WENLOCK ST. LOUIS, MO 63146 FAX (314) 275-8059 Contact Us! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .50 PROJECTILES(Bullets) ... ........ ........... .... ........... ............x ....... ....... ........ ........... ..................... ............ . . . .......... ................ ... ... .... ............ .... ........... .............................. ....... ....... ..... .. .......... IM33 - Bail - FMJBT - 647 gr. - Resized & $30 $140 $250 'polished M17 - Tracer- Burgundy Tip - 643 gr. - Resized ------------------ $25 $125 $225 A polished AP - Black Tip -690 gr. - Resized & $ $30 140 $250 ;polished ---------------------- $ ------------- ----------- ------------------- ----- ---- ----- 25 ------------------------ --------- - -- API - Silver Tip - 649 gr. - Resized & $125 $225 !polished IM20 - APIT- Silver/Red Tip -619 gr. Resized & $140 $250 1polished jM48-Al - Spotter/Tracer - RedNellow Tip - Machine pulled $140 $30 $250 ........... ------------ M11 - Incendiary - Blue Tip - 633 gr. - Resized & I $60 $275 $500 W. Polished ---------- 03/18/2004 13:53 41.54333357 LCAV PAGE 02 lam LEGAL COMMUNITY AGAINST VIOLENCE bu MNSIDERNH bil ire ns aw Can ter VIA FACSIMILF March 18, 2004 HOARD CJS DIRECTORS Jaynes T Fousekis Board of Supervisors prfsi(1Rnt Contra Costa County Owen J.Clements 651 Fine St. Vlce President Martinez.C,A. 94553 and Treasurer John F.Runkef.Jr. Re: Further support for proposed ordinance banning 50 caliber sniper rues Secretary 3eF(T,Appleman Dear Board of Supervisors, Cameron Baker Gavld J.Berger On August 7, 2003, 1 wrote to you expressing the support of Legal Community Against Robert L.Sordon Violence (LCAV) for a proposed ordinance banning the sale of 50 caliber sniper rifles. The Douglas rtoxer purpose of this letter is to reiterate that support and to provide you with information Ellxabeth 1.Cabrncer regarding the criminal use of these highly destructive firearms, R.J,(Jerry)Coughlan,N. William f.Edlund As you Heard during the August 12 2003 D;�nc L,Gibson ' $ , preliminary hearing regarding the ordinance, 50 John R.Helsse.11 caliber sniper.rifles are military-style firearms, used by armed forces around the world, which George A.insert are proliferating on the civilian market. According to an August 4, 1999, briefing paper by Andrew M.Hitchmp the United Mates General Accounting Office,these weapons—which combine lung range, Donald R.Joseph accuracy and massive power--have been associated with significant criminal activity: David J.Kapnfck Carol M,Kingsley Out investigation revealed that .50 caliber semiautomatic rifles have been linked to Piul h1,Krckorian sobby C.L.Iwyrr domestic and international criminal activity. We have established a nexus to terrorist Richard W.Odgers groups, outlaw motorcycle gangs,international drug cartels,domestic drug dealers, bavid j.Pasternak religious cults, militia groups, potential assassins, and violent criminals. Leufcr,f4.Rcn-c Paul A.Rcnne A, coley gust of the Au 4, 1999, briefing ����ir,C.Scully g paper is enclosed for your review, .(see "Summary of Barry E.Shanley1gYiiCaTJIt Findings"FitiiC . Randal Short John M,Skanberg We urge you to continue your support for a.ban on these incredibly dangerous firearms Ste#her,stuhilrt"t which, wider existing federal and state law, are treated as ordinary long guns(acrid thus are Roderick AA.Thomplan subject to less.regulation than handguns), LCAV corrimend.s the Board for its leadership in AlisonM.Tucher the area of gun,violence prevention and remains available to assist you in whatever way we Ccorge D,Tuttle can.. Todd P Ziesfnq Sue Ann Levin 5thiff Executive Director Very truly yours, 1 it t A. L• r.ch aging orney Cc: Silvano Marehesi, County Counsel LEGAL COMMUNITY AGAINST VIOLENCE va FIREARMS tAW CFNTER; A PROJECT OF LCAV z68 Bush Street,rr555 San Frar.65to,0194704 Tel 411,-433.206a Fa x 415-433.3357 www.fi red rrnsiawcenter,0rg ;3`18!2004 13.53 4154333357 LCAV PAGE 03 0tnera1 Ace6unLing C3fFic;e Office orspachd InvestlgatLow 182666 . .August 4, 199 The Horomble HmWA.Waxman Ranatixtg Minority Mtuber Coau .ittee on Cvmrrment Retorm House of Representatives 71m llonomble Rod.IL Blagojevich Hausa COX RepreseautIves Subject: .epzxc�t r �Ci �r�e Cti�te A5 requesmd,enctosed with this lancer Is a.copy,of a brief rvg that OSI gave tea representatives of tht House Comr`Mb3 ee on Govemmenti orm on Jury 15,1999. At that time,we briefed those presmt On the Mt2ts Of our M-4ew nc &4 how.6} t:aEber BernlaatomAtia jZes have been used in domestic and 4aeln4anal ajar i lal activity. based on Evxiaau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Fire==uudug Wcat=tion and lnfort tion OSI devtloped,wo7foand tbAU.50 ewer aemUutomatic rMes AM linked _ to ppstential.Rsaasabms,Umristgaups,drug dealers,fattemadonal drug eaEteb, militia gmups,and a.rt•:llgou&cult. We will="tulles of this letter available to othws on reVe sL If you haxe�ar v cluestior%,%please c nuctAssistant Dire+ctar Ron MaM az(202)512-6722. Robert kf.H.�st t .Acting Asaiz�Comp Lmaer GeAeral for&`pedal DmestigauOrLs hhclosu� CAMSI-99-15R S4 Caliber Alflo CArne 0311812004 13:53 4154333357 LCAV PAGE 04 B92MG PAM Crimftw AZUVUY Assodated VAth.so Cal a Semxaukoxatic Umes por the Rouse Ctmrnittee on Gaven=exttRdd= DITESWIEWS Tater p�f rrementAVndes{—A'E`I',FB4 US, Cc mw Service,Department of Justice,, Tttdlum State Polka,West Vl;t°&aa State 11cUc#,, Lw Angdes Police Depa=ent, loyal c4aadfau mownrkd Police • Q�TI�ItiI' Are.60 caliber sentiamo rifles ansoeiated with criminal activity? f SUMWAR.Y OF SIGNMCANT FINDINGS Our InvestgatiAm.revealed thst 40 caner semiautomatic ares cave been Untied to donwtic and intemabonal.cr&4=1 .vitt'. We hate a tablf,&hed a nexus to test groups,ou".lawmaoxcycle jaim,int national drug matte..,domesde drug dealers, relWous cutis,militia groups,perttaatial,awusm s,and violent criminals. Ba[G LIGHTS OF FM]2gGS �" o YL�e�r3t�E 5Xt .0 Caliber S r aU—r-RU W The mast poputer.5Q Giber seal uctotrt c xWe is the Ba=ett Model MAI, manuf;a tmo-d by Bamtt FU*m ts. 'Develop e4 in the ea4y 1.980%it came into wide use by U.S.m iii forces duzlAg U%Gulf War and was pilmaWy used apirA lopg- ranp t mgets,auch an vett d"alrrralt,asci'ounkers. V.S_wWtaxy erosive ordir ante disposaltea=also use the Model 8ZA1 to destroy lwd mines"d unexpInded shops from as afe dl5tance. AU bran ae$Orthe V.&saM aq,see U.&law en rr- z=t agerrdes,and,nwnarius foreign wilitary units cu entlg use the Madel A=or&ng to leu of Alcohol,Tobaxco uad Fiream(AM recxircls,RuMtt reported rttatrufatierwing axui salling 2,SU dtea in the domssde CdviUm)market, excluthng rMes sold to X7.&gavenuruent wnclm between 1987 and ISO& However, .ATF records do not zatiact the model number<ar vWber of the zMes Barrett rr dactzuvd or sold. (ATF aditdta tvi the fm=m used to collect daft f eam&yams u=ufutmom lead to some cox&isfran and Luwxur to 3reportu*) According to Barreft warms lit tome and availaWe seas., on the Inteme� B=em ody anaactized.g0 fiber vexrdudc n-odc trrbolt actio ;iWes up to IM,when it introduced Meet 98,a-M iriaut natzc 6Ee. Wised to cooperate w th our isrguirY• Thom ex%the exact rsunrbvr of.50 ca4bez setrdaut tmadd xWes solei in thf dome .c rlvitzim xnarimt cannot be determiined. :� GA"SI-99.1 S R -50 Caliber ANIO Crime 03118/2004 13:53 4154333357 LCAV PAGE 05 gtulosure� �. Ea)*,routineiy eazduets gtrn traces for law miftcame3nt agsnclm The fact tk as a. tnwe has beers conducted does not necesaaxily "A that the&eOrmvVas involved in crkninal netivltp- ATF provided U5t with a list of 30.flxearrn trace revests generaud between November 1892 axtd Iu mch 7.999 cs =etr ung.iU caliber rzIles. mower,2 of the revwere duplicates,leaving 28 sem weapons I'll Whieh traces were conducted. All:of the tMCW involved Bamtt.60 Caner rifles,of wbich 27 were the SeMiatlWatatic model 8W. One trace requm gpeated tv iAv'--Jve a Ban-aU model 90,but ems to develop addttacnal tn.IW %hoa ort*ds trace ice UnSUCCessiU Of the 27 maces invtulvirg Barrien s4 nous WMa9c model,82A1,rites,-WO fOlmd tlwt 18 were awocj find with 4nimirwaa=dvity and 2 wase not associated with ctitctl,ztal aeav4. m dete�snon'wuld be=do regarding 6 tracts. In some cases,ui,O found that e3though the rr tfl'i acti*W involved mors than one .50 caliber semiautcrtt OC rMep the iaW en OmMerut agerucy had Ws ed a trace on onity one Wim. We aUa dcnelaped Woirrnadon on two erlxnfttat cam 7r"hjAg.60 r Abel r.P=i AornAic xZes=reported in the ATF t2cingIn OMa on, 7he Berm nod6el 82AI ww the woupart idetdZed in bath.owes. AMC- aLst 9-C.59 PWbev aa�# raat5c e ne following pending yes Wst idetttl4ed- Alleged Casva Asswm4z ation Pla-The UJ&AttmnV in Sm ZU314 Puerto RWO,is prosecuting seven C sn-Am vdc:zus who have been rtw9ed in,A ptvt to assawa=ta Cuban Pmmdent Fidel.Castro daring a 1997 visit to lU UVAta,m Wand off the Coast ofVuela. Two.50 caliber spjtiauWrftasic zfes sued .from the de r .Cetrs wet to be used during the awssss iat:iom • Temorlst OrgasfiWIanW auk Drug Carteb,A cqukit g.60 Caliber Ser tomatic Dulles-trrvastigations am emerdly being condhu cted by federal law erifaxemmztt agextcles;involving the s=ggja4 of.50 salifies somrllutaM x3f Q*-ptuchWed legft in the t3.nftiA oto avesw to w by temryt groups. Another 3nvestgation is to geting the muvenva%t of.50 ailibtr sett%iwAwftWc rXes from the United States to Mexico for ust by drug Cartels. l;Iteg',g.A Hen Str oWdjAg Weapgcs-In a ease in 1'+vgda,an Magal alien��a lase quwtixy of wevuru%kwludug two.60 callbe rsandautornatsc rifles. The •weaporm were rec vaed IbRowi?g the execute of a search wEaT . 'the following closed mes wvare identified. * Rel*,os Cult-in 1989,two n=jbe[s ors chi,desedb ed by ATF as a doomsday reUglous cult,were arreated and d waed vAth federal Wearms viowior . The church f'nlllowers'bad bunt underground bunkers in Gardner, Uontaaa,to await the end of the world. The tyro suspects had used t� 3 GACJ09"9-ASii so omber nMe Crime t3f 18/20£ 13:53 4154333357 LCA1a PAGE 06 idea t,mdo1,0 pcttrr=o ttvtuire&of a(t,kvlu;diAg 10.50 CAUbex serrdautom*dic zfti'les WO that rib of xo=ds of omoulXi%tio ' x =prot�—btu U*S case In Geor%a,ATS'axtd TO-s� t Rewnule,5ez vice T= ageX "'e$W s SUMvab$ t=protester&JAS=der all assumad ule ttRY US ing false;iudez l �he W purdwsed ovet 115 fteaMlls,IMlttdlxtg 2.60 00be f sexauautamsr da rifler.. Agents seized the spots;over 1,00,000 rounds of wumurdti o t;silencet s,and over W,000 sn gold Krugen=ds,J ewrelry',and cash_ In another 1996 case,this ibnt in LouWmta,Fed aS luau of Tiv tion(ice agents arrested s winto supTft=gtltaac protester who fled Scro"'S r�Urds to with a avoid paying child support The,subject cor&oat�then arrev"a shotgum A standoff ensued for a ztuttrber of days and the rAect a vemtuR.ly =reAdere d yr out lass ort Me, Age nvs x ecoveM over 40 firearw from the subject's result e,fucluding a.GCS rahber sevda rcu'xtic)iler. I)xug 1Jealers—In cows in CaUfornij,Missotui,sad rndiazts..la-w enibrceruent ottm=eocectftg seomh-wscmmts recovered.6€1 fiber Tales IP the possesslon of drug desle~rsa Mit b2y M IrtdMduat In a 1%8 case in WcXgwi.an apparendY Mentally ill subject used a rifle to shoot and 1x U a local polite ofReer. Following tyre subjecer. amt,poke recovered ovtw 16 fu*=w from his mkie'tce,Including a,.60 caliber semWutatnatic zMe. He wss able to purchase UsAse vxe3apow legellY becattset he had no pdor cr inal,re=rd- MeeZcan Drug CaM Multiple trfde—The LW Anger Pulite Dept exrt,at the request ttXe3dcan mzWo4tiopsj requested that ATF ter:a..60 caber samiaaatornadc rifle in October 195+x. It was detenidned tl the apart was putthioe4le ally in Wyondp& The wQap cry adong with over 100 AX-47s.-vuas, �. recowrW by blexican amal torities at the area of a mtlltlple hotniclde#rtvo ving a sbootout with drug cart.z;*mbexa int Sinalok ccs. * Swien Weapon—AIV in HDuaiton auested a subjeot for possession of a.60 caliber rniautomat a r.W a thatbard been stolen fin the kOrnate owner who resided in cautbrnilL MU group lin Cra i - in 1990,the Royal Canadian Meted,1?rol,Mce recovered Ore,50 s aUber semJA'Wn%&Uc rifle allegedly$=toed into Cam&frorn the Urat+ed Staff by am lyda smup ftrn Texm M'ditla Group in.Wmt Virgitsi.•ar--A member of the Mouttttart.nOeT M Ut is ire.West Virg nia was as recti in a plot to bomb a.PST office in Cbx1Mb t ,Wvst Vtr&ti L In a su went seatmh of his bows,aguft recovered one.154 caliber semi&utauwtic rZe and numer w other fTreurs Branch Davidlaw at W -Acx or to AM the 1 wch Davids at Warn Exed a.60 cslibe r�wzr iautou%adc sus at tho ATF amts pAemp6ng to dile a Se=ch WW-Ant az th=compound in Wu-,o,Tom. Dudng they 1avwti tlort,ATF m3spepawd,th t Vernon Wayne How4 Wm]David Xore*,toad acTlix+ed.50 rral%rex riften. ATLI thomfore tee tx-mzd ftztt the Dtpaatmmt ofWmse ptxadtey Meting fim Y+elur+tes,wlt€ch vrrxr�betie��3�va r >rze~rnt arn;�to�ith�E€ltrd.i�U ibex ',Uose vehicles•wtze W be used du&g the execution of the;search warrant. However.r.a=*rtVng to the MqeAt of the Dr*partment of itie Tz':wust"— Trgatiork o " eTnon Wayne kiOWOU e30 known as Mvid Rot"io"ATF ad trot vse the=Aoredt vekdclee during the exerution of tbesearclhwarrant. tour agenm were lcued. 4 6AWOSI.99.1sR 50 t`aObw Pift Crime AGENDA DATE : 03/23/04 ITEM NO. DA BACKGROUND MATERIAL SENT BY TRUTANI H • MI HEL, L.L.P., VOLUMINOUS,, AND IS ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF TIME BOARD 9258367263 FROM D I AMOK#D SHARPPTS PHONE NO. : 9259397263 Mar. 22 2004 03:42PM F1 Diamond Sharp Equipment 33 Front Street Uanvdl,, CA 945.26 Phone: (926) 838-2124 - - C)� OLvr) ra, o r Y 1t IIxvy ; 03.22i2004 12:35 FA Executive Mortgage Fax 2355 San Ramon `Walley Blvd. Suite 204 San Ramon, California-94583- Kurt J. Knablce,Broker I Owner Office (925) 831.-0161 Fax. (925) 831-0404 Date: 3-22-04 Destination: 925-335-:1913 C/O Contra Costa Su.per^visors Please do not puss a ban on 50 caliber rifles. The legal cost alone would be a waste of Morey, Should you have any questions please feel to call me directly. Sincerely, Kurt Knabke Broker I Owner Number of pages in this cover sheet: If you do not receive all pages please call 925-831-0161 Confidentiality Notice:The document(s)transmitted herewith contain confidential information that is legally privileged.The inrormRtton is intended only for use of the party named above,if you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any disclosure,copying or distribution or taking of in action in reliance on the contents ofthis information,except its direct delivery to the intended party named above,is strictly prohibited,If you have received this information in error,please notify us immediately by telephone(call coliev irnecessary)to arranac Car the rcturn of the document(s)to us. 9256759046 03/22/2004 15: 57 9258759046 BOLLINGER HILLS PAGE 61 March 22, 2004 Subject: Proposed Ordinance 2044-14 To the Board of Supervisors: I live in San Ramon,and would like to voice my opposition to the proposed lean (ordinance 2004-10)on .50 caliber weapons. Facts and statistics shows the .50 caliber is not a weapon of choice for criminals or terrorists. While it is a powerful wea.lion, the idea that banning; it will somehow make its safer makes no sense. The weapon has virtually no "critninal"record. Oil refineries would be much better targeted by other weapons,easily obtained by illegal means outside Contra Costa.County. v The facts speak for themselves. The .SCJ catibcr is used primarily .Cur loug zauzl e ttiigwt use. is quite expensive ($2,1300 - $10,000), is very heavy, uses very expensive a-n-munition, and is sold in vcry low quantities to dedicated target enthusiasts. It is these firearm enthusiasts that will sufi:er the consequences of Ordinance 2004-10, no one elm Ben proponents iinfortimately misrepresent information, such as machine gun fire and. exploding ammo (already banned for ANY caliber). Tf the purposes to improve security and safety of our community, banning the .50 caliber will roost certainly not achieve that. Please consider what damage the firearm has caused. There is none. As Supervisor John Gioia said, "Ttie policy is in pu rt symbolic". That uiie�ei'sta.tes matters given that no dealer sells the .50 caliber in. Contra Costa County, the firearm has no criminal record, and would be a poor choice for attacking oil refineries. Please do the right thing, vote NO on the Ordinance 2004-10. Respectfully Yours, ' t P':iilip S_ Mentz 160 Arapaho Circle San Ramon, CA 94583 (925) 82.9-2530 925 925 3355 325-825-3355 P. 1 [lHh{ sNiDER 22 04 o3: lGpr F[U R CG N I TDI To* Jerk". Raar4 Voice Number" 9 3S /q o Fax Number: Cl zj' 3 15,*- t 9 f 3 Company: aoard dr-S..Pe rve;5 `S From: o., \ts j Company: 3 3 rS' Fax Number:Vaice N umber: }ate_ 3 , Z, .Z - . ' ' Number of Page: y� y ff i {jj �t� j(nF Sublect. �aS� V 4,;,. b 'V• t- r i� ba ^ i messane: bsztj a r m ? c i e f-1.jqts as t LG / 2Yt �fi �avf ill ldrje *c4 a-' lher lF � • r e.t! rc 6 a d-n e- amore- Ad- 411 -3 O r-I C4( 5- ' r l kff v GL i" 1' S , T/ere rpc v l- r s :ire' V-s e G3 bo o-e— P4 e�r- !�'�9 1^ Z. t e t5 �5 3 t t' rr .6 a Y? , ' f ? e-11 I 925829016? 93/22/2004 15:22 9256286167 GMA COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 01 YL; °- - < FROM: WENDELL AYER.S 130 Dorset Court San Ramon, CA 94583 Tch 925-828-8554 / 925-361-84.23 Fax: 125-361-8023 FAC1SMILE TRANSMITTAL DATE: 3/2212004 NO. OF PAGES: 0l1 TOBoard. of Supervisors FAX NO. 925-335-1913 FR.(-)M- NT)ET,i., A YER.S RE.- .50 Cal San I ask that you all conziider the opinions of many citizens of Contra Costa Ccn rnty who oppose further restrictions on firearms ownership. Currently you are considering the enactment of a regulation or law for a problem that does not exist. There are no known statistics to support your position that .50 calmer weapons are the choice of any criminal or terrorist group. The weapons are simply too large and too heavy to be easily transportable to be used in any illegal manner. . These weapons are enjoyed by manor target shooters and are not a threat to anyone. In addition, you are also incorrect in your stated views that the .50 cal. weapon can severely damage rail refinerirg. Only explosive and /or armor piercing ammo can cause the type of destruction of which you speak, and that type of ammunition has been banned for many years by our Federal Govern-hent. if you would only be totally HONEST, you would admit to the public that you are really attempting to ban all weapons from public ownership. Sincerely.... 03/22/2004 20:57 19259723112 MIKE COLEY AND CO PAGE 01 i' 720 f� tf t t s t 510-236-3962 From:Gary Suf`on To:Supervisor John Gioia Bate:3!22/04 Time:9:44:28 AM Page 5 of i FACSIMILE COVER PAGE 71) To : Supervisor John Gioia From Gary Buffan Sent : 3/22104 at 9:40:24 AM Pages : 'I (including Cover) Subject Fifty Caliber Rifle Ban Dear John: It is difficult for me to express the disappointment 1 have toward you regarding this issue. There are so many other important issues to spend taxpayer time and money on that 1 can only conclude that you have some hidden political agenda or you are simply a hoplophobe (gun hater). You were elected to bring logic and reasoning to your position and avoid the emotional nature of things which get into vilifying inannimate objects and using the blame game in accomplishing goals. Of course, you were one of the individuals who had a "bone to pick" with Wal-Mart so perhaps 1 needn't be surprised. I thought you to bwe less of a political hack than Jim Rodgers but perhaps 1 was wrong. Stop with the social engineering in our county and stick to the business of solving problems that will grow our economy, help our broken education system and stop the strangulation of the county and state by the union interests (if that is politically possible for you). I will work tirelessly to punish you politically if you continue to deal with social engineering issues that continue to push our county and state further into socialism. Cary Su€fon El Cerrito, CA (Former Chairman of Richmond Chamber and member of El Cerrito Rotary Club) 7024506336 Sent 6y: CSAA; 7024506336; Mar-20-04 12:47PM; Page 1 /1 To: Contra Costa Board of Supervisors an RB: Proposed .50 caliber rifle ban DER H1H . From: Paul Bostwick 242 wiget Lane, Walnut Creek., CA 94598 Dear Contra Costa Burd of Supervisors, As a 34 year resident of Contra Costa County, I'd life to go on record. as OPPOSING this gun ban. Terrorism should not be used as an excuse to further erode the 2nd .Amendment rights of American. Citizens. An international terrorist would also not risk arrest for some thing so petty as shooting holes in an oil storage tank. If a Jihadist is going to go through all the trouble to come to America, they will risk arrest for something far more sinister such as (Cod forbid) placing a bomb on the BART system. The reasoning behind this ban is simply not realistic. .50 calliber rives are also used by legitimate sportsmen for long range target competitions and big game hunting. Please vote against this ban and I will be watching your voting records closely. Sincerely, Paul Bostwick Walnut Creek, CA AGENDA DATE : 03/23104 ITEM NO. DA BACKGROUND MATERIAL/ SENT BY TRUTANI H • MI HEL, L.L.P., VOLUMINOUS, AND} IS ON FILE WITH THE CLERK. OF THE BOARD MAR 22 2004 4: 1 1 PM HP LASERJET" 3200 TRU:1 ANICH • MICHEL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PORT OF LOS ANGELES OFFICE 407 NORTH HARBOR BOULEVARD SAN PEDRO, CA 90731 TELEPHONE: (310) 548-0410 FAX: (310) 548-481.3 FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: Board of Supervisor- Jahn M. Gioia District 1 (510) 374-3429 Beard of Supervisor - Gayle B. Uilkerna District 2 (925) 335-1076 Board of Supenisor- Millie Greenberg .District 3 (925) 820-6627 Board of Supervisor- Marr DeSaulnier District 4 (925)646-5767 Beard of Supervisor- Federal Glover District 5 (92 5)427-8142 County Counsel - Silvano Marchesi (925)646-1078 Contra Costa County Clerk of the Board (925) 335-1913 FROM: C. D. MICHEL DATE: March 22, 2004 RE: Notice of fending Litigation NOTE: Please deliver to all Board of Supervisors. Thank you THIS FAX CONTAINS COVER PAGE PLUS,,. PAGES. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES PLEASE CONTACT Claudia Ayala AT(310) 548-01410. THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OI' THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED,AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE I5 NOT THE INTENDED RECIFIL'NT,OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE]MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR,PLEASE NOTEFY US IMMEDIATCLY BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGYNAI, MESSAGE TO US AT THE ADDRESS BELOW VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. TMANK YOU. MFR 22 2004 4: 11PH HP LASERJET 32007 P. 2 OF COUNSEL. R U 1 A N I C H * M I C H 6 L f is L P SAN H. K Ro9EFT C.MOE:7 t '�FiNNCda eCt),CA Ju;c4F.'AAQi'N.^,EC ATTORNEYS AT LAW MAMK,UEK_MO-t \UCiAFJ,ALLY-^J PORT CF LCs ANGELES OFFICE NRmYoxs,N.Y. LosANGr,i�CAB rWT.HARM 407 NORTH HAR13OR SOULEVARD Tu_ts)x,AZ SAN PECRO,CALIFORNIA 90731-3356 RYL c, TELEPHONc: (3'0)543-0410 - FAx;(310)548-46 13 5,is rw=-P=4a Cur cia March 20, 2004 Via Fax X25)646=1078 U.S. Certified Mall Mr. Silvano M1rlarchesi County Counsel Contra Costa. County 651 Pine St., 9th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: NOTICE OF PENDING LITIGATION Dear Mr. Marchesi: We have recently reviewed the draft ordinance which would ban the We of certified .5th caliber firearms within.the County of Contra.Costa. This ordinance is scheduled to be voted on tomorrow. Please be advised that my clients intend to file a lawsuit challenging this ordinance as soon as it is finalized. Although it is interesting to note that the prohibition against the sale 4f.50 caliber handguns has been removed from the ordinance in light of the narrow preemption claims laid out in the draft Complaint against the City of Lang Beach,the ordinance is still legally defective in multiple respects. As you can see from the additional preemption claims set out in the attached.draft Cornplaint, among other things the ordinance is still preempted by state law. At the request of our clients, the remainder of the claims have been redacted until filing. Considering the financial crisis that the County is currently in it is difficult to understand why the County would want to fund the test case on this issue--particularly when the only two firearm dealers in the County do not stock and have not sold these firearms, and when the Sheriff could oversee these dealers so easily.Perhaps your clients are being promised free legal assistance from certain gun control advocacy groups. If that is the case, they might be interested to know that the City of West Hollywood paid over$400,000.00, and the City of Sacramento over$200,000.00, to defend against other"cutting edge" gun control ordinances using such "free"legal assistance. Those were cases that the cities won— although both of the ordinances at issue in those cases have since been repealed. Obviously, when my clients prevail in this litigation against your clients, they will be entitled to have those fees reimbursed by the County. We had intended to litigate this issue with the City of Los Angeles(the only jurisdiction that now has the law on its books). We have held off from filing that particular lawsuit only because LA City is currently reviewing its entire municipal code regulating firearms, and will soon be repealing a collection of preempted ordinances. That review and upcoming repeal is taking place because we prevailed in another lawsuit against LA challenging a gun control ordinance (which the City then repealed), and have informed the City Attorney that additional MAR 22 2004 4: 1 1 PM HP LASERJET 3200 P. 3 Silvano Marchesi March 22, 2004 Page 2 litigation is forthcoming unless the other illegal ordinances are likewise repealed. In light of their good faith efforts,we were simply waiting until they finished the process. In any event, we would appreciate if you could forward a copy of the final version of the ordinance, once adopted by the Supervisors, for attachment to the Complaint. We look forward to working with you on this matter. Sincerely, TRUT'ANICH +-ARCHEL,LLP C.D. Michel cc: Beard of Supervisors CDMIca MAR 22 2004 4: 11PM HP LASERJET 3200 p. 4 I C.D. Michel - S.B.N. 144258 Don B. Kates - S.B.N. 039193 2 ' Jason A. Davis - S.B.N. TRUTANICH - MICHEL, LLP 3 407 North Harbor Boulevard DRAFT San Pedro, CA 90731 4 'Telephony,. 310548-0410 REDACTED 5 j Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 7 << �E IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 t} OAKLAND DIVISION 11 FIFTY CALIBER SHOOTERS CASE NO. 12 ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF FIREARMS 13 RETAILERS CALIFORNIA COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY .; SPORTING GJANE DOE MOODS ASSOCIATION, AND INJUNCTIVEIVE RELIEF TO 14 !i YRON MOE and INVALIDATE COUNTY 'RICHARD kOE, ORDINANCE: Title 42 U.S.C. 1983 15 € AND RELATED STATE CLAIMS Plaintiffs, 16 V. 17 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, 18 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD SUPERVISOR JOHN M. 19 GIOIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD SUPERVISOR GAYLE B. 20 UILK.EMA CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK OF THE BOARD 21 i JOHN SWEETEN CONTRA COSTA j COUNTY SHERiff WARREN E. 22 ;RLPF, and Dries 1 - 25 Defendants, 23 24 i 25 26 COME now plaintiffs to allege as follows: 27 28 j t COMP ✓ 'T MAR 22 2004 4: 11PM HP LASERJET 3200 P, 5 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1. This case challenges CONTRA COSTA COON rY ("CCC") Ordinance 3 No: 2044-10 ("Ordinance"), which prohibits the sale or other provision of rifles the 4 Ordinance calls "large caliber firearms" ("LCE"). This Ordinance subjects those 5 who transfer, transfer ownership of, give, sell, offer or display fifty caliber firearms 6 to prosecution, and threatens firearm sellers who violate this ordinance, including 7 federally licensed retailers, manufacturers and distributors, to prosecution, de- 8 licensure and other administrative sanctions. (A true and correct copy of the 9 Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and herein incorporated by reference.) 14 2. The Ordinance is invalid in the following respects. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 i 1$ � 19 20 21 22 I 23 '� 4. As a matter of state law, the Ordinance is preempted by California's state 24 'laws limiting caliber-based rifle prohibition to rifles of greater than .E4 caliber. Being 5 thus invalid, its restrictions on plaintiffs' use of their property are also a deprivation 26 of due process of law. 27 5. Suing under 42. T .S.C. 1983 and state constitutional and statutory 28 provisions, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the ' 2 COMPLAINT MAR 22 2004 4: 11PM HP LASERJET 3200 p. 6 1 Ordinance, as well as relief in mandatory injunction to compel the county clerk.to 2 cease from publishing the Ordinance. Plaintiffs further seek attorneys fees under 3 Title 42 U.S.C. 1988 and California C.C.P. 1021.5. 4 5 PARTIES 6 [PLAINTIFFS] 7 6. Plaintiff FIFTY CALIBER SHOOTERS ASSOCIATION (hereinafler g "FCSA") is a non-profit membership organization and is incorporated under the laws 9 of Tennessee and Utah, with headquarters in Utah. It sues on its own behalf, in its 10 ; representative capacity, and on behalf of its members in the CCC and in California 11 generally. FCSA was established in 1985 for the purpose of advancing the sporting 12 and other lawful uses of the .fifty caliber cartridge. 13 14 15 16 17 All sanctioned FCSA shooting competitions are conducted according 18 to rules established by the shooting members and published in the FCSA competition 19 rules manual. FCSA. members join to promote the sporting aspects of fifty caliber 20 shooting. FCSA has over 4,000 members, including members residing in CCC and 21 California generally. These CCC and California resident members include numerous 22 : persons who wish to purchase rifles from a firearms dealer which rifles fall under 23 the Ordinance's definition of"large caliber firearm." That definition is irrational and 24 erroneous since such rifles are "small arms." FCSA, is continually contacted by its 25 :, members who seek advice on the meaning of the CCC Ordinance and its legality. Zai FCSA must expend staff and attorney time, as well as costs, in responding to those 27 member inquiries. 28 7. Plaintiff CALIFORNIA SPORTING GOODS ASSOCIATION (hereinafter 3 COMPLAINT mnR 22 2004 4: I2PM HP LASERJET 0200 p. 7 1 "CSGA") is a non profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of ` Z California. It's primary purpose is to represent licensed firearms dealers in the state 3 of California, educate those dealers about their legal obligations, and advocate for 4 those dealers's interests legislatively and by litigation and community education. In S this suit CSGA represents its members, including firearm dealers in CCC, and their 6 customers whose interests are in stopping enforcement of the unlawful Ordinance, 7 clarifying the meaning of the Ordinance and its validity, and determining its g application to them and their property. Said members already do, and wish to 9 continue to, sell, give, transfer ownership of, offer for sale, or display for sale rifles 10 certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice but which nevertheless 11 fall within the irrational Ordinance. 12 S. Plaintiff CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF FIREARMS RETAILERS 13 (hereinafter "CAFR") is a non profit corporation organized under the laws of the 14 State of California. It's purposes are to provide federally licensed firearm retailers in 15 California with a unified voice in regulatory and legislative affairs and to pursue : 16 professional development opportunities and the promotion of responsible business 17 € practices by fostering active membership participation in relations between firearm 18 retailers, industry, community, and government. CAFR represents its members, 19 including firearm dealers and sellers within CCC and their customers whose interests 20 are in stepping enforcement of the unlawful Ordinance, clarifying the meaning of the 21 Ordinance and its validity, and determining its application to them and to their 21 property. CAFR members already do, and wish to continue to sell, give, transfer 23 ownership of, offer for sale, or display for sale rifles certified for sale in California 24 by the Department of Justice but which nevertheless fall within the irrational 25 Ordinance. 26 9. Plaintiff JANE DOE ("DOE"), RICHARD ROE ,and 1'rr1YRON MOE are 27 CCC-resident gun owners who engage in target shooting as a recreational activity. 28 DOE, ROE and MOE variously: a) desire to purchase rifles certified for sale by the 4 COMPLAINT ! MAR 22 2004 4: 12PM HP LASERJET 0200 p. 8 1 California Department of Justice that: fall within CCC's prohibition of fifty caliber 2 firearms or b) own such firearms and desire to display, transfer, and offer them for 3 sale and to sell them. 4 5 [DEFENDANTS] 6 10, Defendant CONTRA COSTA COUNTY is a county formed and 7 authorized under the laws of the State of California. It enacted, has maintained, and g is maintaining the subject Ordinance by action of the CCC Board of Supervisors, g ; whicrl is CCC's governing body. 14 3 11, Defendant WILLIAM E. R.UPF ("RUPF") is the County Sheriff at the 11 Contra Costa. County Sheriff's Department. RUPF, as the Contra Costa County 12 Sheriff, is the principal enforcer of the unlawful Ordinance. 13 12. JOHN M. GIOIA ("GIOIA") is a CCC Board Supervisor for District 1. 14 GIOIA proposed and voted to pass the unlawful Ordinance. ` 13. " T �> 15 � GAYLE B. UILKEMA { LI1�K.EMA ) is a CCC Board Supervisor for 16 District 2. UILKEMA proposed and voted to pass the unlawful Ordinance. 17 14. (" "} is a CCC Board Supervisor for District tg voted to pass unlawful Ordinance. 19 15, JOHN SWEETEN ("SWEETEN") is the Clerk of the Board for CCC. 24 SWEETEN responsible for maintaining and updating the Ordinance Cade for Contra 21 Costa County, for publishing or causing to be published new Ordinances, and for de- 22 publishing illegal Ordinances, including the unlawful Ordinance. i 23 16. The true names and capacities of the defendants named as Does 1-50, ' 24 whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to plaintiffs as of 25 the time of the filing of the complaint. Plaintiffs therefore sue said defendants by 26 such fictitious names and will amend this complaint with their true names and 27 capacities when such are ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and 28 thereon allege, that each of the Doe defendants is in some manner responsible for the wY. COMPLAINT MAR 22 2004 4: 12PM HP LASERJET 0200 P. 9 1 events and happenings alleged herein, which proximately caused injury and damage 2 to plaintiffs. 3 17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all tunes 4 herein mentioned, each offthe defendants, including those named as Does, was the 5 agent, employee, or representative of each of the remaining defendants, and, in doing 6 the things herein after alleged, was acting within the course and scope of such 7 agency, and with the permission, consent, authorization, approval and ratification of his or her defendants, 9i I 1 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFFS' f { it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2'7 28 COMPLAINT MAR 22 2004 4: 12PM HP LASERJET 3200 P. 10 i 2 J 3 4 5 6 9 11 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 1f3 EC OND CLAIM: VIOLATION, OF 1� 19 i 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 fi 17 COMPLAINT MAR 22 2034 4: 12PM HP LASERJET 32307 P. 11 I I 2 3 4 I 6 s 7 i 8 9 10 11 12 i 13 14 15 16 1.7 18 19 i 20 i 21 22 a 23 i 24 i 25 26 i 27 28 COMPLANT MAR 22 2004 4: 12PM HP LASERJET 3200 p. 12 c I 1 2 3 3 4 i i 6 , 7 9 11 THIRD CLAIM: DENIAL OF 12 i 13 1 14 i i 15 16 17 i I8 � 19 20 21 22 23 24 s 251 25 27 28 i s � G s COMPLAINT MAR 22 2004 4: 1 3PM HP LnSERJET 3200 p. 13 I i I� � I 2 3 4 S r I 8 I ' FOURTH: CL�IM: DENIAL OF 10 1I ' 12 j 13 14 E 15 if I 17 ' I 18 l� s 19 20 21 22 23 1 24 2 26 € 27 28 10 MRR 22 2004 4: 13PM HP LASERJET 0200 p• 14 1 1 i I l 3 4 r 5 6 I E f3 SIXTH CLAIM: VIOLATION OF 1 10 I 12 13 14 I s 15 I 16 17 I I 19 j ! i 20 21. 22 23 24 t 25 263 27 28COMPLAINT t �1 MAR 22 2004 4; 13PM HP LASERJET 3200 P, 15 I SEVENTH CLAIM. VIOLATION OF 2 3 4 5 6 t i 9 � ; i 1G i 11 � t 12 13 i 14 IS i j EIGHTH CLAIM. VIOLATION OF 16i 1'7 18 i 19 i 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 i r 27 28 I 3 12 COMPLAINT MRR 22 2004 4: 13PM HP LASERJET 3200 p. 16 i 2 3 NINTH CLAIM. CALIFOIRNTA STATE PREEMPTION 4 : (By Al� Plaintiffs against All Defendants) 54. plaintiffs realle �e and incorporate herein all foregoing paragraphs as if set i 6 out verbatim.. i 7 55. California's state "Destructive~ Device" law comprehensively covers those g rifles the Legislature deemd appropriate to specially regulate because of Caliber and 9 ; degree of destructiveness. �he Destructive Device law regulates and licenses only 10 firearms having a caliber greater than .60, but does not cover firearms of.50 caliber. 11 (A particular rifle of.5th caliber, the Bairett rifle is classified, and subjected it to 12 special regulation, as an "a�sault weapon,") The Ordinance is an attempt to redefine, 13 j substitute for and add to the Destructive Device Law, extending it from firearms of 14 f more than .60 caliber to les' er firearms of only .50 caliber. 15 56. California's stat Destructive Device law is a comprehensive regulatory 16 scheme governing devices that the State Legislature deemed to be destructive devices 17 including, but not limited to, firearms th4t fire ammunition exceeding a certain 1$ caliber in sine due to the destructive capabilities of these firearms. The state scheme 19 is a comprehensive one, defining on a statewide basis which firearms should be 20regulated based upon the c�liber and destructive capability. into local regulation of � 21 firearms within that subject is permissible. Local regulation regulating firearms based 22 upon caliber and destructiv' capabilities'is impermissible. The state has set the level 23 at which firearms are to b regulated because of caliber and destructive capacity as 24 any firearm that can fire fixed ammuniti'on greater than 0.60 caliber. 25 57. Specifically, Peal Code section 12301(a)(3) defines "destructive devices" 26 as including: I 27 any weapon of a caliber greater than 0.60 caliber which fires fixed a�nimunition, or an in;to nition erefor, ether than a shotgun (smooth 28 or rifled bore) co in the e nition of a "destructive device" found in subsection b) 0Section! 179,11 of Title 27 of the Code of I 13 CON PLAINT MAR 22 2004 4s 13PM HP LASERJET 3200 p. 17 1 Federal Regulations, shotgun a unition (single projectile or shot), antique rifle, or an antique cannon,:For purposes of this section, the term "antique cannon" means any ,Lannon 1nanufactured before January I 1, 18991 4� hich has b en renderedpable of flring or for which 3ammunition is no longer manufact in the United States and is not readily available in tlhe ordinary cels of commercial trade. The 4 term ' antique rifle" rheans a fires conforming to the definition of an "antique firearm" in *tion 179.1; of Title 27 of the Code of Federal g Reguuulations. 58. Within California. Penal Cade ketion 12305, the State Legislature j 7 : provides a detailed regulatory licensing tearm chanism of exceptions to the prohibition g on possession ,and transpor ation of any that can fire a cartridge greater than 9 .60 caliber. i 10 4 (a) Every dealer, manufacturer, i orter, and exporter of any destructive device, or any motion icture or television studio using I1 destructive devices In the conduct:of its business, shall obtain a permit for the conduct of that business fr''m the Department of Justice. 12 E (b) Any person, firm L or corporation not mentioned in subdivision (a) shall obtain a permit from the De 'artment of Justice in order to possess j or transport any dest'uctive devic No permit shall be issued to any id person who meets ar y of the follca' ing criteria: 15 1 Has been convicted of�'iy felony. .2 Is addicte to the use onynarcotic drug. 16 3 Is a erson in aclass pribited b y Section 8l00 or 8103 of t e Welfare aid Institution3 Cade or Section 12021 or 12021.1 of 17 this code. tg (c) Applications for permits shall e filed in writing, signed by the applicant if an ind.iv dual, or by a ember or officer qualified to sign if 19 e 4ppplicant is a f r I car corpora.t . n, and shall state the name, business in which engaged, business addre$s and a full description of the use to 20 which the destructive devices are to be put. 21 �d) Applications and-Permits, shall be uniform throughout the state on owns prescribed by� he Departmc' t of Justice. 22 (e) Each applicant fc r a permit sh 'll pay at the time of filing his or her ' 23 ' aapplication a fee notlto exceed th, application processing costs of the 1 epartlnent of Justice. A permit ranted pursuant to this article may be renewed one year fr m the date o issuance and annually thereafter, upon the filing of a renewal application anc the payment of a ermit 25 renewal fee not to exceed the application processing costs of the Department of Justice. After the department establishes fees sufficient 26 in a-nount to cover processing costs, the amount of the fees shall only increase at a rate not to exceed the legislatively approved cost-of-living 27 adjustment for the depamnent. 28 Except as provided in subdivision the De anment of Justice shall , for eveperson, firm, or corporation to whom a permit is issued { 14 COMPLAINT MAR 22 2304 4: 13PM WP LASERJET 3200 P. 18 1 pursuant to this article, annually conduct an inspection for security and safe stor q devices. 2 ) A person, firm, or cor oration with an inventory of fewer than five devices that require any Department of Justice permit shall be subject to an inspection for security and safe storage urposes, and to reconcile 4 inventory, once every five years, or mare equently if determined by the department. s (h) Subdivisions (f) and (g) shall not apply to individuals possessing an assault weapon pursuant to a permit issued by the Department of Justice for noncommercial purposes. 7 59. Of course, none of these exceptions or licenses provided in the state S legislative scheme appear in or apply to the firearms regulated under the Ordinance, 9 which is therefore contradictory to the State scheme. Thus the Ordinance conflicts 10 With state law. 11 60. As already alleged, a number of the plaintiffs desire to sell and/or transfer 12 "large caliber firearms" where prohibited by CCC, but approved to sell, offer or 13 display for sale, give, lend or transfer ownership by the state of California. But the 14 Ordinance purports to flatly prohibit a person from selling, offering or displaying for 15 sale, giving, lending or transferring ownership of the firearms it covers as highly 16 I destructive -- even though the Legislature, having reviewed the subject matter, has 17 not so regulated them, choosing to expressly set the lower caliber limit at anything 18 greater than .60 caliber. 19 } 61. The Ordinance intrudes int© an area that is fully occupied by general law 20 + where the legislature has impliedly manifested its intent to fully occupy the are in 21 light of the fallowing indicia: 22 The subject matter regulating firearms based upon caliber 23 size and their destructive capabilities has been completely covered by ggeneral law as to clearly indicate that it has 24 become exclusively a matter of state concern. • The subject matter regulating firearms based upon caliber 25 ! size and their:destructive capabilities has been covered by general law couched in such terms as to indicate clearly 26 that a paramount state concern will not tolerate further or additional local action. 27 The sub'ect matter regulating firearms based upon caliber size andltheir'destructive capabilities has been covered by 2 general law, and the subject is of such a nature that the adverse affect; of a local Ordinance on the transient citizens 15 E COMPLAINT ` Pj, MAR 22 2004 4: 14PM HP LASERJET 3200 P. 19 1 of the state outweighs the possible benefit to the locality. 2 62. The fact that the regulations on a particular firearms' caliber size and destructive capability is a field of state regulation and the field entered into by CCC's 4 local legislation is sufficiently and logically related so that a court or local legislative 5 body can detect a pattern approach to the subject. 5 63. That the Ordinance is a regulation on caliber size and purported 7 destructive capabilities is apparent in the Ordinances history: In the motion to draft g the ordinance, CCC cites the destructive capabilities of LCF's as the "background" I 9 for the proposal to draft a LCF ban. Specifically, the "background's of the proposal 1 to states: t 11 . The .50 caliber sniper rifle has five times the muzzy Ower of a ,357 magnum handgun, and can penetrate near l eig�ht taches 6f 12 concrete from a distance 400 yards. Originally c�esi ned f"or heavy military use, all types of. 0 calibber ammunition are readily available to 13 € civilians in the United States and thus easily available to foreign and °i domestic terrorists. With.such destructive powers, .50 caliber sniper 14 rifles are no more regulated than hunting rilles and less regulated than handguns. . . . (Emphasis added.) 15 16 64. The final ordinance included "findings in support of Ordinance No 2004- 17 ' 10 (Large Caliber Firearms). These "findings" also emphasize the destructive 18 capabilities of firearms of.50 caliber: � 19 . The design of the .50 caliber sniper rifle enables the destruction. of aircraft, heavy machinery, and infrastructure from long ranges. 20 - The .50 caliber sniper rifle was origfinally designed for use in the military but is increasingly sold in the domestic civilian market. 21 Alnmunitio#i for the .50 caliber sniper rifle has more than seven times the power on impact as the .30-06, five Mmes that of the .308, and 22 more than three time's that of the .338. • The .50 caliber sniper rifle uses different types of ammunition, 23 including ball ammunition, armor piercing ammumdon, and armor- piercing-incendiary ammunition. Ball ammunition is for use against 24 personnel and light material targets. Armor-piercm& ammunition is for use against armored!,aircraft and lightly armored vehlcles, concrete 25 shelters, and other Millet-resistingtargets. Armor-piercing-incendiary ammunition is ti ped with phosphorus and explodes on impact. 26 One ball ca�tridge can penetrate two inches of concrete frm 220 yards and one inch ofconcrete from 1,640 yards. From 38 yards, 50 27 rounds of ball ammunition can penetrate 10 inches of concrete and 15 rounds can penetrate 12 inches of a triple brick wall. One armor- 28 piercingcartridge cah penetrate one inch of armor plate from 220}yards arld 0.3 inches of arrf for plate from 1,640 yards. 16 COMPLAINT MnR 22 2004 4: 14PM HP LASERJET 32O0 p. 20 j t i 2 65, The State of California had expressly and implicitly deprived CCC of the powers to regulate firearm ``destructive devices." California Government Code section 53071 makes state law the exclusive arbiter as to any firearm whose sale or ; possession has been permitted, excluded, and/or licensed under state law: 6 It is the intention of the Legislature to occupy the whole field of regulation of the registration or Licensing of commercially manufactured 7 4 firearms as encompassed by the provisions of the Penal Code, and such provisions shall be exclusive wall local regulations, relating to g i registration or licensing of co 'mercially manufactured firearms, by any I political subdivision'. . . . 9 10 The Ordinance is a licensing; law preempted by Gov. C. 53071, in part because it t t prohibits the purchasing and other receipt of what it defines as LCFs by all but 13 12 categories of potential recipients whem it licenses to do so. ; 13 66. The State of California has demonstrated a legislative intent to completely tq occupy the field of"Destructive Device" licensing and regulation. Furthermore, as to 1 the broad area of firearms sales, the T egislature has enacted a comprehensive and 16 detailed regulatory scheme (Pen. Code §§ 12070-12084) which requires the licensing 17 of firearms dealers, places numerous;restrictions on firearms sales, and mandates the 18 furnishing of identification,informatipn by each purchaser. The state has so 19 thoroughly occupied this field that reulating firearms sales is beyond the reach of 20 local governments. Cities and counties have been charged with the execution of the 21 state's program for the business liceri ino, of firearms dealers, but their rale is 22 ministerial in nature. (pen. ;Code s 1071.) 23 67. By the same toren, the Legislature has enacted a host of laws against 24 possession or sale ofparti ular firearms it deemed to be contrary to the public 25 welfare. The following previsions of the Penal Code show that the state has 26 regulated so comprehensively as to exclude local prohibition of the sale of 27 ; commercially manufactured firearn : Penal Code §§ 12020 outlaws possession of 28unconventional firearms including cane guns, wallet guns, short barreled rifles and N it 17 _ OMPLAINT MRR 22 2004 4: 15PM HP LASERJET 3200 p. 21 t R; 1 shotguns and high capacity rnagazins or firearms using high capacity magazines while 12490ff. outlaws sale or posses cion of firearms which have no serial 3 number,12125 f£ sets standards for nsafe handguns" and prohibits their sale, 12220 outlaws possession of sub-m4 hine guns, machine guns and other fully 5 automatic weapons except;for persons possessing DOJ permits, 12275ff defines, and prohibits the sale and unregisteri d possession, of assault weapons. In addition, 7 .Article 7 of the Penal Code outlaws; ale/possession of firearms and ammunition to 8 and by minors and Chapters 2 5, 2. 3.2 and 4-6 outlaws, or requires state permit for, "destructive devices", certain ammunition, use of firearm or other weapons in 10 booby traps, tear gas weapons; firet rm devices", and requires training and a basic 11 firearms safety certificate.' 12 68. The California Supreme +Court deems the frequency of amendment and 13 reenactment of state laws in a partici,ilar area as evidence of state occupation of the i 14 field. In fact, the statutes governing firearms possession and sale have received 15 very extensive legislative attention. 16 69. Moreover the Legislatur ' has repeatedly rejected proposals to authorize 17 cities to enact gun-ban imus, 6.g., B. 136 (Villaraigosa) 1997-98 session; A.B. 18 247 (Scott) 1997-98 session; S.B. 613 (Polanco) 1997-98 session; A.B. 634 19 (Caldera) 1995-96 session which w s identical to A.B. 2706 (Caldera) rejected in 2 the 1993-94 session. Other approaches from the 1993-94 session included SB 1293 21 (Hayden), AB 2865 (Lee) and ABxli 37 (Burton). The rationale on which the 22 Assembly Committee on Public Safety rejected such efforts deserves particular 23 1 attention: 24 The Legislature, in enacting }'ire-emption statutes has expressed its intent for the need for 4tif5rrstatewide standards relating to . . . € 25 firearms, [a subject] already i volving extensive and comprehensive regulation by the state. The noed for existing statewide standard and 26 the uniformity it provides co*Jd not be more necessary. Conversel , Firearms any widespread aciclitional local restrictions [re,g�a� rdin,g . . 27 ; firearms could not osstbly ad anything other than general contusion to the ` regulatory- ory-sc em0. j P28 A m °t B62ann i f in Memo 3 32 ,y emphasis added). !i t8 fOMPLARiT MRR 22 2004 4. 15PM HP LRSERJET 3200 p. 22 1 E 2 70. In recent years, local municipalities have sought to have preemption 3 effects of California firearms lows narrowed, to no avail: In 1999 the Legislature 4 enacted SB 15, the Unsafe 1Han'dgun Act (e'en. C §§ 12125 et seq.) whose purpose was to ban the sale of"Saturday Night Specials." It established criteria for handgun 6 safety, defined unsafe handguns and,banned their sale as of Jan. 1, 2001. In. 7 enacting SB 15 the Legislature was well aware of the existing local SNS i g Ordinances as to which the Senate P.Olic Safety Committee report stated: "This 9 bill would appear to preempt any such local Ordinance, both those already in 10 existence and any proposed locally i%n the future." Among the ways in which the 11 Legislature became aware of the UH.A's preemptive effect is that its author and 12 other legislators were informed by the City of San Jose's lobbyist that as written 13 ('and eventually enacted) SB 1 5wouto preempt all these local Ordinances. At the 14 request of San Jose the author amen4ed SB 15, adding a proviso stating that the 15 local Ordinances would survi�?e the VHA and not be preempted. This proviso was, 16 however, later stricken from SB 15d the UHA was enacted without it. 17 71. In sunt, the existence of tie .60 caliber ban specifically, and other state 18 .firearms banns and regulations generally, demonstrates that the state has occupied 19 the field and localities have no', auth' ty to prohibit models or kinds of firearms in 2() general, and particular calibers of f i6arrns in general. 21 22 [DECLARATORY II'L'DGMEN`I' ALLEGATION] 23 72. There is an actual and pre$ent controversy between the parties to this suit Z4 regarding the Ordinance's consistency with state law. Plaintiffs contend that the 25 Ordinance is unconstitutionally, i.nvalzd and preempted because it conflicts with state 26 laws including the Destructive Devi4* laws (Penal Code sections 12341 et seq.) and. ii 27 Government Cade section $3011. D fendants deny and dispute this contention, 28 wherefore plaintiffs seek a decfarat© i judgment that the Ordinance is preempted i 19 O Vn'LAM I' MAR 22 2004 4: 16PM HP LASERJET 02001 p. 23 i 1 because of its inconsistence and conflict with state lave. 2 [PRAYER] 4 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs seek the following relief- 5 ' 1. Equitable relief crtj dining enforcement of Contra Costa County Ordinance 6 2004-10 or expenditure of funds on it and compelling CCC to repeal and/or de- 7 publish and refrain from publishing and enforcing Contra Costa County Ordinance I 8 2004-10. 9 2. Equitable relief enjoining unlawful expenditure of funds on enforcement, 10 training and publication of�Corftra Costa County Ordinance 2004--10 and compelling 11 CCC to repeal and/or de-pubii8!h and refrain from publishing and enforcing Contra 12 +Costa. County Ordinance 2004-10. 13 2. Declaratory relief'as set out in the body of the petition:; 14 3. That plaintiffs be awarded reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to Title 42 15 U.S.C. 1988 and Cade of Civil'Procedure section 1021.5, as well as costs of suit and 16 such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. 17 1 19 20 21 22 i 23 24 + 25 i 26 27 28 i I 2� COMPLAINT I j MAR 22 2004 4: 1 1 PM NP LASERJET 32001 p• 1 TRUTANICH 0 MICHEL, LLP AT"TC7RNEYS AT LAW PORT OF LOS ANGELES OFFICE 407 ITORTH HARBOR BOULEVARD SAN PEDRO, CA 903731 TELEPHONE: •{3101} 548-4410 FAX: (314) 548-4.813 FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: Board of Supervisor- John M. Gioia District 1 (510) 374-3429 Board of Supervisor- Gayle B. Uilkema- District 2 (925) 335-1076 Board of Supervisor- Millie Greenberg District 3 (925) 820-6627 Beard of Supervisor- Mark DeSaulnier District 4 (925) 646-5767 I Board of Supervisor- Federal Glover District 5 (925)427-8142 County Counsel - Silvano Marchesi (925) 646-1078 Centra Costa County Clerk of the Board (925) 335-1913 FROM: C. D. MICHEL DATE: March 22, 2004 RE: Notice of Pending Litigation NOTE: Please deliver to all.Board of Supervisors. Thank you THIS FAX CONTAINS COVER PAGE PLUS2A PAGES. IF YOU DO NOT RECEI-'E ALL PAGES PLEASE CONTACT Claudia Ayala AT(310) 548-04103. THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WMCH IT IS ADDRESSED,AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,CID_"4'F'IDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE REAIJI R OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE jNTENI:?,ED€ QftENT,OR THE ENIFLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELI ERING THE NTE.SSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING Of THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRIC'T'LY PRC7DWITEIa. EF YOU HAVE RECEIVED JIBS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR,PLEASENOTUN US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ADDRESS BELOW VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU, MAR 22 2004 4 x 1 1 PM HP LnSERJET 3200 p. 2 °F`°"VSEL TRUTAH1CH • MICHEL L DON A� aoe�rC.'�tcEs; y LP SAN w F`anr+oeco,CA ATTORNEYS AT LAW MAxx Kc BENFrs,^.r3 NwYopx,N,Y. :.Ucru LALMN PORT OF Los ANGELES OFFICE LosA.Vmus.CA DAVID ?-WtI71' 407 Nt7RTH HAR$CJF BOULEVARD TL'CSUiV,AZ SAN PF0RO,CAL 1FORN1A 90731.3356 ftp-exl'LC.nurizs,� TELEPHoN,E (3-0)548-0410 • FAx:(310)548- e 15 wr+171>;no,cw March 20, 2004 Via Fax (125, 646-1I1 8 &U.S. Certified Mall MT. Silvano Marrchesl County Counsel Contra Costa County 651 Pine St., 9th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re NOTICE OF PENDING LITIGATION Dear Mr. Marchesi. We have recently reviewed the draft ordinance which would ban the sale of certified .50 caliber firearms within the County of Contra Costa. This ordinance is scheduled to be voted on tomorrow. Please be advised that my clients intend to file a lawsuit challenging this ordinance as soon as it is finalized. Although it is interesting to note that the prohibition against the sale of.50 caliber handguns has been removed from the ordinance in light of the narrow preemption claims laid out in the draft Complaint against the City of Long Beach,the ordinance is still legally defective in multiple respects. As you can see from the additional preemption claims set out in the attached draft Complaint, among other things the ordinance is still preempted by state law. At the request of our clients, the remainder of the claims have been redacted until filing. Considering the financial crisis that the County is currently in it is difficult to understand why the County would want to fund the test case on this issue--particularly when the only two firearm dealers in the County do not stock and have not sold these firearms, and when the Sheriff could oversee these dealers so easily.Perhaps your clients are being promised free legal assistance from certain gun control advocacy groups. If that is the case, they might be interested to blow that the City of West Hollywood paid over$400,000.00, and the City of Sacramento over$200,000.00, to defend against other"cutting edge"gun control ordinances using such "free" legal assistance. Those were cases that the cities won—although both of the ordinances at issue in those cases have since been repealed. Obviously, when my clients prevail in this litigation against your clients, they will be entitled to have those fees reimbursed by the County. We had intended to litigate this issue with the City of Los Angeles (the only jurisdiction that now has the lave on its books). We have held off from filing that particular lawsuit only because LA City is currently reviewing its entire municipal code regulating firearms, and will soon be repealing a collection of preempted ordinances. That review and upcoming repeal is taking place because we prevailed in another lawsuit against LA challenging a gun control ordinance (which the City there repealed), and have informed the City Attorney that additional MHH 22 2004 4: 11PM HP LRSERJET 3200 P. 3 Silvano Marchesi March 22, 2004 Page 2 litigation is forthcoming unless the other illegal ordinances are likewise repealed. In light of their good faith efforts, we were simply waiting until they finished the process. In any event,we would appreciate if you could forward a copy of the final version of the ordinance, once adapted by the Supervisors,for attachment to the Complaint. We look forward to working with you on this matter, Sincerely, TRUTA1VICH +MICHELE LLP C.I .Michel cc: Board of Supervisors CDM/ca 11"m cc cuu•t "t: I It'll Mt' LHbENJE 1 JeUU p. 4 I 1 C.D. Michel - S.B.N. 144258 Don B. Kates - S.B.N. 0139193 2 Jason A. Davis - S.B.N. TRUTANICH • MICHEL, LLP DRAFT 3 407 North Harbor Boulevard San Pedro, CA 90731 4 Telephone- 310-548-0410 REDACTED 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ! OAKLAND DIVISION 11 FIFTY CALIBER, SHOOTERS } CASE NO. 12 ASSOCIATION, CA:LIFORINZA ) ASSOCIATION OF FIREARIMS 13 RETAILERS CALIFORNIA COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY SPORTING GOODS ASSOCIATION, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO 14 JANE DOE MYIZON M{OE and INVALIDATE COUNTY RICHARD SLOE, ORDINANCE: Title 42 U.S.C. 1983 15 AND RELATED STATE CLAIMS Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, 18 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD SUPERVISOR JOHN M. 19 GlO1A, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD SUPERVISOR. OAYLE B. 20 UILK.EMA CONTRA COSTA. COUNTY CLERK OF THE BOARD 21 JOI-IN SWEETEN CONTRA COSTA COUNT'` SHEWF WARREN E. 22 RUPF, and Does 1 - 25 23 .Defendants. i 24 25 l COME now plaintiffs to allege as follows: 26 27 28 MHR ee 4UU4 4: 11PM HP LASERJET 3200 p. 5 I INTRODUCTION 2 1. This case challenges CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ("CCC") Ordinance 3 No: 2004-10 ("Ordinance"), which prohibits the-.sale or;other provision of rifles the A Ordinance calls "large caliber firearms" ("LCF"). This Ordinance subjects these 5 who transfer, transfer ownership of, give, sell, offer or display fifty caliber firearms 6 to prosecution, and threatens firearm sellers who violate this ordinance, including 7 federally licensed retailers, manufacturers and distributors, to prosecution, de- 8 licensure and other administrative sanctions. (A true and correct copy of the 9 Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and herein incorporated by reference.) 10 2. The Ordinance is invalid in the fallowing respects: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 4. As a matter of state law, the Ordinance is preempted. by California's state 24 laws limiting caliber-based rifle prohibition to rifles of greater than .60 caliber. Being, 25 thus invalid, its restrictions on plaintiffs' use of their property are also a deprivation 26 of due process of law. 27 5. Suing under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state constitutional and statutory 28 provisions, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the f COMPLAINT }ss �a �tu't *Y: 2 ti tI Mit' LYi K.l I .3i'_uu P. 6 1 Ordinance, as well as relief in mandatory injunction to compel the county clerk to 2 cease from publishing the Ordinance. Plaintiffs further seek attorneys fees under 3 Title 42 U.S.C. 1988 and California C.C.P. 10121.5. 4 5 PARTIES 6 [PLAINTIFFS] 7 b. Plaintiff FIFTY CALIBER SHOOTERS .ASSOCIATION (he.reinafler 8 "FCSA"') is a non-profit membership organization and is incorporated under the laws 9 of Tennessee and Utah, with headquarters in Utah. It sues on its own behalf, in its 14 representative capacity, and on behalf of its members in the CCC and in California 11 generally. FCSA was established in 1985 for the purpose of advancing the sporting 12 and other lawfiil uses of the fifty caliber cartridge. 13 14 15 16 17 All sanctioned FCSA shooting competitions are conducted according 1$ to rules established by the shooting members and published in the FCSA competition 19 rules manual. FCSA members join to promote the sporting aspects of fifty caliber 20 shooting. FCSA has over 4,0100 members, including members residing in CCC and 21 California generally. These CCC and California resident members include numerous 22 persons ,%vho wish to purchase rifles from a firearms dealer which rifles fall under 23 the Ordinance's definition of"large caliber firearm." That definition is irrational and 24 erroneous since such rifles are "small arms." FCSA is continually contacted by its 25 ; members who seek advice on the meaning of the CCC Ordinance and its legality. 26 FCSA must expend staff and attorney time, as well as costs, in responding to thane 27 j member inquiries. 28 7. Plaintiff CALIFORNIA SPORTING GOODS ASSOCIATION (hereinafter 3 COMPLAINT MAR 22 20074 4: 12PM HP LASERJET 3200 p. '7 1 `tCSGA") is a non profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of 2 California. it's primary purpose is to represent licensed firearms dealers in the state 3 of California, educate those dealers about their legal obligations, and advocate for 4 those dealers's interests legislatively and by litigation and community education. In 5 this suit CSGA represents its members, including firearm dealers in CCC, and their 6 customers whose interests are in stopping enforcement of the unlawful Ordinance, 7 clarifying the meaning of the Ordinance and its validity, and determining its g application to them and their property. Said members already do, and wish to 9 continue to, sell, give, transfer ownership of, offer for sale, or display for sale rifles 10 certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice but which nevertheless 11 fall within the irrational Ordinance. 12 8. Plaintiff CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF FIREARMS RETAILERS 13 (hereinafter "CAFR") is a non profit corporation organized under the laws of the 14 State of California. It's purposes are to provide federally licensed firearm retailers in 15 California with a unified voice in regulatory and legislative affairs and to pursue 16 professional development opportunities and the promotion of responsible business 17 practices by fostering active membership participation in relations between firearm 18 retailers, industry, community, and government. CAFR. represents its members, 19 including firearm dealers and sellers within CCC and their customers whose interests 20 are in stopping enforcement of the unlawful Ordinance, clarifying the meaning of the 21 Ordinance and its validity, and determining its application to them and to their 22 property. CAFR members already do, and wish to continue to sell, give, transfer 23 ownership of, offer for sale, or display for sale rifles certified for sale in California 24 by the Department of Justice but which nevertheless fall within the irrational 25 j Ordinance. 26 9. Plaintiff JAMIE DOE ("DOE"), RICHARD ROE and MYRON MOE are 27 CCC-resident gun owners who engage in target shooting as a recreational activity. 28 DOE, ROE and MOE variously: a) desire to purchase rifles certified for sale by the 4 !# COMPLMNT "r U3"bLKJ1;. 1 Jeuu P. 8 I California Department of Justice that fall within CCC's prohibition of fifty caliber 2 firearms or b) own such firearms and desire to display, transfer, and offer there for 3 sale and to sell them. 4 5 [DEFENDANTS] 6 10, Defendant CONTRA COSTA COUNTY is a county formed and 7 authorized under the laws of the State of California. It enacted, has .maintained, and 8 is maintaining, the subject Ordinance by action of the CCC Board of Supervisors, 9 which is CCUs governing body. 10 11. Defendant WILLIAM E. ltUPF ("RUPF") is the County Sheriff at the 11 Contra. Costa County Sheriff's Department, I2UPF, as the Centra Costa County 12 t Sheriff, is the principal enforcer of the unlawful Ordinance. 13 4 12, JOHN M. GIOIA ("GIOIA") is a CCC Board Supervisor for District 1. GIOIA proposed and voted to ass the unlawful Ordinance. 14 P P P 15 13. GAYLE B. UILI MA ("UILKEMA") is a CCC Board Supervisor for 1 16 District 2. UILKEIvMA proposed and voted to pass the unlawful Ordinance. 17 14. (" ") is a CCC Board Supervisor for District_. 18 voted to pass unlawful Ordinance. 19 15. JOHN SWEETEN ("SWEETEN") is the Clerk of the Board for CCC. 20 SWEETEN .responsible for maintaining and updating the Ordinance Code for Centra 21 Costa County, for publishing or causing to be published new Ordinances, and for de- 22 publishing illegal Ordinances, including the unlawful Ordinance. 23 1 16. The true names and capacities of the defendants named as Does 1-50, 24 Whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to plaintiffs as of 25 ` the time of the filing of the complaint. Plaintiffs therefore sue said defendants by 26 such fictitious names and will amend this complaint with their true names and 27 capacities when such are ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and I 28 thereon allege, that each of the Doe defendants is in some manner responsible for the COMPLAINT I JeUU +. 1 events and happenings alleged herein, which proximately caused injury and damage 2 to plaintiffs. 3 17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times 4 herein mentioned, each of the defendants, including these named as Does, was the 5 went, employee, or representative of each of the remaining defendants, and, in doing 6 the things herein after alleged, was acting within the course and scope of such 7 agency, and with the permission, consent, authorization, approval and ratification of 8 his or her defendants. 9 FIRST" CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFFS' 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT i 1 r 2 3 4 5 b 7 8 9 10 11 12 y13 14 15 16 17 18 SECOND CLAIM: "VIOLATION OF 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 COMPLA rW MAR 22 2004 4: 12PM HP LASERJET 3200 P. 11 f i / I 1 2 I 3 4 1y F y✓ t i S 1 { 1, 9 10 11 12 i } 13 I 14 y} f 15 16 1 !» 18 7 f 19 # i 20 i 21 22 k i i 23 � 24 # 25 26 t 27 i I 28 i c� COMPLALNT MHK ee eUU4 4: 1i Fvm HP LASERJET 3200 p. 12 { I 1 i 2 i 3 r t 4 5 i I 6 7 S i 9 E I 1Q 11 THIRD CLAI : DENIAL OF 12 13 t 14 r 15 16 17 !O yp i 19 # 20 I 21 22 f ! 23 1 24 ry I 25 26 I 27 r 28 4 C � i 9 COMPLAINT MRR 22 2004 4: 13P'M HP LASERJET 3200 p. 13 i I I 1 2 i 3 4 5 6 i l 1 I FOURTH CLAVI: DENIAL OF I 12 i 13 14 15 16 { 1 1'7 i 18 t 'r 19 i 20 21 { 22 I 23 24 255' I 26 27 1 i 28 a 10 i COMP.,ARNT MHR ?e eUU4 4z IJPM HP LHSERJE7 3200 p. 14 I r # i 1 i 2 i 3 i 1 4 5 6 I 7 i 8 SIXTH CLAIM. �IOLATION OF 10 1. 11 f a 12 13 i 14 4 15 I 16 1 f r� 1 1 L t7 A i i 19 i 20 21 i t 22 i 23 1 24 f 25 26 �! 27 I t 28 COMPLAINT r�rir efef dUU4 4: 1 JPM HP LASERJET 3200 i i SEV�NTH CLAIM: VIOLATION OF 1 2 i 3 i 4 I 7 i 8 E g i 1 Il f 11 12 i i 13 i 14 15 i 16 EIGHTH CLAIM: V14ATION OF G E a 19 20 21 i 22 j 23 ;I 4 25 26 i 27 28 12 COMP ANT 1 t s I ; i 2 NINTH CLAIN: CALIFORNIA STATE PREEMPTION 4 (By Ali Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 5 54. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein all foregoing paragraphs as if set i 6 out verbatim. i 7 55. California's stag "Destructive Device" law comprehensively covers those 8 rifles the Legislature deemmd appropriate'to specially regulate because of caliber and 9 degree of destructiveness. The Destructive Device law regulates and licenses only 10 firearms having a caliber g�cater than .66, but does not cover firearms of.50 caliber. 11 (A particular rifle of.50 c liber, the Barrett rifle is classified, and subjected it to 12 special regulation, as an "a sault weapon,") The Ordinance is an attempt to redefine, 13 substitute for and add to the Destructive Device Law, extending it from firearms of 14 more than .60 caliber to les er firearms 6f only .50 caliber. 15 56, California's stat; Destructive lDevice law is a comprehensive regulatory 16 scheme governing devices that the State;Legislature deemed to be destructive devices } 17 including, but not limited t�, firearms that fire ammunition exceeding a certain 18 caliber in size due to the d structive cap4bilities of these firearms. The state scheme 19 is a comprehensive one, defining on a st4tewide basis which firearms should be 20 regulated based upon the c1liber and destructive capability. No local regulation of 21 firearms within that subject is permissible. Local regulation regulating firearms based upon caliber and destructive capabilities'is impermissible. The state has set the level 23 at which firearms are to b regulated because of caliber and destructive capacity as 24 any firearm that can fire fied amrnunitibn greater than 0.60 caliber. 25 57. Specifically, Pe�al Code section 12301(a)(3) defines "destructive devices" 26 as including. 27 any wetrparr of a caliber greater than 0.60 caliber which fires fixed anirnunition, or any mmnitron therefor, ether than a shotgun (smooth 28 or rifled bore) contotmin to thedefinition of a "destructive device" found in subsection (b) of Section, 179.11 of Title 27 of the Code of i ON,,iPLAIi�'T MHR 22 2004 4s 13PM HP LASERJET 32010 p. 17 t Federal Regulations,jshotgun amrl unition (single projectile or shot), 1 I antique rifle, or an antique cannonl! For purposes of this section, the term "antiqq�ue cannon"' means any , annon manufactured. before January 1, 1$99, which has b' en rendered ilea able of firing or for which ammunition is no to ger manufact: red in the United States and is not readily available in e ordinary channels of commercial trade. The 4 term ' antique rifle" ears a fires ;. conforming to the definition of an "antique firearm" in Section 179.1�of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 6 S 8. Within California Penal Code lection 12305, the State Legislature 7 provides a detailed regulatory licensing echanism of exceptions to the prohibition 8 on possession and transportation of any firearm that can fire a cartridge greater than .60 caliber: ;I 10 (a) Every dealer, ma.bufacturer, i orter, and exporter of any destructive device, oir any motion icture or television studio using 11 destructive devices ifi the conduct;' f its business, shall obtain a permit for the conduct of th�t business fr 'm the Department of Justice. 12 (b) An person, firm or corporati n not mentioned in subdivision (a) 13 shall obtain a permit;from the De ment of Justice in order to possess or transport any destfuctive devic.. No permit shall be issued to any 14 person lvho meets a y of the falls ing criteria: 15 1 Has been convicted of ' y felony. 2 Is addicte to the use o {,any narcotic drug. 16 .3 Is a Vers in a class pr hibited b Section 8100 or 8103 of t e Welare ad Institution Code or Section 12{721 or 12021.1 of 17 this code. j i 18 (c) Applications for ermits shall f led in writing, signed b the a plicant if an individual, or by a ember or officer qualified to sign if 1 g the a�ppplicant i a firm or corprtrat n, and shall state the name, business in wfiich engaged, business address and a full description of the use to 20 which the destructive devices are,'o be put. 21 �d) Applicationsan 'prmits shah be uniform throughout the state on rms prescribed by�the Departmo` t of Justice. 22 (e) Each applicant if r a pennit shi 11 pay at the time off ling his or her 23 application a fee notito exceed th application processing costs of the I�epartrnent of Justi4e. A permit ranted pursuant to this article may be 24 renewed one year fr rn the date o ;issuance, and annually thereafter, upon the filing of a renewal appli"ation and the payment of aper mit 25 renewal fee not to exceed the application processing costs of the Department of Justice. After the department establishes fees sufficient 26 in amount to cover processing costs, the atriount of the fees shall only increase at a rate not to exceed the legislatively approved cost-of=living 27 adjustment for the department, 28 (f) Except as provided in subdivision (g), the Department of Justice shall, for every person, firrn, or corporation to whom a permit is issued 14 4 COMPLAINT MRR 22 2004 4: 13PM HP LASERJET 320 b P. 10 1 pursuant to this article, annually conduct an inspection for security and safe stor devices. E 2 [ (�) A person, firm, or corpooration with an inventory of fewer than five i devices that require any Department of Justice permit shall be subject to an inspection for security and safe storageyurposes, and to reconcile 4 inventory, once every five years, or more frequently if determined by the department. s ! (h) Subdivisions (f) and (g) shall not apply to individuals possessing an S assault weapon pursuant to a permit issued by the Department of Justice for noncommercial purposes. 7 59. Of course, none of these exceptions or licenses provided in the state S legislative scheme appear in or apply to the firearms regulated under the Ordinance, 9 which is therefore contradictory to the State scheme. Thus the Ordinance conflicts 10 with state law. 11 60. As already alleged, a number of the plaintiffs desire to sell anchor transfer 12 "large caliber firearms" where prohibited by CCC, but approved to sell, offer or 13 display for sale, give, lend ar transfer ownership by the state of California. But the iQ Ordinance purports to flatly prohibit a person from selling, offering or displaying for 15 sale, giving, lending or transferring ownership of the forearms it covers as highly 16 destructive a- even though the Legislature, having reviewed the subject matter, has t'r not so regulated them, choosing to expressly set the lower caliber limit at anything 18 greater than .60 caliber. 19 b 1. The Ordinance intrudes into an area that is fully occupied by general law ZQ where the legislature has impliedly manifested its intent to fully occupy the are in 21 light of the fallowing indicia: 22 The sub`ect matter regulating firearms based upon caliber r 23 size and ltheir destructive capabilities has been completely covered by eperal law as to clearly indicate that it has 24 become exe uslvely a matter of state concern. • The subiect matter regulating firearms based. upon caliber 25 size and their destructive capabilities has been covered by general law couched in such terms as to indicate clearly 26 thata paramount state concern will not tolerate further or additional local action. 27 The sub'ect matter regulating firearms based upon caliber f size andtheiridestructive capabilities has been covered by 28 general lav, and the subject is of such a nature that the adverse affect of a local Ordinance on the transient citizens t 15 COMPLAINT MAR 22 2004 4: 14PM HP LASERJET 9200 p. 19 I of the state outweighs the possible benefit to the locality. 2 62. The fact that the regulations on a particular firearms' caliber size and 3 destructive capability is a field of state regulation and the field entered into by CCC's 4 local legislation is sufficiently and logically related so that a court or local legislative 5 body can detect a pattern approach to the subject. 6 63. That the Ordinance is a regulation on caliber size and purported 7 destructive capabilities is apparent in the Ordinances history: In the motion to draft 8 the ordinance, CCC cites the destructive capabilities of LCF's as the "background" g for the proposal to draft a LCF ban. Specifically, the "background" of the proposal i o states: 11 The .50 caliber sniper rifle has We times the muzzlepower of a .357 magnum handgun, and can penetrate nearlyeight inches 6f 12 concrete from a distance �f 400 yards. Originaly de-si ned forhe vy� military use, all types of.50 caliber ammunition are readily available to 13 civilians in the Unit d States and thus easily available to foreign and domestic terrorists. With such destructive overs, .50 caliber sniper 14 rifles are no more re ulated than hunting rifles and less regulated than handguns. . . . (Emp&alis added.) 15 16 64. The final ordinance included"findings in support of Ordinance No 2004- 1'7 10 (Large Caliber Firearms.). These "findings" also emphasize the destructive Ig capabilities of firearms of.50 caliber: 19 The design of the .50 caliber sniper rifle enables the destruction of aircraft, heavy mrtchin:er`y, and infrastructure from long ranges. 20 The .50 caliber sniper rifle was originally desiped far use in the military but is increasingly sold in the domestic civilian market. 21 • Ammunition for the .50 caliber sniper rifle has more than seven times the power on impact as the .30-06, five times that of the .308, and 22 more than three time's that of the .338. • The .50 caliber sniper rifle uses different types of ammunition, 23 including ball ammunition, armor Vercingamtnuni�on, and arimor- piercing-incendiary ammunition, all lmunitl©n is for use against 24 personnel and light material tar els. Armor-piercing ammunition is for use against armored aircraft anlightly armored vehicles, concrete 25 shelters, and ether bullet-rests tingg targets. Armor-piercing-incendiary arnmunition is ti ped with phosphorus and explodes on impact. 26 One ball cattridge can penetrate two inches of concrete frrm 220 yards and one.inch df concrete from 1,640 yards. From 38 yards, 50 27 rounds of ball ammunition can penetrate 10 inches of concrete and 15 rounds can penetratO 12 inches of a triple brick wall. One armor- 28 piercingcartridge can penetrate one inch of armor plate from 220 yards and 0.3 inches of arrbor plate from 1,640 yards. 16 MAR 22 2004 4. 14PM HP LASERJET 3200 p. 20 s 1 i 65. The State of California hal expressly and implicitly deprived CCC of the 3 powers to regulate firearm "destructi*e devices." California Government Code 4 suction 53071 makes state law the exclusive arbiter as to any firearm whose sale or 5 possession has been permitted, excluded, and/or licensed under state law: 6 i It is the intention of the Legislature to occupy the whole field of regulation of the registration of licensing of colnmerciall y manufactured firearms as encompassed by the provisions of the Venal Code, and such provisions shall be exclusive 4 all local regulations, relating. to 8 registration or licensing cif commercially manufactured firearms, by any political subdivision'. . . . 9 10 The Ordinance is a. licensing law preempted by Gov. C. 53071, in part because it 11 prohibits the purchasing and other receipt of what it defines as LCFs by all but 13 12 categories of potential recipients whom it licenses to do so. 13 66. The State of California has demonstrated a legislative intent to completely 14 occupy the field of"Destructive Device" licensing and regulation. Furthermore, as to 15 the broad area of firearms sales, the Legislature has enacted a comprehensive and 16 detailed regulatory scheme (Pen. C04e §§ 12070-12084) which requires the licensing 17 of firearms dealers, places numerous;restrictions on firearms sales, and mandates the 18 furnishing of identification information by each purchaser. The state has so a 19 thoroughly occupied this field that regulating firearms sales is beyond the reach of 20 local governments. Cities sand counties have been charged with the execution of the 21 state's program for the business licensing of firearms dealers, but their role is 22 ministerial in nature. (Pen. Code s 12071.) 23 67. By the same toren, the U gislature has enacted a host of laws against 24 possession or sale of particular fire -ms it deemed to be contrary to the public 25 welfare. The following provisions of' the Penal Code show that the state has f 26 regulated so comprehensively as to exclude local prohibition of the sale of 27 commercially manufactured firearm*: Penal Cade §§ 12020 outlaws possession of 28 unconventional firearms including cane guns, wallet guns, short barreled rifles and 17 OMPLAINT ................. s trt►� 4�e z::Uul+ At: x r'rt' Ht' LHSE RJE T 3200 p- 21 h r shotguns and high capacity ma`gazin" s or firearms using high capacity magazines � t while 12090ff. outlaws sale or'posse sign of firearms which have no serial number,12125ff. sets standards for unsafe handguns" and prohibits their sale, a 12220 outlaws possession of subw-m pine gums, machine guns and other fully automatic weapons except!for persotfs possessing DOJ permits, 12275ff. defines, and prohibits the sale and pnriste d possession, of assault weapons. In addition, Article 7 of the Penal Code outlaws ale/possession of firearms and ammunition to $ and by minors and Chapters 2.5, 2. 3.2 and 4-6 outlaws, or requires state permit 9 for, "destructive devices",certain unitlon, use of firearms or other weapons m 10 booby traps, tear gas weapons „fire§rm devices", and requires training and a basic }t firearms safety certificate.: 12 68. The California Supreme } ourt deems the frequency of amendment and 13 reenactment of state laws in a partiq lar area as evidence of state occupation of the 14 field. In fact, the statutes govemning> irear€ns possession and sale have received 15 very extensive legislative attention. 16 69. Moreover the Legislatur' has repeatedly rejected proposals to authorize a 1 cities to enact gun-ban laws, 6.g., A B. 136 (Villaraigosa) 1997-98 session; A.B. 18 247 (Scott) 1997-98 session; S.B. 6¢ 3 (Polanco) 1997-98 session; A.B. 634 19 (Caldera) 1995-96 session; which wy s identical to A.B. 2706 (Caldera) rejected in 20 the 1993-94 session. Other approaches from the 1993-94 session included SB 1293 zt (Hayden), AB 2865 (Lee) andlABx 37 (Burton). The rationale on which the 22 Assembly Conunittee on Public Safi Fty rejected such efforts deserves particular 23 attention: Z4 The Le islature, in enacting ; e-emption statutes has expressed its intent or the need for nifa statewide standards relating to . . . 25 firearms, [a subject] already volving extensive and comprehensive regulation by the state. The ned for existing statewide standard and 26 the uniformity it pr�)vides could not be more necessary. Conversel , ermitting any widespread ate itional local restrictions [regardin 27 firearms could not :oss bly aqd anything other than general conf�rsion to the re ulatorry sctemb. 28 -- Assern5lv Con-kmtteel, n Public of Hearing Memo on AB a,., 2 ( al . 23,iiJ 9 emphasis added). a ONIPLAINT I ZWM tit' Sett tttJt I � 'LJ C1 p• 22 1i f 2 70. In recent years, Ideal municipalities have sought to have preemption effects of California firearms lows n .crowed, to no avail: In 1999 the Legislature 4 eructed SB 15, the Unsafe;Ha,�idgunAct (Pen. C §§ 12125 et seq.) whose purpose was to ban the sale of"Saturday Night Specials." It established criteria for handgun safety, defined unsafe handguns anc ;banned their sale as of Jan. 1, 200 1. In 7 enacting SB 15 the Legisldtur� was well aware of the existing local SNS g Ordinances as to which the Sefiate Mblic Safety Committee report stated: "This bill would appear to preempt any su6h local Ordinance, bath those already in 10 existence and any proposed loo- ally i the future." Among the ways in which the 11 Legislature became aware of the UIlA's preemptive effect is that its author and 12 ether legislators were informed by the City of San Jose's lobbyist that as written 13 (and eventually enacted) SB 1 awou�io preempt all these local Ordinances. At the 14 request of San.lase the author i,ainen4ed SB 15, adding a proviso stating that the local Ordinances would surviV'e the THA and not be preempted. This proviso was, 15 ; 16 however, later stricken from SB 15zd the UHA was enacted without it. 17 71. In sung, the existence of t .e .60 caliber ban specifically, and other state 18 firearms bans and regulatipns kenerly, demonstrates that the state has occupied 19 the field and localities have nc auth -ity to prohibit models or kinds of firearms in 't 20 general, and particular caliberof fi �arnis in general. { 21 22 [DECLARATORY `CMGMENT ALLEGATION] 23 72. There is an actual aid pre nt controversy between the panties to this suit 24 regarding the Ordinance's C:onslstenc with state law. Plaintiffs contend that the 25 Ordinance. is unconstitutionally, inv4d and preempted because it conflicts with state 26 laws including the Destructive bevic�, laws (penal Code sections 123131 et seq) and i 27 Government Cade section 53021. L) Pendants deny and dispute this contention, 2$ wherefore plaintiffs seek a de.c1laratory judgment that the Ordinance is preempted 19 i ON PLAINT MAR 22 2004 4: 16PM HP LASERJET 3200 P. 23 I 1 because of its inconsistency and conflict with state law. 3 [PRAYER] 4 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs seep the following relief. 1. Equitable relief erijoining, enforcement of Contra Costa County Ordinance 6 2004..10 or expenditure of funds on it and compelling CCC to repeal and/or de- 1 publish and refrain from publishing and enforcing Contra Costa County Ordinance 8 2004-10. g 2. Equitable relief enjoining unlawful expenditure of funds on enforcement, 1,0 training and publication of Contra Costa County Ordinance 2004-10 and compelling 11 CCC to repeal and/or de-publih and refrain from publishing and enforcing Contra 12 Costa County Ordinance 2004-,10. 13 2. Declaratory relief as set out in the body of the petition; 14 3. That plaintiffs be awatded reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to Title 42 15 i U.S.C. 1985 and Code of Civil;Procedure section 1421.5, as well as costs of suit and 16 such other and further relief as Ithe Court deems proper. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 MAR 22 2004 4: 11PM HP LASERJET 3200 �y � P. 1 TRUTANICH • MICHEL, LLP ATTORNEY'S AT LAW PORT OF LOS ANGELES OFFICE 4037 NORTH HARBOR BOULEVARD SAN PEDRO, CA 90731 TELEPHONE- -(310) 548-0410 FAX: (310) 548-4613 FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET TOy Board of Supervisor- John ;\11. Gioia District } --- 1 (51,0) 374-3429 Beard of Supervisor- Gayle B. Uill:ema' District 2 (925)335-1076 Board of Supervisor- ?Millie Greenberg District 3 (925) 820-6627 Board of Supervisor- Mark DeSaulluer District 4 (925)646-57617 Board of Supervisor- Federal Glover District 5 (925)427-8142 County Counsel - Silvano Marchesi (925) 646w-1078 Contra Costa County Clerk of the Board {925}335-1913 FROM: C. D. MICHEL DATE: March 22,2004 RE: Notice of Pending Litigation NOTE: Please deliver to all Board of Supervisors. Thank you THIS FAX CONTAINS COVER PAGE PLUS.,, PAGES. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES PLEASE CONTACT Claudia-Ayala. AT(310) 548-0410. THIS INIESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WmCK IT IS ADDRESSED,AND N"!AY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,CO. FIDENTIAI.,AND EXENIPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE Is NOT THE INTEND #1121 QPIEN OR THE EIVI 'LOYEE OR AGENT RESPONS113LE FOR DELIVERING THE,NTESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT A:" T REVIEW, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS CONINIU'.NIC'ATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED TKJS COMAIUNIC'ATION LN ERROR,PLEASE NO'T'IFY USININIFT IATELY BY TELEPHONI:AND RETURN THE ORIGLt1AL MESSAGE TO LIS AT TIIE ADDRESS BELOW VIA T14F U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. TI-LANK YOU. MAR 22 2004 4: 1 1 PM HP LnSERJET 3200 p. 2 DCNOF COUNSEL: T L4 i T i\ N I C H • M I C H E L, L L I" 5"s Fpwv sco,CA xca xC.McFs. !'C 1 !'S.1� ATTORN EYS AT LAW Jasi:vF S.0 rNCEA NFWY0X9,N.Y. Mjc'uxx tt c PORT OF Los ANGELES OFFICE D.av nT.SL res t.o52tiG�t1>SG1 407 NORTHHArROOR EOULE;rApp Tvcmx",AZ SAN PE ORO,CAL]FORWA 9C-)31.3356 IER--,Bl'L.C1JT1EL0 TELEPHONE t5'0) 46.041 0 • FAx(Z-10)548-48 1 S SAN 7Dts�o,CA March 20, 2004 Via Fay. 925L646-1117&U.S. Cerffled A1811 Mr. Silvano Marchesi County Counsel Contra Costa County 651 Pine St., 9th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: NOTICE OF PENDING LITIGATION Dear Mr. Marchesi: We have recently reviewed the draft ordinance which would ban the sale ofcerbfled .50 caliber firearms within the County of Centra Costa. This ordinance is scheduled to be vested on tomorrow. Please be advised that my clients intend to file a lawsuit challenging this ordinance as soon as it is finalized. Although it is interesting to note that the prohibitionn against the sale of.50 caliber handguns has been removed from the ordinance in light of the narrow preemption claims laid out in the draft Complaint against the City of Long Beach,the ordinance is still legally defective in multiple respects. As you can see from the additional preemption claims set out in the attached draft Complaint, among other things the ordinance is still preempted by state law. At the request of our clients, the remainder of the claims have been redacted until filing. Considering the financial crisis that the County is currently in it is difficult to understand why the County would want to fund the test case on this issue—particularly when the only two firearm dealers in the County do not stock and have not sold these firearms, and when the Sheriff could oversee these dealers so easily.Perhaps your clients are being promised free legal assistance from certain gun control advocacy groups. If that is the case, they might be interested to know that the City of West Hollywood paid over$400,000.00, and the City of Sacramento over$200,OW.00, to defend against other"cutting edge" gun control ordinances using such "free" legal assistance. These were cases that the cities won— although both of the ordinances at issue in those cases have since been repealed. Obviously, when my clients prevail in this litigation against your clients, they will be entitled to have those fees reimbursed by the County. We had intended to litigate this issue with the City of Los Angeles(the only jurisdiction that now has the law on its books). We have held off from filing that particular lawsuit only because Ltd City is currently reviewing its entire municipal code regulating firearms, and will soon be repealing a collection of preempted ordinances. That review and upcoming,repeal is taping dace because we prevailed in another lawsuit against LA challenging a gun control ordinance (which the City then repealed), and have informed the City Attorney that additional MAR 22 2004 4: 11PM HP LASERJET 3200 p. 3 Silva.no Marchesi March 22, 2004 Page 2 litigation is forthcoming unless the other illegal ordinances are likewise repealed. In light of their goad faith efforts,we were simply waiting until they finished the process. In any event, we would appreciate if you could forward a copy of the final version of the ordinance, once adopted by the Supervisors, for attachment to the Complaint. We look forward to working with you on this matter. Sincerely, TRUTANICH •INLCHEL,LLP C.D. Michel cc:Board of Supervisors CDM/ca 11HK de euU4 4. 11HM HP LASERJET 3200 p. 4 I C.D. Michel - S.B.N. 144258 Don B. Kates - S.B.N. 039193 2 Jason A. Davis - S.B.N. R.I; TTANICFI • MICHEL, LLP 3 407 North harbor Boulevard DRAFT San Pedro, CA 90731 4 Telephone- 310-548-0410 REDACTED 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 4 7 p Q IN' THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 OAKLAND DIVISION 11 FIFTY CALIBER SHOOTERS CASE NO. 12 ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF FIREARMS 13 RETAILERS CALIFORNIA COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY SPORTING GOODS ASSOCIATION, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO 14 JANE DOE. MYR.ON MOE and INVALIDATE COUNTY RICHARD kOE, ORDINANCE: Title 42 U.S.C. 1383 15 [ AND RELATED STATE CLAIMS Plaintiffs, 16 V. 17 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, 18 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HBOARD SUPERVISOR JOHN M. 19 ' GIOIA. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD SUPERVISOR GAYLE B. 20 UILKEMA}.,�CONTRA COSTA COUNTY UERK OF THE BOARD 21 JOHN SWEETEN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF WARREN E. 22 ?RUPF, and Does 1 • 25 23 Defendants. i 24 i 25 COME now plaintiffs to allele as follows: 25 27 3 Z8 t t MAR 22 2004 4: 11PM HP LnSERJET 3200 p. 5 t INTRODUCTION 2 1 . This case challenges CONTRA COSTA COtJNT'Y ("CCC") Ordinance No: 2004-10 ("Ordinance"), which prohibits the sale or .other provision of rifles the 4 Ordinance calls "large caliber firearms" ("LCF"). This Ordinance subjects those 5 who transfer, transfer ownership of, give, sell, offer or display fifty caliber firearms to prosecution, and threatens firearm sellers who violate this ordinance, including 7 federally licensed retailers, manufacturers and distributors, to prosecution, de- 8 licensure and other administrative sanctions. (A true and correct copy of the 9 Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and herein incorporated by reference.) 10 2. The Ordinance is invalid in the following respects: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ; 19 20 21 22 23, 4. As a hatter of state la-v, the Ordinance is preempted by California's state 24 laws limiting caliber-based rifle prohibition to rifles of greater than .60 caliber. Being 25 thus invalid, its restrictions on plaintiffs' use of their property are also a deprivation 26 of due process of lay. 27 S. wing. under 4? U.S.C. 1983 and state constitutional and statutory 28 provisjons, plaintiffs seep declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the �3 2 CONITLALNI T I trim cc cuu t "t. 3 i t't3 Yfii Lf•ibLNJE t 3200 P. G 1 Ordinance, as well as relief in mandatory injunction to compel the county clerk to 2 cease from publishing the Ordinance. Plaintiffs further seep attorneys fees under 3 Title 42 U.S.C. 1988 and California C.C.P. 1021.5. 4 5 PARTIES 6 [PLAINTIFFS] 7 b. Plaintiff FIFTY CALIBER SHOOTERS ASSOCIATION (hereinafter 8 "FCSA") is a non-profit membership organization and is incorporated under the laws 9 of Tennessee and Utah, with headquarters in Utah. It sues on its own behalf, in its 10 representative capacity, and on behalf of its members in the CCC and in California 11 generally. FCSA was established in 1985 for the purpose of advancing the sporting 12 and other lawful uses of the fifty caliber cartridge. 13 14 15 16 17 All sanctioned FCSA shooting competitions are conducted. according 18 to rules established by the shooting members and published in the FCSA competition 19 rules manual. FCSA members join to promote the sporting aspects of fifty caliber 20 shooting. FCSA has over 4,000 members, including members residing in CCC and 21 "California generally. These CCC and California resident members include numerous 22 persons who wish to purchase rifles from a firearms dealer which rifles fall under 23 the Ordinance's definition of"large caliber firearm." That definition is irrational and 24 erroneous since such rifles are "small arms." FCSA is continually contacted by its 25 members who seek advice on the meaning of the CCC Ordinance and its legality. 26 ! FCSA n-rust expend staff and attorney time, as well as costs, in responding to those 27 member inquiries. 28 7. Plaintiff CALIFORNIA SPORTING GOODS ASSOCIATION (hereinafter 3 Cf3TAPI.ANT MAR 22 2004 4: 12PM HP LASERJET 3200 P. 7 I "CSGA") is a non profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California. It's primary purpose is to represent licensed firearms dealers in the state of California, educate those dealers about their legal obligations, and advocate for 4 these dealers's interests legislatively and by litigation and community education. In 5 this suit CSGA represents its members, including firearm dealers in CCC, and their fi customers whose interests are in stopping enforcement of the unlawful Ordinance, clarifying the meaning of the Ordinance and its validity, and determining its 8 application to them and their property. Said members already do, and wish to 9 continue to, sell, give, transfer ownership of, offer for sale, or display for sale rifles 10 certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice but which nevertheless 11 fall within the irrational Ordinance. 12 8. Plaintiff CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF FIREARMS RETAILERS 13 (hereinafter "CAFR") is a non profit corporation organized under the laws of the 14 State of California. It's purposes are to provide federally licensed firearm retailers in 15 California with a unified voice in regulatory and legislative affairs and to pursue 15 professional development opportunities and the promotion of responsible business 1'7 practices by fostering active membership participation in relations between firearm 18 retailers, industry, community, and government. CAFR represents its members, 19 including firearm dealers and sellers within CCC and their customers whose interests 20 are in stepping enforcement of the unlawful Ordinance, clarifying the meaning of the 21 Ordinance and its validity, and determining its application to them and to their 22 property. CAFR members already do, and wish to continue to sell, gives transfer 23 ownership of, offer for sale, or display for sate rifles certified for sale in California 24 by the Department of Justice but which nevertheless fall within the irrational 25 i( +Ordinance. 26 9. Plaintiff JAMIE DOE ("DOE"), RICHARD ROE and MYROIti MOE are 27 CCC-resident gun owners who engage in target shooting as a recreational activity, 28 :. DOE, ROE and NIDE variously: a) desire to purchase rifles certified for sale by the 4 COMPLAINT { 4+: 1 ellm HV LH5EHJE1 3200 P. 8 I California Department of Justice that fall within CCC's prohibition of fifty caliber 2 firearms or b) awn such firearms and desire to display, transfer, and offer them for 3 sale and to sell them. 4 5 [DEFENDANTS) 6 10. Defendant CONTRA COSTA COUNTY is a county farmed and 17 authorized under the laws of the State of California. It enacted, has maintained, and 8 is maintaining the subject Ordinance by action of the CCC Board of Supervisors, 9 which is CCUs governing body. 10 11. Defendant WILLIAM E. RUFF ("RUPF") is the County Sheriff at the 11 Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department. RUPF, as the Centra. Costa County 12 Sheriff, is the principal enforcer of the unlawful Ordinance. 13 12. fOHN M. GIOIA ("GIOIA") is a CCC Board Supervisor for District 1. 14 GIOIA proposed and voted to pass the unlawful Ordinance. 15 13. GAYL:E B. UILKEMA ("UILKEMA") is a CCC Board Supervisor for 1 16 District 2. UILKEMA proposed and voted to pass the unlawful Ordinance. k 17 14. (" is a CCC Board Supervisor for District 18 voted to pass unlawful Ordinance. 19 15. JOHN SWEETEN ("SWEETEN") is the Clerk of the Board for CCC. 20 SWEETEN responsible for maintaining and updating the Ordinance Code for Contra 21 Costa County, for publishing or causing to be published neve Ordinances, and for de- 22 p � � publishing illegal Ordinances, includingthe unlawful Ordinance. , 23 16. The true .names and capacities of the defendants named as Does 1-50, k 24 whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unkno Am to plaintiffs as of k 25 ' the time of the :filing of the complaint. plaintiffs therefore sue said defendants by 26 such fictitious names and will amend this complaint with their true names and 27 capacities when such are ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and 28 thereon allege, that each of the Doe defendants is in some manner responsible for the CONMDUN ifi lf'a LG. uu�r -r: �rrt HH LHbERJET 32030 P. 9 1 events and happenings alleged herein, which proximately caused injury and damage 2 to plaintiffs. 3 17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times 4 ° herein mentioned, each of the defendants, including these named as Does, was the 5 agent, employee, or representative of each of the remaining defendants, and, in doing 6 the things herein after alleged, was acting within the course and scope of such 7 agency, and with the permission, consent, authorization, approval and ratification of 8 his or her defendants. 9 10 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFFS' , 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 f' 26 27 28 6 COMPLAINT HV LHbEHJET 3200 p. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 � 10 Il l2 13 14 15 16 17 18 SECOND CLAIM: VIOLATION OF 19 fi 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i 7 CON11'LANT MRR 22 2004 4. 12PM HP LASERJET 3200 p. 11 i i i 3 2 3 4 5 r6 f I g M 9 { 14? i 11 12 i 13 i 14 i i 15 16 17 1 1$ 19 20 i 21 ' I 22 i 23 24 2 � } L i !1 r 26 j 27 28 COMPL T MHK eLd 2004 4+ 12PM HP LASERJET 3200 P- 12 1 1 2 # i i 3 i 3 4 5 I 6 7 S I 9 10 11 THIRD CLAIM: DENIAL OF 12 ' i 13 ! 14 j i 15 I 16 17 i 18 � 19 I 20 { i 21 ! 22 ! i 23 (� t 24 t 25 26 ! i i ! 27 2$ 9 i COMPLAINT MAR 22 2004 4: 13PM HP LASERJET 3200 p. 13 I I i 1 I 2 3 i 4 5 i 6 7 I i 8 FOURTH CL klM: DENIAL OF 10 j i 12 13 14 ' J; 15 I 16 17 I 18 i 19 20 21 i 22 I 23 24 25 I 26 i i 27 28 10 COINIPLARNT � MAR 22 2004 4. 13PM HP L nSERJET 3200 p. 14 I 1 ' 2 k I 3 4 E r i I i 6 � 7 I i 9 SIXTH CLAIM: VIOLATION OF 10 C 11 } I I 12 13 14 15 i 16 17 i 18 i I 19 I i 20 I 21 : 22 i I 23 24 I 25 t 26 27 28 z� :' COMPLAINT MAR 22 2004 4 s 1 3PM HP LASERJET 3200 P. 15 SEVNTH CLAIM: VIOLATION OF 2 3 4 � 5 6 I 7 ! 9 10 11 12 i 13 14 i C 16 EIGHTH CLAIM: 'VlOtATION OF 17 18 1 19y�y I G 20 21 i 22 2J ry 24 25 ({ 26 27 i 28 }� 12 ! COMPLAINT f MHK ee eUU4 4: 1 SPM HP LASERJET 3200 P. 16 3 I i I i 2 NINTH CILAII : CALIFORNIA STATE PREEMPTION (By All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) I 5 54. Plaintiffs realle& and incorporate herein all foregoing paragraphs as if set I ' out verbatim. i 7 55. California's stag "Destructive Device" law comprehensively covers those 8 rifles the Legislature deem�d appropriate to specially regulate because of caliber and F 9 degree of destructiveness. The Destructive Device law regulates and licenses only 10 firearms having a caliber g0ater than .60, but does not cover firearms of.50 caliber. 11 (A particular rifle of.50 c�liber, the Bazett rifle is classified, and subjected it to r 12 special regulation, as an "asault weapon.") The Ordinance is an attempt to redefine, 13 substitute for and add to t4 Destructive Device Law, extending it from firearms of 14 more than .60 caliber to les er firearms of only .50 caliber. 15 56. California's stat Destructive!Device law is a comprehensive regulatory 16 scheme governing devices that the StateLegislature deemed to be destructive devices 17 including, but not limited t', firearms that fire ammunition exceeding a certain 18 caliber in size due to the destructive cap4bilities of these firearms. The state scheme 19 is a comprehensive one, derning on a stotewide basis which firearms should be 20 regulated based upon the cliber and destructive capability. No local regulation of F 21 firearms within that subjec� is permissible. Local regulation regulating firearms based 22 upon caliber and destructiv,6 capabilities!is impermissible. The state has set the level 23 at which firearms are to b� regulated because of caliber and destructive capacity as 24 any firearm that can fire fixed ammunition greater than 0.60 caliber. 25 57. Specifically, Peal Code section 12301(a)(3) defines "destructive devices" 26 as including: 27 any wvgpon of a caliber greater that 0.60 caliber which fires fixed ammunition, or any 4mmunitlon therefor, other than a shotgun (smooth 28 or rifled bore) confo min to the definition of a "destructive device„ found in subsection (b) oSectioni 179.11 of Title 27 of the Code of 13 COMPLAINT MAR 22 2004 4: 13PM HP LRSERJET 3200 p. 17 I I I 1 Federal Regulations,jshotgun arrin unition (single projeeflle or shot), antique rifle, or an antique cannons For purposes of this section, the 2 term "antique cannon" means any ;pannon manufactured before January 1, 1899, which has b' en renderedncapable offirin or for which 3 ammunition is no for ger manufactured in the Uniteg States and is not readily available in tie ordinary cl annels of commercial. trade. The term ' antique rife" rheans a fireaun conforming to the definition of an `antiqque firearm" in Section 179.1; of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 6 58. Within California Penal Code ' ection 12305, the State Legislature 7 provides a detailed regulatory licensing t echanism of exceptions to the prohibition 8 on possession and transportation of any firearm that can fire a cartridge greater than .b0 caliber: I 9 ,I 1 (a) Every dealer, ma#iufacturer, i orter, and exporter of any destructive device, or any motion � icture or television studio using t 1 destructive devices in the conduct:of its business, shall obtain a permit for the conduct of that business fr' 1n the Department of Justice. 12 (b) Any person, firma or corporati; n not mentioned in subdivision (a) 13 shall obtain a permit;from the DeliArtment of Justice in order to possess or transport any dest active devic No permit shall be issued to any 14 person who meets aAy of the folly ing criteria: 15 I Has been donvicted of 1y felony. . 2 Is addicted to the use of�;anyy narcotic drug. t6 3 Is a erso in a class prOhibited b y Section 8l00 or 8103 of t e Welfare ad Institution, Code or Section 12021 or 12021.1 of t this code. i 18 (c) Applications for�ermits shall filed in writing, signed by the applicant if an indiv dual, or by a, ember or officer qualified to sign if 19 the applicant is a fi . or corporati n, and shall state the name, business in whpich engaged, business addre s and a full description of the use to 20 which the destructly- devices aretio, be put. 21 (d) Applications and,permits shall...be uniform throughout the state on arms prescribed by the Departme t of Justice. 22 (e) Each applicant fdr a permit sh 11 pay at the time of filing his or her 2 a plication a fee notlto exceed th application processing costs of the > epartrnent of Justide. A permit ranted pursuant to this article may be 2� renewed one year frc m the date o :issuance and annually thereafter, upon the tiling of a 1,enewal applicarion ana the payment of a permii 25 renewal fee not to exceed the application processing casts of the Department of Justice. After the department establishes fees sufficient in amount to cover processing costs, the amount of the fees shall only increase at a rate not io exceed the legislatively approved cost-of-living 27 adjustment for the department. (f) Except as prc�vicled n subdivision (g}> the Departmeni of Justice shall, for every person, fin-n, or corporation to wgorn a permit is issued 14 COIF PLANT MAR 22 20014 4a13PM HP LASERJET 3200 P. 18 t pursuant to this article, annually conduct an inspection for security and safe stor j devices. 2 (g) A person, firm, or corp oration with an inventory of fewer than five devices that require any Department of Justice permit shall be subject to an inspection for security and safe storagepurposes, and to reconcile 4 inventory, once every five years, or more frequently if determined by tthe department. 5 (h) Subdivisions (f) and (g) shall not apply to individuals possessing an 6 assault weapon pursuant to a permit issued by the Department of Justice for noncommercial purposes. 7 59. Of course, none of these exceptions or licenses provided in the state 8 legislative scherne appear in or apply to the firearms regulated under the Ordinance, 9 which is therefore contradictory to the State scheme. Thus the Ordinance conflicts to with state law. 11 60. As already alleged, a number of the plaintiffs desire to sell and/or transfer 12 tlarge caliber firearms" where prohibited by CCC, but approved to sell, offer or 13 display for sale, give, lend 'or transfer ownership by the state of California. But the 14 Ordinance purports to flatly Prohibit a person from selling, offering or displaying for 15 sale, giving, lending or transferring ownership of the firearms it covers as highly 16 destructive -- even though the Legislature, having reviewed the subject matter, has 17 not so regulated them, choosing to expressly set the lower caliber limit at anything 18 greater than .60 caliber. 19 61. The Ordinance intrudes into an area that is fully occupied by general law 20 where the legislature has impliedly manifested its intent to fully occupy the are in 21 light of the following indicia: 22 • The subject matter regulating firearms based upon caliber 23 size and�their destructive capabilities has been completely covered by ggeneral law as to clearly indicate that ithas 74 became exclusively a matter of state concern. • The subject matter regulating firearms based upon caliber 25 size andtheirdestructive capabilities has been covered by general law couched in such terms as to indicate clearly 26 that a paramount state concern will not tolerate further or additional local action. 27 The sub`ect matter regulating firearms based upon caliber size anTtheir&structive capabilities has been covered by 28 general law, and the subject is of such a nature that the adverse affect of a local Ordinance on the transient citizens 15 COIN1PLAINT MAR 22 2004 4: 14€'M HP LASERJET 3200 P. 19 1 of the state outweighs the possible benefit to the locality. 2 62. The fact that the regulations on a particular firearms' caliber size and destructive capability is a field of state regulation and the field entered into by CCC's 4 local legislation is sufficiently and logically related so that a court or local legislative 5 body can detect a pattern approach to the subject. 6 63. That the Ordinance is a regulation on caliber size and purported destructive capabilities is apparent in the Ordinances history: In the motion to draft g the ordinance, CCC cites the destructive capabilities of LCF's as the "background" � 9 for the proposal to draft a LCF ban. Specifically, the "background" of the proposal 10 states: 11 . The .50 caliber sniper rifle has five times the muzzle power of a .357 magnum handgun, and can penetrate nearly eig�ht inehes 6f 12 concrete from a distance of 400 yards. Originally desi ned for heaiy military, use, all types of.50 caliber ammunition are readily available to 13 civilians in the United States and thus easily available to foreign and domestic terrorists. With such destructiverowers, .50 caliber sniper 14 rifles are no more regulated than hunting ries and less regulated than handguns. . . . (Emp iasis added.) 15 16 64. The final ordinance included "findings in support of Ordinance No 2004- 17 10 (Large Caliber Firearms). These "findings" also emphasize the destructive 1$ capabilities of firearms of.50 caliber: 19 • The design of the .50 caliber sniper rifle enables the destruction of aircraft, heavy fnchlnery, and infrastructure from long ranges. 20 The .50 caliber snFrew"sor signed f6r use i7nthe militarybut isincreasisold in the domes#1C civilian marks#. 21 Amtnunitio#� fort0 caliber sniper rifle has more than seven times the power on impact as the .30-06, five times that of the .308, and 22 more than three times that of the .338. • The .50 caliber sniper rifle uses different types of ammunition, 23 including ball ammunition, armoriercing ammunition, and armor- piercing-incendiary ammunition. Ball ammunition is for use against 24 personnel and light material targets. Armor-piercing ammunition is for use against armored'aircraft and lightly armored vehicles, concrete 25 she, and ether bullet-resistingg targets. An-nor-piercing-incendiary anununition is tipped with phosphorus and explodes on impact. 26 • One ball cartridge can penetrate two inches of concrete frm 220 yards and one inch Of concrete from 1,644 yards. From 38 yards, 50 27 rounds of ball ammunition can penetrate 10 inches of concrete and 15 rounds can penetrate 12 inches of a triple brick wall. One armor- 28 piercing cartridge can penetrate one inch of an-nor plate from 220 yards and 0.3 inches of armor plate from 1,640 yards. 16 COMPLA1 r MRR 22 2004 4: 14PM HP LnSERJET 3200 p. 20 y 1 2 65. The State of California had expressly and implicitly deprived CCC of the 3 powers to regulate firearm "destructi e devices." California Government Code 4 section 53071 makes state law the exclusive arbiter as to any firearm whose sale or i 5 possession has been permitted, excluded, and/or licensed under state law: 6 It is the intention of the Legislature to occupy the whole field of regulation of the registration or licensing of cornrnerciall y manufactured 7 firearms as encompassed by the previsions of the Penal Code, and such provisions shall be exclusive of all local regulations, relating to 8 registration or licensing of commercially manufactured firearms, by any political subdivision'. . . . a 9 10 The Ordinance is a licensing law preempted by Gov. C. 53071, in part because it t prohibits the purchasing and other receipt of what it defines as LCFs by all but 13 12 categories of potential recipients whom it licenses to do so. 13 66. The State of California has demonstrated a legislative intent to completely 14 ; occupy the field of"Destructive Device" licensing and regulation. Furthermore, as to t s the broad area of f reanns sales, the f egislature has enacted a comprehensive and 16 detailed regulatory scheme Pen. Co41 e �§ 12070-120$4) which requires the licensing 17 of firearms dealers, places numerous?restrictions on firearms sales, and mandates the tg furnishing of identification informat$n by each purchaser. The state has so 19 thoroughly occupied this field that regulating firearms sales is beyond the reach of 20 local governments. Cities and counties have been charged with the execution of the t 21 state's program for the business licenjsing of firearms dealers, but their role is i 22 ministerial in nature. (Pen.;Code s 1J071.) t 23 67. By the same toren, the Legislature has enacted a host of laws against 24 possession or sale of particular f re*ms it deemed to be contrary to the public 25 welfare. The following previsions o 'the Penal Code show that the state has 26 regulated so comprehensively as to exclude local prohibition of the sale of 27 commercially manufactured firearm : Penal Code §§ 1.2020 outlaws possession of 28 unconventional firearms including e`ane guns, wallet guns, short barreled rifles and 1 17 COMPLAINT MHK de eUUA+ 4: 15YM HP t_RsERJET 3200 p. 21 1 shotguns and high capacity ma`gazins or firearms using high capacity magazines while 12090ff. outlaws sale or posse cion of firearms which have no serial number,12125f`f: sets standards for "unsafe handguns" and prohibits their sale, 4 12220 outlaws possession of sub-mA hine guns, machine guns and other fully 5 automatic weapons except for Dersot.s possessing DOJ permits, 12275ff. defines, 6 and prohibits the sale and unre�giste $ d possession, of assault weapons. In addition, 7 Article 7 of the Penal Code outlaws alelpossession of firearms and ammunition to 3 g and by minors and Chapters 2;.5, 2.6, 3.2 and 4-6 outlaws, or requires state permit for, "destructive devices", certAin ' unition, use of firearms or other weapons in t tt booby traps, tear gas weapons; "fire rm devices", and requires training and a basic 1 firearms safety certificate.: 68. The California Supreme ourt deems the frequency of amendment and 12 13 reenactment of state laws in a partiq lar area as evidence of state occupation of the 14 field. In fact, the statutes governing, firearms possession and sale have received 1:5 very extensive legislative attention. 16 69. Moreover the Legi§laturf has repeatedly rejected proposals to authorize 17 cities to enact gun-ban laves, 6.g., B. 136 (Villaraigosa) 1997-98 session; A.B. 18 247 (Scott) 1997-98 session; S.B. 3 (Polanco) 1997-98 session; A.B. 634 19 (Caldera) 1995-96 session which w s identical to A.B. 2706 (Caldera) rejected in 20 the 1993-94 session. Other approaces from the 1993-94 session included SB 1293 21 { (Hayden), AB 2865 (Lee) and ABx1 37 (Burton). The rationale on which the 22 Assembly Committee on Public Safety rejected such efforts deserves particular 23 attention: 24 The Legislature, in enacting ire-eniption statutes has expressed its intent or the need dor upiforrp statewide standards relating to . . . 25 firearms, [a subject] already i volving extensive and comprehensive regulation by the state. The rided for existing statewide standard and 26 the uniformity it providles could not be more necessary. Conversel , ppermitting any widespread ad itional local restrictions [regardingg j. 27 firearms could not ossibly aid anything other than general confusion to the regMatoryysceme_ 4! 1 li 28 — A embl Col mittei' on Public Safety Hearing Memo on AB 634 2 (Jain. 239,'19961) (emphasis added). CONIPLAINT I rink cc cuuIt At Int-M HH LH°,aERJET 3200 p. 22 ,I i i 1 2 70. In recent years, local municipalities have sought to have preemption 3 effects of California firearms laws narrowed, to no avail: In 1999 the Legislature 4 enacted SB 15, the Unsafc HandgurzAct (Pen. C §§ 12125 et seq.) whose purpose + was to ban the sale of"Saturday Night Specials." It established. criteria for handgun F ; 6 1 safety, defined unsafe handguns andibanned their sale as of Jan. 1, 2001. In E enacting SB 15 the Legislature was dell aware of the existing local SNS 8 Ordinances as to which the Setiate Fblic Safety Committee report stated: "This 9 bill would appear to preempt ahy supih local Ordinance, both those already in 14 existence and any proposed locally i� the future." Among the ways in which the 11 Legislature became aware;of the UH1A's preemptive effect is that its author and 12 other legislators were informed by the City of San Jose's lobbyist that as written 13 (and eventually enacted) S8 15wouto preempt all these local Ordinances. At the 14 request of San. Jose the author amended SB 15, adding a proviso stating that the 15 focal Ordinances would survive the CTHA and not be preempted. This proviso was, 16 however, later stricken from Sly 15 and the UHA was enacted without it. 17 71. In sum, the existencie of the .60 caliber ban specifically, and other state IS firearms bans and regulations generlly, demonstrates that the state has occupied. 19 the field and localities have no authority to prohibit models or kinds of firearms in 20 general, and particular calibers of firparn-is in general. 21 22 [DECLARATORY �[TDGMENT ALLEGATION] 23 72. There is an actual and preIent controversy between the parties to this suit 24 regarding the Ordinance's consistency with state law. Plaintiffs contend that the 25 Ordinance is unconstitutionally', invaAd and preempted because it conflicts with state 26 laws including the Destructive bevicI laws (Penal Code sections 12301 et sett.) and "i 27 Government Code section 5307 1. Dfendants deny and dispute this contention, 28 wherefore plaintiffs seek a declarator,judgment that the Ordinance is preempted i 19 MAR 22 2004 4: IGPM HP LASERJET 3200 P. 23 because of its inconsistency and conflict with state law. 2 3 [PRAYER] 4 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs seek the following relief: i 5 1. Equitable relief enjoining enforcement of Contra Costa County Ordinance 6 2004-10 or expenditure of funds on it and compelling CCC to repeal and/or de- 1 publish and refrain frompublishing and enforcing Contra Costa County Ordinance 2004-10. 9 2. Equitable relief enjoining unlawful expenditure of funds on enforcement, 10 training and publication of,Contra Costa County Ordinance 2004-10 and compelling I I CCC to repeal and/or de-publi9b and refrain from publishing and enforcing Contra 12 Costa County Ordinance 2004-40. 13 2. Declaratory relief as sct out in the body of the petition; 14 3. That plaintiffs be awarded reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to Title 42 15 { U.S.C. 198$ and Code of CivilTrocedure section 1021.5, as well as costs of suit and 16 such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 wo RM 7t-C()LntiG TRlHA#Y# / L.tHL3 �nNFnT 3{:53Ln-t C,_hi2;LST ' tl #Y LLP a�i.t nc:ii incest A T T 0 €2 N E Y S A T L A W MARK K AENHNSON NEW Yom N.Y. "41C �+y us n cs es,C;1 PORT OF Los ANGELES OFFICE DAVIDT.PWMY 407 NORTH HARBOR E30ULE'VARD TUCSON,AZ SAN PEORO,CALIFORNIA 9073'-3356EPPERY L CAUFIELJ TELEPHONE: (310)548-0410 - FAX:(310)548-4813 rAN DI'IGo,CA March 16, 2003 Via Ovemight Mail Han. Sohn M. Gioia Hon, Gayle B. Uilkema Hon. Millie Greenberg Hon, Mark DeSaulnier Han. Federal Glover CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Board of Supervisors 651 Pine St. Room 106 .Martinez, CA 94553 Silvano Marchesi County Counsel 651 Pine St., 9"Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Warren E. Rupf, Sheriff Office of the Sheriff Contra Costa County 651 Fine Street, 7th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re; Pending Vete on Large Caliber Firearm Ban Hon. Supervisors, Counsel, and Sheriff Rupf: We write on behalf ofour clients,the California Rifle& Pistol Association and the National Rifle Association. Can March 23, 2004 the Board of Supervisors is expected to vote on the first reading of the large caliber rifle ban proposed last August by Supervisors Gioia and Uilkema. In 2003, the County of Los Angeles considered a similar ban on fifty caliber rifles sales. A subcommittee was formed to study the issue. Many of the subcommittee members, including representatives of the District Attorney's office, came to realize that the data being provided was false or misleading. As a result,the subcommittee allowed time for an Expert Commission on Fifty Caliber Rifles to be formed to verify the truth of the claims made by those promoting the law. A Commission was formed,which included experts in the fields of terrorism, the chemical and petroleum industry, law enforcement, ballistics and number of other fields. In analyzing the Hon. Supervisors, Counsel, and Sheriff R.upf: March 16, 2004 Page 2 proponent's data,these experts found that the data relied on was incorrect,mischaracterized,and not supported by any scientific evidence. These experts detailed their findings in the Report of the Expert Commission on Fifty Caliber Rifles, a draft copy of which is enclosed. While the Report of the Expert Commission on Fifty Caliber Rifles is still in draft stage, it has become apparent that the Contra Costa County has been provided the same misleading materials provided to the County of Los Angeles. Thus, you will benefit from considering the draft of the Report. Because the report seeks accuracy and clarity, the final draft will be provided to a number of public agencies and private groups (including the Violence Policy Center, the Brady Center, National Rifle Association,and the California Department ofJustice—Firearms Division)for review and comment. Because the report is still being drafted,however,the list of agencies and groups that the report will be provided to for review is incomplete. Also,a number of experts that provided data and analysis are currently still reviewing the report. These experts do not appear on the expert list as they have yet to complete their final review. In making your decision on how to vote next Tuesday, you should also be aware that West Hollywood Assemblyman Paul Koretz recently announced that his bill regulating.50 caliber firearms (AB50)is being revised and will be reheard in the Senate Public Safety Committee,where it is now stalled. It is expected to pass out of committee upon revision. should AB50 be enacted, Contra Costa County's proposed ordinance will be duplicative and in conflict with state law, and would be pre-empted and illegal. For your reference, we have also included with this letter a report by the Epidemiology Program Office,Stephen B.Thacker,M.D.,Director;Division of Prevention Research and Analytic Methods, Richard E. Dixon, M.D., Director for the Center .for Disease Control. This report is the product of systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence,including violent crimes,suicide,and unintentional injury.The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws,zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The CDC Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, TRU,rANICH •MICHEL,LLP C. D. Michel CDM/ca Enc. I First deports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws Findings fro n the Task Force on Community Preventive Services Prepared by Robert A. llahn, Ph.D.' Oleg 0, Bilukha, M.D., Ph.D.' Alex Crosby, M.D.2 Mindy Thompson Fullilove, M.D.3 Akiva Liberman, Ph.D.4 Eve K. Moscicki, Sc.D.S Susan Snyder, Ph.D.' Farris Tuma, Sc.D.5 Peter Briss, M.D.' !Division of Prevention.Research and Analytic Methods Epidemiology Program Office 2Division of Violence Prevention National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC Atlanta, Georgia 3New York State Psychiatric Institute, Columbia University New York, New York 4National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 5National Institute of Mental Health National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland The material in this report was prepared by the Epidemiology Program Office,Stephen B.Thacker,M.D.,Director;Division of Prevention Research and Analytic Methods,Richard E.Dixon,M.D.,Director. Summaty During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition,firearm registration and licensing off rearm owners, "shall issue"concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Farce found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research. Background Although firearms-related* injuries in the united States have declined since 1993, they remained the second leading cause of injury mortality in 2000, the most recent year for which complete data are available(1). Of 28,663 firearms-related deaths in 2000 --- an average of 79 per day---16,586 (57.9%)were suicides, 10,801 (37.7%) were homicides, 776 (2.7%) were unintentional, and an additional 500 (1.7%) were legal interventions or of undetermined intent. An estimated 24.3% of the 1,430,693 violent crimes(murder, aggravated assault, rape, and robbery)committed in the United States in 1999 were committed with a firearm (2). In the early 1990s,rates of firearms-related homicide,suicide, and unintentional death in the United States exceeded those of 25 ether high-income nations (i.e., 1992 gross national product US $8,356 per capita) for which data are available (3). In 1994,the estimated lifetime medical cost of all firearms injuries in the United States was $2.3 billion(4). Approximately 4.5 million new firearms are sold each year in the United States, including 2 million handguns. In addition, estimates of annual secondhand firearms transactions (i.e., sales,trades, or gifts) range from.2 million to 4.5 million(5,6). Further, an estimated 0.5 million firearms are stolen annually(6). Thus, the total number of firearms transactions could be as high as 9.5 million per year. The 1994 National Survey of the Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF), conducted by Chilton Research Services for the Police Foundation, under sponsorship of the National Institute of Justice, indicated that American adults owned approximately 192 million working firearms, an average of one per adult(7).The NSPOF also indicated that firearm ownership was unevenly distributed in the population: only 24.6% of U.S. adults owned a firearm(41.8%of men and 9.0% of women). Another survey(2) found that 41% of adult respondents reported having a firearm in their home in 1994, and 35% did so in 1998. A third survey(8)reported that 35% of homes with children aged<18 years had at least one firearm. bates of firearm ownership in the United States also exceed those of 14 other nations for which data are available, with the exception of Finland (9). Of the estimated 192 million firearms owned in the United States at the time of the 1994 NSPOF survey, 65 million were handguns, 70 million, rifles; 49 million, shotguns; and the remainder were other guns(7). Among handgun owners, 34.0% kept their guns loaded and unlocked. An estimated 10 million handguns,one sixth of the handguns owned, were regularly carried by their owners, approximately half in the owners'cars and the other half on the owners'persons. The manufacture, distribution, sale, acquisition, storage, transportation,carrying, and use of firearms in the United States are regulated by a complex array of federal, state, and local laws and regulations. This review examines firearms laws as one of many approaches to reducing firearms violence(10,11). Introduction The independent, nonfederal Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force) is developing the Guide to Community Preventive Services(the Community Guide)with the support of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in collaboration with public and private partners. Although CDC provides staff support to the Task Force for development of the Community Guide, the conclusions presented in this report were developed by the Task Force and are not necessarily the conclusions of DHHS or CDC. This report is one in a series of topics included in the Community Guide,a resource that includes multiple systematic reviews, each focusing on a preventive health topic. A short overview of the process used by the Task Force to select and review evidence and summarize its findings is included in this report. A full report on the findings and additional evidence (including discussions of possible additional benefits, potential harms, existing data problems, research gaps, and directions for future research) will be published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. S Methods The Community Guide's methods for conducting systematic reviews and linking evidence to recommendations have been described elsewhere (12). In brief, for each Community Guide topic, a multidisciplinary team(the systematic review development team) conducts a review consisting of the following steps: • developing an approach to organizing, grouping, and selecting the interventions to be reviewed; • systematically searching for and retrieving evidence; • assessing the quality of and summarizing the strength of the body of evidence of effectiveness; • assessing cost and cost-effectiveness evidence, identifying applicability and barriers to implementation(if the effectiveness of the intervention has been established); • summarizing information regarding evidence of other effects; and • identifying and summarizing research gaps. Firearms laws were identified as high-priority interventions for violence prevention review in April 1997 by a group of consultantst representing diverse experience. The group generated a comprehensive list of strategies and created a priority list of interventions for review on the basis of 1) the potential to reduce violence in the L.I.S. population;2)the potential benefits of expanding use of seemingly effective,but underutilized, interventions and reducing use of seemingly ineffective, but overutilized, interventions; 3)current interest in this intervention among potential audiences; and d) diversity of intervention types, The interventions included in this review address several of the objectives outlined in.Healthy People 2010(13), the disease prevention and health promotion agenda for the United States. ?Many of the Healthy People 2010 objectives outlined in Chapter 15, "Injury and Violence Prevention," relate to firearms laws and their proposed effects on violence- related outcomes (Box). To be included in the review of effectiveness, studies had to 1)be a primary evaluation of the selected intervention rather than, for example, a guideline or review; 2)provide information on at least one outcome of interest from the list of violent outcomes preselected by the systematic review development team; 3)be conducted in Established Market Economies§; and 4)compare outcomes in groups of persons exposed to the intervention with outcomes in groups of persons not exposed or less exposed to the intervention(whether the comparison was concurrent between groups or before-and-after within the same group). Electronic searches for any research published before July 2001 were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC,National Technical Information Service (NTIS), PsychlNFO, Sociological Abstracts,National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), Public Affairs Information Service (PAIS), Criminal Justice Index,and Gale Group Legal Research Index.1 The references listed in all retrieved articles were also reviewed, and specialists on the systematic review development team and elsewhere were consulted to identify additional reports. Journal articles, government reports,books, and book chapters were included in this review. Because the purpose of this review was to assess the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, studies of firearms laws were reviewed only if they assessed at least one violent outcome. The outcome measures evaluated to determine the effect of each intervention were violent crimes (i.e., murder, aggravated assault,robbery, and rape), suicide, and unintentional firearm injury. Aggravated assault was considered a health-related outcome insofar as it is "an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury" (2). Similarly, robbery was considered a health-related outcome insofar as it is "the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence or by putting the victim in fear" (2). For each of the firearms laws, the team developed an analytic framework indicating possible causal links between that f intervention and one or more of the predefined outcomes of interest. Each study meeting the inclusion criteria was evaluated with a standardized abstraction form (14)and was assessed for suitability of study design and threats to validity(12). On the basis of the number of threats to validity, studies were characterized as having good, fair, or limited execution. Results for each outcome of interest were obtained from each study that met the minimum quality criteria. Measures that were adjusted for the effects of potential confounders were used in preference to crude effect measures. If two or more studies of a firearms law overlapped in terms of population, time period, and outcomes studied, the systematic review development team chose the study with the fewest execution flaws and the best design to represent effects of the intervention. A median was calculated as a summary effect measure for each outcome of interest. For bodies of evidence consisting of seven or more studies, an interquartile range was calculated as an index of variability. Unless otherwise noted, the results of each study were represented as a point estimate for the relative change in the violent outcome rate associated with the intervention. The body of evidence of effectiveness was characterized as strong, sufficient, or insufficient on the basis of the number of available studies, the suitability of study designs for evaluating effectiveness, the quality of execution of the studies, the consistency of the results, and the median effect size(12). The Community wide uses systematic reviews to evaluate the evidence of intervention effectiveness, and the Task Force makes recommendations based on the findings of these reviews. The strength of each recommendation is based on the strength of the evidence of effectiveness (i.e., the Task Force can recommend an intervention[or recommend against its use]on the basis of strong evidence of effectiveness or sufficient evidence of effectiveness" [12]). Other types of evidence can also affect a recommendation. For example, evidence that harms from an intervention outweigh improved outcomes might lead to a recommendation against use of the intervention. If interventions are found to be effective,they are evaluated for cost effectiveness by using economic evaluation guidelines developed for the Community Guide (IS). Because none of the firearm laws reviewed was found to have sufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding their effectiveness,no economic reviews were conducted. A finding of insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness but rather as an indicator that additional research is needed before an intervention can be evaluated for its effectiveness. Results The systematic review development team identified 51 studies that evaluated the effects of selected firearms laws on violence and met the inclusion criteria for this review. No study was excluded because of limitations in design or execution. Information on violent outcomes was available in 48 studies, and the remaining three studies,which provided information on counts or proportions of regulated firearms used in crime, were used as supplementary evidence. Several studies examined more than one type of firearm law. Several separate studies evaluated effects of the same law in the same populations during overlapping time periods. Such studies were considered nonindependent, and effect estimates from the best study in the group (as determined by the quality of design and execution and the length of the follow-up period)were chosen to represent the effects of the intervention.The total number of studies for each intervention, and the number of studies that actually contributed effect estimates to the body of evidence,are listed ("Fable). More extensive evidence tables will be available at http:HI vwnv.theconzrriunity ide.or x when the full evidence review is published. Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws for the following reasons. • Bans on specified firearms or ammunition.Results of studies of firearms and ammunition bans were inconsistent: certain studies indicated decreases in violence associated with bans, and others indicated increases. Several studies found that the number of banned guns retrieved after a crime declined when bans were enacted,but these studies did not assess violent consequences (16,17). Studies of the 1976 Washington, D.C. handgun ban yielded inconsistent results (18--20). Bans often include "grandfather" provisions,allowing ownership of an item is it is acquired before the ban, complicating an assessment of causality. Finally, evidence indicated that sales of firearms to be banned might increase in the period before implementation of the bans (e.g., the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994) (21). • Restrictions on firearm acquisition. The federal government and individual states restrict the acquisition and use of firearms by individuals on the basis of their personal history. Reasons for restriction can include prior felony conviction, conviction of misdemeanor intimate partner violence, drug abuse, adjudication as "mentally defective,"tt and other characteristics (e.g., specified young age). The Brady Law (22) established national restrictions on acquisition of firearms and ammunition from federal firearms licensees. The interim Brady Law (1994--1998)mandated a 5-day waiting period to allow background checks. The permanent Brady Law, enacted in 1998, eliminated the required waiting period. It normally allows 3 days for a background check, after which, if no evidence of a prohibited characteristic is found, the purchase may proceed (23). Certain states have established additional restrictions, and some require background checks of all firearms transactions, not only those conducted by federal firearms licensees. The permanent Brady Law depends on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (MICS). However, MICS lacks much of the required background information,particularly on certain restriction categories (23). Efforts to improve the availability of background information have been supported by the National Criminal History Improvement Program(24). Approximately 689,000 applications to acquire a firearm(2.3%of 30 million applications)were denied under the Brady Law from its first implementation in 1994 through 2000(25); the majority of denials were based on the applicant's criminal history. However, denial of an application does not always stop applicants from acquiring firearms through other means. Overall, evaluations of the effects of acquisition restrictions on violent outcomes have produced inconsistent findings: some studies indicated decreases in violence associated with restrictions, and others indicated increases. One study indicated a statistically significant reduction in the rate of suicide by firearms among persons aged>55 years;however, the reduction in suicide by all methods was not statistically significant. Furthermore,this benefit appears to have been a consequence of the waiting period imposed by the interim Brady Law(which has since been dropped in the permanent law) rather than of the law's restrictions on the basis of the purchaser's characteristics (26). • Waiting periods for firearm acquisition.Waiting periods for firearm acquisition require a specified delay between application for and acquisition of a firearm. Waiting periods have been established by the federal government and by states to allow time to check the applicant's background or to provide a"cooling-off' period for persons at risk of committing suicide or impulsive acts against others. Studies of the effects of waiting periods on violent outcomes yielded inconsistent results: some indicated a decrease in violent outcome associated with the delay and others indicated an increase. As noted previously, one study of the interim Brady Law indicated a statistically significant reduction in firearms suicide among persons aged>55 years associated with the waiting period requirement of the interim law. Several studies suggested a partial "substitution effect" for suicide(i.e., decreases in firearms suicide are accompanied by smaller increases in suicide by other means) (26). • Firearm registration and licensing of owners. Registration requires that a record of the owner of specified firearms be created and retained(27). At the national level, the Firearm Ownership Protection Act of 1986 specifically precludes the federal government from establishing and maintaining a registry of firearms and their owners. Licensing requires an individual to obtain a license or other form of authorization or certification to purchase or possess a firearm (27)_ Licensing and registration requirements are often combined with other firearms regulations, such as safety training or safe storage requirements. Only four studies examined the effects of registration and licensing on violent outcomes;the findings were inconsistent. • "Shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws. Shall issue concealed weapon carry laws(shall issue laws)require the issuing of a concealed weapon carry permit to all applicants not disqualified by specified criteria. Shall issue laws are usually implemented in place of"may issue" laws, in which the issuing of a concealed weapon carry permit is discretionary(based on criteria such as the perceived need or moral character of the applicant). A third alternative, total prohibition of the carrying of concealed weapons,was in effect in six states in 2041. The substantial number of studies of shall issue laws largely derives from and responds to one landmark study (28). Many of these studies were considered to be nonindependent because they assessed the same intervention in the same population during similar time periods. A review of the data revealed critical problems, including misclassification of laws, unreliable county-level crime data, and failure to use appropriate denominators for the available numerator crime data(29). Methodological problems, such as failure to adjust for autocorrelation in time series data, were also evident. Results across studies were inconsistent or conceptually implausible. Therefore, evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of shall issue laws on violent outcomes. • Child access prevention laws. Child access prevention (CAP) laws are designed to limit children's access to and use of firearms in homes. The laws require firearms owners to store their firearms locked, unloaded, or both, and make the firearm owners liable when children use a household firearm to threaten or harm themselves or others. In three states with CAP laws (Florida, Connecticut, California),this crime is a felony; in several others it is a misdemeanor. Only three studies examined the effects of CAP laws on violent outcomes, and only one outcome, unintentional firearms deaths,was assessed by all three. Of these,two studies assessed the same states over the same time periods and were therefore nonindependent.The most recent study,which included the most recent states to pass CAP laws and had the longest follow-up time, indicated that the apparent reduction in unintentional firearm deaths associated with CAP laws that carry felony sanctions was statistically significant only in Florida and not in California or Connecticut(30). Overall, too few studies of CAP law effects have been done,and the findings of existing studies were inconsistent. In addition,although CAP laws address juveniles as perpetrators of firearms violence, available studies assessed only juvenile victims of firearms violence. Zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools. The Gun-Free Schools Act(31) stipulates that each state receiving federal funds must have a state law requiring local educational agencies to expel a student from school for at least I year if a firearm is found in the student's possession at school. Expulsion may lead to alternative school placement or to "street" placement(full expulsion,with no linkage to formal education). In contrast to the 3,323 firearms reported confiscated under the Gun-Free Schools Act in the 1998--99 school year, school surveys (32) indicate that an estimated 3% of the 12th grade student population in 1996 (i.e., 85,350 students)reported carrying firearms on school property one or more times in the previous 30 days. Thus, even if only 12th grade students carry firearms, fewer than 4.3% of firearms are being detected in association with the Gun-Free Schools Act. No study reviewed attempted to evaluate the effects of zero tolerance laws on violence in schools, nor did any measure the effect of the Gun-Free Schools Act on carrying of firearms in schools. One cross-sectional study, however, assessed the effectiveness of metal detector programs in reducing the carrying of firearms in schools (33). Although firearms detection is not explicitly required in the Gun-Free Schools Act, the effectiveness of the law may depend on the ability to detect firearms by various means. The study reported that schools with and without metal detectors did not differ in rates of threatening, fights, or carrying of firearms outside of school,but the rate of carrying firearms to, from., or in schools with detection programs was half that of schools without such prograrns. The effectiveness of zero tolerance laws in preventing violence cannot be assessed because appropriate evidence was not available. A further concern is that"street" expulsion might result in increased violence and other problems among expelled students. • Combinations of firearms laws. Governmental jurisdictions (e.g., states or nations)can be characterized by the degree to which they regulate firearm possession and use. Whether a greater degree of firearms regulation in a jurisdiction results in a reduction of the amount of violence in that jurisdiction still needs to be determined.Three kinds of evidence were reviewed for this study: 1) studies of the effects of comprehensive national laws within. nations; 2) international comparisons of comprehensive laws; and 3) studies in which law types within jurisdictions (i.e., regulation of specific, defined aspects of firearm acquisition and use) were categorized and counted, and counts compared with rates of specific farms of violence within the same jurisdictions. The latter type are referred to here as index studies because they developed indices of the degree of regulation. In drawing conclusions about law combinations, findings from the three approaches were considered. On the basis of national law assessments (the Gun Control Act of 1968 in the United States and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1977 in Canada), international comparisons (between the United States and Canada), and index studies (all conducted within the United States), available evidence was insufficient to determine whether the degree of firearms regulation was associated with decreased (or increased) violence. The findings were inconsistent and most studies were methodologically inadequate to allow conclusions about causal effects. Moreover, as conducted, index studies, even if consistent, would not allow specification of which laws to implement. In summary,the'Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence. references and key findings are listed(Table). Research Needs The Task Force's review of firearms laws found insufficient evidence to determine whether the laws reviewed reduce (or increase) specific violent outcomes (Table). Much existing research suffers from problems with data, analytic methods, or both. Further high-quality research is required to establish the relationship between firearms laws and violent outcomes. Potential areas for further investigation will be discussed in detail in an upcoming article in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Several recurring problems were associated with the studies that evaluated the effects of firearms laws on violent outcomes: • The assessment or"measurement" of laws and their provisions has been noted as a problem in certain studies and may occur in others as well. As with all interventions, assessing the degree of implementation of laws may be important in evaluating their effects, yet this has not been a part of law evaluations. Better information regarding implementation might allow more sophisticated explanation of inconsistent effects. • Several facets of the measurement of violent outcomes have been problematic. Crime data are substantially underreported and, at the county level, may not be sufficiently reliable for research purposes(29). In addition, selected outcome measures are often not directly relevant to the law being assessed(e.g.,the evaluation of child access prevention laws by measurement of juvenile victims [rather than perpetrators] and the evaluation of shall issue laws by the measurement of crimes occurring in the home [where the law does not apply]).Another problem is that crime data are often aggregated, so that the circumstances of violent events cannot be determined. Aggregated data hinder the assessment of the ways in which laws might and might not work. 'Individual record data systems currently being implemented ---the National Incident-Based reporting System of the FBI and the National'Violent Death reporting System of CDC and partners ---might resolve some of these difficulties and greatly facilitate the evaluation of firearms laws. • The measurement of potential confounders has been a challenge in evaluating the effects of firearms laws. Potentially important confounders include socioeconomic status and poverty, drug cycles, gang activity, and the intensity of law enforcement. Measuring these phenomena is difficult and requisite data are often not available. In addition, endogeneity(i.e., the presence of common characteristics, such as crime counts, as both dependent and independent variables in equations)has been a problem in firearms law evaluations. • Study designs and analytic techniques used in firearms law evaluations have been problematic. rates of violence may affect the passage of firearms laws and firearms laws may then affect rates of violence; knowledge of temporal sequence is thus critical in separating cause and effect, and cross-sectional studies are at a disadvantage. Time series analyses of firearms laws and violent outcomes have not consistently adjusted for temporal and spatial autocorrelation, and thus may have exaggerated hypothesized associations. Additionally, firearms studies often fail to note potential biases associated with measurement of outcomes not directly associated with the law in question (e.g., using victims rather than agents of violence in the assessment of CAF'laws). In conclusion,the application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes. This is a critical period for focused research on the effectiveness of firearms laws in reducing violence in the United States. international comparisons indicate that the United States is an outlier among developed, industrialized nations in rates of firearms violence(2). Widespread public concern exists about criminal firearms violence, firearms violence among youth, and other forms of firearms violence, and popular support for many firearms laws is evident(34,35). Although the Task Force's systematic review of the existing literature on firearms laws found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of these laws in preventing violence, research should continue on the effectiveness of firearms laws as one approach to the prevention or reduction of firearms violence and firearms injury. Evaluation should include not only the laws reviewed here,but the broad array of other federal, state, and local laws. Additional Information Regarding the Community Grride In addition to the firearms laws reviewed in this report, reviews for the Community Guide have been completed on the effectiveness of preventing violence through early childhood home visitation (36) and therapeutic foster care(to be published in the near future). Reviews of several other violence prevention interventions are pending or under way, including the effects of school-based, social and emotional skill learning programs, and the treatment of juveniles as adults in the justice system. Community Guide topics are prepared and released as each is completed. The findings from systematic reviews on vaccine-preventable diseases, tobacco use prevention and reduction, motor vehicle occupant injury,physical activity, diabetes, oral health, and the social environment have been published. A compilation of systematic reviews will be published in book form in 2004. Additional information regarding the Task Force, the Community Guide,and a list of published articles is available at http://'wwNy.thecornmmde.or�. References I. Minino AM, Arias E, Kochanek KD, Murphy SL, Smith BL. Deaths: final data for 2000. Hyattsville,NM: US Department of Health and Human Services,CIBC, National Center for Health Statistics, 2002. (National vital statistics reports; vol. 50, no. 15). Available at http-.//v�N,,v.cdc, og ti'fnchs!datalnvsr/nvsr5O/nvsr50 15,pdf. 2. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics 2000_ Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001. 3. Krug EG, Powell IE, Dahlberg LL. Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high-and upper- middle-income countries. Int J Epidemiol 1998;27:214--21. 4, Crook PJ, Lawrence BA, Bruce A, Ludwig J, Miller TR. The medical costs of gunshot injuries in the United States. JAMA 1999;282:447--54. 5. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. Commerce in firearms in the United States. Washington, DC: US Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 2000. 6. Cook PJ, Molliconi S, Cole TB. Regulating gun markets. J Criminal Law Criminol 1995;86:59--92. 7. Cook PJ, Ludwig J. Guns in America: results of comprehensive national survey on firearms ownership and use. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice,National Institute of Justice, 1996. 8. Schuster MA, Franke TM, Bastian AM, Sor S, Halfon N. Firearm storage patterns in US homes with children. Am J Public Health. 2000;90:588--94. 9. Cukier W. Firearms regulation: Canada in the international context. Chronic Dis Can 1998;19:25--34. 10. Kellermann AL, Lee RK, Mercy JA, Banton JG. The epiderniologic basis for the prevention of firearm injuries. Annu Rev Public Health 1991;12:17--40. 11. Powell EC, Sheehan KM, Christoffel KK. Firearm violence among youth: public health strategies for prevention. Ann Emerg Med 1996;28:204--12. 12. Briss PA, Zaza S, Pappaioanou M, et al. Developing an evidence-based Guide to Community Preventive Services- --methods, Am J Prev Med 2000;18(1 S):35-43, 13. US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy people 2010. 2nd ed. With Understanding and Improving Health and Objectives for Improving Health (2 vols). Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2000. 14. Zaza S, Wright-de Aguero LK,Briss PA, et at. Data collection 'instrument and procedure for systematic reviews in the Guide to Community Preventive Services. Am J Prev Med 2000;18(1S):44--74. 15. Carande-Kulis VG, Maciosek MV, Briss PA, et al. Methods for systematic reviews of economic evaluations for the Guide to Community Preventive Services. Am J Prev Med 2000;18(IS):75--91. 16. Weil DS, Knox RC. The Maryland ban on the sale of assault pistols and high-capacity magazines: estimating the impact in Baltimore. Am J Public Health 1997;87:297--8. 17. Vernick JS,Webster DW, Hepburn LM. Effects of Maryland's law banning Saturday night special handguns on crime guns. Inj Prev 999;5:259--63. 18. Loftin C,McDowall D, Wiers a 13, Coney TJ. Effects of restrictive licensing of handguns on homicide and suicide in the District of Columbia.N1 Engl J Med 1991;325:1615--20. 19. Britt CL, Bordua DJ, fleck G. A reassessment of the D.C. gun law: some cautionary notes on the use of interrupted time series designs for policy impact assessment. Law Soc Rev 1996;30:361--80. 20. McDowall D, Wiersma B, Loftin C. Using quasi-experiments to evaluate firearm laws: comment on Britt et al.'s reassessment of the D.C. gun law. Law Soc Rev 1996;30:381--91. 21. Roth JA, Koper CS. Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994--996.Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1999. 22. Public Law 103-159. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 18 USC, Section 922(t).1995. 23. US General Accounting Office. Gun control: options for improving the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office,Report to Congressional Requesters,April 2000. GAO/GGD-00-56 24. US Department of Justice. Improving criminal history records for background checks. Bureau of Justice Statistics Highlights. Washington, DC: CJS Department of Justice, February 11, 2002. 25. Bowling M, Lauver G, Gifford SL, Adams DB. Background checks for firearm transfers,2000. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, July 2001. 26, Ludwig J, Cook PJ. Homicide and suicide rates associated with implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. JAMA 2000;284:585--91. 27. DeFrancesco S, Vernick JS, Weitzel MM, LeBrun EE. A gun policy glossary: policy, legal and health terms. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, 2000. 28. Lott JR, Mustard DB. Crime, deterrence, and right-to-carry concealed handguns. J Legal Studies 1997;26:1--68. 29. Maltz MD, Targonski J. A note on the use of county-level UCR data. J Quant Criminol 2002;18:297--318. 30, Webster DW, Starnes M. Reexamining the association between child access prevention gun laws and unintentional shooting deaths of children. Pediatrics 2000;106:1466--9. 31. Public Law 103-382. Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. 20 USC 8921, Section 14601, Gun-Free Schools Act, 1994. 32. US Department of Education and US Department of Justice. 1999 Annual report on school safety. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education and US Department o#'Justice, 1999. Available at httR�!'� nN,Lv.ed.-aoviPDl<DocsfliiteriniARr,� i' 33. Ginsberg C. Violence-related attitudes and behaviors of high school students---New York City, 1992, J Sch Healtl 1993;63:438--40. 34. Merkle D. America: it's our right to bear arms. ABCNews.com, May 14, 2002. Available at littp :i/abcne4x,s.tzo.corn/sections/cis/;DailvNetiv�s/guns�t�ll02()514.html. 35. Smith TW. Public opinion about gun policies, Future Child 2002;12(2):154--63. 36. CDC, First reports evaluating the effectiveness of strategies for preventing violence: early childhood home visitation. Findim_,s from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. MMWR 2003,52 (No. R.R.-14):1--9. *A firearm is a weapon(e.g.,a handgun,rifle,or shotgun)in which a shot is propelled by gunpowder. 'Consultants for the systematic reviews of violence prevention interventions were Laurie Anderson,Ph.D.,CDC,Olympia,Washington;Carl Bell, M.D.,Community Mental Health Council,Chicago,Illinois;Red Crowley,Men Stopping Violence,Atlanta,Georgia; Sujata Desai,Ph.D.,CDC, Atlanta,Georgia;Deborah French,Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,Denver,Colorado;Darnell F.Hawkins,Ph.D.,J.D., University of Illinois at Chicago,Chicago,Illinois;Danielle LaRaque,M.D.,Harlem Hospital Center,New York,New York;Barbara Maciak, Ph.D.,CDC, Detroit, Michigan;James Mercy,Ph.D.,CDC,Atlanta,Georgia;Suzanne Salzinger,Ph.D.,New York State Psychiatric Institute,New York,New York;Patricia Smith,M.S.,Michigan Department of Community Health,Lansing,Michigan.Other aspects of this review benefited by comments from Phillip Cook,Ph.D.,Duke University,Durham,North Carolina;Gary Meek,Ph.D.,School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University,'Tallahassee,Florida;Jon Vernick,Ph.D.,Johns Hopkins University,Baltimore,Maryland;Daniel Webster,Sc.D.,Johns Hopkins University,Baltimore,Maryland,James Wright,Ph.D.,University of Central Florida,Orlando,Florida;Frank Zirnring,J.D.,University of California,Berkeley,California. Established Market Economies as defined by the World Bank are Andorra,Australia,Austria,Belgium,Bermuda,Canada,Channel Islands, Denmark,Faeroe Islands,Finland,France,Germany,Gibraltar,Greece,Greenland,Holy See,Iceland,Ireland,Isle of Man,Italy,Japan, Liechtenstein,Luxembourg,Monaco,the Netherlands,New Zealand,Norway,Portugal,San Marino,Spain,St.Pierre and Miquelon,Sweden, Switzerland,the United Kingdom,and the United States. " I'hese databases can be accessed as follows:MEDLINE:http://xx.ivw.ncbi.nini..riih.gov/PubMed;EMBASE:DIALOG httl�:,r'vw .dra;otciassic.cc�n� (requires id/password account),ScienceDirect:h=:,r'tiNrvw.sciencedirect.corri/scie:ice/search/databasclernbase;ERJC: http:,'ILvw�i.asketic.c>ra/EricJ;NTIS:DIALOG littp://wlvtiv,dial cl<issic.cor4(requires id/password account),http�// c.nti .gov/ntisdb.htm; PsycINFO: DIALOG htlp:l/y,,ww.dialogclassic.com(requires id/password account),htt//www.apa.orR/psvcinfof�roductsiDsyci� nfo.htnil; Sociological Abstracts:DIALOG http/,Idialoeclassic.corn(requires id/password account),httti//�x,y-�x.csa_com/detailsV5/socioabs.htn}i;NCJI2.S: htits://abstractsdb.ncjrs.orp,,content'Abstr,icis. B carch.asti;PATS:DIALOG http:/,dialo€,,classic.com(requires id/password account);Criminal Justice index:DIALOG ht !!dialo classic.corrl(requires id/password account);Gale Group Legal Research Index:DIALOG htt %lclialogclassic.corn(requires id/password account);CINAHL:DIALOG httD://www.diaiggclassic.com(requires id/password account), littp://wwNv.crrahl,com/wpapes/lo,in.htni. **At the June 2002 meeting of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services,new terminology was adopted to reflect the findings of the Task Force. Instead of being referred to as"strongly recommended"and"recommended,"such interventions are now referred to as"recommended (strong evidence of effectiveness)"and"recommended(sufficient evidence of effectiveness),"respectively.Similarly,the finding previously referred to as",Insufficient evidence"is now more fully stated: "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness."These changes were made to improve the clarity and the intent of the findings. "The term"mentally defective"is a determination by a lawful authority that a person,as a result of marked subnormal intelligence or mental illness,is a danger to self or others,or lacks the mental capacity to manage his or her own affairs.The term also includes a court finding of insanity in a criminal case,incompetence to stand trial,or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.Source:Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms.Federal firearms regulations reference guide.Washington,DC:U.S.Department of the Treasury,Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms,2004,ATF P 5300.4(01-00).Available at �vr�.a#if.t7eas.go/ ub/f re-ex lo nub!2000 ref.htni. Task Force on Community Preventive Services* November 1,2002 Chair: Jonathan F. Fielding, M.D., Los Angeles Department of Health Services, Los Angeles, California Vice-Chair: Patricia Dolan Mullen, Dr.P.H., University of Texas-Houston School of Public Health, Houston, Texas Members: Ross C.Brownson,Ph.D.,St.Louis University School of Public Health,St.Louis,Missouri;John Clymer,Partnership for Prevention, Washington,D.C.;Jane L.Delgado,Ph.D.,National Alliance for Hispanic Health,Washington,D.C.;Mindy Thompson Fullilove,M.D., New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University,New York,New York;Alan R.Hinman,M.U.,Taste Force for Child Survival and Development,Atlanta, Georgia; George J. Isham,M.D.,HealthPartners,Minneapolis,Minnesota;Garland H. Land,M.P.H.,Center for Health Information Management and Epidemiology,Missouri Department of Health,Jefferson City,Missouri; Patricia A.Nolan,M.D.,Rhode Island Department of Health, Providence,Rhode Island;Dennis E.Richling,M.D.,Union Pacific Railroad,Omaha,Nebraska; Susan C.Scrimshaw, Ph.D. School of Public Health,University of Illinois,Chicago,Illinois;Steven M.Teutsch,M.D.,Merck&Company,Inc.,West Point,Pennsylvania; Robert S.Thompson,M.D.,Department of Preventive Care,Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound,Seattle,Washington Consultants: Robert S.Lawrence, M.D., Bloomberg School of Public Health,Johns Hopkins University,Baltimore,Maryland;J.Michael McGinnis,M.U.,Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,Princeton,New Jersey;Lloyd F.Novick,M.D.,Onondaga County Department of Health, Syracuse,New York * Patricia A. Buffler, Ph.D.,University of California,Berkeley;Mary Jane England,M.D.,Regis College,Weston,Massachusetts;Caswell A. Evans,Jr.,D.D.S.,National Oral Health Initiative,Office of the U.S.Surgeon General,Rockville,Maryland;David W.Fleming,M.D.,CDC, Atlanta,Georgia; Fernando A.Guerra,M.D.,San Antonio Metropolitan Health District,San Antonio,Texas;and Charles S.Mahan,M.D.,College of Public Health,University of South Florida,Tampa,Florida,also served on the Task Force while the recommendations were being developed. Table TABLE 1 melt As of tha s for tm COMMUMY t rWya l a zarvte4s mgeilm firotafma fawn and r. an ton of i6olonce saarduse�aarra � #Owl } Tms a f ftac Inserm.6on d+aa ataa s D,*ns an sp&Aod fi wmv ?rreAkirrrat gine b PhI0U»c a im awperss"6or+af' In EAdws a•l # uma of serum rktmbbra d oramrrsaoldomA* d+asmTrineeffscfivrarm*t Of lez WXV cra, Ilwl oftffO dv e,and araaaaun a(aq„9r� ty Cr"imismvW&4%-SWaQ iadt4o POOMAkm on ft ffau.tom of#0 ofWslosg n'D'O. Wn mw farov n is OI n l4ronif~Wna a wrsd ter*taan t=d be ved lEift rn le ai In aalee of immu to be Rt riz ataaafxr rm hwftwt pry 10 mitputuNmtMmrrm rrida Ud Ev4matttara bmum ofsmatfmasbomsd ocaOsAon(Qpt detrlrrrdara arif varr ast' ct aakz wctto mA;h rlkdr of mfr eb,;�et, mO of ei1�N and ca rtxtr ti M. 'ctan OWWWWOR ir'arW krc . 1urt +rin rand n Ot OV00abloi WkIAMat tda*rfaar fei" at cr jrddit to* e.Novi rptmolbrmAusliq nrtixkatim >�a #it 4§� of mm p€ f s mra idr Wq, ore P (o4-t t t cnI#$ s WW ltrmn felarry, aafi1 b be ,'ft,W lema W a rA, d%tvmrWO ra ilafy dwdwv'Ax OW Otwaowktjou VietNr9parkds for br t rrrrmame 10 Rt***O atanafa Warrm he dAwadlioraa a lrrasatlireA t atf errand mutton d frenrm rt(r), dettartnine aff iv t apwm ad ' dfW dinforfn mrn +Wart rpt WkWft of liver:and Is 1W.Rm*kb u hMmid livellow dtrr&dar limdat na tra oo,art wobble a nd f4hftk azar W*P a1 �n sr�of Imam I 'Wv=Or p sl itar rias of sra+c p�aom d ' casnaaitRreg a e es aat I lar W airne With Nra fdmirrt omdyy LAW,It StIb43blo ha wiling Oxim In tea: ftraerm r4simWan and n*v d facaarrm ownem R,agi Walloo of tie bmf Mitnot to Raraard d oww&t"Ified Imme arrrrtt Farr Evidsmt kmtdwt btium of rmag dam d l deteraffadvaru sr andrewl . Mthe deo�paro vwAom of avolbodow L' - at tears fa rfi"' . ira t actor vhwf*mdvAwtzWW orvalSookonis evmma Of rriarfi r tsera d owtart ysa afet affma yaa rfmqiAmd Istpupdam m potmessim d a brm hirci crf ra s vrrtrmer;and roambno- In 400artxf srf a,osbls duffAw '&mlfmWlrOWcW#d lr muffidwi t sa[t w at to R a 6araity of� weapon A ticr all E t baanuaat of a�lfb"in Wxa amtry laws g det a ' r s n dlEY a astir tW" rqu 'offto h the at Stan$""rad tlat�rn6 dirt#M#x 'oopm P+M 1 rrhictr f in eat of g=.44400.ds4txrrtry cr raarat datudmir atarp CWmise errsan aysi#m*to De nasi as rant r lm, arse Ilaaorraar ar lrarrr rt b aumof rrrrrad taa�ataarre of t xr i l f deter of v t►f k* n fraaraea Rmquka asrivs b tbt*Owm lodAd adu ttfmt w4dwtrr of affiRAymms,and QF srrrlaa!dascl aaad Mato *wm or m kobl e wf� trrr iiianta$r 5rrr ata a r�r dillklm use or hvoW to u u a hmegiold tumb Int vand fit aUfts to atteaaxrnt* as rtaacrttter. 4-8- itrur 5 kmm vWl#m# nam toterarmfows frrr kmAwmeg Mare to Rtgi*#bW pfd ' w4ml tr at keasrt 1 Ev` kmlWdmtbwmu#&of *of rokmnt m in whads(I)*' dalarroko afkdVeramtat pe AWN4 famd awyka aPA in wkd.tacat %W&m rare Odm*vmlitmabmdAOfto to naataif mrad'fii exafioms pa iWhr Wvathrpi vudiatta, zaatrr er as i$".POKIblIo v a mf and Oftr hxmU caw gwoeox of mpAsi . Combs Worrsadta s e(satve r4ftnsl lr irr Coamptsitsnsko framn4awv#mtkWW#mom i m rrne Fvkkms t'm,S*r t bamum d imi l msr&tm d laws StAss t am datarTrim Ofteetwunmot "rat 640116anva a r +rte f llm Imrtra#Sond*Marra)* kwJkWt st raw;to Cmwmda nsl*urn tar vxxWnj tk nimsr in an Evidma kart, d imeD is snbtm d Stid (SIM 4twnvne aff livarwi&at Oi6siliv mm at memid Atownr ImWI kWmt of of Am b m"s,and li�Scaram in the ommW of vahMs ar%Aac anuk tctaurrtm ft4ft the tare arra:hdrru itrwffipiiati"Noone 10 L4#a dr tk rrtrra aaf'ar,arab rttt vtr r of Evk4m kxawrflfsdsra b us*of InvorWitie t d okarmlt lav ragiddve- detrrmkie sft vacs st ax clrg*yArm bwssbatisicr a:mrfamaiacrc evicke ce r > first itrr+s h neer(t fltf aararacrAm of mWWm A#maluzkdI,Irdw AAm a+auld r lrr t bw art offo:Om bra id kt limo, TABLE{Ccari6tlt7vd)Findings of f 'bask Forc4 on Corm mit ProvarWwt 1rIe"rogarding Amarms liewa and pratltantlon of +ria:a#411 co aarsat3:8a#ta Int,IC3+oit Arises rrf £�. unhw sornre �not"nn to use of 1nwtq d drone Wass da4V&Kat p&cy imps a!asa+e.smon(Uw Soo fdeer 11t :3i{: 1�8�.ltlack n�,historian EB, d gi m tv d an tsaaraar 10"110"4tat M ,1 .1 �►a14 :#i; 47.Wain rd 00%mall M Mala sesa If,toper TJ. ec#a hof restriM"10 gal hantiguras tris hsstaaa�klae"ski*in the Gistrid of Crlunt a.N J filed 1991,-325:1914-52Q 3 aA, r M it cis of the 9 ,sssek WaVorts Bin:t -100 shkvg r s,M:U �opoftm $of Amtok 1 00. `MkA Wak Avr OW,HWtrn I.M.Mats of Is #'ar Sawrdany niptl Sps f fr a n crises i3 >w"s'ri�rrar 1 , it Well USS K naot The hl icmd ban can the at aut�s#oIs arab l gh mapm .,P-s*n.Arg r#at i rT at ISlesare_hm.t POW--lteafth f�9�N,2W-a_ r A 4atscnirs6ora thtl snntWm,is in and ih ad not ba*irk d as wbawo,of holioutimax.,A da#errr ljorc*I InmAdsid aaWwwo assists kr Idaw#A 1) ,areas cat inky tai eo rerar oaf an Int""m Arai a e wthAng rftwmh eaetAs-In wAtvsk whdt of Erse t or a a;dsncs,of ray " irtp banatl#3taata as a a� ,: ' rs rai aa&e saf trrtr iratsruatrtiort. t s. .Tire ! �i a+n9 i� vkalrsuss ► CStn t rtrr att 5 R2.L �$Go*kPJ,Net'nlck end ear it£a a Irnap era #a1ra+ &t j Hattan la°aaalrxlat+r Pretraraliamt ft^t.# to 2 g4 i rf at€s MA J iv , Baur sanf id.Suf i a rlrratrsal wl ssannr sf aratarrl�srtxrea 4ar#xr raaak isa taeradgws,JAU M.;28,11019-2 Wtig#t d,Wkftmt#GJ,R rum Fp,E tdiva se of 4L'!a'aGBI fat�aStl ptwdwse to txtdeared to bm$1 risk r al%viiia 1.tilrn J�HaWlth l9AM 1 Stara: airar X11, +x taJ,'Eisai�pmd trl`ftstrttrm c�nlrstt iatiadica�o-era auirJzfa ire anal rFmdr�rlridir ,taFawd J Jttr '1~ ;9 ,Mara MR. n cantid m a Lawn Ptalay 0'6 -T&10ocis 0,;+arttamm M arrd rg*lwdtm Ade asi*k .3 OuwtCriniprA I bl i1- f.Loaf!JR,WhftyJE. w *gun tom;oa donial dswlhat,aaaddr and a unit.J Low&M 200444, lead " ,l C40ft ticr dt ark aaaacx aiar5atl yr t iae rd has pied _ aract ra n a it �b 2i r-4l, o.P,lei:VK An anp t�ra Trac ayC I steel;slobs Area car 4nat(s'tm Kaes Q ,ed, res and vld o ta1A:AsMopor est J Cw"rry,1 . talstrrarf a. a; awamot h"WW twm v ,dos ACH lm2w-lkl `"S aaarsar t do tea n #3 Tns irnpaad 0f' diol gradiaw nofthip la,Ataa on vloto .l 0*CAM*01 104 w OW,v e!n id is, 14*;*w Lid,Rsbftra t lam koraOrS mgWoMn,wW cater quo xs%*Wft andthe mum*talio gat arms*guns 1 q Pm M;tl" rr Sowo":C 4z"MR.ria t¢ Mol :k t asxad and 16ft Lara � Pip.Ilk M T d l arw# Ana eaddp reels a+�fokmo rapes 011u. tQ4r v419 f f-I , dito i 1.Nie ..rd as : ' sit*WW s raft l Ire a M ed PIMOM and Mwnraa. 1trt ns2+aer A"Ahitng hairs Y,IOU M4&;IJP CL wdbwm A1sgmes.5w Ftdi 1975;2,3;8t-W.Webster Oaaf,.lAamielt,f"pb nLM.FWadenshO rt rg liar***xkm ar)d otwgws".Wpa:ontd#*wmr.. kiprw 30 :Mack M tl rb etomms dew viaderat rinelj L ft4`3 t2t tl�1Q.1404 .Isa atMIT*9`nPasal of ow d oto t»rrstaratslla laraa#s ass dada ralaa �t�rfrrakl 4 it #1 tlXa i dt JFt l fasrira tuartdlr rt§ta ra attd Marc, !tTst tMra# r,d f impn teens, .tea .4l;1��taa3�iar rrgkt logia and nada ml ft Fav a tam panel dM.i Lm"*t 18 14s i€1,LOW% a .Ealing ar ewaad gree lanes truatnio4a in Up%lww.J Dirrkw• 190*1' dyCE,Tmdng tr 13ss*9Wx arT ed ww p"Immo,s 'fit t ra and tebuid now J Lest tan 2001;44,104M red&1 Tlaa Ire rat 6ir4 J l Com 2=;U936-60,Olson DE,Vaft N1Ct 140:0cepw wets laws,and boraiw to in tabs IJ X use s:to OW at. w*laakt sh t3maa, +rMat �sr rel �.f Laesr Esaaatn 2Q#1i33 ,TC°f Tit,lalaananra�,'Tirtar Tia.Ciaas ffx+r n�'al b t+zrrrla�1�has s rc�rn�lra Y a eautrt ,area+.J Ls9ra est k1a�1:?"X'I-"6�. It,ttsasw.i T armta t, 7#ua . #re rd IS: astarl tttaradar err aa�a.Nae d Iaarbik ttasl�a# i t 7" l i dt JE ,1 try JIB t gun entad d itax, axast as see:,l L £xaors i+ls M9fa4aarw tlw siornm MC fiasacmmi r - :res # ere ds3t!eazss la era andairaleaaraal s of ts4takioa :1 qac l —Srtasaa w G`CIC VA*m viftidso aid bahw1cm of hilt€tidwel a6a3enc"sst Yorkft W02,WWR19 :71"x-7, sr,Soasm"a MNak s.IF 34*#ofd WL An infx:4 ares clWoral and mortarfboorm cor*4 k-ws lar.Was DO.,gad,P'ar arae ar4 vkilsraac Gat dg*„ A drags. Psa#akAft Csxnapatty 511.Dopwlrnarat sit ice Quvda.A kcal araetyslr d1hirkrpoftef dear 197T karsxts roof D"Amom gad JoAta Canada,Pic rano EmbMcn Stefift TM. Smarr":CwwwaA9&hW*61*atad#hoa can ash tui Carola and IN Unbd$Wbm,1076#o 19901,Am J1ldlt1 f ;1 M124 r .,"fin JN KaNasraaannJiL, CIT',dt ad.1"#arun r�aaia ,aar�auKs,aanzl Is�tnafa.a sada cat Id S#'ag�J 14faal f lia��kq:l .�,dMi>e 1:p',da1r tT£,F#w s.)1t3,PWh W-,K Al..Fad requisliaise end ra1aA rats a: „tfm; ° W74, I'M Slowt*aet Baxar 6d,Risk JN.SuWt regia,hancOm oerArol .ad seas mptk v Gdohim psyc wd Reps MW"140.Goked 5i,kefid,VYad r R.TM ea$x 0 auto andtoc al r uka M of Nsulaim DL**Lew J 1> 3: €sa lit un r lrol iapi d~taan;` sxr9 ersdidpft UW 1 W3r*1M'i-7C G,Pahow n .'Suss Un of €>aratrol mss its shp Wools on*Wcw rmox J Clfs9 1,k*do MR.An ' In u 12,0,In:. S a esf.qtr rotrrra erari Cb�ra m;t*,"-, er Pulosi �'w,fW125- 2",U# ridlf J'P Sw�d war�al oaarttralN'ry EvaiRaw ,12SI-2, Retgm tC? top. Box BOX. SOIQCtOd H#*MhY P404pIO 2#10' ObJ001YOS potuntlatt Eatfoctvd bya ffi*anns laws Injury prvvcario a • Redue rrarrn-t latecl deatlu frrain 11.E to 4�1 pvt lt` ,€W praPlstiont (Oble h 15-:3). • Redipce the roporr on ofper its lIN, I M hon Nath hirer that are 10ACW a.rtd t]tsltx fran 19 to 16,%f (O tWiw 15-4). • Rrduce nonfatal firearm-related ira'rarie f-om 24,0 (its 1997) to &6 zwer 100,000 popillaijon ( ~ti Utx AtO ti lnt try P tttj n. • 1t�:eclxatl�s�atrsed 1�.taxtiftt�;.nt�anal rajt�ries ftostt,� ,#3 to 17.5 per 100,000 populant (Clb) .fl 15-13). t;f aelcskrne tall Reduce jion6i al tttaiaarettrir:t l inju- ries (Wiecrive 15-14). Violenct ami Abuse Prewoetas • Roduce homicides fmm6.5 to 10 Re r too, ��tt1a tion, (014ective 1544 4 uce dw rate of plivical usault Lw current or f n r it)tirttate pgrtners 1" t 4A On 1998)to 3.3 l I MO persons a d, 12yearc(Objective 15-34),, Reduce the atr mal nit of rkpt or stunpted tole from 0.8 (in 1111+) to X1.7 per J.DW�r+�� ,�X12 � (Obiwive t5-351. • R� ltt ;t, l sattlt c tlt Arta rape from 0.6(in 1 S) to QA FCT 1,000 p rsoM aged x,12 years(Objectivt 15-34 • Rech:"physical a aolts firo tt 31.1 On 199,S)to 1,16 M I MO persons aged i;12 yvars(Objec6ve 1 • kedi.roe"oncarrybigbyadolowkmrs ort sdtool rop- erty from 6.9 (in 1999)V 4.a (students hi,fin cl throe€gh 12,carr/mgallriag the Past 30 dqo ( ibj - tivv 15-39). 5outtft(ts'Oquitia of H&A11h sad 1 1 Se�vic�Htk- r . . a�t�tspoa"Wi .lttra � fig I�raPr g 1u lett (e >zr tsa t)spaxt a ' Hatch sod� n Sw '4 ' �asr�,ir 1 d�� s�t ,�ss�1 tes tees;}'ter�tt�oiadar�3 tax, Return-to-top, Use of trade names and commercial sources is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services. References to non-CDC sites on the Internet are provided as a service to MMWR readers and do not constitute or imply endorsement of these ;organizations or their programs by CDC or the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services.CDC is not responsible for the content of pages found at these sites. URI..addresses listed in MMWR were current as of the date of publication. Disclaimer All MMWR HTML versions of articles are electronic conversions from ASCII text into HTML.This conversion may have resulte in character translation or format errors in the HTML version.Users should not rely on this HTML document,but are referred to the electronic PDI version and/or the original MVWR paper copy for the official text,figures,and tables.An original paper copy of this issue can be obtained from the t Superintendent of Documents,U.S.Government Printing{office(GPU),Washington,DC 20402-9371;telephone:(202)512-1800.Contact GPU fo current prices, "Questions or messages regarding errors in formatting should be addressed to niwra(ikdc.vov, Page converted:9/29/2003 This page last reviewed 9/2912003 r ,!Report commission On Rifles CONFIDENTIAL DR.A.FT NOT FOR P'UBL.IC REl,.4E.,ASE W � X�p }amu C k 4fi VxS <C $ e 95` r Y� i`groi e , u 14 pyw r TABLE OF CONTENTS PARTS PAGE Preface- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................. ................................ 05 Part1: INTRODUCTION............................................................... .......... .... 07 Part 11: BASICS OF FIREARM AND AMMUNITION TECHNOLOGY. 12 A. FIREARMS..................................... ...... ...................... ........... 12 B. AMMUNITION..... ................................................................... 14 Part 111. EVOLUTION OF THE FIFTY CALIBER RIFLE AND AMMUNITION .......... ....................................................... ............... 16 A. DEVELOPMENT OF THE FIFTY CALIBER CARTRIDGE........................................................................ .. 16 B. .50 BMG CARTRIDGE MANUFACTURERS-....................... 17 C. EVOLUTION TO COMPETITIVE TARGET SHOOTING..... 18 Part gIV,: v ERJ 0 T 0 B I E . ... .... . .. .. . . .. . ...v . .. fol-i G G, 'pi R Y T A Uj Y ........ ...... C RELATIVE RANGE AND ACCURACY................................... 24 D G 25 E 33 W CLA (K ACT FIFTY CAL nEJ Part V: —-T 6 CRIMINAL ACTIVITY..........................................................................................._ 35 A. A VAST M ORIT OF FVA M CES ARE SMALL, IV S E , E F ,EARMS: PYl N UNS.. .. ..... .. . ................... 35 B. R R , -ES A EX ILL SUITED FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY...................................... 36 C. R T' QTS l T'l�D B Y INC 0 C S Iff PR A E I M 36 SL D Do 0 . ............. C I 11B CALIBER%RI Part VI: FIFTY A INCREASED RISK OF TERRORIST ATTACKS. ..... ............................................ 48 A. RR -j-' .......... 48 B. E ST CASE TNSHIP LA S -E R�FS4, R TO THE FIFTY CALIBER RIFLES THEY SEEK TO BAN..... 49 AL, ER � - s' 4 R ISTV 4� wle' D. ST A "kO HEMI�A'W r'F POTENTIAL TOOLS FOR CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTION.............................. 58 2 E. FIFTY CALIBER RIFLES DO NOT POSE AN INCREASED THREAT TO AMERICAS INFRASTRUCTURE.................... 60 F THE VPC MISCHARACTERIZES THE ACQUISITION OF FIFTY CALIBER FIREARMS BY AL QUEDA........................ 61 G. THE "THE ULTIMATE JIHAD CHALLENGE" WAS NOT A TERRORISM TRAINING SCHOOL.......................................... 62 H. FIFTY CALIBER RIFLES PRESENT NO INCREASED DANGER TO COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT... .......................... 63 1. FIFTY CALIBER RIFLES PRESENT NO DANGER TO TANKS AND MINIMAL INCREASED RISK TO ARMORED VEHICLES....... .......................................................... ...... ........ 69 J. CURRENT ARMORED PROTECTION STANDARDS DO NOT CONSIDER FIFTY CALIBER RIFLES OR AMMUNITION IN THEIR STANDARDIZED SCHEDULES.. 71 Part VII: IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO CLASSIFY ALL FIFTY CALIBER RIFLES AS "ASSAULT WEAPONS"................................................. 74 A. ALL HANDGUNS AND RIFLES DEEMED TO BE 44 S , stl -A Y E LR D LA S D A E u E "S 46 ss, WEAPONS...... .................. ......................................................... 77 C. NOT L LI RS FIRE . ..... .. 79 D FIFT LD N BE DEEMED "ASSAULT WEAPONS" SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR CALIBER. ....... ....................... 79 CoNcL �T.....F-0-R................. 80 APPENDIX A: REVIEW PANEL AND EXPERT COMMISSION M I E JE,Cl ...................... 82 V A. RE ............. 82 XP 'T 0 J�j; B E ........ 84 APPENDIX B- BAN ON FIFTY CALIBER FIREARMS BY THE CITY OFLOS ANGELES................................................................... 91 APPENDIX C. MSRIJA �S" lCfX,0F THE ,F H 93 IV G A. A� IA OF A FIFTY CALIBER RIFLE............................................................. 93 ".113 S��-W,N�Tf.QC TE$TLD ON$fAT-Jjh-THAT 7400 X-2yZQ pf, & AM C "M IS AOTi'ffE EFF RANG60fzW, fm� 1�1116 ........... ,f............ �,-F*��CABBER F&�E,, C. MECHANIC, L ASPECTS OF ACCURACY PRO14 IT A 7,500 YARD "MAXIMUM EFFECTIVE RANGE""......-........... 96 3 D. OTHER IMPORTANT FACTORS RELATING TO THE ACCURACY OF FIFTY CALMER RIFLES.............................. 97 E. HISTORICAL ACCURACY RECORDS ANALYZED.............. 100 APPENDIX D. BALLISTIC ARMOR STANDARDS...................................... 102 APPENDIX E: CARTRIDGE SIZE COMPARISONS..................................... 104 A. THE FIFTY CALIBER CARTRIDGE COMES IN VARIOUS Sims........... ..................... ......................................................... 104 B PROPONENTS USE MISLEADING AND IMPROPER COMPARISONS TO DEMONSTRATE ILLOGICAL POINTS........................................................................................ 104 C. PROPER COMPARISON DEMONSTRATES THAT THE FIFTY CALIBER ROUND IS NOT THE LARGEST CALIBER CARTRIDGE FOR SMALL ARMS.......................... 105 lod ONFIDENTIAL DRAFT NOT FOR PIJBLIC LEASE -Rl, A-1 1- 5 �, 26-vO4 4 PREFACE. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Mark Twain Proponents of a complete or partial ban on fifty caliber rifles have been disseminating reports to state and local governments containing statistical information and claims about the characteristics and uses of fifty caliber rifles. These claims, more often than not, are inaccurate, misleading, or false. To that end, the Expert Commission on Fifty Caliber Rifles (the "Commission") was created. The Commission was charged with investigating the accuracy of the proponents' informati a a e v `dity of thezr.clai e p o NheJ as o ins -that stat k`ndd off al Jid ngta n fi earso ly er a d public a ' ba d n fQfs n� b end "�>t, M iav >utit n `�' da ed dies, and stl tics." Tie omrmssionniscomposecofexperts re ated to eacc o t e major concerns expressed by the proponents of the ban. Summary of Findin E 64 rn F ssi ve tedland, s related to four main contentions put forth by pro n t �ba ;t ( ereno legitimate civilian use for fifty caliber rifles; (2) The rifles are accu"ra e`a a range o ane mile with some reduction in accuracy, can inflict damage on targets over four miles away, (3) The availability of civilian versions of the rifle pre is n 'dr rr f crz n i or vitt'; and(4) In recent years,fifty caliber rifle hb orae ; zea r, light , o wid ble, and can now be purchased for as little a ,$1, 30. fi As to the first claim, the Commission found that, contrary to the proponents' assertions, civilian versions of the fiftyoliberifle re ri � orh m titian shooting and big game hunting, activities tha %n1 bst�ntt i ationtrdii xcellent safety record. On the second claim the Coin issi' urt mato,United States Armed Forces documentation, the maximum effective range of a military version of the fifty caliber rifle is approximately 1, OC�rd , t�r ��1d� contf't't witx"'expeisi� � and other accessories, and in the hands of an pritry rksm y w f c i rz the highly skilled individuals engaged in ,,,a_z c �p fit;:, (els ,.msrp s p a accessories) shoot at targets from a distance of 1,000 yards. Further, the claims alluding to the notion that anyone could hit a target at3a range of four miles are without foundation. r -. " I"P, a eg g zn "t e thifd and ftrurth cla��-.�e Corr�rnissr��mfound no i n ha the fifty caliber rifle eats y zrzcre sed hr at oft riv al oro rresrist activity 5 y s l ;' z ytatffier rifles legally available in California are single shot, bolt action rifles with no rapid fire capability. Fifty caliber rifles are extremely heavy, typically weighing 20 to 30 pounds, with some 5 approaching 40 pounds. They remain expensive. (especially those equipped for snatch competition, or otherwise configured for long range accuracy), ranging in price from$2,500 to over$10,000, with ammunition costs ranging from three to seven dollars per round. Reaching nearly five feet in length, they are unwieldy and virtually impossible to conceal when assembled. These factors combine to snake a fifty caliber rifle unsuitable for criminal use, and are statistically insignificant when using the proponents favored method of lobbying, trace data and statistics. Moreover, the Commission found that, despite its SO-year history of use, a fifty caliber rifle has never been used to commit a crime in the State of California and perhaps only two in the entire country. Since the development of the fifty caliber IMC cartridge, no one has ever been killed by a fifty caliber rifle in the United States, whether in the hands of a criminal or a terrorist. No planes have been shot down, nor limousines destroyed by fifty caliber rifle fire. The Commission found no record of an oil refinery or similar facility being blown up by a fifty caliber rifle—an event which petrochemical safety experts confirm could not happen. In short,these events, as well as other hypothetical terrorist acts envisioned and defined by proponents over the past four years as "imminent threats," have never occurred. Finally, they are highly unlikely to occur because most cannot be accomplished using fifty caliber rifles. In other cases,fifty caliber rifles are simply not an effective tool for the hypothetical terrorist acts envisioned; there are, unfoitun ly nu ,bero- s xpe S' ays 0 li ys t at rIgLd e far less, ming d s 1. S-U ,"j, ,,ert 40 . 1ssi..�, es un. e p en claims lacking in foundation and unrealistic. Historically, the fifty caliber rifle has not been associated with criminal antfsorist. .s (two acts i r ). Further, there is no evidence to suggest that con �[n.ue a la lity thes i s f c �vilian use will result in an increased risk of criminal or� rr est t ty,� r� at h ing t m will reduce such risks. Accordingly, should any stat 0 mu ip t i o side ening the sale or possession of fifty caliber rifles, the Commission recommends that a qualified fact-finding panel be established to verify the truth behirt . he",jyl7t's� c ""'proponents of any ban rarcysr ort an �tzi g t to it. Forbased on the Commission's findings an 8 upawry�� ltiinat °� to claims are not based on fact and reason, but on and emotionalism intended to motivate legislators to act out of exaggerated and irrational fears. p- :. . B IC 4S P, W 9 F°' ; - � o 4 ,I� S E '� ., �w... AW _)O1 t "tea X a- 6 PART 1: INTRODUCTION Since 1998, the Washington D.C. based Violence Policy Center (the "VPC")has issued a series of reports claiming fifty caliber rifles are "crime guns," potential tools of terrorists and that they are firearms with no legitimate purpose. The goal of the reports is to gamer support for a ban on all fifty caliber firearms. The VPC has provided various government officials with documents such as "Voting from the Rooftops," "Sitting Ducks," "The U.S. Gun Industry and Others Unknown," and "Just Like Bird Hunting" in an effort to have those jurisdictions ban fifty caliber rifles and handguns. Thus far, in California only the City of Los Angeles has passed a law prohibiting the sale or transfer of fifty caliber rifles. The Los Angeles Municipal Code prohibits the sale of"any fire "I`Pi4�ch and.ha, un .]F a lei `fi 'n , ,ce .'re i oaf 0 ca 'ber arger or fx aer.' r i n ° od ed t ; " " is t ntct line erre ly con( on ening >a er a is li s, e c av ecli ds a an. 3 , As an example of proponents efforts,on December 18, 2002, the VPC sent a letter to the County of Los Angeles requ su for a,reque t pervisor Yaroslaysky and Supervisor Burke to sponso C or Aegi g t -sa e or possession of fifty caliber rifles and ammunition. Thi tt t' aal: rifle pose a significant threat to the public health." It also state at "there is na e use for ese weapons for hunting; they most certainly pose a significant threat on our urban streets." The proponents of a ban on fifty caliber rifles cite four rt i as s r , f th p (al,- L NO LE T C < ' USE: ftli iZtva( rily a military weapon that wa 'sed xte ely dig Ing the tiff Wa tak o hicles, bunkers, and other facilities. They are among the most destructive and powerful firearms sold legally in th' Jaf flld,.,not o red by civilians. These firearms can r n r se er int, e f stee,•c rete, or other reinforced substances, 2. CHARACTERISTICS: The firearm is accurate at ranges between 1,000 and 2,000 yards T. in i t o age to`t ` `is ov fou 3. CR IM E ORIS "SI T h N - e is,an ideal tool for terroris t rt do %l�ctrt ,tBeae.� its power and range, it LosTRI lenaci` Cad c i8 is tt led Appent�B sa `Consta pint} a the' �f g Beac[� tave� pressly�ated tha they seek an prc�incac the City Q Loi Ades trdirianc 3Gerwitz,Jason L.B. Lelays.S0-Caliber Gun Barg Lona Beach Press Tele ararri(December 17,2003). ("In a 6-3 vote,the(Lona Beach City]council put the proposed ban on indefinite hold....In shelving the proposal,several council members said the issue would be more appropriately addressed at the state level_'"} 7 can create a disaster in the United Mates industrial facilities handling explosive, toxic, or volatile chemicals. It also endangers aircraft, bulk fuel tanks, and other airport facilities. Reports have shown that terrorists organizations,including Al Qaeda, have these firearms in their arsenals; and 4. PRICE: In recent years, fifty caliber rifles have become cheaper, lighter, and more widely available. The price of the firearm originally ranged from $2,000 to $10,000, but now can be purchased for as little as $1,250. These firearms have been heavily marketed to civilians. The number of manufacturers for these firearms has increased from one in 1987 to over twenty today. At subsequent Los Angeles Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee meetings, representatives of County law enforcement agencies with knowledge of firearms technology suspected that proponents of these proposals to ban fifty caliber firearms were providing the County with misleading and inaccurate information. A "Commission" panel of experts in the fields of terrorism prevention, armor technologies, petro-chemical technologies, optical technologies, and law enforcement was assembled to examine the accuracy of statements made by proponents of the ban. (See Appendix A for a list of the Commission Members.) w ee i ng;wi th Co s' 's th' ep ddre se 11 its kde ,eSN prop ent d ott;rs cl di pre poli n )°wu p eb fir : .theclai ndth� proid�nge rIts ti- is ves� g" o int t clai ••land=, e cri fac ual basis, ny. ay 'f exam i ; the � isstott �° t ted der#" �C' L� � on that fifty caliber rifles are "the weapon of choice for criminals."' The Commission's investigation found only a handful of incft� t Id ' tterm ycly used. Moreover, its investigation into the crirnin ,resa - co - my erstood) of fifty caliber rifles revealed only one document „ .0 • in . the 1992 attack on an Y armored delivery truck in Chamblee,Georgia. As discussed in Section III, below, fifty caliber rifles have been in use since World,War 1. This sib le docut ted incident of criminal use over more than an 80-year d�h s tl 11t,leasi iber fl an i , a"`weapon of choice for criminals." This is of rp ing iscusst I th = F fifty caliber rifles are unsuitable for criminal se. ex e tveconte led we on ave, in fact, been traced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives more than any other type firearm. Thus, there is no basis�in t c - .oa to °pport .en r., vin's proclamation on the Senate floor, a claim he rept Aft e�n I ub' thio press release. It is, in a word, fi false. ,. ., w Before turning to the Commission's investigations into claims such as Senator Levin's made by proponents of�te�,ivi an.�,t�tts 2 rt proy de background-mf d i�f ati n to facilitate informed debate. Web . _a bri iscus of fit' m z ': y(Part H), the history of the fifty caliber rifle a n ct acteristics of the rifle Y cart ge P n > (Dart W). This background information sets the stage for rational discussion of the claims made by pro onents of the ban regarding tracing statistics of fifty caliber rifles (fart V) and their ,.. r �2 xx s 4' a � ., potent l trrip4ct ori the threaf of tt*rrortrt �arfi UI). I` teor41 sm secti�earntrs the nous p 4Carl Levin,Congressional Record, 107i°Congress,First session, Fifty Caliber--Weapon of Choice for Criminals (October 25,2001), which was also issued as a Press Release on that.same date, with the same title. 8 terrorist scenarios posed by proponents, including,e.g.,blowing up oil refineries and shooting down commercial aircraft. Experts in these areas assess the actual risks and whether the continued production of civilian versions of the fifty caliber rifle increase those risks. Finally, Part VII addresses the proponents' suggestion that all fifty caliber rifles be categorized and banned as "assault weapons." A Note on Propaga Perhaps the most disturbing finding of the Commission's investigation was that much of the national debate regarding proposed bans on fifty caliber firearms has devolved into a propaganda war. Facts and statistics are distorted, inflammatory claims are repeated as fact -- even after being shown demonstrably false. Although there is some propaganda flowing in both directions,the proponents of the ban in particular seem intent on alarming the public by disseminating false statements about past use of fifty caliber rifles and the rifle's capabilities, and focusing on military versions and uses of the rifle rather than on the civilian models at issue. Proponents of these bans further attempt to instill fear in the minds of the public and its legislators by speculating about hypothetical terrorist threats posed by these firearms --threats that have little foundation in reality, either because the rifle is not capable of causing the terrorist event (e.g., shooting down a commercial aircraft)or because the risk of the terrorist event is unrelated to capabilities of the rifles (e.g.,blowing up an oil refinery). ut in VNve!7 f e R I fcl_QT�1� m lrsE, Thl c L often ese is the e o en al k n t t p nen rifle st,thre JUN -s,, i nd a d t A highfii �d, unrelated terrorist events involving bombs, box cutters and commercial aircraft to argue that fifty caliber rifles should be ban. c Th ed to ical c t' , ',$Iat Osarna Bin Laden obtained at O's 25 fifty caliber rifles someti , i . en li e with forces in Afghanistan fighting against Soviet occu do he,� e i that ecause he is now a terrorist, these ica" en e r that a I tl! rifles must be terrorist weap and- trit e the t ist activities by banning the sale or transfer of civilian versions of the fifty caliber rifle in a particular county or a particular state. The leaps in logic of s ar,Z, - iden e e elationship between tr /R fifty caliber rifles and m)%5 he a ;taoo ulty logic is another common propagandaanda The Commission has made every attempt to cut through this propaganda—and avoid engaging in counter-p pag -i its in claims. For example, in he; c� the% the their reports, web ro es fifty caliber rifles as sit t 44 sniper rifles," notwiths sniper" incident using fifty caliber rifles in Californialfor eve nationwide. Commission could have countered this techn' ue b re eatedly characterizing the rifles as "match competition" or -ical u ati e "hunting" rifles, and iti, atp'hi _t0i: it C s lacing negative or , 4 a%e iq It adds nothing to positive qualifiers in t rd "fle" i p I tt f A ' Olt s�, A, o f 4 , o �sw. :: rt- treasoned debate; in f)a ,,'t t Tsllo� pt o,cut through the pervasive propaganda, not engage in it. o Sze sio paga IT h e�M"'m, sio anyti-i'in' support er U� i Y '0 t e t "ir rifles -Tient mplol '�ffcts f unrelated to the availability of civilian versions of fifty caliber rifles. It appears that the only basis for seeking such bans is that proponents believe the rights of those civilians who use fifty caliber 9 rifles for match competition shooting or big game hunting are outweighed by the alleged potential, I C, but as yet unrealized, threat posed by criminal or terrorist use of those rifles. Aside from speculation about future threats allegedly posed by the rifles, ban proponents can cite only two "confirmed" past acts of the kind they fear, one by a criminal in Georgia in 1.998 and one by an IRA terrorist in 1997. During the over 80-year history of the use of fifty caliber rifles, more people have been killed by almost any other instrumentality that one can imagine other than by fifty caliber rifles, including not just other less powerful weapons,but everyday items such as baseball bats, pocket knives, and hat pins. In short, there is no historical evidence to support fifty caliber rifle bans, which perhaps explains why proponents' resort to propaganda techniques and exaggerate the risks associated with these rifles. A Note on Risk Analysis- Essentially, the question faced by state and local governments when considering proposed bans is whether current rights and freedoms enjoyed by citizens in their use of civilian versions of the fifty caliber rifle (i.e., the benefits) are, on balance, outweighed by the alleged risk posed by the limited availability of such rifles. Risk,of course, is a function of the probability of harm and the degree of harm. While the degree of harm that could be inflicted by these rifles is no doubt substantial (as it is with any firearm, or other weapon) the probability of increases in crime or terrorism by the continued availability of civilian versions of the rifle is nil, ba n h, 1, r 7n risk p ro le-!, a I ha § r p (t gt�e S hef_a the equation that the proponents of the ban cannot avoid. M,re ut thdsri k" anent by noting that the risk of using box cutters to effect a t t se e, was also "nil"before 9/1 L' his vial ..only lk Ma Ban proponents ma C e c But that logic is strained, an Y _x-cutters,but all sharp instruments, as well as all firearms and anything else one might conceivably use to carry out a terrorist act, including commercia .rcraft and automobiles, , ich are regularly used as terrorist 0' T e a) rl sy b�lfie`?It si ft quip T proponents of the �Nv lib r f1c weapons. And that brim I to proposed bans evidentl t ea beaffit in m n i goi e isting rights to use civilian versions of the fty i e. A'�refore,,, e lac' of nyrleaAIM�k is less troubling to them than it is to the thousands of citizens who lawfully use these rifles and object to having their rights infringed absent any s The risklbenefit ana,' is, h e i' t Commission was asked to I Sis, h vdr, consider. We raise the issutl,nivy to 'llestraO4., k6ifit"'scenarios imagined by ban proponents tend to "zero out" when one considers that the probability of such events occurring as a result of civilian -d( ,Iy,,.c(ibef rifles-or,can'be pr vented b,, nand them-is minute, if mo I _0 not zero. M PIN I e� t t js,.Report � Nrt,s,�� a As stated at the 0 o,iJeL 3r, is cut through the propaganda and present lawmakers with the facts about the specific fifty caliber rifles that would be of . ted tithe s. Wlwe��,,i ill,beginwith, �revie ;,of fiream b4s i an d h y cc Ju"i to s and P, '9 ';h h act s A,q calif riff.at issue, and then, r Violence Policy Center,Just Like Bird Hunting the Threat to Civil Aviation front 50 Caliber Sniper Rifles(2003), p, 16-24. 10 claims. Some of the information presented is necessarily technical and, where possible, has been included in the appendices to this Report to make the Report more readable. Also, to those already familiar with firearms, Part .0 may be skimmed (or skipped). Can the other hand, Part N should not be skipped. The detailed explanation of the procedures followed by skilled marksman participating in match competitions provides the perspective needed to assess some of the proponents' claims regarding "accuracy and distance" of the rifle addressed in later sections of the Report. We hope the readier finds this Report useful to any informed discussion on proposals to ban fifty caliber rifles. Any questions or comments are welcome, and may be addressed to: The Expert Commission on Fifty Caliber Rifles, C/O Trutanich - Michel, LLP, 407 North Harbor Blvd., San Pedro, California 903731. TP CONFIDEN 11 11- 1AL DRA.FT NOT 'IFIOR PU'BIjIC RELEASE T" 48 Y3 e S 11 FART II: BASICS OF FIREARM AND AMMUNITION TECHNOLOGY This report, and the model ordinance promoted by groups advocating a ban on fifty caliber firearms, contain terms and expressions relating to firearms that may not be commonly known. Accordingly, a brief explanation of basic firearm and ammunition terminology is provided below. A. 'FIREARMS 1. Basics �re N � �hh (tjtile pro�led as a ' gf,resu�of co Usti lufe �st an Yguno °sho ise . 'ped vi sicxth b re. Shotguns are designed to fire shells containing numerous pellets or a single slug, handgun is a firea t i; ne L eFal ht being held in one hand, and not from tl3 uld ark ypef handguns, the most popular being pistols'and revolvers. Figure ; Pistol type rifle is a fire NOTblsmu ro"- at de iia r£ FF handgun. spiral grooves in the bstOff,%,§ilong. �, ,��.... , 2. Functional Characteristics Rifles, like other fir , ten s ction s as automatic (sometimes called fully automatic or machine ns}, t a , It ti 1' er action, and muzzle loader. a An automatic rifle is a firearm that loads, fires and ejects the cartridgesi° as long as the REL EA, ...� ..�� 'Barre Jhe p :.of akrearm, h whi h-a, to, it aveis. ct� P he enbins oar; that Et in ow a fi , rn1; loaded,disciaargecnun oad sP�stoi 'irnor a n re with al hamberIZevahaer A tf�ar r pts (, r indl f a; inder-h ins es�erat ehambers''arr< ged#oda-rotate ars��nd an axis and be discharged successively by the same firing mechanism. toCartridges: A single round of ammunition consisting of the case,primer,propellant, powder,and one or more projectiles(bullets). 12 trigger is depressed and there are cartridges available in the feeding system (i.e., magazine" or Z�l other such mechanism). Automatic firearms are also called machine guns'`, sub-machine guns13, assault rifles.14 There are many types of automatic fifty caliber rifles. Since 1934, however, it has been unlawful to sell or possess an automatic firearm, regardless of caliber,without special permission and licensing from the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Unlike the automatic firearm, a semi-automatic firearm only discharges one cartridge with each squeeze of the trigger. A semi-automatic firearm requires that the trigger be pulled and released for each complete firing cycle, from discharge through reloading. The discharge and chambering of a round is either blowback operated, recoil operated,or gas operated. Because of California's "assault weapon" laws,it is unlawful to possess (unless registered`) or transfer nearly all semi-automatic fifty caliber rifles." A bolt-action firearm is typically a rifle that is manually loaded, cocked and unloaded by pulling a bolt mechanism up and back to eject a spent cartridge and load another. Bolt action firearms are popular for hunting, target shooting, and biathlon events. A bolt action rifle allows the shooter maximum accuracy,but is slow and cumbersome in comparison to semi-automatic or automatic firearms. As a result of California's"assault weapon" laws, nearly all fifty caliber rifles that can be lawfully transferred in California today are bolt-action. Iug, h zzl . Po . er is po N t is t in th I to of it, ger lot r "ter the barrel, ignite the powder and fire the gun. There are a variety of muzzleloaders, which include flintlock (flint on th tM t _I! T. �t hs t e r.fire rT�,r ei, matchlock(a wick-like piece e of material is lighted by the 00 e many fifty caliber rifles that fall t o , _Z. u �o c c ors items. Muzzle-loaded within this category, most ol�l _ ,A _r rifles are exempt under the Los Angeles ordinance banning the sale or transfer of fifty caliber firearms. NOT FOR s�ot e 'La n y 0"T 'ing into the chamber. ryF feeing Magazine:A receptacle on a fir s r Magazines take many forms,suc um, u r removable. Note:The 1994 Ox fix-do te ltd ir p(w r6a r than 10 rounds. California Crime Bill banned the manufactu g has a similar provision. 12 A machine gun has the capability of firing more than one full power round(such as a.50BMG)with the single pull of a trigger, 13 uses pistol cartridges. A sub machine gun an e e r d it ngle u f t !d tD 14 tic* , ", I An"assault rifle"(this i thin n s t n ne nf, 0ral or California state le cartridges(such law) is capable of firing more than e r tin with a it of a trigger, ut uses mecum power as 223 or 7.6209). 15 s unregis It ea on" ,,the UnderCalifornia Pcipl Codes ec"on 122, 80- s a- ter ma, os 'be regist "on riod,or, from 0, firearm is re I ve A Z 31'st gistratidt,l,,�efi&l eAdel 1,06" 1,4 re R N 16 1�A An regulatl6i� at are-de!'n"iedito �­r,'asy6lt wea s,"� hi�h' lud I y a bgr rifles, Y -, - would be preempted by state law. Those who lawfully possess a fully-automatic or semi-automatic fifty caliber rifle under the assault weapon laws would not be affected by any municipal ban. 17 Muzzle:The front end of a firearm barrel from which the bullet or shot emerges, 13 B. AMMUNITION Ammunition is a loaded cartridge consisting of a primed case, propellant, and a projectile (bullet). Ammunition comes in a variety of sizes and types. Ammunition sizes are measured in terms of millimeters or calibers. Both measurements are used to designate the specific cartridges for which a firearm is chambered. Specifically, a caliber is the numerical term included in the cartridge name to indicate a rough approximation of the bullet''diameter(e.g., .34 caliber= .348"diameter ballet.) Fifty caliber rifle ammunition has a diameter of approximately one halt inch. Ammunition size is sometimes expressed in millimeters, as well, with fifty caliber ammunition being the same. as 12.7 millimeter ammunition. Ammunition sizes vary and include .22 cal., .25 cal., .32 cal., .45 cal., .54 cal., .64 cal., on up. Though California has banned ammunition in excess of.64 caliber, many sizes of ammunition are available near the fifty > ft F ea r�e caliber range, including .457, .458., and .475 calibers. Thus, there are numerous calibers of bullets that vary from a fifty caliber in size by merely hundredths of an inch and, consequently,would not be affected by the proposed ban. d oto s tib o v wit any .enc a .3 r c Ngn e tli b the magnum has a larger casing containing more propellant. Generally, magnum cartrid e prod , higher vele 19 „« . standard cartridges in any gi .n i n s , Handguns and Rifle n i ers to se Figure ; Original diaraFn available at Winchester's ammunition that is not interchangeable. For instance, a fifty official website. caliber BMG cartridge would not in a hand un desi ned t shoot fifty caliber hand ar�i ni.tr u a the 04 n r s e to the length of the cartridge and width of t e i ° Bullets of any given caliber vary in type, length and weight. Each of these variations cause the bullets to have different effects. Some t y es of bullets are ball "armor piercing," incendiary, explosive, anchor tracer(th t, e. f b 11L� ussejn tail -clow in Part N, section D). "Ball ammunition" generall. onsi of l racket made of capper, and is the type of ammunition used b itch € ti ad yrs, i.e., those civilians who currently use fifty caliber rifles. Most other types of ammunition are currently banned for civilian use under state and fe a w In sura, a fifty l r ri_ e o NdtlihsFdth approximately one half of one inch in dia to ;w eh o ��hu d of an inch different from other common calibers. As with most other caliber rifles available to the public today, the �° �N p # IA° '�5 314. Z` p t ts.$' � ,q. ..�. 18 # - e a Bull � no sph rico ro} ale"fir!6,"iwa rs batr 1. ..... 59. �� .. �., i0velocity:The speed of a projectile at any point along its trajectory,usually listed in"feet per second." 20Casing: the portion of a cartridge that holds the bullet,primer and propellant. It can shade of many types of metals, but is usually made of copper. 14 fifty caliber rifle is offered in multiple actions, some legal and some already illegal, and expels various types of projectiles, again, some legal and some already regulated statewide and federally. 3 As noted throughout the report, the main impact of proposed bans would be to outlaw the sale, transfer or use of single shot, bolt action fifty caliber rifles,using standard projectiles, i.e., the rifles used by match competition participants and big game hunters. CONFIDENTIA, L DRAFT NOT FOR PtJ'BLIC REI-jE.,'X" ,, SE 11 of 15 PAST III. EVOLUTION OF THE FIFTY CALIBER RIFLE AND AMMUNITION The evolution of the fifty caliber rifle is best seen through examination of the fifty caliber Browning Machine Gun cartridge (".50 BMG"). The Commission has reviewed the history of the .50 BMG and found that it was not designed for use in a"sniper" weapon for the military. Rather, as the name suggests, the .50 BMG was designed as a World War I light armor bullet, primarily for use in machine guns. The .50 BMG was later modified by civilians for use in fifty caliber rifles for sporting purposes. The civilian modifications to fifty caliber rifles and ammunition were subs _ eily o e d,-i t , r lea m ario miIfli y pu es,in din t o s it to „ a To, top ntsealed cant tion glib i red w e n tinre a ee is htstorica ly inaccurate and, as noted earlier, adds nothing to the informed debate over the proposed Mans. A. DEVELOP 1V (� , F Y Development of the. < cl e v i 2IIARTRIDGE e request of General John (Blackjack)Pershing during World War I. He requested a heavy machine gun cartridge because of American experienc- wit to li pon m to B an nations during the war. The request forth i w on cted t ehe r e ting Arms Company, in April 1918. The propo ed ge . s t ave bo ac e ti-tank capabilities.' In late 1918, work on the cartridge was transferred from Winchester to Brankford Arsenal, where it remained (almost 'i. ly).�n r 11 i Wo YY' 22 Design work on the cartridge itself was perform J n Bo Colt. T fift caliber cartridge as adopted by the U.S. Array was else 11y a ale 3 6 rtr'd Advances in tank armor quickly outpaced that of anti-tank rifles, making the fifty caliber round ineffective again .e enrr .,. o War tales. ith t es s, development of the anti tank rifle was drop d n R MG t beta al x s'v ly a heavy machine gun caliber cartridge. e st a un s�t d rte d s l 1921.24 In 1924, the �tHa ;y of�g�dern it�Sma uniti ,v> 4 - F.W. Hackl L. Scranton& 9 T e facrt� l ;�t York w rk. 9.� bacq .�,. . . l .. „ ,4� .,".. .,.. mNIQ "Machine Guns-A Pictorial,'tactical,&Practical History,Jim Thompson,c1989,Paladin Press,Boulder, Co. 24Ibid. 16 fifty caliber Browning Machine Gun Cartridge was adopted for use in that machine gun." This .50 BMG cartridge is still used by the military in modern machine guns in essentially the same formas the 1924 cartridge, subject to certain technological improvements. With respect to American arms, the .50 BMG is the oldest continuously serving caliber left in existence, next to the .45 ACP (which has been replaced in service by the 9rnm Parabellum, a cartridge standardized by the US military in 1942).26 The 30-06 caliber cartridge preceded the .50 BMG cartridge by over 10 years,but that cartridge was retired from active front-line service by the end of the 1970's. The 7.62 NATO caliber wasn't developed until the late 1940's, and the 5.56 caliber wasn't in service until the 1960's. In sum,the US military's standard issue heavy machine gun caliber is still the .50 BMG. Unlike the other calibers, it has never been replaced,just upgraded. B. .50 BMG CARTRIDGE MANUFACTURERS More than a dozers companies manufacture .50 BMG cartridges. Each manufacturer stamps its mark on their product so that a cartridge can be identified. The United States .50 BMG Manufacturer's codes are as follows:" FA Frankford Arsenal, Philadelphia PA S fie g na c nt, mb� ancf y. m L e y N. ala. t, ep_. enc lC) LM Lowell MA M it ee Ordnanc ukee Wl RA i ton, I ins, ri p T ** REM-UMC i o on Ili rid Bridgeport CT SID lit , Do H SL St. Louis Ordnance Plant, St. Louis Mtn SMCO turf , s TW in ies dnanc n in N U n e P t, Salt, ake ' e ntifier) UT Utah Ordnance Plant,Salt Lake City UT (early identifier) W Winchester(durin initial rotot e case development) WCC Pil r( L Germany, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Turkey, UK, USA, and Yugoslavia. For military users, the .50 BMG has been widely recognized as an outstanding small arms caliber cartridge. But the .50 BMG cartridge would more than likely have remained a machine- gun cartridge in the eyes of the military, had it not been for the founders of the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association., Inc. ("FCSA}5), nearly twenty years ago. C. EVOLUTION TO COMPETITIVE'TARGET SHOOTING 1. The Fifty Caliber Shooters Association The Fifty Caliber Shooters Association is a Sports Shooting Club, organized in 1385 for the purpose of promoting the sporting aspects of the .50 BMG cartridge. FCSA founders Skip Talbot, Marty Liggins, and Eric Williams saw the .50 BMG as a rifle cartridge that could be used for long-range, 1,000-yard civilian match competition. The military .50 BMG cartridge was modified and improved upon significantly for civilian sporting use. FCSA was organized as a non-profit corporation in Tennessee, starting with a membership of abo ,t Ily ent �peop S' zati., l 4 w ori me hers CSA is gov. ,.'ep . ele- d d a o r t , e n 15 tes d 22fore coon `es. f t e et o ng a: c nic i t!Is an b�rn e afe recur . ince °3 , ile its f red as° �ie " phis injuries, this sport has had none. FCSA is comprised largely of professional people from diverse walks of life, including d , w lent'' ts, t enforcement. The average fifty caliber enthusiast is a s ce u ssi wi ann I income of$50,000 or more. In his testimony before Con re n si t the Fi Caliber Institute, explained that the typical participant in the sport of fifty caliber target shooting has the demographic profile of a golfer. Since its early b n in If 5, sport all s g has become increasingly competitiv . gt 1, m r `tors �4ftn oer s l >.`f they could hold all their bullets on a six foot square target at 1,000 yards. Today's competitor must be able to shoot consecutive five shot growrwithnin eight inches or less to be com,etitive in this growing sport. This .has been a direct resipr e n ale in h og bullet design and equipment, prompted by tpots o ' a ctor. 1 i he FCSA. In addition to improving the sport of coe in , h se v r c ro de benefits to the U.S. military, which adopted many of them. 2. n .ib is U.S. TiIry tl e ofSas 5 IV The United Sta :s lit a t ne tt f o lie cr 'a uy brou ht about bg Y civilian use of the .50 BMG cartridge. These improvements have not cost the United States Government any money in research and develo ment costs, and all of the improvements have been dei dtly.�vailatar,0 ni 4111 "1 la'��nforee et t VCS had paT,lisT e c utterly.pe odical, Ver High 'older, site f y8 ' h r� q g ine R, serves as it's voice and the clearing douse for technological development related to the sporting uses of the .50 BMG. The FCSA works closely with the manufacturing sector and together they l8 maintain a direct liaison With the U.S. Military and law enforcement. This sport has allowed l~CSA to provide invaluable information to our national defense and law enforcement. When the sport of long distance shooting With a .50 BMG started in 1985, the US military was not using the .50 BMG for purposes other than those detailed earlier in this Report. After seeing the results of the improvements in technology and bullet design developed by civilian users of the .50 BMC cartridge in competition, the US military adopted the fifty caliber BMG for their own purposes in the early 1990's. In sum, FCSA focuses on the technical aspects of rifle design and precision ammunition for constructive applications Within lawful limits and promotes these concepts through legitimate and Well regulated competitive shooting events. Klatch competition shooting is a sport enjoyed by responsible men and Women from all Walks of life Who believe their sport should not be outlawed absent some fact-based,rational reason for doing so. Moreover, the lawful civilian use of fifty caliber rifles has contributed significantly to the development of military and law enforcement applications of the .50 BMG. Thus, any ban on civilian uses of the fifty caliber rifles at issue will not only bring an end to legitimate sporting uses of such rifles, but Will also have the unintended consequence of bringing an end to private/public cooperation in the further development of the .50 BMG." CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT N'OT FOR, PUBLIC `BBibliography:(1)-Histor of"ArmsAmmunition, mall Arms Ammunition Vol.1;F.W. Hackley,W.H. Woodin, &E.L.Scranton;c 1967;T rri or , 2)- artr g o t e World-5th Edition, Frank Barnes,c1985,DBI ) 7, W t tion Data Sheets-Small Caliber Ammunition,HQ a c hi ton C, Unclassified. (4)- History of Modern US Military on,Vol.2;F.W.Hac ey,W.H.Woodin,&E.L.Scranton; c1978;The Gun Room Press. (5)-TM9-1305-200,Small Arms Ammunition,HQ Departments of the Army&Air Force;.,,/61, hingt D ssift ft' #;un1,'Bil�hvyli Pictgr#;Tactica2_�Pce r 1 scary,Ji Thomps' 9,P in I Cts. { -1901Ation for rttnts of the Ar :° A '. or 57r, nDC, las ed. CritJohn F � );a Corrim£rni�atCo t e div, oi�ngnericaDense K ouP evepl5rt,LA; Jim Frigiola VTS Inc.Annandale,VA,Kent Lomont Lomont Precision Bullets Salmon,ID;Tom Owsley River Valley Ordnance Works Harvester,MO;Eric Williams Marty Liggins FCSA;Bill Woodin,Woodin Lab Tucson, AZ, 19 PART IV: RELATIVE PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS TICS OF THE FIFTY CALIBER RIFLE In reviewing claims regarding performance characteristics of fifty caliber rifles, the Commission found that proponents of the ban repeatedly cite capabilities of military weapons (already regulated in California) and special military ammunition (already illegal in California) to argue in favor of banning the civilian rifles at issue. Moreover, the proponents' claims regarding range, accuracy and power of military rifles and ammunition exceed even the most extraordinary acco i � its , t e m ;aid r e. s t o T Ic s ofaccs,4alo i _ no s t t p iss e be rr e, po e clai.: t ri e ecti ra rifles are approximately four tunes the actual figures, and twig the distance of world record shots (one made in Vietnam, and e� ad t ars ter if M a rte both by military specialists using fifty caliber rifles that e c an n mia Similarly, proponents' claims regarding the power and for o 0 r n rely sed on special military ammunition (incendiary, explosive, etc.) that is already illegal, rather than on the ball-type ammunition actually used by civilians. Conse uentl , one of the goals in this section of the Report is to distinguisNeclaims, erf�., a ara is i of AlRnL, ars and ammunition and the civilian versioon s s to ba We begin with fel lowe y the ommisslon s fif fact. A. CLAIMS RDING GE. ..AC Y� As cited below, pro s ak 'v cl s re d the range and accuracy of a fifty caliber rifle, including , at it c s o i 1 c ra F�at _,range of four miles, or is "effective" at that distance, with some reduction in accuracy. These claims are false. The U.S. Army Field Manual for the M82AIA S ecial A lications Scoped Rifle (TM 09629A-I0I1), as well as the anufactur s c en it pro c y et ir� nufacturing, state that the maximum effective' te o$. °� min �ary i �altb� e s �� tens(1,968 yards), or about one mile. Furth , ee rbel �zm-th tic esc i�g.:c f ilk tch competition shooting, hitting a target at 1,000 yards requires great skill and precision, as well as expensive equpent t is a&�,, at thte�r few"p .c�p,car ccom listen with a: an tr undertdealnd 'px.. herd� uson tlie'Te' ist caI AccuraFrfbe Res. � � ."'. "n"`E, wiz+ o-o-'�'�. a, .<�xi4 ,x.Ta k.,. X...... x..�, r" a+Flhv "� '"tom-,.� .. Below are claims that are made repeatedly by ban propone"nts such as Representative Waxman and the Violence Policy Center, overstating the range and accuracy of fifty caliber 20 firearms. Note that all use the 7,500 yarn figure, which is about 4.25 miles: At some potential sacrifice to accuracy, a .50 caliber sniper rifle can maintain its effectiveness at ranges of as much as 7,500 yards.29 Fifty caliber rifles are `accurate' up to 2,000 yards, meaning they will strike the intended target within this range.These weapons are "effective" up to 7,500 yards, meaning that, although accuracy cannot be guaranteed, the round will cause its intended effect at this distance if it strikes the target." These weapons are "accurate" up to 2,000 yards, meaning they will strife the intended target within this range. They are"effective"up to 7,500 yards, meaning that, although accuracy cannot be guaranteed, the round can strike a target at this distance.3t The most obvious problem with the 7,500 yard claim is that rifles, unlike artillery, are line of sight weapons,meaning that the target trust be within the person's view to use the rifle with any degree of accuracy. Thus, any claim that a fifty caliber rifle can fire with "deadly accuracy" or is "effective"up to four miles away is not only false,but absurd. A person cannot be seen from four miles away; there are no rifle scopes that can view a person four miles away." The 2,000 yard.cl 1 _is n entizeI fa e weve i- rossl n'slactina'ne mole fu below. B. A 1, lar s 7,5 c Exceed the World.Record by 300% Proponents state tha ifle of ces out to 7,500 yards (over four miles) with only a "pot ia1 r 1" ofjFh cy. he world record for a shot made with a military version fifty r ,,40ev yan elite Canadian marksman turn in Afghanistan. This team had access to a wealth of modern battlefield technology including laser rangefinders, Glo l S tellit osit' sys e ij . ation with other units. Even with all of these t , a d a mi t hto fire multiple rounds to strike a target at that an e en C.) This world record shot broke the prior record of 2,500 yards set by an elite Marine marksman in "Vietnam with a massive 128 pound tri od-mounted M2 fifty caliber machine gun, a record which stood for over i rs. ]H e sho rCar multiple shots, from a rapid fire machine dun, a ty fi rm�cu., a pr abanned by federal and state law. These are not typical examples of the range of a fifty caliber rifle,but instead represent two record-breaking s s J;'xnL� lt ark en,, sift i weapons. Still, neither of these two ex s , rte r aimed by proponents of the ban on civilian ver 29 Vi i'�i�y Ce �� !fin h �U ` PKidl> 19 , p.5. 0U ose tRe +es �ttfi ' e on G rn nt lefo' Mind ty Staff R ort' n ',.y , CalabeSnterer;pore ;'laf � , ort(), On House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform,Minority Staff Report Fifty Caliber Armor Piercing Military Ammunition in the united States Civilian Market,(June 18, 1999)p, 1. '`Jeff Huber,CEO Nightforce Scopes,Inc., John Williams,CEO U.S.Optics,Inc. 21 World records aside, the four mile claim is also false because one simply cannot see a target at that distance. According to.Teff Haber, CEO of Nightlµorce Optics, "There is no rifle scope made which would allow a marksman to even see a human-sized target at four miles, much less shoot at it."J3 A bit of common-sense market reality makes this condition clear; no company has been driven to resolve the complex optic solution required to produce such a huge,expensive scope because there is no rifle that can accurately fire at a target at that distance. Another barrier to the proponents' four mile range claim is ballistic instability, an irrefutable law of physics. As a rifle bullet decelerates in flight, it becomes unstable, essentially "wobbling" in flight. An unstable bullet will make random deviations in it's flight path. This makes targeting at the distances cited by the proponents impossible.3' 2. Although the 2,000 Yard Claim Is Not False, it Is Crossly Misleading As previously stated, the top two world record shots with a fifty caliber, military weapon are 2,640 and 2,500 yards. In Voting from the Rooftops, published in October 2001, the VPC acknowledges that about one mile (1,760 yards) is the maximum range for fifty caliber firearms: These ranges,in the vicinity of one mile, are at the outer limits of what may be expected from a skilled marksman.35 B t en F. froth € ma . ert yng� ''t a ..,a I ert ritin anI� ilia. h ' Iv s t t Iib s a ccu a t� ges .at 1, r ant n th an o - p e y rai an el , is ,n marksman, nearly 2,000 yards In their earlier paper n,Sh e Kill fro f ) C represents T.J.S. Marine Corps Sergeant Carlos Hatc I g c 3 c -se g 1 at1wi Vietnam as merely "unusual." In fact, it would r e et es retroops in Afghanistan would manage to duplicate Hathcoc s `unusua eat--an is onlya team of highly trained marksmen with access to high-tech laser equipment. Throughout the entire first gulf war, the longest confirmed snip illy ge tr e�1 , y d forces usually engaged Iraqis at distan e 1 :' 0 d�ss.39 �en 'e a s e[J.S. military to the some of the best-trainer dna s phi ted u' e world, it is clear that the maximum effective range of fifty caliber, military weapons is well below 2,000 yards, and nowhere near the 7,.500 yar, 'gurto , peat -1 fa hitt' a target at 1,000 yards is a remarkable shot.3. Wor +Cho s t alie he , w Are Conducted at 1,000"Yards Proponents cit x tar ons 'p capa ilities of world-cli m �on�ompetitors as the level which the "average cri e die with; sic r cal riff ong-range 33 Jeff Huber,CEO Nightforce Scopes, Inc.; John Williams,CEO U.S.Optics,Inc. 34Se end' forIdetail ex lana ems �����rt�=°� ,�� �35 ITViolP .y CetVoler2E}£ p36 gg �: K' g37 Ibid.at yFoy' o de ails onartne`iergeat t rltt "1 Iat 'Icon k's and otli r*6t1 re ord sK6 ee A6ent ix C subsection E) 9r. 8Violence Policy Center,One Shot, One Kill, (May 1999)p.5. 39ViolencePolicy Center, Voting from the Rooftops, (October 2001) p. 10. 22 marksmanship, however, is an uncompromising discipline which requires years of practice and an extensive investment in equipment. It requires an understanding of science, including physics and meteorology. Cane-thousand yards has been the standard maximum range for fifty caliber competition shooting in America. Even so, at this range the targets are six-feet square and competitors are allowed to fire preliminary "adjusting rounds" to obtain a point of reference to bring their shots onto the six-foot square target. Competitive marksmen must know the precise range to the target as well as the altitude above sea level, the temperature and barometric pressure. They must know the direction and velocity of all wind crossing the intervening thousand-yard space, a process which requires a series of wind flags set at specific distances, along with a suite of meteorological sensors such as anemometers and other wind speed indicators. Marksmen need to know the ballistic coefficient of their ammunition, its weight and the velocity at which it will exit the muzzle of the rifle. With precise data in all of these categories, a marksman must process these variables through a series of mathematical calculations necessary to project the complex, dual-axis ballistic arc that the bullet will travel downrange. This calculation will produce "dial-in" values,expressed in Minutes of Angle (MOA) or sub-MOA "clicks" which must be accurately input into the rifle scope. All this must occur before the individual even shoulders the rifle. � q ip e re remeat e uai x ens` et not. ow-e ;- procts, bu `re - ct it ri t eac tIte n ou do r range, and 'trove, ese> 'fl s rn t p o y n ; m re oti ca induce erratic vibrations that tstort t e ar�ncinic alance requirerecision barye performance. All competitors require an expensive telescopic sight that, prior to the event, must be properly mounted and ca u a 'to t rifle re: eed match-grade ammunition, often hand-made and match in i cit n. r. Banc marksmen will actually de-burr and polish each round to n-i' ii i tis ,h ,iht induced by the slightest irregularity in the bullet surface. Many marksmen require personal accessories such as shooting gloves and padded ves Once competiti e k en e dudeFORey must sit on a level, solid bench-rest or assts e r E; g p , tion, enchrest" cradle to hold the rifle steady. They will have a period of time, typically several minutes, in which to fire. During this time they must while attemptin to aim, maintain an a eness of the changing wind conditions; at 1,000 yards a of ve h n pus let Awards of 50 inches away from the target point. The r sm m st at e coi id ce of precise wind conditions, precise sight alignment can t et an ci nt thi cle to squeeze the trigger. The trigger squeeze itself must be perfect to avoid a shift in aim,throwing the round off target. Upon firing, th } i ire 'ilsnt;_ he sh ui AM s a aging this recoil in precisely the same ma ro 'fr�t t hat is. �ntic ing. Assuming that every aspect of the sho s iv st'A nal va ,able ani n '. rifle is "perfectly accurate," due to variables in metallurgy, machining, combustion and external conditions too small c� meatre. ulletseamvtng ny. ifle do. € :.withnan in nt marks f r, so exp ssed in M�A A tine =r,A rine , red erfeetl t a - , still h , e a; 5-inch p s a eta distance of dhe tho nd��s. fles ca abl ?f sub A . e comp I t F tr and . . , .w, x . _.,fir , z , Lambrghinr s of the shooting world=exotic and very`e penstve.,.x ke t ese erotic cars, very few people can operate them within a fraction of their potential. 23 It is only when all of these factors come together that a world-championship competitor is able to place a group of rounds within a several inch area. There are perhaps fifteen people in the world who have been able to achieve this level of performance. For the vast majority of competitors, a group covering several feet is a great achievement. In short, even someone experienced in the use of firearms would have little, if any, chance of hitting a six-foot square target at one thousand yards" "Yet groups like the VPC continue to disseminate what can only be termed propaganda in an effort to convince legislators and the general public that anyone—and certainly experienced users of firearms---can pick up a civilian fifty caliber rifle and, with a little training, hit a target at 1,000, or 2,000, and even 7,500 yards. After reviewing the evidence available from the military and from manufacturers of these rifles, the Commission has found that,while civilian versions of the fifty caliber rifle are capable of hitting targets at long distances, the claims made by proponents of the ban on these firearms concerning accuracy and range are either false or grossly exaggerated. C. RELATIVE RANGE AND ACCURACY When the founders of FCA organized in 1985, they selected the .50 BMG after closely examining the ballistic characteristics of the cartridge. It was evident to them the cartridge was cap �fe � an e an e y it JtAF Cfou ers estltsh an �tia rt o g �tioe e esf s - tincoin it'l e 'at.1 yar the. e fsa ed, . e of competitions at that range were the Nigh Power and Palma competitions, using a thirty caliber rifle. From the onset,the . B G rm fec y at g distances. In early competitions, top arksme e ab t a e- o gr ng of bullets on a six foot square target at 1,000 yards. Through improved bullet design,case redesign, improved design of rifle receivers and barrels, it is possible for to marksmen to shoot a 2 tl2 inch group of five bullets at that distance. This has e t I y resu oVnot, owever, 9te mprovements developed by civilian ar e nv ed this sp The fifty caliber rifle using 5 .50 roup isost accurate rifle at 1,000 yards. At this time, the record for the smallest group ever shot at 1,000 yards was achieved using a thirty caliber rifle, a t as r h :roup t j u ,er 2 11/2 inches), not the 5 shot groups used in fifty cal o ti o r re no c s maintained by any known sports shooting organizatio r dis s l, th ar dpared to the other calibers, the .50 BMG is not as accurate, but will shoot farther than most thirty caliber cartridges. In the distance categorm S fo f etive ouSao sV�' of 1,760 yards(1 mile), while the effecti ' a or urac t�iirt libethe 1,200 1,500 yard range. However, as sta o , t e sty o t,a el antes, using either rifle, requires a tremen o' s M un o raining acid experience. °This�Stwtiod�ptaine€e o p iCati�ii ,tal o shad al eatable,and i �tn �s fo 00 yard cdrri Citib The lue e i' Dived in e ri Vis,thea units and the sit nc f in ilk ou s ., eve's P requir s at`investment in�a€ ' n . n "rne. n coinbitt °th eve squire it s and f sophistication to a military marksman or more simply,unknown distance,long range shooting, with the desired effect beim the destruction of something or someone,an entire new set of problems occur. These are addressed in detail Appendix C. 24 D. CLAIMS REGARDING THE T'OW'ER OF.50 BMG As with their claims about accuracy and range, the VPC and other proponents of the ban on civilian fifty caliber rifles base their claims about the power of such rifles when firing military- type ammunition. As discussed below, much of this ammunition is already illegal in California. 1. Proponents Of The Fifty Caliber Ban Overstate The Power of Ammunition Legally Available In California An analysis of the law already governing the sale of the specific types of military ammunition cited by the proponents of the fifty caliber rifle ban reveals that these types of ammunition are explicitly controlled by the U.S. military, and already illegal for civilian sale or ownership in California. a. Armor-piercing, Incendiary,Tracer" SLAP and Raufoss Multil2uWose 50 Caliber Ammunition Types Are Not Legally Available in California Proponents of the fifty caliber rifle ban cite the following ammunition types that they allege present a threat to the public: • Armor-piercing ("AP"); ' Incenda a . um,o • 'I racer;axi nanfop k 1 . ' Ball Traced AN A,PVT MP SLAP • Sabotd Lrit Arrear ` e rat ( AP" r, Ainrnunatibri;'ifid • Raufoss Multipurpose (armor-piercing, explosive, incendiar)' .A nn 'n��42 Though there is some`rave se fi types of ammunition can bjac, t separate categories: • Armor-Piercin mmunitton. Incendiary Am tron � . • 'Tracer Ammuni iAAAori .,�_. • r Explosive Ammunition Figure 4: Types of. 0 Caltber Ammunition. 13 Ll C -E,A, SE m .., w , r t as � q­ 41 V0 1'ol VIP cy Centel V�trrtg f`rvr t tie �r i taps £3cfober Zo£31 p.`tt3 (Ti er anl3tic3ftt3tian' amtlrar to the j)ublic from scenes of night combat, leaves a visible trail of incendiary light.Variant rounds combine armor-piercing, incendiary, and tracer effects.) 42fbld. 25 Proponents of the fifty caliber rifle ban refer to the rifle as an "ammunition-delivery systern,,,13 and then focus on powerful military-type ammunition that could be delivered using the rifle to argue in favor of a ban. Proponents also state that"armor--piercing, incendiary, and explosive ammunition is readily available on the U.S. domestic civilian market."' These arguments, however, ignore two basic points. First, every firearm is an "ammunition-delivery system"and could be used to deliver military-type.and/or illegal ammunition. Second, with one exception (noted below), every type of"armor piercing,"explosive, incendiary, and tracer t ATUtiAL SED MAIN BLACK BLUE t.tC HI AL.UtAI+UM $1M AM KATURAL OROAA Gf- BLUE ALUM04UM ALUf*NUfA 0 4 0 $ALL, TRACER ARMOF4, INCEINIMARY ARMM AF MOR OWMY BLANK PIECING PIE"G PIERCING WENDIARY INCENMAY. TRACER Figure 1.14.Ammunition for the M2. Figure S: Different types of fifty caliber B.MG cartridges,most of which are already illegal in California. This dia ._ i a fr th t' stat Ary € n 23-55 ammunition highlighter by o net an steel a e is iso it California. b. Armor Piercing_Ammunition (SLAP and Raufoss Ammunition): The first category arf-V u I 'on t prop nt s a or piercing ammunition. California prohibits the sal j a h 'ti "des e rimarily to penetrate metal,¢s ¢3lbid. , 44Ibid. xi 'SPenal Code section 1232 ) es U rrtxt�ni n d i e i€y etr e metal or armor" means any ammunition,except a shotgun shell or ammunition primarily designed for use in ri es,that is designed primarily to penetrate a body vest or body shield,and has either of the following characteristics: (1), pro', He or.vrojecti,i co, .tract d circ Txclu, ' th Bence of s 'r tZ t4D6 from one or rrtii ' tion•� kfungs oys�w eel, i�o ra "beryllitit co p �p , or de feted eent tnaten 1 .,fit ar cns ors. (2)l <prt artIY� nuf r or signet€ �b ��virtbe oftts shape rocs-se'ctlAal d ;o c tt g d thereto, including,but not limited to, ammunition commonly known as"KIVVImmunition," to breach or penetrate a body vest or body shield when fired from a pistol, revolver,or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. 26 armor, body vests or body shields." Knowingly possessing armor piercing ammunition is a felony. The federal government also prohibits the manufacture or sale of armor piercing ammunition,except for use by law enforcement and the military, and severely penalizes those who use armor piercing ammunition in the commission of a crime.'' By limiting the definition of"armor piercing" to "handgun ammunition," however, both the California legislature and the federal legislature have implicitly exempted some conventional ammunition made for sporting rifles, such as the .50 BMG, from these provisions. Thus they are not statutorily deemed "destructive devices" and have legitimate sporting uses. Ammunition used in a rifle is still considered handgun ammunition (and banned), however, if the ammunition is principally used in pistols and revolvers. Also, the proponents' references to Saboted ammunition are misleading. For example, Saboted Light Armor Penetrator(SLAP) Ammunition, as the name implies, is designed to penetrate light armor. It does so by replacing a given caliber gun's projectile with a projectile of smaller diameter, but more dense .material. To seat the smaller projectile in the larger ammunition case, and still obtain the necessary spin from the gun's rifled barrel, the projectile is wrapped in a "sabot" or "shoe." The shoe rides the length of the gun's barrel, then drops away from the vUXI f'� un crL s edirispec illy si renfifty caliber rifles cannot function with saboted ammunition, such as the SLAP cartridge. One cannot fire discarding-saboted am "'t n 7-4wea�z n fit �a ozzle device, unless it has been certified for that weapon. S is e' etded tclisc mm ately upon exiting the muzzle, about where the choke, as f1 � er ,a r o mt ` rle : ear Dented. If the sabot fails to disengage properly, it could cause such devices to be physically ripped away from the weapon, become damaged or blocked adversely affecting subsequent,projectiles or material may be thrown back towards th o t r s ':c a' s. C. rac 21.1 Ion The second category of arm-nunition cited by the proponents is tracer ammunition. Tracer ammunition is identified as o'e t e that leaves ,trail oId ht r ,duced by burning material so the shooter can trace its pat I c amnutit x,rohia"destructive device under Penal Code section123(}1(a p gw h ovt e� "th estructtve device...' shall include...any projectile cont ing ...art' oth� ° ie � l` u` nee' �luding, but not limited to, that which is commonly known as tracer ... ammunition." Possession of a"destructive device" is i 4Penal Cade section 1212 ) v 'ryHd estr ale dmans '� ull crv: tant; atcrial intended to provide ballistic and trauma protection far the wearer or holder. 718 U.S.C. Sect 922(a)(7), 18 U.S.C. Sect 929. �sCh m An irior tube at ten�of a�arre##hat contfIs the�t�s ersia Chokes hall e ylin » : , "irnprc�v cel er," d�fie pr d mo�died aid "fullvhi�indicates th`e dgr�o . ze on� ,ote: a cylinder c C �aod y � sho dispersion,v Mas a full choke wt l p ovide a tnue�ttg r7iffernt�okar use` foret,trap;r{d sporting elhys. In ht#ttin",'the#ype of game and cnd�t�otis wi ... determine the choke type. 49Flash Suppressor: An attachment to the muzzle designed to reduce[muzzle flash(a flash suppressor is not a silencer). 27 a crime punishable for up to seven years in prison, with no probation allowed by law.50 Thus, the ammunition identified by the proponents of the fifty caliber rifle ban as "tracer ammunition" is already illegal in California. d. Incendiary.Ammunition: The third type of ammunition cited by the proponents is incendiary ammunition. Incendiary ammunition is ammunition that is designed to ignite materials around the impact zone and cause damage by a secondary effect of the resulting fire. As with tracer ammunition, incendiary ammunition also is considered a"destructive device" under Penal Code section 12301(x)(1). As such,possession of incendiary ammunition is a crime punishable for up to seven years in prison without probation. It is already illegal for use in any rifle in California, including fifty caliber rifles. e. Explosive Bullets (Raufoss Multipurpose .ammunition.): Finally, the fourth type of ammunition cited by the proponents is explosive ammunition, specifically, Raufoss Multipurpose Ammunition. Raufoss Multipurpose Ammunition, too, is illegal under Penal Code section 12301(a)(1), which includes as a destructive device "any projectile containing any explosive." In addition, explosive ammunition is illegal under Penal Code se, tion 1.p 20 which rovide that" a] erso n thi std e w Amnuf tures or cans. to anu t ,�m" rtsn tl asta �s o. b' e o� �ereo ale, or wh ves, i ds, p ss es u1l c a rgr;ca ng exp it. is punis b,e by ris men i �' 'cou .AI-n t e dt,ng ne ear,, . �in t short, there is already a ban on making, owning, selling or using explosive ammunition in California, regardless of the a @ins ue. f. The ion ll �ilabl for Civilian Use In California Is "Ball un1�€�nr wVL--ft- AL, As seen above, proponents of a ban on civilian versions of fifty caliber rifles describe the performance characters s t "§"e �ghli:.� C ab� , of military weapons using military ammunit o mm ltiri tha€ is " ale at aliforna.legally available to the ne l p bliI: all ammunition is the: [S]implest and most common round of firearm. ammunition . . . . The U.S. Army says 50 caliber ball ni on°i u ed or, ming= d ain t personnel and light material targets. Ba .' . 1 peA et[ti� p er th t specialized rounds discussed [above].St �9 In addition, as noted above, the sole producer of small arms ammunition for the Department of Defens d es�ao�dist armcar�,Ft�r even light, no<< s target for which fifty caliber ball amrnunitio s, si . ed Finally, is sle g f n �cinents to focus on the availability and destru ap tt ofeg unio i y t c t ext of fifty caliber "Pena ode tion 303. pe�orrtvuho se s...any estru v e device .. t art to intirnis .vPers o it tntentto cw n lly injur ;or diptroy any prop I o f o and b a@ shall be ptf �s bt ion � n th `state pr�sv for periodsf threee,or sever e bion 12311:�Ai "pe n cit>nvi d wtt5 anon U this ehaptdf shall be,"anfid rot tion, c�he' x cult-n of theme sentence imposed upon such person shall not be suspended by the court. 1 5#Violence Policy Center,Sitting bucks, (August 2002)Section One,available on the internet at www.vpc.org/studies/duckone,htm. 28 rifles;and use it as an argument in favor of such a ban. To the extent that illegal ammunition is a problem, it is a problem that extends to many firearms, and constitutes a separate issue altogether. That is, it is not a problem that is caused by or affects only the fifty caliber firearms that the proponents seek to ban. 2. Ammunition Illegal for Civilian Use Is Manufactured And Available for Non-Civilian Use In Other Calibers Not Covered By The Proposed Bans Specialty ammunition with armor-piercing, incendiary or tracer capacities are not limited to fifty caliber. They are currently produced in numerous calibers, both larger and smaller than fifty caliber, for use by military and law enforcement, and can be fired from a variety of rifles and shotguns.52 Thus, the alleged risk of criminal and terrorist acts using such illegal ammunition is a risk that is not necessarily or even primarily associated with the availability of civilian versions of the fifty caliber rifle,and is an issue that is more appropriately addressed separately. For example, evert assuming some of the terrorist threats posed by proponents of the ban are feasible or realistic (and this Report concludes that they are not), such threats are more dependant on the use of explosive, incendiary, or other types of ammunition (that are already illegal) than the caliber of the firearm at issue. The Commission has found no evidence to support proponents' arguments that Bann" y r sI >>� ~si� < i�carrspc � n ttresmate with use of ills arnrrt ilio r s era 1 he':to Elan- lr d e rnie That th ryl:.lpp t-Imp $.r_} of Legal Firearm Calibers in California Is Sixty Caliber Small arms almmum , n e . e ;as a fire"" ii—abi ff on up to and including 20mm (.787 inches) in size.�3 `I he to rnia� alr exaI' The ned the issue of which calibers they deem to be a threat to l t r e i citizen result of their examination was the codification of Penal Code section 12301(a)(3), which defines fixed ammunition greater than sixty caliber, excNmu u u sin p4ojec4l or t:)as illegal "destructive devices." California lrs i v erio pro' i s ended sentences or ? probation. That the lesl w u r thres l a 0 c b ,l t ties that firearms using less than sixty caliberion, ' cludi" g fifty ca fiber r fs;pre` ent a insufficient threat to intervene in the legitimate sporting and hunting rights of firearms enthusiasts. 4. Prop eUro y '' mat Ty + Fi '" 6 fiber Rifle Can oot N i Z o ;cusp l il` Ings Various unsupported assertions have been put forth alleging that a fifty caliber rifle can shoot through six (or in somequotes, seven) buildings.-The proponents make no distinction between thatched huts c, cr e c �ercial � rctureor tteyt�any formal tests or other empirical data to sup it io t �� n S2htt tVW. .� epage/ du .. " sxi 53�TM 7e is �:of Mary a Rs � iated T-'' ms:Jea l Pub€icaticr�i k-02(X"Ohl 1 ,2001 a_s amenpts r otl p. 'vat a le http:/�wtivw.d� c.nlifi€octrine"jf Vn w�pufi`s! 10 1_02.pdf. See,e.g., Blagojovich and Waxman, United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, Minority Staff Report(May 3, 1999)p. 1. 29 Neither the United States Armed Forces in general, nor the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in specific, nor any other industry or scientific body responsible for testing and establishing ballistic performance, have any unit of measure which would correlate to a "building." (Compare, for example, the RHAe unit commonly used to establish the penetration capability(in millimeters) of a ballistic projectile fired into a uniform thickness of"Rolled Homogenous Armor Equivalent.") In developing the interactive firearm training program, SafetyOn, a team led by Commission member Michael Marrs constructed a number of wall modules based on standard residential construction guidelines, representing both interior and exterior walls, which were subjected to a variety of handgun rounds ranging from 9mm to .45 caliber. Test results proved conclusively that variables as minor as cosmetic coverings, structural materials or angle of incidence could dramatically affect the ability of a given round to penetrate even a single wall. Given that the term "building" could refer to anything, and that there is no record of a formal test ever having been conducted on a specific row of buildings, proponents' assertions are baseless. In an effort to establish even a basic point of reference, the Commission interviewed retired U.S. Army tank commander William Miller who served in the elite OPFOR Soviet"Training Unit stationed at Fort Knox. Miller confirmed that he had never heard of any test or reference for firearm performance expressed in terms of"buildings penetrated." Miller did offer,based on his eatenve,pro ss nam p �in1m ho � � anno120 Sri ,hB� e v �� a g lon �i � ��b Ims inremct I ca le d f to st °ou ' s e ohm co ete d uttyutl ngs. �' � .. , ., .. To demonstrate the fallacy of the proponent's position, the Commission can present actual samples and/or video-photo , p is do .,_ entat'on o std,+hp a fifty caliber round being stopped by a single plate of et l nth Pis to lt,°P i ens of American Defense Systems has done penetratio les o i+ calb m �i itlon sing armor piercing incendiary (API) rounds—against his o e an" Aen' Upc viewing the results, Mr. Piscitelli states: My firm has suNnd ll til dibfthese agents to ° ou inquestion. This as- efe ted,�o complete penetration, no partial fragmentation penes t ougly to�I non attack side of th1 s mi at . whose thickness wa .h") , P e u < was fired at 250 meters (273 yards). The actual penetration of projectile through the glass did no v, x� e 5ri.tlie � overall thick ne note ,pec antE u i et HeavyArm Plus 1.95. .� .. ��= d` ea�ig t e, H stair Athena API-PPI fifty caliber armor piercing incendiary In sum, if a single piece of safety glass can round. defeaI fiftalib arm ptrctn "tnncltarund, 4th ," f "� is absu�` t elle at y ft al�ber rdttnd nd ceainl not the ball�yp rc ur 3 d ailable for civtlfn man - la ;Rti�.rtg ,s� t?r seve ,btttttl�ngs Huh.asstios by'prorine t§of tie'ban serve only to emphasize the lengths to which they will go in disseminating false propaganda to support their efforts. 30 5. Proponents Of The Fifty Caliber Ban Misrepresent The Capabilities Of Fifty Caliber Firearms Available To The General Public (Military v. Civilian) As noted in the introduction to this section, throughout their reports, ban proponents emphasize the range, accuracy and power of military rather than civilian versions of fifty caliber rifles and ammunition to support their claims, e.g., that such rifles can blow up oil and chemical facilities, shoot down commercial aircraft,etc. These claims are addressed specifically in later sections, but it is important to emphasize here, in discussing the performance characteristics of the rifles, that proponents grossly distort these characteristics by ignoring the difference between military rifles and ammunition which are not available to California's general public, and civilian rifles and ammunition that are. The United Mates military uses many fifty caliber firearms that are not readily available to the general public, including fully automatic versions already regulated federally and by the State of California, and semi-automatic versions regulated by the State as "assault weapons." The capabilities of these firearms far exceed the fifty caliber rifles available in the State of California. For example, one military type fifty caliber is the Bushmaster machine gun, shown below. The fifty caliber Bushmaster machine un is a derivative of the combat- raven M242 25mm Bus ast to i n n o f ur in ss �w 3 4 vFrU+ Figure 7: .50 Caliber Bu ac in LIC., • Fires al � ti �f ��; Jibe �l �m am io nulling SLAP • Uses a e 4te • Weight a el r t�t r, r i s nc ntegral dual feeder) • Receiver 34.9 lb 15.9 kg • Feeder 13.8 lb 6.3 kg rlat fid" lb 34 EIMI C `kw ` £ @ t .. a . x ssATK Website: http://www.atk.com/homepage/products/ 31 • Rate of Fire: 400 spin(with burst limiter) Power Required: 28 V DC @ 25 amps Thus, the military's fifty caliber Bushmaster machine gun is an electrically powered weapon that can fire over 400 rounds per minute, and weights over 75 pounds. Obviously, this military weapon differs drastically from the fifty caliber rifles available in California and subject to the proposed bans. Yet, the VPC and others repeatedly cite the range, accuracy and power of such weapons in calling for such a ban (recall the 128 pound, tripod-mounted fifty caliber machine gun Marine Sergeant Carlos Hatchcock, one of the premiere marksmen in Vietnam, used in Viet Nam when making his world record shot for distance...a shot proponents refer to as merely "unusual"when using it as a basis for their claims regarding the accuracy and range of civilian rifles they seek to ban.) Proponents of the ban also point to military versions of semi-automatic rifles in arguing for a ban, such as the Barrett M82A1 semi-automatic rifle. The militaries of 35 countries currently use some variant of the Barrett M82A1.56 As configured from the manufacturer, this semi- automatic fifty caliber rifle is already illegal in the state of California. Its features include: • An extended length M1913 (Picatinny) optical rail to accommodate all new sighting and aiming devices including image intensification, laser designation ai ing s wl r P n s`glit - A I • QUI_ u liab° "poi24 9P1 with p keee • on pod tore uce fatigue in operations of long duration • Rear Crips f ' s inclement w a : • No-tools removable carry Figure 8: Barrett M82AI handle • Lightwe b: 1 arri r cis w Sk • Adjusta e p ing all, s full r n of s tion adjustment • Removale muzzle rake to acilitafe Barrel re `acement in he field • Rear sight calibrated for military ammunition. Unlike the fully auto aUle as r is ami-a is firearm can fire only as fast as the shooter can pull the trig r. N , € ear . it : oirie exceptions, is already illegal to possess in Californa: By com arison the Barrett M99 p r� .. bolt action fifty caliber fl u —n ly available in California resi ti er to manually load each­ n In� th chamber prior to firing, and is the type of rifle .3 ,icalk- used for mph nom , titian shoo# hoes irct feat �� d ' 'chable � ¢ FI 13tre 9 rr a9 iTiagait� , leer desi�tiatt �i t �Xiit'� , ` �, e, `"Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc, website at http://www.barrettrifles.convmilitary.html. 32 thermal weapons sites, nor does it include a rear site calibrated for military ammunition. Its features include: • Optical sight mount Cleaning equipment • Detachable bipod with adjustable legs Scope and Rings (Priced Separately) • Air/Watertight Carrying Case (Priced Separately) When the various versions of the fifty caliber rifle are compared, it becomes apparent that the military versions highlighted by ban proponents differ drastically in their function and capabilities from their civilian counterparts. Accordingly, the Commission recommends that any discussion regarding a ban on fifty caliber rifles should be limited to the features and capabilities of these firearms which are currently available to civilians in the jurisdiction considering the ban. Thus, in California, such discussions should exclude inflammatory claims based on performance characteristics of machine guns or similar military weapons and rifles currently banned as "assault weapons." Instead, the discussions should focus on the characteristics and capabilities of the rifles actually affected by the ban which, in this case, are mainly single shot, bolt action fifty caliber rifles, a limited number of semi-automatic rifles that are not deemed "assault weapons" (bec e le obi t Je f : es IZI a mgar isto tps,flas upprrs, fs �), d ztg r There are subcategories of fifty caliber ammunition, including musket types (generally a lead ball approximately one cl }, kth u a r e of much larger than a common forty-five caliber h dg r anfi libe rowning Machine Gun ("BMG"}. The term "fifty c ' n i er o bullet is approximately one half of one inch. The length of the cartridge is completely unrelated to the caliber. Each subcategory of fifty caliber ammun` ` n i�u t` al ren an tkt t preventing interchangeability. For a c if a 'Thand s w o f tion in a fifty caliber BMG rifle, nor will the if a er +( ridge e n a t er handgun's7 There are also different types of ammunition within each subcategory of fifty caliber ammunition. For the purpose of this document we will focus on t round most frequently cited by the proponents of a ban f lib Urh L c . MThe fifty caliber B was igi ag v iii ry use. Fifty caliber BMC ball ammunition is not designed to penetrate modem armor. In fact, Alliant Lake City Small Caliber Ammunition Company("ATK"), "the sole source provider to the U.S. Department of Defense for small calf m n� 'o ' state :th the, ty c i r 1 unition is "for use against personnel of u re meets But, ar r t unition made for the fifty caliber rifles.' Pr- o nt f tteyalir �r ,r e an ft Boit the destructive power of these other types of fifty caliber ammunition, types that typically are illegal for civilian use. For e pleroponents F f h'pe fifty ltb ri£l bans e th . �p K r ; 57 ;: °> P 161 Y See ppen4t €bra c ai Mccrrrt 3ari9on of`F1 '-e lt�i�r acorn "'tion iO4 16 58 Notably,fifty caliber arrununition is deemed"small caliber"or"small arms,,6y nearly every credible source on arms. "Small arras"are generally anything less than 20mm. S ATK Website:littp://www.atk.com/homepage/products/ 33 The 50 caliber ... rifle's performance is substantially enhanced by the use of ammunition specially designed to destroy hard targets . . . . This ammunition includes armor-piercing, incendiary, and explosive rounds specifically designed to attack targets similar to the bulk tanks, pipes, and other materiel in and around the typical refinery or other chemical industrial site.' But here again, proponents cite to illegal ammunition -- ammunition that has similar destructive capacities in both smaller and larger caliber firearms. According to ATK, fifty caliber ball type ammunition is not designed to pierce armor. Nor is it recommended for that purpose. In fact,one study shows that ". . .Based on a reduced charge that would approximate and simulate a complete charge, the following levels of penetration [of fifty caliber ball ammunition] can be noted as follows:,'' at 200 yds at 640 yds at 1,500 yds 1/4 inch armor plate complete 0.2" 0.11, 3/8 inch armor plate 0.1" 4.02" none Gravel 11.4" 10.11, 9.3" Brick masonry 7.01" 6.5" 2.6" C �to „ 2T ak . Dry Sand 14.9" 15.2" 17.5" Moist sand I 14.2" Loam 5. 23.6„ Greasy Clay 5” 28.9" Loose EarthNth 6. "' " In sum,ban pro ve atl xagge t pe characteristics of the fifty caliber rifle by Citace acy an o e f , :it pons and ammunition that are not the subject of the various bans they propose; for they are already banned. Moreover, even their descriptions of the militar functions and capabilities of such weapons are overstated., e.g., using world record miVoe n er s o a n ampl f < ri 's normal range and accuracy capabilities. It has become clearCommission urmgz i s investigal'on into proponents' claims that many proponents have adopted the philosophy that"the ends justify the means." In this case, unfortunately, the mea in `e , t „ 'of p I a Ind nS1Se6*1,',pr a da does riot stop with exaggerated performa ar sti as se the.� wc n� addressing proponents' claims of criminal anov4i Rx. .. C .f fi°Violence Policy Center,Sitting Lurks,(August 2002)section One available at www.vpc.org/studies/duckone.htin. 61 Johnson and Haven Ammunition Its History, Development and Use, 1943 Pages 212 and 213. 34 PART V. BANNING FIFTY CALIBER RIFLES WILL HAVE NO IMPACT ON CRIMINAL ACTIVITY Proponents of a ban on civilian type fifty caliber rifles claim that criminals use them to commit crimes and, further, that such rifles are, as Senator Levin puts it, the "weapon of choice for criminals." The Commission analyzed data relating to firearm traces and the fifty caliber's purported use in criminal activities, and found that the opposite is true. Fifty caliber rifles are rarely associated with criminal activity or criminal investigations. Moreover, to the limited extent that y" e X10 to it c i s l x o leg . ss stop char, s, not t tua s i is n a th ne sug st ' it empt to frigh`" n.1 p tz Bye I n fac sx, pp arguably are the among the last weapons of choice for criminals, for the reasons outlined below. A. AVASTF1 'AE FOR SMALL, IN XPRNS , SI (3 AL FIREARMS: PRIMARILY' HANDGUN BATFE tracing data and statistics demonstrate that handguns and other easily concealed firearms are more likel b t(On e =a ether f hat long gun traces are only a small a fraction res 111nually h ri G ce Reports (2000) states that "crime guns e d in ly dguns pe nt t the 88,570 firearms traced,67,905 were handguns. y 9,994, or 11 percent of firearms traced, were rifles. Only one of the top ten firearms was a lon gun, and it was a shot unColthe nct a rifle. This has been the trend since 1997, when the e were i i - )lish aliber rifles barely show up in traced firearm statistics. An analysis of the top ten firearms traced reveals that five top ten sell for approximately$10.00. The remaining five models that appear on the top ten firearms traced in A ks€z �: Tracing data has been widely used by proponents of the fifty caliber ban an other gun control groups to support their claims of wrongdoing by members of the firearm industry. 63 Crtrtt ;unce Re orts tate flrR'.�Eratcl c e gunk larihandgun pe-c t)" and ns were€$l �ifeval� slype r � s recon ' ad"NA,ss all a gr constitutn� ± e . o , a �. firearms. rt #p Gun mace £ (1' 8}.) Ihrirti �un Tr e Repos 1997}s es ,at Eight�c t of ev�i to ` rt g��'trac d�re.ttanelguns. I��nd tars` n�#de s inti �uto��ie is ls,re hers and derringers. in all sites,handguns are the largest category of ftreafm recovered by enforcement agencies. The percentage of crime guns accounted for by handguns recovered from all age groups ranged from 63 percent in Salinas to 98 percent in Atlanta. 35 the United States are firearms which generally sell for less than $350.00. These models include the Smith and Wesson .38, Ruger 9mm,Mossberg 12 guage shotgun, Smith and Wesson 9mm, and Smith and Wesson .357. Prices can vary depending on optional features and model, and tracing statistics can be influenced by a variety of variables, but the general theory holds that the most commonly traced firearms are the relatively inexpensive handguns (and one shotgun). B. FIFTY CALIBER RIFLES ARE EXPENSIVE AND ILL SUITED FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY The reason that criminals have not, and likely never will, use fifty caliber rifles to commit crimes would seem fairly obvious. Almost all civilian fifty caliber rifles legally available in California are single shat,bolt action rifles with no rapid fire capability. Fifty caliber rifles are extremely heavy, typically weighing upwards of 20 to 30 pounds, with some approaching 40 pounds. Reaching nearly five feet in length., they are unwieldy and literally impossible to conceal when Rally assembled. They are expensive,ranging in price from $2,500 to over$10,000, with quality optical sights costing $1,500 and up. The price of an average quality fifty caliber rifle (approximately$5,000 with scope) is about 15 to 25 times that of the ATF's top ten traced firearms. In addition, ammunition costs range from three to seven dollars per each round. These factors combine to make a fifty caliber rifle altogether unsuitable for criminal use, where inex s a c c t e lie ed an a ther typ f gun. he to co se e ort ncl ion. onet ss, " pr is i th t "Elft tal ri It ve e ill continue to be used in the commission of crimes and, therefore, should be banned. Accordingly, we will address those claim. w. C. CRIME ST I D. D S JC , ED BY PROPONENTS ARE EITHER I 1VII IN 1. NO alif Rifle HaveVd n ed in A Crimes in California, C' I n e e teat e The proponenti tl all ed tib t 's assertion that there have been no documented instances of criminal use of fifty caliber firearms in California, and only one such case nationwide: [Fifty caliber] apolo e at r e . ntra InCn ve been no documented instant of crt n° u i s' It is an example of the dictum that if you tell a lie often enough,people will believe it." The position pct tla r onen ' sed in 1 SerT, misunderstanding (or misuse) of BATFE tra st 2. 0 . s A p 4s to e.� ea n Trace Data According to the proponents: CH 1- 64 The Expert Commission does not,however,consider the firearm traces as any indication of wrong doing or criminal activity. 65 Violence Policy Center, Voting from the Rooftops(October 2001), p. 32. 36 [T)here are numerous documented instances of criminal use of 50 caliber rifles in the United States. The General Accounting Office reported in 1999 that of 27 traces involving the Barrett M82A t alone, 18 were associated with criminal activity and 3 were not associated with criminal activity. No determination could be made regarding£i traces." As a preliminary matter, the Barrett M82A t is already banned as an"assault weapon" in California. Further, 18 traces constitute an insignificant percentage of the total traces for any given year. But, putting these issues aside, the claim made here by the proponents remains grossly misleading, for it is based on the false premise that a firearm appearing in the BATFE Tracing System as "associated with criminal activity" has, in fact, been used in a crime. That is false,unless one uses a strained definition of"criminal use."The reason is that, although every firearm used in a crime is necessarily "associated with criminal activity," not every firearm "associated with criminal activity" has been used in a crime. According to the former special agent in charge of the BATFE tracing program, Forest Webb, the vast majority of firearms traced are coded as firearms violations even though most were not actually used in a crime." Mr.Webb states: rdef a 'rear toxt th ran ori e coI rr}u li rt g to ,e thp i A h • e, t se t ssub ted . ,t u �r . e co de It t tr ain fen It i is c aI w sub tti a t ace, uest n "dete n rid` crime code they would use the firearms possession or firearms offense code.6$ According to the BAS 's w' icA. � The general term `Fi _ sa tmT used by local law enforcement agencies and the National Tracing Center when more detailed crime information is not available at the time the trace request is submitted to the National Tracin en e Thus, a firearm at as u ,- fte µeir�g r ed' st a that was not used in a theft but was in fact the item stolen, or a firearm that was seized during a routine call for a domestic dispute simply bec4ujse it was within the residence would be traced, but not actually involved in any crime. The t f trice ca n the " to 'e a d void any relevance that the database has for statistics "perp . es. a r . t mus e dividuatly analyzed in order to make any rational opinion a�sut the ft c fi t bed. 3. Proponents Misrepresent Actual Trace Data Presented To Them In stating, that 1 .f ty c i r ri , s wer, d i rrte 9 e proponents distort the definition of"criminal ;s �ityf� cl Edi w i h t �f�onjir tit were the subject of bblbi,i 3I IN x ` 7Peo� 'a rar iews' ling oasis, Irl (2003)��n'I�sego Superior Court',JCC 409 ala t � fpr � V6 A a .. Webb�n SuppAW of Mo n to' irike`�Evtc��nce"at p: p� graph��;.1ii�cs Z4-� . 68 People v.Andrews Sporting Goods, Inc. (2003)San Diego Superior Court,JC;CP 4095: Declaration of Forest Webb at p. 4 paragraph 9, lines 9-I4. 69BATFECrime Gun Trace Reports(2000). 37 the crime (i.e., the theft of a rifle) and firearms in the possession of a person who is the subject of an ancillary crime in which the firearm was not involved at all. An actual look at the General Accounting Office ("GAO") report the proponents cite shows the lack of foundation for proponents' assertion that there are numerous documented cases of fifty caliber rifles being; used in crimes. Among the various events listed in the GAO report that supposedly supports the proponents' claim that fifty caliber weapons were used numerous times in crimes are the following: * Religious Cult—In 1989, two members of a church, describer)by BATFE as a doomsday religious cult, were arrested and charged with federal firearms violations. The church followers had built underground bunkers in Gardner, Montana, to await the end of the world. The two suspects had used false identification to purchase hundreds of firearms, including 10 fifty caliber semi- automatic rifles.70 * Drug Dealers—In cases in California, Missouri, and Indiana, law enforcement officers executing search warrants recur=ererl fifty caliber semi-automatic rifles in the possession of drug dealers." • Mentally III Individual— In a 1998 case in Michigan, an apparently mentally ill a 'ec se a r o, kilt , , a lic; owi g th bject's an :' r v e v 15 e fr i res n e ' clu g o= fifty cal' : r e u ati fl it s t he fl ed the oo i H as ble urs' A Wea � a y b e. �ha no r ial o Stolen Weapon—The BATFE in Houston arrested a subject for possession of a fifty caliber t � riff at `b from the legitimate owner who resided Ca o • Militia Grow es i i T— tier of e Mountaineer Militia in West Virginia was arrested in a plot to bomb an FBI office in Clarksburg, West Virginia. In a subsequent sea h of hi home, a eats rec erect one fifty caliber semi- automat nu y o of er f What all of the, ,rec in :;x ple ave in m s t n the fifty caliber firearms mentioned were "used in a crime" at all. On the contrary, law enforcement officers merely found fifty caliber weapons in the possession of persons who had committed completely unrelated crimes. In the cas tol a n, e cri i Ive was that of stealing the, firearm. Neither theft of a arm r it g p. e ion p re. ns is what most people have in mind when they are told tha -fire vvas s i -4n ' Similarly, ban proponents have tried to link fifty caliber rifles to the Oklahoma City Bombing and the Wac �st - , ° curse n tail,� elo�t� it States Treasury Department Inventory ea m nitia fire co e covered at Waco lists not a single fifty calibe =ri �n aig �xcr ft�cait� _ Io�nor is there any � ryaUnit ea ;E ene ',Accor ti f�e, Bde Pa r, Crimt�alA ti Associate e �le gr e - auto4t 7, (July--i NO W A ' 'JP ?I "I 't 72lbid. 73Ibid_ 74Ibid. 38 physical evidence (bullet holes, spent casings, etc.) that a fifty caliber rifle was fired at the scene. The Oklahoma Bombing involved the detonation of 4800 pounds of ammonium-nitrate and fuel oil explosive (ANFQ) hidden in a Ryder Truck. There were no firearms of any kind used in the Oklahoma Bombing. It was a bombing, not a shooting. The "link" that ban proponents rely on is that the individuals involved in these high profile crimes either owned, or were believed to own, fifty caliber rifles. The propaganda technique used here is called "transference." Proponents attempt to transfer the fear associated with the horrific event to the rifles owned by those responsible for the event—even though the rifles were not used in the event and had nothing to do with the event itself. As seen in Part VI, transference is also at the heart of the proponents' arguments regarding the alleged terrorist threat posed by fifty caliber rifles. 4. Proponents Misrepresent Actual Cases Allegedly Involving Fifty Caliber Rifles The Violence Policy Center has frequently provided other instances of supposed use of fifty caliber firearms in crime. However, only one of the proponents' examples--the 1992 Chamblee, Georgia incident discussed above-can withstand scrutiny. a, Albert Petroskv: eir P blit ion f t 9fto , the V ole, e e ter misrep $eats the ort A -et in , w h t lath s el the offers n County She i's Cif e w l}e T p tip erg re e� "e-tor; o } Pe sky f�l€� J _.di f}n Apri 28, 1995, Albert Petrosky walked into an Albertson's Grocery Store in suburban Denver, Colorado and gunned down his estranged wife and the store manager. Armed wit n A izA 0 c, —� t rifle, an SKS Chinese semi-automatic assn ri , ev an , mm mi-automatic pistol, Petrosky then walk a nt e pin, e er park lot, where he exchanged fire with a federal IRS agent passing by and killed Sgt. Timothy Mossbrucker of the Jefferson C t he `f ' D Int.75 The clear implz is sa is that is ent' upermarket carrying his fifty caliber firearm, t}t._ m h rte d i ,..4wkil} S,` ,Ivlosu er at the news articles cited by the Violence Policy Center, however, shows no support for these claims., Authorities say thePnto, - an a d with th ° Elft Bal er firearm], the pistol, a high-power hin s to ifle a m semi-automatic handgun when he wa lrt n' �,'a ' Petrosky took four weapons--including a.50-caliber rifle—to the Albertson's supermarket at Ki glin Ltanf��;eBowles ve u� F at morning and waited for his e c , toD .Itr _` rr s t s conference Saturday." dw �,. Instead of indicating that Petrosky lugged his 30-pound Grizzly fifty caliber firearm (along with hree of er guns) into the Alber> oart'� when,he began ht rampage, what the news articles ; � 75 Violence Policy Center, Voting from the Rooftops(October 2001},p.35. 76"Suspect Failed Handgun Check,"Denver Rocky Mountain Nems, 2 May 1995,p.5A. 77,,Albertson's suspect was a wanted man,"Denver Rocky Mountain News, 30 April 1995,p.4A 39 cited by proponents state is that Petrosky had his fifty caliber firearm in his van when he parked at the supermarket. A look at the website of Jefferson County Sheriff Department memorializing Sgt. Mossbrucker confirms that Petrosky did not carry his fifty caliber rifle into the supermarket with hire; "The gunman fled to the parking lot, obtained a large caliber rifle from his van and waited for the first police officer to arrive to 911 calls.>'$ The proponents acknowledge that no one was shot by the fifty caliber rifle,79 but claim that Petrosky"fired all four weapons, including the fifty caliber rifle,during his murderous rampage."80 The proponents, however, have presented no evidence that Petrosky fired his fifty caliber weapon during the incident other than a few news reports saying that authorities believed he fired the fifty caliber firearm. From these accounts,the Commission can confirm only that Petrosky did not shoot Sgt. Mossbrucker with a fifty caliber rifle and that he had a fifty caliber in his van at the time of the crime. If he fired the rifle during the incident, that would certainly constitute "criminal use,"but the Commission could find no confirmation that he did, i.e., no record of any fifty caliber casings,bullet holes, or other forensic evidence. Even if Petrosky did fire the rifle, it would not impact the Commission's findings on this point, for it still would not support the proponents' claims that fifty caliber rifles are linked to any significant degree with crime a tiv ty � u b. . v m ie l�ii tiUnsl%- 1 the t�le ce-Polk r t t e , 199 ,Tt re�Rm rrtb 'ohe radical Michigan group known as the North American Militia as further evidence of fifty caliber rifles being used in crime C ' cion°t�vest' ate .�z' - nt and could not confirm the VPC's claim. The militia members.,h. s o e co ict of co ring "to bomb federal office buildings, destroy highways, utilities and public roads, and assassinate the state's governor, senior U.S. Senator, federal jucl es. d h fe 1,16 I s gz Rin en weapons found to be in the arsenal of the i mb ne fif It ri proponents have presented no evidence t at iti e rs inte e t seiber rifle, as opposed to their other weapons;n effectua ing the conspiracy'There were ations that any assassination attempts were to occur at close range or long distance, with firearms or explosives. In short, the intended crime the i c Lghfle i terf speculation. The only fact that could be confirmed wa a dic t gr m• ber of that group, possessed a fifty caliber rifle. C. Miscellaneous Criminal Connections: � . The VPC also li is �� a qr, f. stanc w ere ot e yin possession of fifty caliber firearms after t e co let 1 ttrelat d.Jpi e ; s s-of theft of fifty caliber 7r� .�%. j �FR. aIIeOffic s frctx thefen unty hff's ffice weistte wnIoadedrot� � o[s �ptJor ctalslshern rrtorial h[ on , mber 22 03 Vtot nce"411Poh y Oenter, Vodha fr�rb (",iRnr to 'Oc#t ler 200,!p S. �. soIbid. 81 Violence Policy Center, Voting from the Rooftops(October 2001),p. 38. $2IN& 40 weapons, and instances of persons illegally manufacturing and selling fifty caliber weapons." Although the weapons involved in these instances could be considered "associated with crime," none of them can properly be considered "used in a crime," which implies more than gust possession, sale, or theft of the firearm at issue. d. Waco The VPC's claim that fifty caliber firearms were used by the Branch Davidians in defense of their compound is also problematic. The Commission found no evidence that the Branch Davidians used fifty caliber rifles during the siege of their Waco,Texas compound in 1993. What is known is that the FBI believed that the Branch.Davidians' massive arsenal included some high caliber firearms and, as a result of this belief, requested military armored. vehicles.' After the tragedy, some news articles as well as a report to the Deputy Attorney General produced on October 8, 1993,5 stated that fifty caliber firearms were found in the wreckage. Despite these preliminary reports,however, when the Department of the Treasury produced its report of weapons recovered from the Branch Davidian compound on July 13, 1995, not a single fifty caliber firearm was included among the more than 300 firearms listed." The only items related to fifty caliber firearms recovered at the site were four fifty caliber magazines and three fifty caliber magazine springs. According to the report, no fifty caliber rifles, or parts of rifle ia"�t` l .� 'co s, •) e n t `�. ��� t In ks h p e cl s o , de tho , ua1 =ca�o r c �eatare basedentcic�rs be o he a e ttc1 an on' limF ark re scud shortly thereafter, and conflict with the final report prepared by the Treasury Department. Another obvious problem iDae evicenc tlaliber rifles, if any existed, were of the type proponenthe ev ce a fable(detach ble magazines) suggests that if any fifty cae se th wool ave fallen within the category of iiassault weapons" already banned in California. In short, the claims by VPC are suspect, unconfirmed, and involve weapons already banned in California. 5. ver ig ` Ye P i Is Statistically tJt0htT Proponents identify traces of 28 fifty caliber rifles over an eight year period that they allege are "crime guns." T, ssiGn- t hes 'rear s,i., ough traced, were most likely not used in the comto c ,m e mrm so and that even if the proponents are correct in sh 28 ift a 'Lyn ifle ve° en used in crimes over the period of time in question, ss s atistica y insigntf'can w n compared with the trace data of other firearms. 83Ibid.at 38-39. 84 Violence Policy Center, o ing ro-M e OLE c o er' oA) o.34-;k$tb'fAMM"4t of Justice,Report to the Deputy Attorney General on the Events at Waco, Texas:Section III(C),"The Role of FBI Headquarters in the Standoff � fi� i liss�lS l arF nt ofYstice, _ t a. e L7e utto, ey Gen l o 1 Events"`The�ft�a 0�f te��it I t �� � � f, ,.A1r „ ��Chri Peacoe� Freaaut f3ep tctmettt rfec"tor, tit Ih�l�tt Affair ;" edpr�n Re�bvere4 rtrm tie Brattc L3avc"'roan Compound. Treasury Summary of Report Prepared by the FBI for Prosecutors and the Texas Department of Public Safety Total Weapons Recovered(July 13, 1995). 87N& 41 A brief review of the data collected by the BATF7E demonstrates that rifles represent only a fraction of the firearms traced in connection with a crime. (Note: a trace does not indicate that the firearm was used by a criminal in the commission of a cringe, only that the firearm was traced through an investigative process.) These figures indicate that in 2040 there were 9,994 rifles traced, which represents 11.3 percent of all firearms traced that year. In 1993, 7,094 rifles were traced, representing 14.4 percent of all firearms traced in that year. On average, the annual percentage of rifles traced by law enforcement is approximately I I percent, as seen in the charts below. Juvenile Youth Adult Age All (ages 17&younger) (ages 18-24) (ages 25&older) Unknown Ages Firearm Type Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent All Firearm Types 4,112 100.0 18,085 100.0 32,044 1013.0 34,329 100.0 88,570 100.0 Semiautomatic Pistol 2,332 56.7 11,036 61.0 15,03.2 46.9 15,952 46.5 44,352 50.1 Revolver 1,113 27.1 4,089 22.6 8,094 25.3 10,257 29.9 23,553 26.6 Rifle 297 7.2 1,282 7.1 4,508 14.1 3,907 11.4 9,994 11.3 Shotgun 312 7.6 1,475 8.2 3,810 11.9 3,681 113.7 9,278 10.5 Other 58 1.4 203 1.1 600 1.9 532 1.5 1,393 1.6 Figure 10: 200€1 Report Youth Crime Initiative-Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco,and Firearms. DRAFT juveniles Youth Adult A1;e Unknown All Ages (sees 17 &under) (ages 18-24) _ {sages 25&aver) Firearm Type Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Nx niter Percent All Pirt-arni Types 3,790 100.0 13,83€1 100.0 23,102 1130.0 23,907 10b.t7 64,637 1(70.1) i SemiawontaticPistol 2,149 56.7 8,351 617.3 10,777 46.6 10,814 45.2 32,091 49.6 Revolver 1.119 29.5 3,296 23.8 6,385 27.6 6.941 29.0 17.741 27.4 Rifle 231 6,1 938 6.8 2,902 12.5 3,023 12.6 7,094 Mo ttt S€rotgm) 246 6.5 1,092 7.9 2,626 11.4 2.764 11.6 6,728 10.4 Ocher 45 1.2 161 1.2 412 1.8 365 1.5 983 1.5 Figure 11: 1999 Repor o Orme"Aiti� A + c , an Firearms. Wheii focu�ing I ly„'rifles tha h been , ace type ana&cali 0, tw ear �� Yp range, the BATFB� eta d� b"It y es that�e ty call ��r is even on t� rlih that fifty calitrrer rifles ai not ttaded i�n`"ungont� ith crg e , o-gl� m tie :oto b a ti 5' e t� .y w caliber even within the rifle category. Lesser caliber firearms like-""the I2 gauge shotgun, .22 caliber rifle, and 7.62m n rifle are consistently the top traced rifles. 42 The data for the years 2000 and 1999 are presented below: Long Guth Type and Caliber All Ages Number Percent Shotgun 12 GA 6,854 35.5 Rife .22 4,076 21.1 Rifle 7.62mm 1,729 9.0 Shotgun 20 GA 1,277 6.6 Rifle .30-30 616 3.2 Shotgun .410 GA 615 3.2 Rifle .223 599 3.1 Rifle 9tmr 412 2.1 Rifle ,30-06 410 2.1 Shotgun 16 GA 409 2.1 Top Ten Long Guns 16,997 88.0 All Long Guns 19,311 100.0 Figure 12: 2440 Report Youth Crime Initiative-Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco,and Firearms. ° ("-WW op�e �a d -� n 3 B p a Cal" 7 r . M 11AL Long Gun Type All Ages and CaliherfGauge Number Percent Shotgun 12 CA 4,981 36.0 Rifle .22 2,961 21.4 Rifle 7.62nini. 1,244 9.0 Shotgun 20 CA 962 7.0 Shotgun .410 CA 448 3.2 Rifle .30-30 444 3.2 Rifle 223 339 2.5 Rifle .30-06 327 2.4 Rifle (Ot-nnh 279 2.0 Shotgun 16 CA 269 1.9 All Lang Glaris 13,822 100.0 ni Figure 13: 1 Report out tome tiative- Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco,and Firearms. o T � 'ra ced, ng C B Typ nd C er "a 'g . The annual total number oftraces for the tenth most traced long gun ranges between 269 and 409 firearms and represents only 1.9 to 2.1 percent of the total long guns traced. In other word , s� the 2�0 da hetas" tre st nu er ng guns t m tracedi6agn for 00 �a ' a Shatg� presen j,ori O percen a l ed in . Z . ..a.r.. 88 Total of 88,570 firearms traced in 2000;409 were 16 Gauge Shotguns(409!$8,570-.004 or 0.4%) 43 that year. The fifty caliber, which does not appear on the list of top ten, must therefore be less than .4 percent. Though the BATFE report does not indicate how many of the total firearms traced for any given year were fifty caliber rifles, the GAO and the proponents cite the total number of fifty caliber rifles traced between 1992 and 1999 as 28. BATFE Provided OSI with a list of 30 firearm trace requests generated between November 1992 and March 1999 concerning fifty caliber rifles. However, two of the requests were duplicates, leaving twenty-eight separate weapons on which traces were conducted. All of the traces involved Barrett fifty caliber rifles, of which 27 were the semi-automatic model 82A189. One of the trace requests appeared to involve a Barrett model 9e, but efforts to develop additional information on this trace were unsuccessful.` Using 28 rifles traced over an 8 year period and comparing them with only the total number of firearms traced in 1999 and 2000(153,207), the alleged 28 fifty caliber rifles traced represent less than 0.02 percent of the total. Though the actual number of firearms traced from 1992 to 1998 is not known to the Commission at the time of this writing, one can see that the 28 fifty cIrbe rt estrac (auk zc�t nec esar' ., sed ' i } d i� t per'od re esents a statcall� ignc ub wletico ar . t e'; um f ces eve the total ' ''. nurrt er of tiv f l ng�� ns n any��ve yel 6. Los Angeles County's Findings Exemplify the Confusion As They Misrepresent tb+,y"Count 's d > As an illustration of le w ' a, rpo cri nl mit se of these firearms is distorted, 8 � we look.to preliminary findA sAd '.ti, i e ',ou � .� ,os A... ,ales as it studied this issue. The County of Los Angeles' own fact finding misrepresents its own records. The fact finding report states tha `there ace ala ri ply t tl�av fif ca ifIes presently in the Sheriff's database of w a .nsitnfise The Commission, through a public record, ac��q� t,� ue'.:" d reco �� rega " zt ; arms from the County of Los Angeles. Upon receiving and analyzing the data provided by the County, the Commission found that the "facts" presented to the fact finding committee were wrong and grossly misleading. From 35 down to 29� Frt erew � t t °rty-fiv " fi cali er firearms in the Sheriffs' ll database. The list produced ,urs ua [,,to they<.0 c7r s #re lzes actually showed thirty-six firearms. Seven firearms, however, were duplicates, leaving a total of twenty-nine fifty caliber firearms in the Sheriff's database. a From 29 down Ifli S &od, t all ose t��y rile ifEli er firearms in the Sheriff's database u�er ids teaa st n; fe��were she majority of these . „ . rte. . , � n. ,. 3 pistols (eleven) were Desert Eagle pistols, which are illegal to sell in California since they are not }ts > As disc sedmbove, Barnett Rode€8 Al is aTzeady,illegal �n!Californta and is the efo tr n foo t!x currenT"ciist ussrnso€biro lefty caliber rif#esithit�< lifr�rn�i"Cr"a "o€itS uniCie :b.=, ` 90 PA only fifty caliber rile traced that is not already banned by the California"assault weapon"laws. 9'United States General Accountino?office August 4, 1999 letter from Robert H. Hast to Henry Waxman(GAO/OSI- 99-15R .50 GAOlOS1-99-15R .5U Caliber Crime). 4 44 on the State's list of firearms "Certified for Sale in California." The others, some of which are collector style black powder firearms, are either explicitly exempted from the states "unsafe handgun" testing, or are already illegal to sell like the Desert Eagle. In any event, of the twenty- nine firearms listed in the Sheriff's database, only ten are rifles. From. 10 down to 2: Of the ten fifty caliber rifles listed in the Sheriff's database, an analysis of the makes and models shows that eight of the rifles are most likely black powder/muzzle loading firearms. Black powder/muzzle loading firearms do not have the range, accuracy, or power of the rifles that proponents seek to ban. In fact, they are exempt from most proposed bans on fifty caliber rifles because of their "curio or collector" status. ,From 2 down to 1: The two remaining fifty caliber rifles appear to be designed to accept fifty caliber BMG ammunition, i.e., the type of rifle that proponents seek to ban. One is an LAR Industries Grizzly model and was recovered as a result of a "night entry- no force." The disposition of this firearm states that it was given back to it's."owner," which indicates that this firearm was not used in a crime; rather, the Grizzly model was taken as a result of a burglary, recovered, and then, like many of the firearms on the list, given back to its original owner. Thus, it was not used in a crime, it was the subject of a crime and was returned to its lawful owner. turn I'to_Zer ?: T e, coud of e, ore .a.i no* he 'ff's base that, °e ca� e o e �' �f�f el�WNr qiti r L t RS T cord Iden in t=' Ar to "R5 �c es t c .hta <"a f- tNare ; � d n e nyrecove '` l Io ere, t o of ie Bari i li�ed'"'tn th ablist s i t recovery date. Given the fact that only twenty-nine fifty caliber firearms were recovered between 1996 and 2002, it is unlikel aVe� e e revere Tree separate criminal events. Rather, it appears that these reel r we cov e fro ne individual. Although there is no recorded explanation for� :f e.,: oo IY : na� a�s th Ise AR50 was recaverd, not in conjunction with any criminal use, but as a result of the normal recovery process that occurs during domestic disturbance incidq.0ts (where olice are rrequ', d to confiscate all weapons in households subject to dNat ell st II cc $ . Even assuminges a wa ftY. ,S liber ri ffs eve` eco IS 'e ter being used in the commission of a crime, which seems unlikely, it would be statistically insignificant when compared to the total number of firearms in the database at any given time{roughly 10,000 to 15,000 firearms). That is, t �t es vc> `d p ent so= eere etween 0.01 and 0.02Io of the firearms in the Sheriff'srat a,;. A. In sura, although Los Angeles County preliminary findings stated that "there are approximately thirty-Ave fifty caliber rcf es presently in the Sheriffs database of weapons confiscated from crima l the actual= umbe11��i ftear is to t number of rifles is 10, the actual number of ri ubj �f�o th�r banan h c u u e of fiftv caliber rifles confiscated from crimi Is I f ti d�r th � € rn� st nr�fa� 'r. I ei r� e or none. Unfortunately, the lack of scrutiny given to the Los Angeles County figures is typical when these bans ire beig condere � ➢A "A M' 7 ThPropiren#sErate Tt Fif +Caliber �e -os � n's C a+ 6 z P S3 3 45 Having made the claim that fifty caliber weapons have often been used in crime, and lacking the evidence to support this claim, the proponents have resorted to pointing out a minor change on the Fifty Caliber Institute's web page as proof that the even Fifty Caliber Shooters Association has begun to admit the widespread use of fifty caliber firearms in crime: Even the FCSPI and the FCSA are apparently beginning to slowly acknowledge the criminal use of 50 caliber sniper rifles and their involvement in criminal activity, because their jointly issued propaganda is slowly inching closer to reality: • February 4, 2001: `FCSA is not aware of any incident where a .50 caliber rifle has been used in a documented criminal incident in the United States.' • March 17, 2001: `FCSA is aware of only one incident where a .50 caliber rifle has ever been used in a documented criminal incident in the United States.' Contrary to the proponents' accusations, the Commission did not find any attempt by FCSA to distort facts or engage in propaganda techniques. Instead, it found that FCSA simply changed its claim from zero incidents to one incident after it confirmed a documented incident of erirr�` ie. tJr-an­�,n ur crxt, h o hacc acy s bro t to i . tte re yet, to � roftundtp st, .carr stn o.. 'wd c�e,,dc�cut n1ei=_ tin7i alde. . phi., ,a y, caliber rifle was used to commit the crime. In any event, in the 6 stiga ng p 0t ' f s regarding"the criminal use of 50 caliber sniper rifles an , he �tnent cri, #'nal act.. ity," it makes little difference whether fifty caliber rifles l e e o• e rn_ y e or The Commission finds that these rifles are ill-suited to crime, and one instance (or even several instances) of criminal use over their eighty-year history�sup s th M 4�osition.ust as well as no instances. i As noted, the C S° co r one in d n t,,�1.'her f" liber rifle was used in the commission of a cri e. ,, h •.d inbnaar pf 1 `? n men armed armed with a smoke grenade and a fifty caliber rifle attacked an armored delivery truck in Chamblee, Georgia. The attack was conducted at close- carters; one ern loyee was shot, receiving a minor wound to the elbow.' The nature of c ` is of 'o «� � yr as mu heoponents' main objections to the fifty caliber rifle con its Ig ist '•c ' a , arc c nd power. Yet, in the only documented criminal use of afifty a ib r r e•,, t t f t Ignited States, the criminal only inflicted a glancing blow from a few paces away. While any injury resulting from criminal activity is tragic, this incid zit goal ly rues tfr hi hligh the ro, ineffectiveness of a large, heavy, unwieldy rifle f " i „�urp es. If derimpt ha d 'iaHer caliber rifle, a shotgun,or a handgun, ,N -�ht r haeu ykwdere . e jjnry or death. That is, of course, a matter of speculation. The fact remains, however, that the single confirmed incident of criminal use of a fifty caliber rifle is unrelatedtothe any of them performance characteristics that form ba� fort o pr nents;� estt'e t bads hem or fides it provii e an ��o for nator t t 3 e �. 92 Expert Commission Member Michael Marks 46 Carl Levin's Senate Floor Statement from. October 25, 2001, entitled: "Fifty Calmer--Weapon of Choice for Criminals. ,93 r s C0111 DR,A- ' " , ,, N'OT FOR R,E1, 1_11d'I' - � }}`�- Se 41� Aw 2R w ell Sx Cse Y r"F M1� 73Carl Devin,Congressional Record, 107`h Congress, First Session,Fifty Caliber—Weapon of Choice for Criminals (October 25, 2001). 47 TART VI: FIFTY CALIBER RIFLES ISO NOT POSE AN INCREASED RISS. OF TERRORIST ATTACKS "Fifty-caliber sniper rifles are deadly, military style assault weapons, designed solely for armed combat with wartime enemies," Senator Feinstein said. "The guns enable a single shooter to destroy enemy aircraft,jeeps, tanks, personnel carriers, bunkers, fuel stations, and even communication centers."' The above quote is just a sample of the kind of propaganda that is being spread about terrorist use of civilian versions of the fifty caliber rifle. One would be hard pressed to find a single true statement in that quote, yet it is published on the web site of a U.S. Senator. Many citiz uI s at �i :�t ct� bn, t at h taff the facts nd t t teI th rtt A. beo osert 'tize w ii be ong. Fve �pe ial q ,; p d it„ vers s. th ri .c. q td ha e S 'F a Commission points this out only to show how far afield the debate has gone how irrational it has become,even at the highest levels. In the sections below we hope to introduce some sanity—and some facts—into the debate r X R_Z nsa e fift ali r es, by focusing on what they can and cannot do in the hands t to o � As apreliminary matter, one might well take issue with the underlying presumption of ban proponents, i.e., that bannin the sale of civilian versions of these rifles will somehow keep them out of the hands of tartNwit T t p si nsee du i n s, e h vailability of military versions of the fifty caorl id Them ik res I e that any such ban will affect only those citizen e, unty� r state,. posin su aR" n, eventing them from engaging in match competition events and big game hunting. Nonetheless, the Co � i h.,rvha i es a vari 's ms r3ade by private citizens and public officials concerning of ial zh is o fifty caliber rifles. The results are as follows: A. ASSESSING THE THREAT OF TERRORISM In assessing a t t t'' s there ��hree tiSe r %ons that must be made: l) where are the high r e )h ca ft �zt and } which method of attack is likely to sricceed. Htg} isk targets' elude relit r and c ilian g vernt facil ,�'i ternatFaal airports, large es �d htg ' ro l ndmarks� �ts mig�t als ,target large=pu� tct n s�water a h t w � 94SeeSenator Feinstein's web site:http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Release/r-.50.htrn. 48 and food supplies, utilities, and business centers. Further, they are capable of spreading fear by sending explosives or chemical and biological agents through the mail. The proponents of a ban on fifty caliber rifles specifically point to chemical storage facilities, oil refineries, airliners, and armored vehicles as key targets of a fifty caliber rifle attack. The proponents' major are claims outlined below, and then examined for accuracy. B. PROPONENTS' CLAIMS ARE BASED ON WORST CASE SCENARIOS BEARING LI'T'TLE OR NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE FIFTY CALIBER RIFLES THEY SEED TO BAN The ban proponents' reliance on propaganda techniques is even more pronounced in their claims regarding terrorist threats than it was in their claims regarding performance characteristics or alleged criminal use of fifty caliber rifles. For example, in its report entitled"Sitting Ducks," VPC attempts to convince the reader that the mere existence of fifty caliber rifles poses a serious terrorist threat. The VPC and other ban proponents attempt to generate a smokescreen of fear and apprehension by references to Al Qaeda, terrorist bombings, and even the Bhopal disaster, while at the same time ignoring the fact that no terrorist organization has ever attacked this country (or any of its oil, chemical, or fuel facilities) with a fifty caliber rifle. Their reference to Bhopal is particglar y mi�sp ced s .34e _yaas}the,result o, ch ute ur not terr attack. I '. In th ho l t t, xfr ist�M 'bus: as Flo 19.. as ecl when a di rgru t PI t iii ' 3 ' b emp ;y e,appar , g ent n Alin ,b teh:,r ret yt�s eyar tex ed t t auk. The water caused a reaction that built up heat and pressure in the tank, quickly transforming the chemical compound into a 1 gas„tklat escaped into .he,co_Ql t air_' No firearm was used in that incident; the weapon of w4 er, .� ' Below is a brief sant, . fe�T' ��s e�? �,�.frig h .the public and then link those fears to fifty caliber rifles (taken from the Introduction to VPC's 2002 "Sitting bucks"report). Since the Cerro ' tt kes t Septe erj 11, T fC, f `a°t shave warned the chemical and re i itr ,,fat� zardoucat als nld be turned into weapons of maide c. p e at'lacks– ach , deo y destructive bombs out of passenger jets—woke the world to the fact that familiar objects we tend to think of as relatvelbenign can become terrifying wea ons inflicting ,,. catastrophic damag A study by the U.S. ° +my s R epn e et tech th 2 4,,,xnillion people could be killed or injured--in the worst-case scenario---if terrorists attacked a toxic chemical plant in a densel opulated area, and that about 900,000 such casualties could occurin i le ngetrnario A similar analy nth ; enrmerit °.,tet enc lAl} found that at least 123 plants in the United States keep amounts of toxic chemicals that could place more than one million people in danger if released, 700 plants maintain arnonts thtcou enan�r at let it 000 ` ple, aid moregars ,Ot1E}Pas train in ariztunt �tcoed affect°Io,66 eo At PC pm ' t BEf rowning,Jackson B., Union Carbide: "Disaster at Bhopal"(1993)p. 1,available at: http:/i'www.bhopal.corn/pdfs/browning.pdf. 49 A small-plane pilot, who one witness believes was Mohammad Atta, the suspected ringleader of the September l I attacks, showed great interest in a chemical plant in Tennessee he had just flown over. The plant's storage tanks contained 250 tons of sulfur dioxide,enough to kill or seriously injure as many as 60,000 nearby residents. The VPC report then goes on to state that: "Few would disagree that rockets and mortars in the hands of terrorists would present alarming threats to refineries and hazardous--chemical facilities. But the general public, most policymakers, many in the media, and even some who are responsible for providing security to such facilities do not know that the 50 caliber sniper rifle is the equivalent in firepower of rockets and mortars."g6(emphasis added). This latter claire is loosely based on a manufacturer's promotional claim that"many of the same targets for rocket and mortar fire can be neutralized,17 using certain types of fifty caliber weapons—a statement that is decidedly different from the VPC's claim that the weapons are "equivalent in firepower."" In short, the ban proponents again attempt to overload their reader with a barrage of sensational scenarios, hoping that the sheer preponderance of negative images will cause the reader to miss the fact that there is no logical nexus between any of these events and the fifty caliber rifles they seek to ban. As noted earlier, this particular propaganda technique is known as <`tr s err�`tcel�"" 74� In th ect, trs e o isn a. , es laSssi onen' ' claths ,e din aIle ed terror'ift Zreak:— rues i , i n tluctecl Ch tan f e .o r Rand those who are charged with protecting the types of facilities proponents claim are subject to attack by terrorists using fifty tali` Specifically, we exa ne r on at cla that ty caliber rifles pose more of a threat to chemical plants, fu' me , a li er , ed vetI ties and infrastructure than other firearms. We also examine whether traditional firearms are even considered a significant threat by those charged with e `rt tang" toFea (�h Based on its inv st i an.- me iewsxiRba ant fields, the Commission found that'fifty ali r files se no rr hareated byany other hunting rifle available to the general public and, perhaps more importantly, that rifle attacks, by any caliber rifle, against the As° Vissut e ntn 'ttle, if y, 'nc e sed risk, and certainly not the kinds of risks claimed b r. nts y of orist scenarios imagined by VPC are physically impossi us. th Jri e ban; Such is the case with oil, chemical and.other fuel facilities. m C. FIFTH R R,I, ARM" 'P'RFSI�T NO I RF€�SED RISK t�F 'I'FRR =" �"° �A �S t� ��' C� I f� ,_ 'UEL FACILITIES Proponents ass �,t �ff Y�i r ri�e' ep s nt 'iris tol t i�orist attack on oil, gas and other fuel facilities. Terrorism and industry experts disagree. - W"1111, XIN� ,.� a � �- t tc j � *,T, � 41--4 0 05 Viol nc 'o ey Cettt��5rtt ack �AvailaMolt hljpwwww �pc.o)rglstudieslduclubtr mm 97Heavy�14rep6'v*er* C i hr r ar r B t tt l srle i ms�ManufactfiAna,t"rrc, brochure id r6girfg its"NI el 8T 1 50 caliber sniper rifle. 98 For example, a vehicle may be destroyed by a rocket,but a fifty caliber rifle can neutralize anchor immobilize a vehicle by targeting the tires, thereby eliminating the vehicles mobility. 50 First, it should be noted that the proponents' claims are based on speculation, for there is no historical evidence to support their claims. To date, there has never been a fifty caliber rifle attack on such facilities. Further, the Commission is unaware of any entity in the petrochemical industry or the emergency response community that have plans or contingencies established based on the scenario of a rifle-induced detonation of a fuel facility. Finally, there have been no warnings issued by the Department of Homeland Security or any of the major petroleum companies concerning the alleged threat of rifle attacks by terrorists on such facilities. These facts,by themselves,do not necessarily mean that proponents' claims are baseless or imaginary. They do indicate, however, that those individuals and institutions most familiar with the situation and charged with protecting such facilities have concluded that the rifle-attack threat is insignificant. Based on the Commission's examination, it appears that those individuals are correct, and that there is little factual foundation for the proponents' claims. 1. Proponents Provide No Credible Evidence to Support,Their Claims that Fifty Caliber Rifles Pose a Threat to Chemical or Fuel Facilities In "Sitting Ducks," VPC relies, in part, on the "Site Security Guidelines for the U.S. Chemical Industry" to provide evidence fromm a seemingly credible source to support its argument in fav . 'ba fi c h r�s ote �? Guid li es, s flows: �.. A to= rist :Etc e i mi I e n of emits M, t pr er A6 tem f-, en al . Gast �' cart to ...; c ;. .iu •. . z plant or storage facility, rather than develop and use an actual chemical weapon." The "conventional i -�' V' use n a tf rifles. The authority VPC cites,however,sloes not. A :.vi c `Sit cuiuid ..p, es for the U.S. Chemical Industry" reveals that this d 7t c ly n - es the . c�tential threats that a chemical facility may wish to address," including "Cyber attack., workplace violence, fraud, and bomb threats...."tom Absent from the list over 20 different potentia1,threat is an attack by a fifty caliber rifle, or any fire f�r t t r. act, e are hl e ioned once in the entire manual, and that is in c n i wit� he idelin c`�. me a I g 1m�ilar to most business policies) that firearms, ive an vt er si ar ite be pro ibtied min ting brought into the facilities by employees. This is not the only ca '`o h e .e o encs e icurrtents that do not' 'Mention a fifty caliber rifle,or any riff •or th. a e th at t c al facilities as a basis for their claims. The proponents sta "she f its u n alt° ter the September I l attacks....but the question is, what likely means of attack are they on the alert for?""' An analysis of each of the docume ed Pa "S uc , " reveals,tlta;tithe specified means of attack are bombings, p , an '.c r;,femit t ac ng;� � r i sand anthrax.`` Not one of the documents cited n o s t,,: , Efty r e, let alone identifies it as a threat to chemical or fuel facilities. v 99 1:a Viole Pb '•Y C Sin ffi k t August } rt I,pad 2 %. , too Securi . ; elfin T the Mhe�tcat IAdu y ge S. tot . . �. <. . ... =.. ,. Vioence Posy en#er,-Sitting Ducks,{�aigusf C72�"part iI Iiage 4, 142 See,e.e.,'Before Attack,U.S.Expected Different Hit:Chemical,Germ Agents Focus of Preparations,"The Washington Post,2 October 2001,p.Al,citing danger from"bombings,hijackings and other low-tech missions",, "Britons Know Price of Averting Terrorism at Horne."The Washington Post,29 September 2001,p. A 15,noting danger from bombs; 51 Proponents also make statements such as "a successful attack with armor-piercing incendiary rounds on railcars or trucks carrying flammable or explosive cargo could create geometrically increasing ripple effects if the attack occurred at or near a crucial site..." "3 But they provide no evidence regarding the circumstances under which a fifty caliber round could penetrate such targets, or the combination of factors required for that penetration to result in a catastrophic explosion. In sum, the VPC focuses on the potential threat posed by terrorist attacks on a variety of targets, but fails to explain how a fifty caliber rifle could be used to execute such attacks or how it presents a greater risk than other readily available weapons. VPC and ether proponents merely state that chemical facilities are potential targets of terrorists attacks. That is true. But they have provided no credible evidence, no legitimate studies or reports, that suggest rifles are a realistic threat to such targets. They simply state, without any basis, that fifty caliber rifles are a threat to chemical refineries and capable of blowing up fuel storage facilities. Remarkably, the factual source VPC relies upon for its dramatic claim that a fifty caliber rifle can "ignite bulk fuel tanks from a distance of 10 football fields" is an earlier VPS're cert which itself, makes no such claim nor.provides any factual foundation for that claim.1{4 Not surprisingly, the Commission found no support for VPC's claim that bulk fuel tanks can be ignited from a distance of 10 football fields by a shot from a fifty caliber rifle. The claim is simply fa; e. )i's t C bier a ore t iil fine St r e Tnks s � �e Cos n co t . IId of x o 1, U oca1,4 Chevron and other oil refineries and inquired whether they consider fifty caliber rifles a threat td,. 6' a M 'a r spokespersons, unfortunate) bu n� nd , re comment on any topics rela � g t th ', ei pt and ',fety of their facilities. The Commissi �q owe r, s spe l experts in the field who h r ntl tir from s 11co pan . cr igure 14. Cutaway of a are still active in the in� st 6 r�r�o < re empl e b ems. C , pica)material storage such individual is Brian Rebuck, a former employee of Chevron. Mr. tank. The blue cap Rebuck has thirty-five years of experience in refineries, chemical represents a floating root to � . prevent vapors from being plants, material handling fa .`it d t o p at ofIf e h released, A shooter must pilot plants and laboratory ex , pmb t th t actually penetrate the tank caliber rifles pose no increa d risk �tre is es this at a level below the floating the state of California." He explained the basis for his assessment, as roof, which has a thicker wall than the top tier of the follows: t k,just to cause a leak. s . Tanks are typic ' 0 C .: � fee n di ee here is no evidence sepporting the proponents high. Refinery, or e�tnk ge ra� ld ,� � � claim that a fifty caliber approximately 250,000 gallons of material. Refinery round could cause the storage tans are cgnstructed�sut o ar n step 'n a at 'a tot to upotx d � �:' 4 �g 103Violence Policy Center,Sitting Clucks, (August 2002)Section II. !NViolence Policy Center,Sitting Ducks,(August 2002)part I, fn 16,citing, Violence Policy Center, One Shot, One Kill: Civilian Sales of Military Sniper Rifles('Washington, IAC. May 1999): pp. 3-11. 52 manner where the walls are tapered to create a wider base than the top tier of the wall. The top tier of refinery storage tanks are approximately 5J8 inch thick. Layers of four feet by eight feet carbon steel sheets are added from the top down to progressively increase the thickness at the base of the tanks. At base of the tanks, the carbon steel wall is generally 3 inches thick. Tanks are never more than3/4 full because the tanks must allow room for surge protection (an operations consideration) and seismic activity i.e. sloshing, which might cause buckling of the floating roof seal. (Figure 12.)10' A "floating roof' is a device that is placed in each tank, rests on the top of the material in the tank and is sealed around the circumference of the inside of the tank to prevent vapor emissions. Even at 100 yards, a fifty caliber rifle using any type of ammunition mentioned in the proponents' reports would not have sufficient velocity to penetrate the base of any refinery storage tanks that are in compliance with federal and California storage tank standards. A fifty caliber rifle using special ammunition might be able to penetrate the top tier of a refinery storage tank. However, such penetration would not cause any leaks due to the fact that a storage tank is never more than 3/4 full. n y c s�ci 1 f' o �eF. k, foA ofcon is of tan M o �to t i ou 1° =tan s deeha animp t .po d�!.,��n i5 st u .�..� 1d ef ar �f t .L it surrounds each tank so as to prevent the spillage from becoming an environmental hazard. These measures prevent damage r, ingkearthq akes,To the best of my kn vle, ha ver ' e� a fi or explosion of anything associated with the pest, s esult o 'fie fire. It is unlikely that a fire would ever result from a tank or pipe being shot. A majority of the ' ..in y a l 'pe (ANSI 836.10) in 6", 8.' 1 siz f s edule _ 0 d I tckness of the steel is as follo s: pi sc, 0- 4"; sc t} - h _. 864". 8" pipe sch 40 - .322"; sch 80 - .500", sch 160 - .875". 12" pipe sch 40- .406", sch 80 - .688" and sch 160 - 1,,.312". Other p* e sizes and schedules are also used, but the above would cover r 4 of h m The h` .he ie essure, temperature or hazardous nature e teri 1, e' _ a r the le of pipe used. A cylindrical object, e. ., a pip ', m fi t b ch r°`a flat surface due to mechanical properties. Within the ref* in' ap es are rs t s o a r s, r instance:four types of ai , t od other fuels. Th e f rim sI t hr g .. h arbon steel ROW' �o� g ' 2��phic H d t Nt eria€s �ana ,the fn den -RCJivt a a31 1 w�ww.tia Unl ;a 'ny. ctior+o : e c 'icterics.w fold drawn tlirou�lx_the le the bulk viuld b `iifmp' ut tie tanE��like any normal drainage consistent with a repair. Once the leak was plugged,they'd pump the oil right back in again and mop up what little spurted out. 53 tanks or pipes, most of the material stored in them are inflammable or would be difficult to ignite. As one of the redundant security and safety systems, if a fire did result from a shot, fire prevention foam systems are designed and installed in each facility to flood the impound with foam to suppress the fires and prevent fires from progressing anywhere beyond the impound. In reality, only the electrical equipment, breaker panels, switchgear, etc., are vulnerable to damage from rifle fire and the in-place safety back-up systems preclude an incident occurring from such an event. Electrical equipment failures are rather common in the refinery environment and, at worst,result only in some venting of pressure to the flares as per standard operating procedures. To summarize: Because of the security and safety measures taken in the design of petrochemical refineries, there is tittle, if any, threat presented to petrochemical refineries by fifty caliber rifles. The Commission also spoke with a consultant group that specializes in refinery safety. This group, however, requested that they not be named. This group provides expertise in numerous processes that are widely used in the oil and gas and related industries.The Senior Consu t�of �r state u Stor t� r �ic st gel c�l t s d aTeyi, s -sea6it e l ,the r ,unctu.:. d ca. t aqui l ev tl Tk can be said for the pressure vessels, heat exchangers, piping systems,etc., that are also in a refinery or _Mica µ t . . . S orage t stain some significant damage without leakg .� " r bud t car fa_a . it to `blow up' is not a reasonable scenario. .�� .�:.i,r This statement was supported by their Process Safety Consultant, who stated that: Assuming that :° Ilea h. .f�jatrt 'i no lge 'Tcls in diameter, and assuming that a :e�s ine o side of�t n i nergy to caueat7 incendiary sfrk, d ofk �> reatsc to e t explosion" would ensue. I doubt that one could reach a flammable concentration in the surrounding atmosphere that would exceed the tower flammability limit(LFL). Thus, I agree that th ely�c ar��, sold a..� n e p ctured, would be a small leak that wool s'e, sil I e c nt �wl in t o inment dike. � x .� Another of their Refinery Process and Safety consultants is a former demolition specialist who served with a U.S Army Special Forces "A" team. In other words, he is highly trained in the "art" of destroying lac Itle an trust 'sof t s, y g c�" ype no usesFatpertise to prevent such destruction, witj . fzc �rtis i'n tle cif orlt nsultant has worked with Exxon Security orehe n t�r srrtheatst jxx Iaca ildwide. This consultant states that "frankly, punching a hole in a refinery tank is a non event . . . and the leak fro7j� tyiberkbole Asn likely to.forma flammable vap cloud bl nou tda.� „igt u# e ' ley w a�r � us rating the ni limal rn k pc s by rifle at c� h# nsu a nt dAA ehe iv a f rrt rig t�atia'k oil a fuel refinery in Vdhiezuela w , har4o 54 Terrorists punched holes in our crude oil lines in Venezuela, and we did not even shut down the pipeline. We sent ping-pang balls down the line to plug the hole and patched the pipe while it remained in operation. It was truly a non-event. The Commission consulted with another refinery engineer expert, Dennis Kurovsky, P.E., who has worked for all five major oil refineries in the San Francisco Bay area, with engineering experience in oil and gas distribution terminals, and oil production facilities. After evaluating the claims made by the proponents regarding oil and chemical.refineries, Mr. Kurovsky stated that bullets (without limiting the type to fifty caliber)could penetrate some equipment and cause some damage, but it is not likely that a fire would result from such an action. In addition, "any damage would be covered by normal design considerations and operating precautions." The consensus among these experts that a rifle shot is unlikely to cause an explosion in fuel tanks or pipelines is supported by the results a recent shooting incident in Alaska. On October 4, 2001, a lib r (a ibe- -0 1y d by Fi 1 or n .38 ib untie fl e i��}• ep } ,_th a . e our a hole in the high pressure Alaskan Pipeline but did not shots before the fifth shot penetrated the cause an explosion as alleged in the proponents' article 13.)10' Pipeline officials said "Sitting Ducks." t el'tne is protected by a layer of galvanized steel and had be " s)al'c anti , ut t shootings had never before caused enough damage to c i ° What is clear from theex , s' statements and the Alaskan Pipeline sh ni" h aFr,that a rifle will not cause ty of a that thproponents allege it will°cau,.e. eit er areinery, an oil pipeline being shot with a fifty caliber rifle, P7 �a would result in an explosion e l e a Ch c n " of events. The Commission y S fe Consultant concludes, itis "° non-e�, nt ne have not provided any credible evidence to rebut this assessment. As discussed b *rev '<.�e u of in ° ary ur p of �x ` . , _ oil spray resulting from ammunition against ife, downloaded from not cause the type of chain reaction that proponents http://wwwsalcomhouse.com/pipeline.htm claim can be caused by a fifty caliber rifle ,m t. 10 �dUW. a s t a, � 107Photofrom BSC News Article`Bullet Causes Oil Spill in Alaska,"October 6,2001. 108 BBC News Article "Bullet Causes oil spill in Alaska,"October 6,2001. 55 3. There Are Three Critical Temperature Thresholds Which Apply to the Process of Igniting Fuel Oil. Flash Paint, Fire Point and Auto-ignition Temperature The proponents' claims that a fifty caliber rifle can blow up a refinery, regardless of whether legal or illegal ammunition is used, are false. A fifty caliber rifle using any type of ammunition will fail to meet the three critical temperature thresholds which apply to the process of igniting fuel oil: flashpoint, fire point and auto-ignition temperature. Flush Paint is the temperature at which sufficient vapor is generated for the fluid to flash when exposed to an ignition source. A "flash" is a momentary event and does not constitute sustained combustion."' The Flash point for light, medium, heavy and bunker-grade fuel oil is typically in excess of 150°F(66'e)."" Fire Paint is the temperature at which a fluid generates sufficient vapor to support continued combustion. The fire point is typically 40°F to I00°F hotter than the flash point. For the vapor to be ignited, the fluid must be between flash point and fire point temperature with a source of ignition close enough to the surface to insure a minimum vapor concentration. The Fire Point for Bunker C Fuel Oil is 495°F(257°c).'''' _ Iiout. nyst� ceof igni n. Au ign r s n c t a,on an xy isa=idly acce d b p�, cat .n_ ea .s,�e� s r . mit ,the . txt,_� torol r te. ignition point for bulk crude oil is approximately 7(10"F."2 When examining th 1 e" rater4 thre + 1""Cl Context of the two standard ignition models, traditional iti Ifl mp men nd hot surface ignition (discussed below), the Commission fo , t : ys cal, .h Visible a fifty caliber round (conventional or tracer/incendiary) fired from 1,000 yards—or even point blank range—to cause the catastrophic damage to Nno lk tora v acilit e aimed ro ent Traditional l'gn �� e 1 ��tnping �tt Traditional ignur , ena tie, sp oro erg gni t n tsurce occurs within a flammable atmosphere. A flammable atmosphere is a necessary condition for ignition because oil and other liquid fuels do no I bu ;�' s(11 e ; por a vetrface of the liquid,when mixed in proper proportion en n e here, a : urns. Introducing a flaming object below the surface of olu ofit , rtt ut that object. It will not set the oil on fire. Thus, ignition must occur in a narrow area just above the surface of the liquid where the vapor is of sufficient densit to constitute a flammable atmosphere. This is why m it cage nks e ley fl gr es' elements: to eliminate the possibility of such it end s c 1 it�p u � . o n .hoof element consists of a disk of material which is deployed across the surface of the contents of the tank. This disk ?z ' s,: a x d410 �r ' ' Pre e es eaP1`ransfer isie Jim(� naer errtical L'rot es5in a zt a ..001 uo . � ;, C .:. Exp r s; ns> Els l C7 to` �e411�ks,t K E eatt SaFety Ex e�r Ak v eom Authortttes tfif`urc n� nt Liargs`on Committee(HELA)Local Authority Circular 27/15, March 2000 "'Properties of crude oils and oil products,MSDS 362-1000,Labo Analytika,2003 "2Expert Commissions' Refinery Safety Consultant. 56 floats directly on the surface of the liquid contents, preventing free evaporation and eliminating any volume of airspace that would otherwise be subject to approaching a flammable level. As the level of the liquid changes, the floating roof rises and falls, always maintaining direct contact with the product. By eliminating the presence of flammable vapor, floating roofs prevent fires under such dramatic natural conditions as lightning strikes. In sum, any fifty caliber round, including incendiary versions, penetrating an oil tank below the "fill line" would have no capacity to cause a vapor ignition event; it would simply be "extinguished" by the fuel. Any object penetrating an oil tank at or above the "fill line„ would encounter a vapor-free atmosphere and,consequently, also would fail to cause a vapor ignition event. Hot Surface Ignition Hot surface ignition (HSI) represents the temperature to which a mass of material must be raised which, when placed in contact with a given fluid for a sufficient time, will raise the temperature of the volume of fluid to the auto-ignition point. In real world scenarios, HSI situations arise when the shell of the tank is subjected to fire over an extended periodd of time, raising a large section of the tank itself to the HSI threshold,typically at least double the auto- igniCevold I at, re. b l n i . ' i IN e,,area whe mpared to ar e t t o v e e e , h e atur ece y to hea e o iI 'n s y 1p " p i t n an tan r g ut: gn' ion, a fier t 1 et ld a am the ord f 7. l'r�i e' . Fahrenheit— roughly 289,000 times greater than the temperature of the core of the sun. This gets a bit techni 1, . " t c cu' a The model is based on an above-ground oil storage to wi a ity i n g ns. With an average density of 900kgtm and weight of 7.5 gal ; a l st r,k wo contain approximately 90,120,000lbs of fuel. Assuming a mid-range optimum storage temperature of 1212°F(U.S. Oil and Refining Co. Mate J & t S e; #`4221 , 7 o-ignition temperature of 7010°F, the temperate a rat -ig " ion is � sin ative specific heat value of 0.45 Btullb-de,ree f iI, ecific �at-S cif' 1 Reference CC-55, Armstrong International, Inc.), a transfer of 23.4 billion BTUs would be required to raise the temperature of 90,120,000 lbs of fuel by 578°F. A standard 700 grai c" ibe pr lie Lighs l Ca culating the total BTU requirement against the wei . t and ec a T f: e II ( 440212,000/(0.1*0.03) yields the temperature requirement of 7.8 trillion degrees Fahrenheit. 't3 113 Barry M. Solomon,B.S.' cturd Ma Hain e o s r�of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering,where. a de c fits ei t� a son y r p- e hv hesis: "Computerized Boiler Design and Performance Program", later incorporated into the Marine ngineering curriculum as the new design standard.Mr. Solomon served in the naval industry generating finite-element modeling for the design of nuclei 6ubm 'nes c gifound" �t wash;'�n`gtq D G.Virtual 'Reny D per's G2int n b d pro m level nit for anae, i a e trains a w dations the enforcem i c x �.: respon e �� m arenas St th r igh-Te rata Autos tion Thermo f "Hydro arbt�ns;" avid Clia`les ortlt , tanforci `diversity Repoli No�T-S`D- 5,J I" -r' iztoi nation a Fire and Explosion Hazards Stuart Hawksworth,HSE,British Section of the Combustion Institute,Department of Engineering Science, Oxford University,April 2003; 65742 Fire and Explosion Investigation,Section 2: Physics of Fire and Explosion, Philip Maynard,Center for Forensic Science, University of Technology Sydney. 57 Simply stated, what these technical calculations prove is that "hot surface ignition" of fuel contained in a bulk storage tank is not possible through use of fifty calibers rifles, regardless of the kind of ammunition used. D. FIFTY CALIBER FIREARMS ARE NOT POTENTIAL TOOLS FOR CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTION Chemical agents, in the context of terrorism, are combinations of chemicals that yield a toxic effect upon exposure. That is, they are designed to kill or injure people when they are released. There are, of course, a multitude of chemicals; relatively few are used as chemical agents in weapons of terrorism. Chemical agents produce their effects as a result of chemical reactions rather than through the physical effects (e.g., blast, fragments, projectiles, heat)of conventional weapons, although when dispersed by means of an explosive device,both kinds of effects may occur. Inhalation of or contact with volatile chemicals can present a danger of mass casualties. Chemical incidents are likely to be overt(and in some instances easily identifiable) events. Chemical incidents are characterized by the rapid onset of medical symptoms (minutes to hours) and easily observed signatures (colored residue, dead foliage, pungent odor, dead insects and animal ` r n th Ftn a p i c �tl r ing nveif nalgar :n) spr de es ton im ed e los' d.,MA cr ed a i che° Ind ibu ton-` thtS" 1 of Rase. This list, set forth below, undermines proponents claims' that fifty caliber rifles add to the threat of chemical attacks, for nofber are AMA's list. 1. MiliDZRI PY Chemical munitions are designed to convert bulk chemical agents into an aerosol or spray that can contaminate lar e areas, etrate the skin and be(injled. Wea onizat on involves several steps: Adding tabs e o ve he de datioa n • Adding thickeners to increase viscosity and persistence of liquid agent. Adding carriers to im rove dis ersion characteristics. • Inserting the e i th a r ri mun Common military ition a b s , i lu 'in er bo ,bs, artillery shells, rockets, missiles, grenades, and mines. FEMA does not list rifle or handgun ammunition. The munitions can be designed in the form of a stationa bomb on the round, an aerial bomb (exploding while still airborne so as to d e t n the f inh, do orr x `odt g on impact), or a land mine. With the increa os 1 t tl�rta �� ac h• s of terrorists through theft, seizure, or sale, o u ni n c al t` s is grtvtng possibility, t g �� - s A. RCH a' w 58 2. Other Explosive/Bursting Devices"' In addition to military munitions, a variety of other explosive devices may be used to spread the chemical agent. Such devices would ordinarily include a small burster charge surrounded by the agent and activated by a fuse, timer, or similar device. When the burster charge goes off, it ruptures the device and disseminates the chemical agent. Examples include: • Packaging the agent with a small explosive charge (e.g., a package bomb or suitcase bomb). = Crashing and exploding a truck loaded with large amounts of a nerve agent. • Packaging chemical agents as a contaminant in a shrapnel weapon (e.g., a nail bomb). 3. Commercial Delivery Systems Because a small quantity of chemical agent can inflict a large number of casualties, commercial delivery systems can effectively be used to deliver the agent. Many such systems are dual-purpose, easy to obtain, and easy to adapt for terrorist purposes. They therefore pose a significant threat even though they are less efficient and less reliable than munitions delivery systems. Examples of such systems include: k Cr d ai..Fr,,�lf't .W rb o S�iall roso ' ape era�ar a � t p o om a pick-up truck). Such generators can be air-, ground-,or watercraft-based. • Suitcase gent ( "' con inr+h--J, ��ildings). • Pump-type p su,, °s s( al or paint sprayers available at hardware sttt ..;,) • Hand..-held aerosol generators(e.g., deodorant spray cans). Hand-hel ligid s gun . ilar to (n)a -,,k disp • Place e r of ct at d sp y ion system. 4. lea n e es Breaking devices include: • Encapsulating a e ical ag t alb kah o pct .g., light bulb, thermos bottle). • Microencaps 'ating ..h mi e va d,by direct contact. (e.g., similar to "scratch-and-sniff"). Jr. fir-W,in' .,o `� .ung Dumping or pl t etd nc '1A] S Placement of an open gas cylinder, using the wind or a fan to carry a gas cloud ,� toward vietrn s t, AA� i 43, ,. �°��„ 3 114After dissemination by explosive force,part of the agent will retrain liquid;'part will be aerosolized,and part will evaporate to form a vapor. This usually results in a significant loss of the chemical agent. The primary objective of using an explosive device is to scatter the agent in a vapor cloud and heavily contaminate an area. 59 • Dropping an open container of a liquid agent from a high place (e.g., a balcony, an airplane or helicopter) into a crowded area, such as an opera stadium or hotel atrium. • Placement of an agent in a closed public space (e.g., airport terminal, shopping rsaall,convention center, arena,subway station) to evaporate. The rate of evaporation may be quite slow,however, resulting in few exposures to high concentrations. • Creating a pool of liquid agent using a hose and pump system. • Insertion of chemical agents in foodstuffs (e.g., on production lines at packaged food factories, dairies, meat processing plants,bottlers). Poisoning an entire water supply is considered unlikely, because of the large amounts of agent it would require. However, a private water supply(e.g., for a building) could be effectively targeted. 6. Binary Devices In binary devices, two chemical precursors are kept separate until the last moment, when they are mixed and allowed to form the harmful chemical agent. Binary munitions (i.e., artillery shells, bombs, etc.)have been developed for several nerve agents. The 1995 'Tokyo sarin gas inside a edImmNF� ii a to c a s etm Is w , when puneured r ea co t and rmea.the ly in gas. Cast&Iesin }' i o Caen'y s., The purpose of listing each of the methods of chemical distribution is to demonstrate that FEMA has considered a with t sib meKcal distribution by terrorists. None of the potential metho 0 1 nv the of fi : caliber rifles, or firearms in general. E. FIFTY CALIBERS RIFLES DO NOT POSE AN INCREASED THREAT TO AMER I U The proponents to h "th ar variet OhauiRi cessful attack by a terrorists exploiting th ifty iii ri... rifle apabf '�es pread disruption involving critical infrastructure."!!is Again the proponents assume that such an attack would be successful without demonsi t t sazch a s It k , p -babe, or even possible. Instead, much like their arguments r ` ri the i d refin e nd facilities, the proponents' claims that fifty caliber rifl rese a t re to f t t a as d on speculation, and ignore other, more realistic threats. For example, t p o nts%.cit even ha wer cans. b � aree-truck accident; (2) a train fire; and (3) a c �een gasol anke ck a t r trailer. They do not cite any instance in wh f cal'' fl no o heow a fifty caliber rifle might be used to damage the national infrastructure. Instead,they state only that"it does not take a great deal of imagination to ... irna me carefully planned scenarios with even reater p immediate .0 collateral. f Vis." t A�d at the p le ath the n s hey f are ba's�d or€lea tt�n a t ati 1 The op ants d� no sent evid c r ��,�, �� t 15Violence Policy Center, Voting from the rooftops,(October 2002)p.59. 116Violence Policy Center, Voting From the Rooftops,(October 2002)p.60. 60 factual foundation to support their theory that fifty caliber rifles pose a greater terrorist threat to infrastructure than other firearms or other weapons, conventional or unconventional. The Commission's independent investigation found that there is no evidence to support such claims, nor is there any evidence to suggest that banning civilian versions of fifty caliber rifles will have any impact on the ability of terrorists to disrupt California's infrastructure. F. THE VPC MISCHARACTERIZES THE ACQUISITION OF FIFTY CALIBER FIREARMS BY AL QAEDA The proponents, specifically the 'VPC, attempt to demonize the leading manufacturer of fifty caliber rifles, equating it to a gunrunner for the Taliban,'' In Voting From the Rooftops, the VPC supports its "gunrunner" characterization by citing to "evidence that Al Qaeda bought 25 Barrett fifty caliber sniper rifles" in the late 1980s. The report further states: "Nor do we know whether the guns were sold directly from the factory or through a dealer or dealers."'18 What the report fails to mention, however, is that at the time of the transfer the United States was supporting Afghanistan's Mujahedeen against the Soviet puppet government, and that the sale was arranged for and sanctioned by the U.S. Government. As explained by bonnie Barrett, president of Barrett Firearms, the "Barrett rifles were picked up by U.S. government trucks :sh pedt I3.S ,govern , p b_ s,e , ship d fr theme e fgha free. fighters ' ,. � help rtt ntch ,acte :w h >. ttti*ttti "" aL lerR p �. fort carne out, the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms visited Barrett's plant and confirmed that the late-1980s sales were in full com rice with they Bu i did not dissuade the VPC. As columnist David Kopel obsce .a , t Arguably,the VPC co lel,. le i wr nc, r., conte° of its October 2001 report, which insinuated that Barrett Firearms knowingly sent guns to al Qaeda. But now, the facts have co e out showing be and an , oubt that Barrett's sale was to the U.S. gov e t, ` d t� tit s',the v go; rn t a ok the gins to Afghanistan. Yet t ha ile ' o corn s gin e nd so the initial charges against-Barrett re ai` on tl`l VPC `bsite an° n t e rts presented to various state and local municipalities]."' In sum, based on the o sio 's g,v ti ion, o lY r that 25 fifty caliber rifles were delivered by the I.J.S. 'mvern ,ent d om�eti e the late 1980's. The Commission found no evil ee, on o atlt r;e n in tiicurrent use of those rifles, or whether they are still possessed by members of al Qaeda. Nor did the Commission find evidence that terrorists-are sin =thty of fif��caber eap s as � �nents seek to ban, or any indication that sue *fin d i act to # r�st ac' ty. C . �sszon did find that approximately 70% of l�rro t alta° whirl td t�ci p is unclear what All AJ F��VFoee dRcy Cc' Vo' F�o+xt the Raft syober 2(I37}p Fib a f lbt alp e„ R. „* F X91 o 1 ba�tl,"€"runs atii C aracter As'sass izatit n,?'4ional evfecv f3ri3ir e (Desi r Y ,X001)AvailaW at http://www.nationalreview.conVkopel/kopel 122 10 Lshtml. 120L`separtnient of Home Land Security:Terrorism in Perspective—Emergency Response To Terrorism,available at: http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/doe/3ModI.doe. 61 percentage of the remaining attacks involve firearms, what percentage of those firearms are rifles, or what percentage of rifles are fifty caliber. The Commission also found that the VPC's allegations of a connection between U.S. manufacturers and terrorist groups is false. G. THE "ULTIMATE JIHAD CHALLENGE" WAS NOT A TERRORIST TRAINING SCHOOL In Doting from the Rooftops, the VPC claims that. "This report documents in detail the following facts and others that underscore the clear and present danger 50 caliber sniper rifles present to all Americans. It proves beyond doubt that terrorists and other ruthless criminals now have the means, the training, and the motivation to inflict extraordinary harm on America with 50 caliber sniper ries." (emphasis in original) Among the "facts"highlighted by the VPC that "prove beyond doubt" the terrorist threat posed by fifty caliber rifles was the existence of a terrorist training school called the "The Ultimate Jihad Challenge," allegedly operating within the U.S. The report declares (in bold, italics) that: A fundamentalist Islamic organization offers a two-week training course at a site within the United States entitled "The Ultimate Jihad Challenge," which includes "live fire sniper/counter sniper" and "shooting at, thru &from vehicle"---skills that ,diyrectl .enha the thr t at an 1 ses 12' t The ve ���e 2sxo; r f z4t 2: � be er apo Fa t eecites the VPC eP911 �'ng is c tE_. at ` ":� r� t `` ..ra is ga io s training course at a site within the U.S. entitled `The Ultimate Jihad Challenge."' That claim, however, is false. The Co *ssion. ted no e idenlim ool actually existed or that anyone received training at t s " `oon e u f fiie i s or any other firearms. What did exist was a website, own br: in ido w detained and later released by British authorities on Augus y fl to try in' cent of any wrong doing. On August 10,2002,three , onths before publication the"fact sheet" cited by proponents of the fifty Iklbe� , a i r Ti i b l C ell examined the evidence concerning th s " of ;; e ent , trial, re se in-ul Ibidin.112 In that article,Mr. Cowell not °tha,, ac rdIng t in-u - din, t ,e s o site was part of a "bona fide commercial venture in the training of people who wanted to be involved in the completely lawful security l,n s uc °a :. rds." r. e found that "The business had been largely unsuccess ll- my n o akin ries about training as a security guard." He further states th �"it w un. le w t th c rs ct all existed " noon that authorities recovered a laptop from the school (there was no mention of fifty caliber rifles or other firearms being recovered). Thus, the clay fro `��r at "a amen 'st is nization offers a 2- week training course" b �nts l d en ha'� tt s o t he extent it existed anywhere other than in cyberspace, was run by a security firm, not a fundamentalist Islamic organtzatton, ( ) the school no longer exists and therefore offers no courses: and(3)there is no evtden e af` ththe s pool €azrteti ton lie 4je of f�f y carr i r rifles; c� fear 8 x+ Ron w T' qp 121 Violence Policy Center, Voting From the Rooftops(October 2001)p. 28. -12 Cowell, AIan,"British Court Frees a Muslim Arrested After 9/11,"New'Fork Times,August 10,2002. 62 In short, the Commission found no factual foundation to support proponents' alarmist claims concerning the "Ultimate Jihad Challenge" school, and no connection between the school and the alleged terrorist threat posed by fifty caliber rifles. The Commission also found that, if the school ever did exist, it no longer does—and is not offering 2-week training courses in anything. Finally, the Commission was unable to discern from the proponents claims' any evidence suggesting that a ban on fifty caliber rifles currently available in California would have had any impact on the school; proponents provided no evidence that the school used or intended to use any version of fifty caliber rifles. H. FIFTY CALIBER RIFLES PRESENT NO INCREASED DANGER TO COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT Representative henry Waxman and other proponents continue their gross overstatements, misstatements, and scare tactics, stating that fifty caliber firearms pose a grave danger to our commercial aviation facilities: Fifty caliber weapons are extremely powerful and have extraordinary range. They are capable of bringing down airplanes and helicopters, they can pierce armored personnel vehicles, and they can be fired from thousands of yards away."' Pers el : i �n heat . m tar �b s;andcl . ` n p ulat s ,nd t A SQ caliber sniper rifle attack against a civilian airfield using armor- piercing,incendiary itl ' eel vail �1 � _ �ilian market---could set off a series of fra cid e ;1 ons; „the z mall rn one aircraft ignited another close to it."a w . Unfortunately, the ability of Representative Waxman and proponents to conceive horrific doomsday scenarios fats ceels bf" find_ vrdn ' p r their extraordinary claims. The lv'ational ion fet pard �B` ata s viation Accidents contains no reference tron :sir > ft ids involve Fla rir? �r. Nonetheless, the 'VPC continues to spread its propaganda, recently managing to have its alarmist claims repeated in c rt pu is d " t#a Nove be, ;2 03, copy of"Air Safety Week," an article that provi for � z to e .and embellish on claims made in VPC's earlier paper, entitle ust B rd ua.rn th a , tail Aviation from SO caliber Sniper Rifles. Unfortunately, the article takes Mr. Diaz's claims at face value and includes such subheadings as: "Anti-armor wea on could turn airliners into explodin balls of fire." The article repeats long-since disc . i, d Im e by az,ttnc 'ding �'atl Bin Laden's al Qaeda is believed to have obt tw z n th s a o s = 4te. r i`F,nal arms bazaar." That is an obvious referent t aifl�s c� �e o ,(�aecthe U . �ernn�ent in the late tz3C)ct 9, 1 !e fro ged Sues 1Z pr ent t ve HentyAWaiman to Tom'`Ri e, e xe Hp land l21` y xA OR �� a` C)ct elf"I to oo>,sta etnert; tf Rep.Heay.Va an f the Congress of thy;united,,,' es I e Vi ence Policy Center's Report "Voting from the Rooftops." 125 Violence Policy Center,Just Like Bird Hunting :the Threat to Civil Aviation from 50 Caliber Sniper Rifles (2003),p. 19. 63 1980'x, and purchased from Barrett Manufacturing in Murfreesboro,Tennessee (discussed above). Mr. Diaz knows this, yet he does not clarify the time frame, explain the circumstances, or note that the "international arms bazaar" was in Tennessee, the "arms dealer" was the U.S. government, and the "consumers"were Afghan freedom fighters engaged in battle with the Soviet Union. In any event, the recent article in Air Safety Week provides no new factual foundation for VPC's previous claims regarding the ability of terrorists to shoot airliners out of the sky, or blow them up on the ground, using fifty caliber rifles, claims which the Commission has found unrealistic and greatly exaggerated. 1. Taking Down an Aircraft in Flight with Fifty Caliber Firearms is Extremely Unlikely Without"Volume Fire" from Machine Guns Although the proponents' paper Just Like Bird Hunting: the Threat to Civil Aviation from 50 Caliber Sniper Rifles admits some difficulty in destroying a jet aircraft in flight using fifty caliber firearms, many of those who support banning the firearms would have us believe in the extreme ease of destroying aircraft in flight with civilian versions of fifty caliber firearms, as evidenced by the above statements of Representative Waxman. fn�facl �riexly� ryr�ifit �hli ' t� tY�Cie e e JA iown an air raft tltght th 1 f �mp� srs th� nty lur Errehr of large num ersc f b 11et "gin .,shout a c�.untix. I-'' iatt, we s , to completion of the task. As fully-automatic firearms have been taxed and regulated since 1934 and highly regulated in Californi eats p nese sary" �" is virtually impossible with the fifty-caliber firearms leg y ai In C orni Moreover, even thou n., P p p, ;,r less b� ntly biased than Representative Waxman's statements, it still grossly overestimates the threat of legally-available fifty caliber rifles to aircraft in flight. Fifty ca iµ er rifles are so lo n and avy,that it would be virtually impossible for the aver ' , ers ' to "t u; th riff" a s th r e once and track an aircraft in flight or ever to "` th arr I � F e a le, encs quote an army field manual as indicating th ."po:sibi it f do ing att king a. t vc s Fall arms fire:"t 7 Small arras fire against aerial latforms can be effetvd e, A uick review of the record shows this to e the :,r ar,oui(ai rc lost 259 jet aircraft and 285 other aircra, < Q co in 9," annse fire, which is nearly five times as many a craft t t, stc . ei Ii iibat. In South Vietnam, we lost 410 fixed-wing aircraft and 2,100 helicopters."" y ha reg � a E 126 To the extent that a vlsua'aid t "'necessary fb ieint�nsrh 'ii'e fficu "hl tinb a moving target with fifty caliber rifles, the Commission recommends that the reader review"Fire Storm in the Desert"(Machine Gun Magic) produced by Dillon Precision,, n w tch dozens of cxtachtne-guns ex end usands of rounds caf• mt tion t ahem g to shot di rem e c traf aircraft ' t ; I��Vto �e Pcs icy Ce€t er,Ju�Like Biri Ilunttn he'I rent t©evil A eon front SCI Calalier ,e a t 1 a (2003}._ A 128 U.S. Department of the Army,Field Manual Number 44-S.- Combined Arnrsfir Air Defense(Washington, DC: 1999),par.5-4.downloaded from http://www,adtdi.army.mil/cgi-binlatdl.dll/fm144- 8/toc.htm on July 23, 2001 64 However, the very same field manual that the proponents quote as evidence of the ability to bring down an aircraft with fifty caliber rifles on two separate occasions mentions the necessity of"volume fire". To engage aerial platforms effectively, you must follow some basic rules. The first rule to follow is to use a technique known as volume fire (Figure 5-1). The key to success in engaging enemy air is to pus out a high volume of fire. (emphasis added) The more bullets a unit can put in the sky, the greater the chance the enemy will fly into them."' h : D" t lYr r 5:I-gu ', ..fro .,iManua 8,illustrating the importance of"volume fire,' which is impossible to produce with le lly-available .SO caliber firearms. ENGAGING .VI It A CS�ff ec e � speed of jets, the best techni e to se gait�st the; is to uto ti eapons in continuous bursts. If the jets are inbound, aim slightly above the nose or fuselage and fire. If the jet is n us _ �f- met ( ds, or about two football fields) and et g t�e j �. th ugh t e e of�ire from the machine guns, do my to aeon a s �f t jet--it flies too fast. (emphases added.)'30 Likewise, the p c pt r ents;quot�A rothe1�,rrny fief ma ,al5s cavi ing evidence that an aircraft could be broug n,, .4 le' ly-aale fi all fl AOL 1,1S L 29 is g i', U.S.Ddparrr�t nf'of the'Artny, Field t�i:nua VunYber,44- Cir in tt rmn or Air Defense(Washington, DC: 1999),par.5-6. t30U.S.Department of the Army,Field Manual Number 44-8: Combined Arms for Air Defense(Washington, DC: 1999), par.5-22. 65 Another Army manual states unequivocally: `An individual soldier firing a rifle or a machine gun can achieve hits on an enemy aircraft when he leads the target.131 Again, a closer look at the document cited by the proponents reveals the necessity of engaging aircraft with "volume fire" if any chance of success can be expected: Fires from air defense artillery weapons, small arms, and machine guns must be massed against the air threat."�- The best small arms protection against attacking aircraft is volume fire. It is effective. With everyone shooting at once, a large volume of airspace will be covered.'3s SMIALL,ARMS VOLUME FIRE 7 t %rr 93. .,�` T`t , ♦. �i. waw• Figure 16: Illustration from Appendix E to Field Manual 44-18,again showing the need for ,'volume fire." Once more, the ,rop e xci an y pub atio or ; e Rp ?tion that legally_ available fifty caliber rifles pose a risk to our nation's aircraft: A newsletter publishd t eenterfo try Les sated at Ft. Leavenworth, KansaLt e stat 'oo" mated r om small arms is effective against ene "„y atrc�fta a (ince again, the proponents omit critical information contained in the publication. A look at the entire passage frcrrr'the ne.vvstte� allsrdubt heti arrs fire can destroy an 1 13'U.S. Department of the ” rmy, p encllxl l be r 44- 8' `om'ine Arms for Air Defense {Washington, DC: 1999),p. E-2. t3 U.S epart , nt of he Argy;Appendix F'o;Field Manual Number 44,.!j8.- Combing Ar or�r efen 4,. + . (Was ons 19� p �. s i : .,. 133 m % I3.S ar ` nt czf Ar ;Apperidx E to Fa Glattual Nuber4 X8: Combine "I r, {Washing n,. _.,f999)i p. Ela 134Just Like Bird Hunting, p. 22,quoting U.S.yDepartment of the Army,Center for Array Lessons Learned, Newsletter No. 2-88.•Light Infantry in Action—fart II(updated 30 Sept. 1997). 66 aircraft. (It is also important to recall that small arms include weapons firing ammunition up to 2Omm; a fifty caliber round is 12.7rnm.): Coordinated fire from small arms is effective against enemy aircraft. Even if an aircraft is not hit or destroyed, it can intimidate the pilot and cause him to fly higher or seek an easier target. (emphasis added)"' Moreover, a closer look at the newsletter again shows the importance of"volume fire" to taking down aircraft in flight: British troops were preparing to move out of the beachhead at San Carlos Bay when four Argentine jets flying at a low level appeared without warning and headed out over the water. Forces on the ground firing small arms and automatic weapons placed a "curtain of lead" in front of the flight path of the aircraft. As the four aircraft exited from the area, pieces of the tail section from one of the Mirages began to fall off and smoke appeared to be corning from out of its side just before it crashed. (emphasis added)"' An Afghan pilot of the Communist Afghan Army, who defected in 1984,disclosed that the Soviet built MI 24 (Hind) was extremely vulnerable to machine gunfire, e c hNhe ed e` e coli id flte rtlrt�f "s. { ph a w t37 k aide ' d3 �� � h d A de e irttd� and� a rhles t.. imle�o it deferi`d arti� and the concentrated fire of automatic weapons. Both sides use the `curtain of lead' technique to f e f . er o heir "However, this technique works best as a supp e_ t A ° yst>> �. (ernasrs added)"' 2. Shoott ova _ A irtt eft Yth Bu its is an Almost Impossible Feat; U ilitarIn t�nly + on sly ned to Do So: nx ��There is only o bal tsti = asedaircraf system n t ie a n 'tlbf the United States Armed Forces. The MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS). The CIWS is a terminal defense anti-aircraft system oyed onm all, hip,,de sig d tQ engage low-level targets at point-blank range after all o .er.: e ure h ' it The k is based on a pair of General Electric M61A1 Vulcan Ca ons, M mz s -b e e c r c e Gatling guns each capable of firing 3,000 to 4,5003 depleted uranium armor-piercing discarding sabot rounds per minute for a combined maximum rate of 9,000 rounds per minute or 150 rounds per second. Each gun is _4AM, A* V` E "IVRI, 1-oo 135 § # §ems . n Rctia i rtr h"a `dates Se Center or Arrlty� zJ, Leirnet News e ter Na 2 UA 3 iartment f Arrr# `36Ibid. 137Ibid. 138Ibid. 67 equipped with multiple radars stems incorporating Forward-Looking InfraRed (FUR), Doppler Monopulse and Ru-Band Digital MTI tracking v .. ... k.. , capabilities, as well as a multi-axis motorized firing platform and computerized fire control system. (See � .. Figure 1.7,' 9) '' Even with the incredible rate of fire, anti- aircraft engagement requirements prohibit direct human intervention. Instead, the system operates on 4 an automatic mode, tracking and firing at faster than human speeds. Each gun/radar unit weighs 13,600 pounds for a total system weight of 27,200 pounds. These gargantuan, complex, multi-million dollar systems exist because a man on the deck with a rifle cannot shoot a plane out of the sky. (sources: Hughes Missile Systems Company; Federation of American Scientists Military Analysis Network.)0 , igue 19-: A Ftr �or€rcfman assign to the � Cr��� �yst,ms�eparCnent a rd th = uclear %ill .., 1�1 t .sem, eecs thefaarrelg`itt�ngt3-cine E� therie - Suffering Catastrophic four Phalanx Close-In Weapons System Mark Coni )en , Fifteen(+CIWS MK l5)systems. Apart from the nearw i fst1ga 'glane't t flight with a non-automatic firearm, it is clear that evenm tel aw s eededtWshooting a commercial aircraft, the result would not be the catastrophic "explosive decompression" seen in Hollywood movies. With the emer e girl° ° X1970` " ircraft man t rf Boeing set a new priority on testing their t(a) bili agains h po�stbtIt $,&nire. Themanufacturer conducted a series of to is i ol g sn act 1 pre luriddes simulating ,.. real-world flight conditions. These tests proved t t l o` d= .°i ""e losive decompre cion" occurs only in action movies. The relative dange o e rw�rt 0.1 com rct} I jet from a round of ammunition was ranked as less of a thre , han of i w a el%`aao . . Continual engineering and advances in material science have steadily improved the structural integrity of t deir ins ing the sale operatrort� ftese aircraft in the.face of such events as light ri ` nd e fro �renc forte of sre storm conditions. A half-inch hole is insight e e rce c�iireenuredby commercial aircraft every day. n f , the ecent ee lion f t rvernrn nt tq�41iow pilots to fly armed itself: exhib h 'ck �` ang :;taZor nerctal rr t from all arms fire. A F deral Viapo .r T c" 139 Picture available at http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/itnaces/ima-weps9.htmi. }expert Commission Member Michael Marks. 68 Administration instructor recently emphasized the lack of threat and told his students that"you couldn't carry enough small arms ammo to take down an airliner from inside!"" The amount of small arms fire taken by many aircraft in World War H without being destroyed further demonstrates the lack of danger posed by non-automatic fifty caliber firearms to commercial aircraft. The P-36 airplane flown by 2" Lieutenant Philip Rasmussen during Pearl Harbor sustained more than 500 bullet hits but was able to land nonetheless.F4' Pan Am's Philippine Clipper survived a Japanese air attack at Pearl Harbor and with over sixty bullet holes. Despite the damage, the plane was deemed airworthy and later in the day safely evacuated sixty passengers from Wake Island to Hawaii.'' In sum, proponents' claims that fifty caliber rifles present a serious threat to aircraft greatly exaggerate the capabilities of such rifles, especially those currently available in California, which are predominantly bolt action models. Even using multiple fifty caliber machine guns, shooting down an aircraft is a formidable task. I. FIFTY CALIBER RIFLES PRESENT NO DANGER TO TANKS AND MINIMAL INCREASED RISK TO ARMORED VEHICLES 1. Fifty Caliber Rifles are Not Effective Weapons Against Modern Tanks ke i#�ty NuT s i s l f P �te �o o a o tan Therproncs tt �r.' "It is not true, nor has the VPC ever claimed, that a 50 caliber round can penetrate the armor of ajd � n to espite ccas o 41-p I�us reports to that effect. What is true is tha5 1 : r n f to , crewsbutton up," and well- placed shots couldro r de e nto nalipment and vision blocks on some tanks, Seand 1e o " ``Tic 'a Tank, 'Soldier of Fortune, posted on Barrett Firearms Internet web site, downloaded from http://www.clic ud' '.c ary/ f:htm n"S , to lie 29, 2001. These, however, are gel litTatair s beyo +dhe ge. f port and the VPC's interest '' Thus, even the proponents agree that fifty caliber bullets are incapable of piercing modern tank armor, and that the gre "`s t carzse is t ot�r�tially damage some external equipment on the vehicle. is n d the t7 to Cates Army on M84 tanks indicate that even damagin xtern e ip n 8 :;la s s n ,t possible. Firing various caliber rifles at the thermal sight heads on M84 tanks (somewhat like an infrared camera), the Army found that fifty caliber bullets were unable to penetrate the armored casing at any range.t4 In fact, the smallest caf e : ul iL, as c .ab e of netr� th caking was 20 mm (fifty caliber bullets are the i1 . ie o 12t 141 . e h iazl ed" Aon At��ntsttiay La `Enfn e nt+� ficer Fliisg A�ed"trainirt prarm3 » Air �e lva aztne"Septet�n =200 "I"he He ae $f the Fo( e"{t> i)• t435ee`.'Tfii F1'y ng.Clippeis:1" n iYt's l lads. n hips'at http:ldt-wtv.t1 inbcli" i's.eoui clippersatu tr=html ` tViolence Policy Center, "Voting from the Rooftops,"(October 2001)p. 12;-11ote f. 145 United States Army, "Worldwide Equipment Guide,"(November 7, 2000) p. 1-4.3. 146lbid. 69 2. There Is No Evidence that Fifty Caliber Rifles Present a Significant Increased Threat to Armored Vehicles The proponents claim that fifty caliber rifles pose an increased threat to armored limousines and other armored vehicles."' The proponents provide little credible evidence for their claim. The proponents cite no tests conducted with various caliber firearms against armored vehicles, nor do they provide any evidence of actual cases of civilian armored vehicles being disabled or destroyed by fifty caliber fire. The only evidence of armored-vehicle vulnerability to fifty caliber rounds provided by the proponents is the minimum performance standards for testing ballistic resistant materials published by the National Institute of Justice(NIJ) at the Department of Justice."' The proponents state that the NIJ standards cover armor-piercing ammunition only up to the thirty caliber level. That is, the highest-rated commercially available armor is certified to protect against thirty caliber armor-piercing ammunition. The implication made by the proponents is that because thirty caliber is the highest ND standard, no armor can protect against fifty caliber bullets. The thirty caliber level, however, is not the highest level ammunition armor can protect against. Though not cited by the proponents of a ban on fifty caliber rifles, the same NIJ Standards documert n hip. h t b e i n o 1 u esNar s o 'or a "Special.Type„ arta(1419NI t se n is a f r e ntl y ized specific typeuni , eu 0 m t a the o r tamu ion t ctn onI percas t s d�ervtft n ' lei , e ed tt03, c�'a� fty' `al`ibers: a purchaser having . ficial retnen for e , ction other than one of the above standards u s i he ct t rnd` 0�ie used, and indicate that this standard sh , go r i 0 sp: t ....Tl test weapon, cartridge type,bullet construct , ul a b ss, an Ilet striking velocity must all be specified by the user. The proponentst t p rn etc al a otreatly that can resist fifty caliber armor-piercing u ,' r Ith gclai t c is I increased.'' In addition, a number of Jor an f ureucefr ateriaTfil1' t c stand fifty caliber rounds including, but not limited.to, American Defense Systems (discussed above) and Labock Technologies, which has sue x tes u d tra 11-jor materials to defeat .50 +Cal. Machine Gun, and f3.4k Dir ct n B b witfball bearings at 7 meters}, which is the equivalent t0 7 Tls, '`� et�s thrmored vehicles are inherently vulnerable to fifty caliber rifles because the NU standard ceases at .30 caliber rifles is ludicrous. , R... ,.� _�. ��, E 147 t4sVio ce P 1''y Ce ter `V n rom o ctober 001),p 49-50. � � lbiok 14 &� &"" I*lat o n ute _f; stfoe . Ile rtment 0� 11 Ball Al hi" t Pratective�Ma�er��s tib Sta�farcE 010 dl,(w ept 15OViolence Policy Center,"Voting from the Rooftops,"(October 20 1)pp.49'=50. "tlbid. 152 Labock Technologies website:http://www.labock.comknglish/nijOI080Lhtm. 70 fn addition, proponents claim that protection against fifty caliber bullets would be cost prohibitive. They do not, however, provide any cost comparison of armor able to withstand fifty caliber armor-piercing ammunition versus standard light armor, so the claim is difficult to assess. J. CURRENT ARMORED PROTECTION STANDARDS DO NOT CONSIDER FIFTY CALIBER RIFLES OR AMMUNITION IN THEIR STANDARDIZED SCHEDULES As with any bullet fired from any weapon, the fired round will either penetrate a target or be repelled by the target. The basic dynamics involved are as follows: The round in question, as it is detonated in the chamber of the weapon, moves at a set velocity established by the amount of powder in the charge and is either enhanced or diminished by the interior surface (the lands and grooves /rifling)of the barrel. These factors are easily measurable and will determine the speed of the projectile as well as the force at impact, less the effects of wind, heat and gravity over the distance that the projectile travels. As the projectile travels its impact will lessen as its speed decreases. When the round strifes a rigid barrier, the makeup of the barrier will determine if the round will pass through or be defeated by the barrier. The angle of the barrier at the point of impar w„l alsq. fec is _ee r g e ob o rr. s are yered to rrtee a spodf is b litfl t e s ;t� t st th ea ' i , t e s f bot i,,�paq targets and �anspr t t t . " There are standards in place within the United States and internationally that determine the minimum criteria for mate a R een. �taable ofw I given caliber. In the United States these ballistic; standar in` ucl M, dot tJustice (NU), State Department (SD), and the U e it0 es. These standards measure the ability of different materials to stop a round under various conditions. None of the United Sta es testin agencies evide consider the fifty caliber rifle or round to be a sufficient 0 - etr ;'ng e t tofaliclo n it standardized schedules. The same is ru ern Ana tandarh om epted United States standards are produced In A ncfix"t, for` Terence. The only recent data found b the Commission relatin to the netrating capabilities of fifty caliber ammunition ar pro ow i o arts, bel : , one for armor piercing ammunition and one fcr the. lfty a� % it t ica se y competitive shooters. The latter chart does not address nior- rckng` p if, re n u ag4ball ammunition is not considered an armor piercing cartridge."' p p . Table 1-5, belov , l s tl�e m�ri arra pe tralton rocs r, armor-piercing cartridge fired from the 45-inch ? ' } ( zle ocit , fe It 153 These tables are from the I.I.S. Department of the Army,Field Manual 23-E5 (Washington, DC, 19 June 1991),7- 1 Ammunition (http:/twww.-lobalsecurity.org/rnilitary/library/policy/army/fnV23-65/toc.htm) 71 Ay� � . Armor plate (homogeneous) 1.0 0.7 0.3x Armor plate(face-hardened) 0.9 0.5 0.2 Sand(100 pounds dry weight/cubic feet) 14.0 12.0 6.0154 Clay(100 pounds dry weight/cubic feet) 2 8.0 27.0 21.0 Table 1-6 lists the maximum penetration in inches for a ball cartridge fired from the 45- inch barrel (muzzle velocity, 2,935 feet per second): Sa (100 un far ei ub fejt 1 0 Clay (100 pounds dry weight/cubic feet) 18.0 27.0 21.0 Concrete 2.{J I r 1.0 1.0 The absence of data in a irnrre'ratil-f armor for fifty caliber ball cartridges indicates that the cartridge is not deemed to be a threat or concern common enough to require such studies. Further, as demonstrated in Fi ure 6 (at age, 31, above), even an illegal armor-piercing, ince n ah o d can s d b g late of safety glass at relatively close range. t to a of con c ed ith 1 mmunition, but obviously such ammunition ou b mor asily repelled. The Commission is not su gesting that a civilian model fift caliber rifle, using ball ammunition, is not a Powe I an c p e =f etrati d, se jects; it is, as seen in the charts above. Rather, the C is n i st p :. t pti o t through the hype and propaganda being dissemin by ne s th ba4 d ie discussion focused on the actual rifles that would be subject to such bans, and ammunition legally available for use in those rifles. It serves no pu - o bat h dtffi pl€,i is t shoo d s liner employing multiple fifty caliber .. Susi ` expl y rou w � , osed bans would have en absolutely no impact o h t t evSt il�`l eis s' g e armor piercing ability of the rifles at issue, t e otintsslon si plyseeks to paint out t at proponents' claims ON Theoranat chart�nrt cates�t �p#�e etrattonie th for sand 1,Sofl ters is I6 fiche he vel 4snt re is 412 tli regarding the ability of fifty caliber rifles to destroy armored limousines and other armored vehicles are exaggerated, not supported by documentation, and rely heavily on the presumed use of specialty ammunition, most of which is already banned in California. n 4 ' DR.,A, FT NOT FOR. PtJ'Bl,-41C RE'LEASE VAIu r ,r 73 PART VII: IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO CLASSIFY ALL FIFTY CALIPER RIFLES AS "ASSAULT WEAPONS" Some reports and comments by the author of the proposed California fifty caliber rifle ban, Assembly Bill 50, have stated that all fifty calibers should be deemed "assault weapons." "Assault weapons" are semi-automatic firearms regulated by the State because the California Legislature has deemed them to have limited sporting use. Not all fifty caliber(rifles or handguns) are semi-automatic; most rifles used for match competition events are single shot, bolt action models. The question then is whether all fifty caliber rifles and handguns capable of accept' g erste , ire 4 c, 1G, b ee e eap ns."w The m si ie I th t t o Isla dra 'ng i ss wea ns laws and pnyd11th °�ca o�zin Ana semi to att ri s a au ea ` its ul e c i t nt with intent and purpose of such laws. Further, because the State has already expressly determined which firearms are and are not `assault weapon,," local bans based on classifying bolt action fifty caliber rifles as "assault we n�. r a w d be re- p ty state law. A. ALI, RIFLE" �� � �� � � _ -MED O BE "ASSAULT WEAPONS"ARE SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARMS... "Assault weapo+ " a (,)i ` id: it t ree ca es e tegory 1 - Penal Code section 12276 subdivis' ), Rci rti Ro ss t p _ antral Act of 1989); Category 2 Penal Cod se o2 su vision e) an f) , as r ackyer, AK and AR- 15 series assault weapons); and Category 3 - Penal Code section 12276.1 (SB 23 - generic characteristic assault weapons) Each category is discussed in detail below. 1. Cate" he o -It s As I eapons Control Act of 1989 The Roberti-Roos wolf yea o tr o 9 ` 6,wds California's first "assault weapons" act. Under this act, a firearm is deemed an "assault weapon" if it is listed in Section 12276, or if it is added tavc lsvia�a �ecessf P itio oto a craw b «he ttorney General. This list is commonly know heJ",rberttoos i" ` " beta tt t sault weapons„ identified under the R Aft. Such "assault weapons" are controlled. Under this Act, "assault weapons" may not be legally,purchased, ept f sale, o#.fered f6r,sal expos for�a1e, give noe ntl' ture dtstr�bed;y tm �rted the general pu «�ic, er iJertttbr I, 1991', a ed be F � .. RJ 155 Penal Code section 12276 et seq. also includes certain shotguns which are deemed to be"assault weapons."But shotguns are irrelevant to this discussion of fifty caliber rifles. 74 registered as "assault weapons" with the Department of Justice on or before March 31, 1992.116 Currently, the only legal option for Category 1 "assault weapons" that were not registered on or before March 31, 1992, is to surrender there to law enforcement pursuant to Penal Code section 12288. The stated purpose of this law (AB 357--- 1989)was to: protect the health, safety and security of all citizens of the state by placing a restriction on those semi-automatic weapons whose function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that they can be used to kill or injure human beings. It is not the purpose of the bill to ban weapons primarily designed and 'intended for hunting,target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activities. The bill does not propose to take away assault weapons legally within the possession of current owners."' Thus, AB 357 was not based upon the caliber of the designated firearms but, rather, on their semi-automatic firing ability in combination with high capacity magazines. This was clearly expressed at the Senate Committee on Judiciary hearing of April 4, 1989, as follows: This bill, as amended, would create a new class of firearms known as the "assault p n ly ,e d s i r c re nt x" .s h a �' h r cif fi nd p 0 r ti on s eiti to s rts art R + e f` s _. staff; ! e' o -th .. d . ; of rifles, pistols, and shotguns would be individually defined as assault weapons.""' Though fifty caliberD Rt- with x�Nns a ne y many Californians, they were not designated by the statutT statut as intended to regulate firearms a high rate of firet59 and high capacity magazines. All the rifles and handguns identified on the Roberti-Roos list are semi-aut atic firearms. The Robe `-Roos Act did not seek to ban firearms based upon ca of n n fift i riff t e: oberti-Roos assault weapon list" the leg' I r edl to 'ned t t ei git a rt and recreational uses outweighed any d ger ose ,,.b the es. ever gis� r '' reasoning, fifty calibers were absent from the list of firearms deemed "assault weapons" by the Roberti-Roos Act of 1989P'UBLIC . w�7 ..,.N 5 156Although under a recent.li yo ling regist KSAt th ` etac t AK-47 magazine between �' January 1, 1992 and Dece r 1 w i un fr r ert r toy,.an" y , 2000. 157 - ,W Committee On Public Safety,John Burton,Chair,AB357(1too 'As Amended February 27, 1989; Legislation Fact Sheet,Assembly Silt 357 (as proposed to be amended)Assemblyman Mike Roos,Semi-automatic assaul eapa Deta*ed SeRRth—Wha'v' Se4tion is, Asse _ 1 SiSi§17(Roos);,A§4 VJa ; ,and Mins Co sis, 357e ne 3, 1At 158 t595en t ' itte udit = ockyer, r air n AS 3 _ (R1989 90 Recl gul�S s on. Theitnt nt t lat ea a..`��iigtt te= .sire"'is, e4tii pardlegtsfatt`ve un T's tng, since the firearms designated as"assault weapons"have a rate of fire no highei'than any other semi-automatic firearm's rate of fire. The rate of fire for all semi-automatics is governed by the ability of the operator, because the firearm will fire only as fast as the user can pull the operator. 75 2. Category 2: AK and AR-15 Series Weapons The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act controlled AK and AR-15 "series" "assault weapons" (Penal Code section 12276, subd (e) and (f). This, however, was challenged in a case called Kasler v. Lockyer(97 Cal.Rptr.2d 334). Kasler was heard in the California Supreme Court. Under the California Supreme Court decision, any firearm of minor variation of the AK or AR-15 type (i.e. series weapon), regardless of the manufacturer, is a Category 2 "assault weapon" under the original Roberti-Roos "Assault Weapons" Control Act of 1989. All Ali and AR-15 series were thereafter identified and listed by manufacturer by the Department of Justice. Like Category 1 "assault weapons," all Category 2 "assault weapons" are semi-automatic. 3. Category 3: Assault Weapons: Generic Characteristics As of January 1, 2000, semi-automatic firearms that have a combination of characteristics identified in Penal Code section 12276.1 are assault weapons. (Senate Bill 23 (Chapter 129, Statutes of 1999).) There are eight separate combinations of features that create a category 3 "assault weapon," defined as follows: 'k A -a m 'c qLgjt)hp p e det chabl 9ma ne i he es s i u sl ea e 0; actio; f t aa 1 ig r sco g s kna�1ginch " r fl� lau ; res , a�rwa d p 1 " (2) A semi-automaticente - rifle t at ha e azine with the capacity to accept more than ro d 6 (3) A semi-autrsmati r, . e e tha as over length of less than 30 inches;162 (4) A semi-au ti pi I h t Its ca oto tletiablre magazine and either a thr 1 c . bl f acce a shfowdhandgrip, or sil ce , on an ip, a s ud t , t i t ,or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand,,exce t a slide that encloses the barrel, or the capacity to accept a detachable ,! i at 1 at outs he istol grip;i ' (5) A semi-autaat� isto. it as e ,.: az' e ..at t capacity to accept more than 10 rounds;164 (6) A semi-aute , t, sign t has Pott fold`ng o te�is ir�� stock and a pistol grip that de c nsp oust death ac f eapon, thumbhole stoc e a� a grx ;` 16or' n& , oc ti 276 � -F i 162 t s " xa s Fe 163tbA "''bid. 16stbid. 76 (7) A semi-automatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine;"'and (8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder is also deemed to be a category 3 "assault weapon."161 These assault weapons were controlled as of January 1, 2000, and trust have been registered as assault weapons with the Department of Justice on or before December 31, 2000.'68 Currently, the only legal option for Category 3 assault weapons that are not registered is to surrender thein to law enforcement pursuant to Penal Code section 12288. There is an exception for peace officers. Every rifle and handgun identified as a category 3 "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic action firearm. Testifying to the rationale for this,the author of SB23, Senator Perata, stated in a letter describing the purpose of SB23 that: It is clear that in the case of rifles, an assault weapon is a semi-automatic center-fire rifle that has one of the characteristics added in [SB23] such as a vertical handgrip or a folding telescoping stock.16' s, l' cate ry.." 1 " ssa s," "as ault , pons," aret-a,t ati AND REGULATED AS "ASSAULT WEAPONS" According to Voting". caps, oddPC ponents, certain dealers offer a fifty caliber upper receiver` ha a tie thet-yo elf enthusiast to any standard AR.-15 lower receiver,prod : f' r t ' t ao ding to the California Department of Justice,a lower receiver of an assault weapon is deemed to be an"assault weapon," regardless of the remainder of the )iTe Because the lower r eiver 's deemed the firearm for the purposes of regulatingN rohi i ai p s ion and/or transfer of AR-15's would also inn yncti it e 1 er receiver, such as that identified in the propopo hyb fifty li er o dby the proponents are already regulated in the state of California under the category 2 "assault weapon" prohibitions. PUBLIC 166Ibid . K.-ELEASE "''bid. 168 However,a person arrested for possession of an unregistered Category 3 assault weapon on or before December 31,2 coin - ave rYstere :`res er c it n c`• din F?t l Cc ction 12 c) ua. t reducng the charg n ctio E69Sente. €7 site E ubl s ty, nator J Vim` onee ll Chair 994-2000 e� n H (Pest )As Atndtd i�J ha +;m19. ..., .. 7°Receiver: the basic unit of a firearm which houses the firing mechanism and to which the barrel and stock are assembled. 17[Violence Policy Center, 'doting from the Rooftops, (October 2002)p.68, 77 In addition to AR-15 hybrids that are already regulated as Category 2 "assault weapons," tetany fifty caliber rifles were deemed to be category 3 "assault weapons" after the passage of 51-3 23. (See Figures 18-19) These fifty caliber rifles possess SB23 characteristics. This can be demonstrated by examining the fifty caliber rifles produced by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc. ("Barrett"), the leading fifty caliber rifle manufacturer. Barrett currently produces four"civilian" type fifty caliber rifles for law enforcement and Figure 20. An already illegal"assault weapon"Barrett Madel Sporting enthusiasts, Model 82A1, 82A1 being displayed at a Los Angeles City Council Meeting to Madel 95, Model � , and Mt7del }-1. promote the banning of all fifty caliber rifles. The ban enacted by the Los Angeles City Council does not affect the Barrett Model e M 82 i _ 82A1 as displayed. fire e cu t deh iiia -me all a 6Y� s�Ict sl protru piss I' rip. Thus particular fifty caliber rifle therefore posses the prohibited SB23`" : characteristics and is alread le t s possess and/or transfer in C ', a r unless properly registered or the possessor obtains a rarel isued California Departments ic.t. YYassault weapons"perm. As an illustration of the confusion on this point, the Model 82A I, though already illega nigLa Angel C i Cour ilmember Nate Holden holds a California as an "assault we- on," err 8� 1 ready b n , misleading the public as to the was prominently displayed Los co f t °eirclfb rttter.� Angeles City Hall by Council Member Nate HoldenltoEfgfeef xlegal ur ,vhic €he ,ityjs lean would prohibit when the City Los Angeles passrning r f��ca46 riff d - a guns. $ h As written., ane r�ptirr�y s�teacth Citi%of Los Angeles' fifty caliber ban ordinance does not prohibit the sale, possession, or transfer of the"assault weapon" dis 1 ed b date Polder ;,.since i .ex licit�/ -exern is r fles within the California "assault weap Al i at 78 C. NOT ALL FIFTY CALIBERS ARE SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARMS Many fifty caliber rifles, like the Model 95, are bolt action firearms, not semi-automatic, with a five round magazine capacity. The Model 99 and Model 99-1 are each single-shot bolt- action firearms, also not semi-automatic, firearms. These civilian versions are primarily designed and intended for hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activities. Thus, they do not fall within the definition or even the general purpose of the "assault weapon" laws. These are only a few specific examples of firearms that are not"assault weapons" because of their legitimate spurting and hunting uses. Many other fifty caliber bolt action rifles are currently available to the general public for legitimate sporting and hunting interests because they are not currently identified as "assault weapons." D. FIFTY CALIBER RIFLES SHOULD NOT BE DEEMED "ASSAULT WEAPONS"SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR CALIBER As stated above, all handguns and rifles that are deemed "assault weapons"are semi- automatic action firearms. The intent of each of the three statutory schemes that regulate"assault weapons" is designed to regulate certain firearms based upon it's features. It was not the intent of the previous "assault weapons" acts to deem a firearm an "assault weapon"based upon its caliber. Thu ;If iql : t o se t s n a , eap ing fire s bas up cl to list sa ons mpl ly tr th expr � u o ve a. ,.alt p t g s wo e . i les being deemed "assault weapons." In addition, adding all center-fire fifty caliber rifles and handguns to the list of"ass e °'woul bend violate the intent of the "assault weapon"statutes, si e t f` yca r ri s duns are semi-automatic, nor can all such firearms utilize h p i f es. NOT FOR, PUBLIC R E E A S E R 4 R!" 0 0 4 79 CONCLUSION Having reviewed the various reports by the Violence Policy Center and statements made by certain politicians urging a ban on all fifty caliber firearms, the Commission finds that the vast majority of information disseminated by proponents of such a ban is little more than propaganda. Proponents' claims that fifty caliber rifles are "the weapon of choice for criminals," can hit targets at 7,500 yards, shoot down airliners, and blow up fuel storage tanks are demonstrably false. Other claims are simply gross exaggerations of the risks associated with these firearms, often based on capabilities of military versions of the rifles (e.g., machine guns),using military ammunition and accessories—and even the military capabilities are"embellished." The reports rarely reference single shot, bolt action rifles using ball-type ammunition,even though that is what proponents seek to ban. The Commission further finds that ban proponents instill fear in people by inundating them with dgta)I d des ip ' s eal d, " u dreds of th .0 rids of castties t th f n a ty illi e r a cola tho not d alta y ban d as t m fz- a s `< a p t ase it cear` e Rhop�a`sir identI a c` sic ple. � �i� a � � , n tat rro � act, � d'the e � causing the disaster was water. Similarly,proponents cite the al Qaeda's embassy bombings, the 9/11 attack, and other terror" mi ed s, airliners, and box cutters—not rifles. The prop an p s o se . �'el� ence re clear: proponents hopeto transfer the fears associatedt e ,t W.k �to c°, u f fifty caliber rifles, and use that fear to promote the proposed bans. In fact, proponents avoid mentioning the firearms that would be affected by the ban,that is thos fifty caliber rifles used b civilians in match competition shooting and big game ti g In sum, while fift ca e e re doubt > =werf : it p onents have failed to connect that fact to any tangible threat to society, one that might be reduced by banning the rifles. Historically speaking, the rifles have been used to commit crimes less often than baseball bats, candle sticks, or even huma t er Ps a ti ndful of criminal incidents over an 80�-year history of u onI ne e .S.). There is no logical reason to believe that criminal use- 11 cha ` e orton�te po 'f hese heavy, long-distance firearms are of little use to burglars, muggers, bank robbers, or other criminals. One does not hold up a 7-11, a bank,or m e�o ,00Q w awa, . The same can be f tia ^ rro ," e t lSiss 1 weapons used by terrorists in attacks ona c s v e e pl iv krl is ; e , llu o easily available rocket-propelled grenades (RPG's) and, more recently,box cutters. There is no recorded incident of to restIzootin dow �air,iner pit fifty caliber rifles. �d propo s ktye of credi ence. mug at is isli "occur the tore. Ivorr,�Zbtr t� orist targets ptopenf ""ecus a ren e eail ttacied usin wa n�othe�thart;rrtflt s e g ; H �.� sin ,.,...., h ..._ '�` .. ,. explosive devices), as can be seen by examination of both historic=al evidence and current threat assessments by agencies charged with protecting such terrorist targets. Consequently, the 80 proponents' claim that the continued availability of these rifles poses an unacceptable risk lacks a factual foundation. Finally, another flaw in the proponents' arguments is their assumption that banning these rifles will have any impact on crime or terrorism, that is,any impact beyond barring sportsman from using fifty caliber rifles in match competition events or other sporting activities. As noted, the rifles are not used in crime and are unsuited for criminal use. As for terrorists, it is unrealistic to believe that banning civilian models of the fifty caliber rifle would have any impact on terrorist activity, for even if they chose to use fifty caliber weapons as part of a terrorist plot, more powerful automatic and semi-automatic military versions of the rifle are readily available. In short, a ban on fifty caliber rifles would be a symbolic gesture, one that would do nothing to lessen crime or terrorism.. It would only further erode the liberty of firearms enthusiasts to participate in safe and well regulated sporting activities. 14"... ." O � Y� � { _ D ., DRAFT NOT FOR PU'11L1C RELEASE § £ � ;'a�g R ,rte, - A .-ke�€Yt?. to a,��n ._mss_. .�,..,..,. .�:`..... :�^ ;�. ,ate. lea004 w3 P1 APPENDIX A REVIEW PANEL AND EXPERT COMMISSION MEMBERS It is the intent of this report to be factually and scientifically accurate so that these legislative bodies considering passing an ordinance to ban the sale and/or possession of fifty caliber rifles based upon false and misleading information may properly consider the issue based upon factually accurate evidence. To ensure the accuracy of the of this report, an advance copy of this report is being provided to a review panel consisting of various governmental bodies, law enforcement agencies,private corporations, professors, and other individuals for the evaluation and comments. To further the ends of this goal, a commission of experts from various fields was creat T "dr f this.,reft . . .- A. VIP ` L. mn , t�. The review panel consists of: ts� Violence Policy Celfr 64011R JCh lie Brady Center California Departmihu f Justic .. �._� axles C. Firearms Division Alameda County Sheriff Johnwlord� `T is ae : r mich Alpine Co�n� Ii� ff �� A d unit' Sheriff Perry Reniff Dennis Downum :Butte County Sheriff Calaveras County Sheriff Scott Marg. l Via. Warren Rupf Colusa Coun t5Ierf# ... ma on �Csta County Sheriff Dean Wilson Jeff Neves Del torte County Sheriff ' Dtatnty Sheriff Richarij Ivre ..s �` b' t S adle a w.'A ,k y Fresno County Sheriff '61,enriaµ ounty Sheriff Cary Philp HarqSow Ca . r umboft t County Sh6riff .. 'n,,lmperial'C n Din >Gi�cas :.. Mackd4imis Inyo County Sheriff Kern County Sheriff 82 Ken Marvin Rodney Mitchell Kings County Sheriff Lake County Sheriff Rill Freitas Lee Baca Lassen County Sheriff Los Angeles County Sheriff Jahn Anderson Robert Boyle Madera County Sheriff Marin County Sheriff James Allen Torry Craver Mariposa County Sheriff Mendocino County Sheriff Mark N. Pazin Bruce C. Mix Merced County Sheriff Modoc County Sheriff Daniel Paranick Mike Kanalakis Mona County Sheriff Monterey County Sheriff Gary L. Simpson Keith Royal Napa County Sheriff Nevada County Sheriff 15 .� ., Mr ro!N o eAer,le ount Sher ff i` NcTeu- Terry Bergstrand Robert Doyle Plumas County, hey off <. :°# )SBenito ide County Sheriff $2 � y .� s Lou Blany`� Curtis dill Sacramento Coun-illy 9fi ri' �. " ,d County Sheriff Gary,X,fnrod n.. B' lender San Bernardnc '' uther' � f Sat i a unty Sheriff Michael,H .rt.. - B t Dunn San Francisca County Sheriff San Joaquin County Sheriff Pat Hedges Bald Horsley San Luis Obispo Co ni' S niff La . ateo County Sheriff All - W -* �k4r Jim Anderson Laurie Smith Santa Barbara County Sheriff ,n Santa Clara County Sheriff MarcyE icn 'ope Santa Cruz,ti�. y �e �._<rr� e ta.. , u Sheriff ...�.. ?.9. .4 y Jim Pope Lee Adams -,§,S, has Caui� Sher�tf � '� -10 Sierra C��tyk r* , ,,- �. x ,Gari,tango ' Sisk ou Count Sheriff `So no C� .. .: cls y � y ountysheri f 83 Bill Coghill Les Weidman Sonoma County Sheriff Stanislaus County Sheriff Jiro Denney Clay Parker Sutter County Sheriff Tehama County Sheriff Lorrac Craig Bill Wittman Trinity County Sheriff Tulare County Sheriff Dick Rogers Bob Brooks Tuolumne County Sheriff Ventura County Sheriff Ed Prieto Virginia Black Yolo County Sheriff Yuba County Sheriff C.D. Michel Edward Hunt Trutanich Michel, LLP District Attorney of Fresno County(retired) Jason A. Davis The California Rifle Association Trutanich Michel,LLP '(� n � 2 ss . �iaiort � Yft ali r I, ut t�ntt�i� Ba r� D t7h,`fifty Barrett Manufacturing DR,AFT B. EXPERT COMMISSION MEMBERS Experts in a varid-. f".ie(th rel i .g: tie iss s ri h� n Ligation took Part in the creation, drafting and a p y�li po They .F.4 LLilf�c 4E ed MichaelMarks has se.;-:nteeFt<, e� e nv enforcement and emergency response arenas with an emphasis on counter-terrorism. He is the authorE n esla . s G de t o hich was adopted by the International Fire e I" Bing socit vthe e oY w , George Washington University, as well as . u haw w rceieni us worldwide. Mr. Marks has three years service on the Washington County Special Operations Team with tram' in 'ous�bazmtt D/ U stn ! ei��appli ionIue disi 'r£ e , elo a vane ract�v ,mu , ia�.. aining og s fo W, 41 rcement, a- d ncy ie- resp s p ciorwh h € y een ad t s party f5 at s .� u ams � . w in over 2? states, to In virtual reality disaster scenarios, terra ism modules or 3D interactive 84 elements for such titles as: Hazardous Materials: Managing the Incident, MPGA National Propane Safety Program., Street Smart Hazmat Response, and numerous others. Mr. barks has developed a comprehensive library. He authored SafetyOn, an interactive CD-ROM with 3D articulated cross-section models of all primary oil storage tanks and hazmat truck and railcars for national hazmat training program. He authored SafetyOn interactive firearm training program in use by FBI,BATFE, CIA and U.S. Secret Service instructors as well as academies such as the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and numerous law enforcement agencies. He also developed a prototype Clandestine Drug Lab hazard awareness simulation for DEAIHIDTA under the Office of National Drug Control Policy. He developed video-based terrorism scenario Times Square 2000 for FBI in preparation for Y2K readiness. He authored interactive simulation of Etronx advanced electronic rifle for Remington .Arras. He has completed extensive international service in defense consulting roles with emphasis on terrorism and unconventional warfare in such nations as Belgium, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, El Salvador,France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Korea (DMZ), Nicaragua, Panama, Philippines, Republic of China, Russia and Venezuela. a cNeny se a h_ �k of sergeantfort f �tf d kdi'j c til and Tra orta i Po rt ��wi �e a� a�jerrortstathreatuare ��� verland Iran rtatt He is a featured expert and lecturer with appearances ranging from various state legislatures to terrorism-awareness tour.e at George Tashingto t3 uver t He holds various tactical qualifications ranging from . w eTaicae ; ndgttn tc Ad, fined Counter-Sniper programs with training in both the Un d t Isr PW ( mr 1lFuel fnees} Mr. Rebuck has thirty-five e s of e erienc&%s a Meeh'Mica i t' g Designer/Draftsman in Industrial and Mechanical Designs. He is experienced in refineries,chemical plants, material handling facilities and the d vel int° f re8eka h ilot plants • tl'loratory equipment, including the design of AS e re�e Iaterr S.. cifications. He has twenty- four years of computer design e Brn sig3t ta Reds th 2000 and Auto-trot GS 5004 and GS 7000. Mr. Rebuck expeence a � Hz= p-Desrner= ncludes bng reg;, zble for visual inspection of refinery p, s fie,' pipin and'taAeld g rlities for compliance with industry material a 'c or s rt, co ' iyleri e r i �a d updated existing drawings to reflect current process and equipment status. He directed and assisted CAD operators in convertin manual drawings to electronic format and.producing new P&IDs, .maps and plot plans re ed. tV­ �- uc��s e e e a` a Seni CAIS Des grip includes bei res o srfif e' Il . - . .. .. •=,,. ��2 . development of P&IDs, PFDs, electrical and instrument schematic drawings, naps, graphs 85 including piping and vessel drawings using Auto CAD Software Release 10 & 11, Auto-trot GS 5000. Mr. Rebuck's work as a Senior Pilot Plant Designer included responsibilities for the development of mechanical designs and drawings for pilot plants including development of laboratory equipment. He reviewed and analyzed calculations to determine the most cost effective means to complete projects. He was also responsible for developing fabrication specifications and selecting and ordering of material. Mr. Rebuck also has experience as an Illustrative Draftsman. While in this role he was responsible for the development of graphic presentation charts, graphs,etc., including the design, layout and drafting of exploded view drawings for technical training manuals, including the development and checking of equipment fabrication drawings for the Chevron Richmond Refinery. DENNIS KUROVSKY,P.E. (Oil Refineries) u o in Bring ° e oity, 971. e is a Lice� ed ssi al i e �a o e apical 2Ys 6 ,C ere.cal 39 }. He was en i rin . n t :r : S. v f er using�i lame flic H h n � eerg experi ' e for 1 ol' ere ra`ei B "y a4a, rt "tci r r responsibilities for$100 million in currently installed equipment. lie has completed engineering work for three Bay area oil rf tion,, rrni ` serous terminals outside of the area. In addition, he has en ee g, len t o C"'=t facilities on the Alaskan "north slope." A � r ' P ` car , �., P =,E', 0 AN > RICA E NS , S VIS ( 1 tics! ar-tran tzcent rr r} Anthony J. Piscitelli is the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of American Defense Syste , .- j nd at e , c ductI o rations in the development and sale of security-related Balli c an las r is t oduciri November 1980. In 1969,Mr. Piscitelli received a BA fr t. 3o rUni rrsl y, Jrd, 2, Be ed an MA from LUNY. Mr. Piscitelli is the develo er of VistaSteel Transparent Armor. VistaSteel is a transparent bullet-resistant glass c1, =ly ' b atm acr�inIt d glass:, . at p'` vl�e ensive barrier to protect against firearm si tacJ, nd eive bla s. i 1 product is sold in varying thickness depe in 'c� C4f 4eeg n Jor# v 'to de ns equired by the customer. VistaSteel products have the properties of protection while utilizing thinner laminates. the 3. cite! s r'g le�tu , s eakei a cl in Sector in11z r f . 1 t Blast resistr ,a re;; p e ' e heyn�ea�iress ache tective Gi America Sp in s o urrg in 1�raneisc CalifoAia.'q 4 49ocidia�i was or razzed o provide support to government and industry in the development of standards and specifications, as well as use of protective glazing products for blast resistance, bullet resistance and main force 86 attack. Mr. Piscitelli is also a member of the American College of Forensic Examiners - and holds their highest certification in Homeland Security. He will be lecturing and teaching for this Institution in Scottsdale AZ, in October 2003 and New Orleans LA, January 2004. In addition, Mr. Piscitelli is also a member of the following professional organizations: American Correctional Association, American Jail Association, American Society for Industrial Security, and International Society of Security Professionals. Mr. Piscitelli also holds current Department of Defense Clearance "Secret." Mr. Piscitelli has worked on over 1,000 security applications during his 23 year career, including many classified ballistic applications. In addition, he has also worked on Indian Point Nuclear Power Facility-Buchanan, NY; Israeli National Bank US Headquarters-New York, NY; Savannah River Nuclear Plant-GA; West German Embassy, Nash., DC; Italian Embassy,Wash, DC; Israeli Consulate; United Nations, New York, NY; Federal Reserve Bank, New York, NY; Drug Enforcement Agency Special Projects Armor, Atlanta, GA; Vehicle Hardening for United Technology Corp., Fort Lauderdale, FL; Fox News, Studio D New York, NY; and the New York Stock Exchange, NY. o e c r x i t �a N ce n Ch(,,ap1,ffl'Q2 is ;r d tae Q €zt pul�S ,, wl o law enforcement service, including nearly 14 years at the Los Angeles County Sheriffs crime Lab as a Firearms Examiner. Mr. Van Horn has qua ie s ;.1jen z Bear expert in federal, superior and municipal courts in Los Ang, e e en€urM aunties in California and in Washington County, Oregon on more than 370 occasions. Mr. Van Horn haNa e yaw g ns; including the Los Angeles County Sherif . s gel Distrten to. ey`s' f osAngelesCoroner'sOffice, California Hight a ina ether ce n les on for firearms matters. Mr. Van Horn is no nd xami r Idaho. JOHN WILLIAMS PRESIDENT OF U.S. OPTICS {Lead all p, ,.s Ma aciurer, r F: a eifles} Mr. Williams haRe ar s du tr o e ly ars. Ile started his first optical technology business in 1978. He is currently the owner and president of U.S. Optics. S. htacs i an a € r' e pony pec ing in dingigg3zali€ 4 costa pr facts, i; nvli optic sc s for use a lrh�ea m sman rifles tics b n 3s b es ,et �., rs anA �a�rc trate�tt forts on i � ging �, ��� > � . the finest custorri made rifle scopes in the world U.S. Optics is the only scope maker in the world that builds their custom scopes in-house to the exact specifications of the individual customer or 87 the entire army. Their lenses are precision made, taken to a 1015 scratch and dig, 1/8 wave conformity and 20 millionths centricity. U.S. Optics is composed of a management and engineering staff of shooters that design and builds products for shooters. U.S. Optics conducts research and development not only to satisfy a current need, but also to develop leading edge technologies that will ensure market leadership well into the 21st century. U.S. Optics builds optical systems that stand up to real-world applications. U.S. Optics manufactures military scopes with true MIL.-SPEC standards as design criteria that address actual mission requirements, the continuing development of modular component scopes from interchangeable reticle components, to recoil-proof lens support systems, and overall construction practices for a variety of uses, from fifty caliber BMG rifles, to semi-automatic shotguns. These optics systems provide interchangeable reticle choices, adjustment knob covers and lens covers as standard catalog options. JEFF HUBER CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF NIGHTFORCE SCOPES (Optics Manufacturer) e �Juber gti o t f c i� i F:5.unNem i a "een avi` co titive arks, a1 :� 9 Ni Op sw fous ' pdevo I eneerzran ung ;,4 . ... Vit' sift oxan., a Since then, Nightforce Precision Optics has become the leading manufacturer of precision long range rifle scopes. Jeff Huber and Nightf' e = 1JJ*'OV4()nro r efine optical and mechanical performance using the laces ; c vtel g. Headquartered in Central Idaho, Nightforce Precision Optics' research and development teams establish new standards for performance. 0 w 0 J 'UN B `I'T PRESIDENT OF THE FIFTY CALIBER INSTITUTE v n4 'ft Falib i John Burtt is a retire o is ffi er o a iv r e lice Dept in Riverside, CA after serving 26.5 years as a poli etect ncl ,i I- ea � 'T'eam marksman. He also has twelve years experience as a fifty caliber competitor and is a current member with the Fifty Caliber Shooters Assn I 3)i D ring hi�mer-tenure 'th FSt' erved in many elected positions as an officer in ce siden me roB of Directors. Mr. Burst is a d e w a� � ��na di r NAI y Ie �A Degree in Police Science and a,graduate of California State College, San Bernardino with a BA degree in Sociology. trrtng is to , nth. e Riv srrie'Polic_ ,. ep t. Burttpieced r Gri d taou des rn �er tforcemeut.. lated s oocluding th I Spit �' ons and Tacks � hoo1 their �ngAder�y Iocat rr���tt nco, _ } PSA .. ... ., ... ..�_ ti . Mr. Burtt is a Life Member of the ;`tRA, a member of the"California Rifle & Pistol Assn. (CRPA) and has for the past five (5) years served as the Chairman of the Fifty Caliber Institute 88 (FCI), a non profit organization created to educate the public and legislators regarding the fifty caliber shooting sports. Mr. Burtt has served as a training officer in the field of firearms while employed as a police officer and has instructed firearms courses relating specifically to the fifty caliber rifle to the USMC Scout/Sniper Basic School, taught at USMC Camp Pendleton, CA. Mr. Burtt is also a court qualified expert witness in the field of latent fingerprint identification having testified more than 200 times in CA courts and having completed three (3) schools on latent fingerprint identification presented by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) including the Administrative Advanced Latent Fingerprint School in Quantico,VA. KEITH PAGEL DIRECTOR OF THE FIFTY CALIBER INSTITUTE (Civilian Use of Fifty Caliber Rifles) Keith Pagel is a member of the International Ammunition Association, National Cryptologic Museum Foundation, Ohio Gun Collectors Association. He is an associate member, Smithsonian National Air& Space Museum and a Life Member, National Defense Industrial Association. In 2001, Mr. Pagel was elected to included in the International Who's Who of Info C T el d ter's, e c i r i C g e nt i e Rusin U t G s i i P ivy age ersi hale ammunition & ballistics history, research, &development for over 25 years. Mr. Pagel is also the former -an s Nn f nib Editor for he international nog H s a tw me winner f the Very ft wi 0 ft Very 2, 3' d he 'toy High Power shooting periodical "Very H "w cry High Power Magazine Editor's A Magazine's Reader's Choice Award(2001). Mr. Pagel has c , ib t to S' 00 tes, magazines on the er e 'y iv subject of precisionam nit He 0 riv tart to federal, state, and t tl local law enforcement, r Niv a in us anVmil r Ryva age t e)is coRm "nition issues (ballistics, history, research, and development). P-L, RLI C (Marksman) Mr. Mark Wes s nT y accfl�sh ma y and member of the s at: U"L� .50 caliber community A The son of an I li 1 4 1,Arva4So 'telde and an Army Officer. He was one of the last Armament Maintenance Officers trained by the Army Ordnance Co . ery as r, m Ce 0 motive y -esery i en om 913 F t t Run fi L T RIS', eti I ved as c, an em oy f the Ai--- t rpt Farms until 20 - I I ;��F 11111c 0 t Blandse from 8 i is p in develop e 1994.' 89 Mr. Westrom is an accomplished target shooter, serving on numerous Army rifle and pistol teams where he was one of slightly over 200 shooters awarded both the Distinguished Rifle and Pistol shut badges in over 100 years. He was awarded the President's 100 Badge for Rifle in 1990. His focus on the technical difficulties in long-range target shooting led him to design the AR-50 single shot target rifle in 1998. He is a 1973 graduate of Iowa State University with a degree in Marketing, and earned an MBA in Logistics from the Florida Institute of Technology in 1982. He is a graduate of the Ordnance Officer's Advanced Course and the Command and General Staff Officer's Course. MIKE IIAAS (Ballistics) Mike Maas is the author of"flaas'Guide to Small Arms Ammunition," and a Senior Software Engineer by trade. Haas has also developed www.AmmoGuide.com, a technically-accurate reference engine that calculates the graphic images for any small-arms cartridge in it's (extensible) database. This system drives it's cartridge dimensions from official SAAMI drawings, and it's ballistics information is from commercial manufacturers, etc. - "'DENTIAL CON Yl D,.'' R,AFT NOT FOR Pvy'BLIC R1, �00''• r .,,. d - 90 APPENDIX B Ban on Fifty Caliber Firearms by the City of Los Angeles LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL CODE SEC. 55.18: SALE OF LARGE CALIBER FIREARMS PROHIBITER. (Added by Ord. No. 175,285, Eff. 7/27/03.) (a) As used in this section, the term "large caliber firearm" shall mean any firearm, as defined in Section 103.314 of this Code,capable of firing a center-fire cartridge of.50 caliber or larger or .50 BMG caliber or larger either by designation or by actual measurement. The term "large er ha 4rh f e th is ne r As ed 1 s 10 e t ' iT b f th rede a r a ante ed iENoul anl�.Jestldl_figp ,,e Ad d only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger. The term"rifle" shall not include any shotgun. , As used in this secim,n,i me anyan firearm with a barrel less than "I d.,n F 16 inches in length. The ter I d ny pis revolver, or concealable firearm as such terms are defined in the California Penal Code. (d) No person sha 's Rrrsafle, or display for n e 0 a firearm which is el viers,.' t Tysf sale any large caliber fi (e) The provision I f t' s i- shall not ap to an 0 prohibited under state law, to the sale or transfer of any destructive device as defined in Section 12301 of the California Pe "of a;fault weapon as defined in the California Penal Code. The provisions of (f) nPsectt, se n(dpiply where the purchaser or transferee is any of the following: (1) A law (2) An age R- 'Yfl th i t o 1.. vlci n, s; (3) A state or local correctional facility-, (4� A ', son b e d-6 .194 J"g"n 71-50 2 ol 2 3 1, W the e C al '0 n 04 pt t" �ffi 1 It"if I (6) A person who is properly identified as a full-time paid peace officer, as defined in Section 830.1, 830.2, 830.4, or 830.5 of the California Penal Code, and who is authorized 91 to, and does,carry a firearm during the course of his or her employment as a peace officer; (7) A firearms dealer who has been issued a Federal Firearms License, a Certificate of Eligibility by the State of California, and a permit by the City of Los Angeles to engage in the retail sale of firearms; (8) A purchaser of a curio or collector firearm. A firearm shall be deemed curio or collector only if it falls within one of these categories: (A) It was manufactured prior to 1899; (B) It is classified as a curia or relic pursuant to 27 Code of Federal Regulations section 178.11, and the purchaser maintains a current federal firearms collector license; or (C) It is a muzzle-loading firearm; (9) A federal, state, or local historical society, museum, or institutional collection that is open to the public, provided that the large caliber firearm is used for display purposes, is secured from unauthorized use, and is unloaded; C?} e ty ffitl e usi s pict re, t Vision, r v pro c o i ,e�f n i d as op ring the ourse m c, pt re vr d c io .y se ed m n ; ho 'zed use, the p on L arge h m 1f e fi a hit �nc `� maintains a current Certificate of Eligibility issued by the State of California; or {1 I} A person wDRt A. Ve ier fi r by bequest or intestate succession. (g) Any violation of this section shall constitute a misdemeanor. NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE on y d4tt M.AR, CH � 2 'v a" 92 APPENDIX C. TECHNICAL AND HISTORICAL ACCURACY OF THE .50 CALIBER RIFLE It is commonly believed, incorrectly, that if you simply know the range to the target, you can shoot the target. This is not true. A competitive or military shooter that has exceptional skill in marksmanship and the ability to win competitions means little in the world of unknown distance, long range shooting. The best marksman in the world are put at a level with the worst, when it comes to field environments where the air temperatures are high, the altitude is high and the ammunition is hot. It only means that the accomplished competition shooters will miss their first shots with tighter shot groups, but they lil r a11�; s th aA� dl env amen ~ clt� n tt, n' mr.tay t n 5 a sh o s re ped auffective rang e r ?e st the e e n bei ab.: i$0��� 1r approximately 731-914 meters. As this appendix outli e AFC tor ltaztr analyzed and corrected for when firing a fifty caliber ri. at n eat A. WHAT IS TH � � . . .E RA GE" OF A FIFTY CALDER RIFLE The U.S. Army F. , lea al f tTerd Al e A is o Scoped Rifle (TM 0969A-10111, as well �s0 ufa cu ti pro c Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, state thh the aria e ra of tht . it fi caliber rifle is 1,800 meters (1,968 yards), or about one mile. The military development of the range threshold of 1,800 meters (1,968 yards) was aMa _' u f dive range is based on air conditions. When discussin y, l til must ri � the�target at supersonic speeds. As a projectile is slowi 'g do 4fli d pr e s f 14 1sition to sub-sonic flight, the super-sonic shock wave begins to fold more toward the front of the bullet. The slower the projectile goes, the mora,th she ma open �tc be - ear��g X11. The projectile will begin to yaw as the res net na of th jec aus" e that is similar to hard braking with a car. Th p ull s �� tehds w ft and right as it rises. At some point, the tip of the bullet pierces the shockwave and he shockwave collapses over the bullet. When this event happens, it is not determinable what the "attitude" of the bullet is in flight t in Id y or pitc k av, collas _ �f tpro �'trlosen sltwing c pig, it lily y` rr is 93 incorrect attitude and may go completely out of control and tumble.171 When a projectile gets close to transition,or is in full sub-sonic flight, you can no longer predict with any level of accuracy where the projectile will be flying. It may be high, left, low or flying to the right in relation to its original flight path. The maximum I ­­­­ Wftht(Approx).... .... ...........................................84 pounds effective range for Wftht of .........__... ...................................­.­......­24 pounds single shot fifty caliber IANth of gun.,............._................................ 66.13 inches rounds is between 1,400 L*noh of barrel...__...............-..............................�:..........*_**....ASinches Length Of rMitV OW04..--.......... .........................41AB inches and 1,500 meters Number of lands and grooves.......... ......................—......___............a (1,531-1,640 yards) at Twist,right-hand.......................................................... one turn In 15I nches sealevel conditions. Fosd .................................................................................................fink-beft OPOMW ..................I.-I..........1—....._._......I..............................V0004 This is critical because Cooling................................_.—........__...........,<........__....................._air all projectiles (with the Muzzle ftlft-KY(*I)Pr*x) ..........................x......_._ 3,050 fent pot second Rate Of ft('cYOft)..­­­................................. 4`W550 rounds;w minute exception of those Maximum r"*(Opprox) ............................7,440 yards or 6,764 mens covered in the MOxImum 8fIWJv*lanOO(Wrox) Z.000 yards or 1,63o meters ti Area targets........... .................................._.......... 1,530 meters controlled spin Point umsts patent")173 destabilize die shot .............................................. ..................'.Soo Meters and be unp icta t r I Table 1-1.G*narat data, whe the ecti is u ra t 4n fr th ited tes e , 'iia J�7 23- 1e rar 4n t pr nt. -g en transi ing WA I Nt * I Y1. supersonic to subsonic maximum range as 7,440 yards, and the maximum effective range as only 2,000 yards (1,830 meters). Note:The range decreases when using the firearm in single shot speed. Any maximum ac I te s 1,50 r t y 640 yards. Far less than the 7,500 effective range not ar iv a:� a cl by p�� onents. based on supersonic Y.0 'A'FT impact velocities are ambiguous or "best wish" scenarios. Using supersonic impact range and velocity values are the only scienti 'c ap r ach to asci ning imam effective range. m Within the specia t sc, I m y, the g d e accepted standard for maximum effective an ss'— Maximum Effective Range is that range at which the selected round of ammunition be n nit ht. figure can be determined and t, to e n . e eo o al and environmental iLt 0 olc'�C I conditions and Ceti h co t ifl Conditions easily exist to where the bullet begins its trans-sonic flight at ranges farther than under Standard Atmospheric Conditions. �D_ 172 La-fe ,_,-n4g s A6toa �S� Ea range between 850 and A good example is the.3 ca I elkgf. lerr 950 yards downrange,this bullet will destabilize as it transitions to sub-sonic flight. Many shooters have observed side imp Aaa t 0 ,7,L w im argot e h s ec overt e _s �e, recent! rad a US ; tent X29,659,t a c sept rc �n 4 call 'co Itro SpIn el _ , h RM nge. Though, in reality, at that speed the flight time to the target becomes a great limitation as do the winds at those ranges, 94 With this in mind, firearms that have lower than average muzzle velocities will have a Iesser maximum effective range. For example, the M82A 1 Barrett rifle has an average muzzle velocity of 2,540 fps shooting Mk 2.11, MOD-0 or Raufoss ammunition. A typical belt action rifle will have a velocity of 2,625 to 2,840 fps as shown in testing. The Barrett will, in this case, have a significantly less max effective range. Using the CheyTac Advanced Ballistic Computer, the max effective range at sea level of the Mk 211, MCAD-0 round from an M82A1 gun is only 1,326 meters(1,450 yards). Based on the above information, the determination of the maximum effective range is usually based on current training standards, mission needs statements (whether scientifically correct or not), or desires and wishes of various military agencies. B. SCIENTIFIC TESTS DEMONSTRATE THAT 7,500 YARDS IS NOT THE MAXIMUM EFFECTI"VTE RANGE OF A FIFTY CALIBER RIFLE Representative Waxman states that "at some potential sacrifice to accuracy, a .50 sniper rifle can maintain its effectiveness at ranges of as much as 7,500 yards." This statement can be tested using the most modern scientific ballistic testing equipment available at a shooting range. CheyTac's projectile testing at Yuma Proving Grounds is conducted in front of a Doppler radar. TheC iss' as vi 'hey. ity n r riff s t ere test Th ult c ss o — DATE L ROUND 39 020724 CheyTac 2042 -A IH fRAJEC' R Velocity "es jus -;based a uzzi thy, deg WEAPON ALTITUDE: 158 m AIR TEMPERATURE: 44.00 C AMM.WEIGHT: 67.65 g �' M.lJ ER: 12.70 nim- Range TIME VEE.. VE As T a DIST Z-OFF. SLANT DRAG M ms, mis mach deg. m m m M 3,087 7,687.74 2*1 ' 8.1 "#,--'3#78.6 2Z 894 -W3"fr 3,087.00 0.149 For testing put-118, KS, re m lev to "�f A,,to I eV�iding on the gun used. During testing, fifty caliber test firearms were elevated 8.43 degrees. With an initial launch veloc,` of 840 f .s an ondi 'on v . 11t °:.F, am uni ' temper re . he e, a roe e theift i r` , les e e 1,630 to , P j y v 782 yard g goin s' "so c TI illk th i m effe ve'tinge f this p ` 1. alar ' e0 z ,_ "= 3` � rs arClS , not the , ' _vs..,.. rya ° (1,782'y }'yards ;88"meters) quofei bye eprenta ive Wxmari. Even assuming that the figure quoted by Representative Waxman is the total distance that 95 the projectile traveled before impacting the ground, Waxman is wrong. r That distance is only 3,042 meters or 3,327 yards. The Weible 1 Scientific table (above)contains information obtained from one such A` . test with a fifty caliber rifle at CheyTax in 2002. During the test printed in the table above, a round number 39 was fired at an elevation angle 8.42 degrees and was only able to travel 3,087 meters (3,376 yards). This is far less than half of the 7,500 yards Figure 23:st 32 caliber rifle being test fired at (6858 meters) range quoted by Representative Waxman. Again, the C;heyTac's Projectile 3,087 meters (3,376 yards) range is the total distance the bullet traveled, Testing€acuities at the not the distance that the firearm can accurately reach a target, which is Yuma Proving Grounds much less. At no time in testing were we able to obtain a flight range of reaches a distance of 7,500 yards. approx.6,510-6,600 yards. While reports on fifty caliber rifles were not found with angles of fire greater than 10 degrees, a rifle was fired at 32 degrees with a 220 grain .30 caliber bullet.'7'Preliminary computer projections suggested that, at 3,000fps, the bullet would travel an estimated 6,500-6,600 yards (5,943-6,035 meters). It would take 34-35 seconds for the bullet to reach that distance. The radar operator announced that the first shot was tracked for 29 seconds and contact with the bullet lost whe er Im o d t, r g h the pert Co issionI oes t t te u f d fty ri can vet sta e of 7 50 �a a 1 � ,.. w rn e icy om the picture below that a rifle fired at an angle of 30 degrees is similar to firing artillery, and is extremely inaccurate. C. MECRANICA �. � F iJ �B HIBIT A"7,500 YARD ��. � E ,I In order for a shooter to strike any intended target, several pieces of information must be available and be preci C? o eyf €r�fo a h anical aspects of elevation: a. Range to t tar et ' ur be k Wn t s tha et accuracy. In order to fire a bullet so that it can travel 7,500 yards, it must be fired at a high degree angle. This would esse Use"tht, a o r the impact zone, to be falling so steepl w l e ton the top, than in the front. To do that, a super precise re mon t o no technology capable of doing that. Even hand measuring using steel tape ' measures would require mathematical formulas to correct for to e � measure sag,contracti a eta Ot o > ased tal an n' t t p or cold temperatures, e ish hisis ti i t I y b. "Target must be visible in the optical sight. As Jeff Huber from Nightforce correctly states, seeing a human sized target Figure 24: Rifle ��'V,5 : .0 and w opti al tg s im ft ib There i c a of t f op i sit •b c faciltta su a ran 3 N F� { Time constraints in the drafting of this report prevented the inclusion of fifty caliber tests at angles greater than 10 degrees. 96 C. Elevation setting on the optical sight must be workable to shoot 7,500 yards. As stated in our testing above, we were not able to obtain bullet strife 7,500 yards downrange with more than 10 degrees of elevation on the firearm. 10 degrees is 600 minutes of angle of elevation. The optical sight with the most elevation capable in production is only 150 Minutes of Angle, far less than the 600 minute angle of that is created when the firearm is angled to 10 degrees. It is apparent from Figure 21, that the marksman cannot even see the target through the scope if the firearm is raised to an elevation of 32 degrees (which allows for the bullet to travel a greater distance). D. OTHER IMPORTANT FACTORS RELATING TO THE ACCURACY OF FIFTY CALIBER RIFLES The Meavy Sniper Rifle Operational Requirements Document, dated, March 1994, state that engagements up to 1,500 meters (1,640 yards) are the maximum expected ranged Shooting at this range requires some very sophisticated mathematics to correct for the meteorological and environmental conditions. A highly advanced fifty caliber application course was developed by a marksman from the 1st Special Forces Group in 1996 to address the training requirements needed. These include the following areas of requirements. Ipt11 lis ' s T ' ct B z g is a bit re om 1 wit r f1 �e= aj re, o o tt e le�xi ,is t all he es built n the avy a a n n of it'o b for envy aCit u no r s w Part of the internal b s tr ' fort ern p correct selection of round based on his mission r u ts. o ge a re ire engagement by an explosive projectile, while, for o rs, i fo g gem , t where there is no pyrotechnic effect. The selection er a . e: he s ting for a heavy class marksman a little more difficult. All bullets have a little different ballistic co-efficient. They all have different sub-soNall, t' e e lso several different fifty caliber c, * M-3n b,.1` 92,rt very rate. - w • M-17 Tracer. The tracer shot for M-33 ball. They two were commonly linked together. 1d . 1 a • M-8 Arm c e i is ro vailable in 10 round boxes for the purpos f th �e al g c t iz belts. Reasonably accurate out of.50 caliber rifles. * M-20 Armor PiercmR IncendP-e racer. This is the tracer shot for M-8 API. The t r 'y linet * M- of ht rm - r ' u s e steel penetrator round for tl .5' a 1 �. et�Zt: Ily- f�e n t t,,.f�r the standard match barrels used 2 � Tracer 2 Q 0 M�AS c fa..... _c�.,. The marksman may select a magazine of mixed cartridges.'ITe must keep in mind that the lowest performance cartridge is the round determining his best engagement range. He 97 wouldn't want a tracer shot to go super-sonic all the way to the target, only to have the killing shot go sub-sonic and destabilize short of the target. • External Ballistics Training: You have two major functional areas when dealing with external ballistics: environmental and meteorological effects. Meteorological effects are those conditions that occur in the atmosphere that affect the flight of the bullet. Environmental effects are those conditions on the grounds that have an influence on the flight of the bullet, which as discussed above,can exceed 35 seconds. What makes external ballistics a problem is that the misses caused by external ballistic errors can be and have been so great, that the observer, who's job it is to correct misses, cannot see the impact of the miss on the ground. This is because the projectile either goes so far downrange, or is so short, the observer cannot see the strike in his spotting scope's field of view. With the above in mind, the greatest problem is the lack of training and understanding of the effects of meteorology and environment on the bullet's flight. There is no way to pre-create the Meteorological and Environmental conditions because they are somewhat unpredictable to the precise degree that is required. These two areas have to be measured, assessed, and if necessary, mathematically corrected for, then these corrections must be placed on the rifle's telescopic sight. This subject is the most ignored and probably accI ra ov 90 e occ e h s w en s ng at n ' t ,t se n o s to * e o e r Xtra F s m' t c . : an, as meteorological conditions and place those corrections on their sights as time passes. Barometric prey and miler ure the surface of the earth heats up and cools do a. , alti , th c ressure can still fluctuate up and down. Ash ter u w ll R ge to target, slant angle up or downhill, air to atur , r u , tem Lure and spin drift corrections. In extreme ranges of 1,500 yards or more, the spin of the earth must also be considered. s tit 1TinFs o siderto correct for rotation ofBard etri Pry s reLopre es c e round to strike high, and the opposite is true for high air pressures. Correcting for barometric pressure does two t ''rr+� to e e el ti ing for new barometric pressures t cur at n sitio n t automatically corrects for altitudes a ve se ev 1. • Wind: Wind still plagues marksmen. Some resolution was attempted at solving the p If, .rZe a settin bu t dr m n�tor was developed for the rt pics. pri �b �dropcompensatorsight o tr= n�a S. µ • Air Temperature: Air temperature changes constantly. Colder air is thicker � = and ca ore e i" a r. t the bul �t in ",` ht. At 0 x mer 10 k {ci reee z air teat ra re will au e roundn'y, gh if th�ir z er,R ' 39 in es w aft as a s older th e ,.� . . ,. �u. . .,_ �,. .: _. r Additionally, colder winds blow a bullet more than hotter winds. The most forgotten thing about air temperature is how much that change in air temperature 98 affects how much the bullet is pushed by a crosswind. • Ammunition Temperature: It is important to know the temperature of the ammunition at the time thetrigger is pulled. EXAMPLE: Altitude=7000'ASL. Standard Temp.=34.0 degrees F. February 1996,Ft. Carson,Colorado actual air temp.=60 degrees F. MEASURED ATR TEMPERATURE= 100 Degrees F. Standard Air Temperature = 59.0 degrees F. Change in Air Temperature = +41.0 degrees F. Standard Air Condition sight setting of r 76.50 MOA New Sight Setting corrected for 100 Deg F = 72.00 MOA Effect on Elevation Sight Setting =-4.50 Minutes of Angle down on the sight. Or in easier to understand numbers,the shot would go 6 feet over the point of aim on the target. • The Environmental Effects: This generally relates to shooting on ground that is sloping up or down: ae er t: l r itTen e rel nIt e *(— o�n gr i ti l ce a bu et 1t n ahe. r �t: Tf h Dote o n t h t T . always be shorter than the true range. The problem of slant range is compounded because th s ust c sid final range to the target is the actual am t i. ee sh and e target. • Calculating Ma m e v Ra nce t Aerator has calculated the corrections for all of the geographical and meteorological conditions, he must determine i e belle: b ' b-s• g r the target. • The "plum n rs: her e sev fa rs t fluence a shooter's ability to shot a d e ,ems elyv ploy fa ifl s is a consensus of a number of instructors who have been exposed heavily to the big guns and the people they instructedJeasil'r • Intimid _ abi it Mrid oCeitsbullet through heavy material ti Perceived Recoil: A fifty caliber without a muzzle break has a free recoil energ. off;. 2 u s. In m is ' a 7. man weapon system has 1 s. ,ner po ely, f th ns have some type of muz b sos of c th it on the shoulder. There is, however, a price for that reduction in recoil. Although the recoil is dampenod, earl Un tha her great re is r� d ng to wsorseen o wince vis l �l p i he stn -;` er 99 EXAMPLE: Range to Target= 1200 meters Slant Angle to Target in Degrees =20 degrees New Range to Target Based on Gravity= 1127.63 meters Using a .50 caliber rifle had the sniper team not corrected for slant range their shot would have gone 65" high above point of aim. Compound that with not correctly adjusting for Over-pressure: In tests conducted at the Human Engineering Lab at Aberdeen Proving Grounds the following overpressure levels were determined and established: MAXIMUM SAFE OVERPRESSURE LEVEL: 150 dB. LEVEL, OF OVERPRESSURE FELT BY THE SHOOTER: 180 dB. Because of this, there is a maximum round count per day that Special Operations shooters can be exposed to when around these guns. Procedures such as placing sandbags behind the muzzle break reduce the effect a great deal. Nevertheless,to effectively fire the .50 Caliber the marksman must totally accept the `b, rsslw 1#1`ils I e a and al 4 eve r T1 s I 0�_Xl lt4rou ""A ne, ss ks a st n t rifle WN W 04 y Y. �Atlik ut ffifluencing, 1.4 • Recoil Suppression: Recoil alters the aim of the rifle. By totally reducing recoil, o v e C",S U 0 very , I last, the marksman's training process is; el ch of ZI r e nve. -type suppressors are more effectiven e brakes. " !na W Range Determination Problems: Range determination problems associated with extreme rarfass shooter. Shooting at get a pretty steep fall angle tQr Military Relation, appearance of the size of the objects, laser range finders, 100-meter unit of measure, and coarse triangulatiQ Lt e f' rsan.. . es not accurate enough, or they're not stabili e en u c r le y s , pot, ange. Laser range finders are also difficulc",..." star:Sze n e ft t e-s en touser error. Inthe ranges discussed in thi, port, se s ra ough. These devices are subject to errors because of meteorological conditions (fog,snow, rain,etc.). E. HISTOR' E The Afghanista,6 The world record for a shot made with a military version fifty caliber rifle is 2,640 yards, achievede Co S, wit.4 Dean elite ha� ions i Michae _t ss Michae r I ucl he A problem with long range lex. As discussed above, many meteorological and environmental factors as well as technical knowledge of the firearm play an 100 important part in achieving any level of capability of striking a target at long range. In the case of the Canadian forces marksman, who had to borrow US M8 API ammunition by the way, the range to the target was between 2,414 and 2,430 meters (2,344-2657 yards). Using the CheyTac ballistic computer, at sea level conditions, the elevation requirement in minutes of angle to put on the optical day sight is 202.00 Minutes of Angle. The sight used on that gun at that time was the Leupold Mark IV, M-1. These sights have 140 minutes of angle of elevation capability. Thus, the target was beyond the range capabilities of the gun sight. How was he able to look through the sight and see a target at all? The conditions were roughly 7,500' above sea level (lower air pressure), downhill on approximately 42 degrees, and air temperature and ammo temperature were high (about 85 Deg F). These conditions add up to a corrected elevation setting of just 74.50 Minutes of Angle. From 202.00 minutes to 74.50 minutes, that's a drop in requirements of almost 3 to 1. Only a ballistic computer could calculate that kind of adjustment, but the Canadian marksman didn't have access to a computer. He merely guessed, and fired many shots before the target was struck. The Vietnam Shot The Canadian marksman broke the prior record of 2,500 yards set by Carlos Hatchcock, an elite a e mark m in Yie, siv, ndd M fift iter mac a g�r Ha c 's so f;R ov t , e rl s at ck` of i ietnam was Laine hro I a le re ro g. r -� e of s d ed w ar a fires a tad,se w to it , hen It the t ov in e - e meteorological factors still affect the accuracy of this method at great distances. However, Hatchcock pre-zeroed his fr "' t fic int and made his historic shat at nearly the same time of the cr t t t t re- us, the meteorologic and environmental affects were t 'qnz' e. id e tt. n the exact range, air conditions, etc. because he simply cheated. This is a rare scenario that is not reliably repeatable in military operations or in an act of crime or n) T 'FarretOtAlteat rism.'The Shot in IraqA great deal of rtr'dia aEten Toato allegedly "killed a BMP at 1850 meters[2023 yards]." After talking with the observer on that mission, he admitted that over 18 incendiary rounds 'erre 1esr t hicl a ttz They didn't know the range,didn't know what ele ti wi a u n the nd didn't know anything about advanced fire control meth " of c, ec n gar r ra re, r assure, and ammo temperature. They simply made an initial guess, then shot the gun until a projectile hit something. In that event, the incendiar splash from the Mk 211 round started a fire inside the vehicle. It splashed through an o n toy clso p strati w m ofSraking hydraulic fluid inside was the likely ct ."t. E tial the k" a a Little has changed in the realm of combat and extreme range marksmanship since the Vietnam war. The only measurable and a reciable changes are the gun systems and the addition of Iasrang f�ndes I laser ge�an rs fed in- .��th ast gul c e ne , , are ah t ally,b er " +a ases, t1R,'af1Dpunitga (Ca pan Forc i ity than that used during the V etti'am ;ar end is a esign-YaJhal�t'Re wa �k tc r W" 2. 101 APPENDIX D. BALLISTIC ARMOR STANDARDS ASTM Ballistic Standards Level Projectile Caliber Cartridge Type 'Velocity Range Shots: Spacing: Range Sub M.G. 9mm Parabellum 124 gr FMJ 1350-1450 fps 3 8 in.0 circle 120°apart 25 ft. .38 Super .38 Super 130 gr FMJ 1230-1330 fps 3 8 in.0 circle 120°apart 25 ft. .44 Mag. .44 Magnum 240 gr JSP 1400-1500 fps 3 8 in.0 circle 120°apart 25 ft. VeAa 2 TC� 1 gr 80 0= 8 s 3 n circ 20° art 25 ft. 3#�0 - 16 -. Apw 2 fp 3 8 in c� 0 ° art S ft. Shotgun 12 Gauge 3.0"Mag 808 gr 00 Buck 1265-1.365 fps 3 8 in.0 circle 120°apart 25 ft. A NNPar!tl 1 fit to f Mice- .iJ -B his 'c S ands Level ProjectiCa idg . ype t�' y nge Spacing: Range NIJ- I .22 LR -)0 0 gr ,ead` 1` b'-11790 p, >2 in. 16.4 ft. NIJ-1 .38 Special P 58g �,N�„ - 00-90 �., � >2 in. 16.4 ft. NIJ-IIA 9mm Para. P 24 �r 3 0-113 s 5 >2 in. 16.4 ft. NIJ-IIA .357 Ma Pall- "'58'9r'Jk"— -1. $� s >2 in. 16.4 ft. NIJ-1I 9mm Para.Part 1 124 gr FMJ 1135-1215 fps 5 >2 in. 16.4 ft. 4 N1J-11 .357 M 2Ed"4 5 rJSP 1345- fp 5 >2 in. 16.4 ft. NIJ-1IIA 44 Mr -.�Pa r Gl �.. 1� 5 14 .p 5 >2 in. 16.4 ft. NIJ-111A 9mm Para.Part 2 124 gr IA-,,IJ 1350-1450 fps 5 >2 in. 16.4 ft. N1� II �0 7.6 A 147 'gr�rJ80 270'.804 f S �' 9.2 ft. ? _.. t . 3( :.. 1Gi. r,.1G�2IL r�1'';, 284 -goo,€ps' 1 t#1,. ,; r <;.,. ft. i, I 9.2 102 State Department (SD)Ballistic Standards -ACE/ASTlt1 Level Projectile Caliber Cartridge Type Velocity Range Shots: Spacing: Range SID-Min. 9 mm ParabeIlum 115 gr SFMJ 1350-1450 fps 3 8 in.0 circle 120°apart N/A SD-Min. 12 Gauge 2 3/4" 556 gr 4 Buck 1275-1375 fps I >6X6 in. NIA SD- Rifle 30 7.62 NATO} 147 gr M80 2700-2800 fps 1 >6X6 in. N/A SD- Rifle.223 5.56 NATO) 55 gr M 193 3135-3235 fps I >6X6 in. N/A SD-Rifle .223 556 NATO 63 gr M855 2950-3025 fps I >6X6 in. N!A SID-Rifle AP 7.62 NATO) 150 gr M61 AP 2700-2800 fps 3 8 in.0 circle 120'apart NIA SD-Rifle AP 30-06 165 gr M2 AP 2800-2900 fps 3 8 in.0 circle 120°apart N/A Underwriters Laboratory UL 752 Ballistic Standards Level Projectile Caliber Cartridge Type 'Velocity Range Shots: Spacing: Range ° el I ()N m 1 -.' e 157 1.. g �P 50 3�fps, Tzrikeft. Level 3 .44 Magnum 240 gr SWC 1350-1485 fps 3 4.5"triangle 15 ft. Level 4 30-06 SP ` `�. 254 7 . p. I NIA 15 ft. Level 5 7,62 NAT M1� 75 ,3tJ25 fp 1 NIA 15 ft. Level 6 9mrn Para 124 gr FMJ 1400-1540 fps 5 4.5" triangle 15 ft. Level 7 .2235. 3'� 3 - 8 ps 4.5" triangle 15 ft. Level 8 7.62 A 1' gr J 2 0 0 ps 4.5" triangle 15 ft. Level 1-3SG 12 Ga, 2 3/4" 437 gr Slug 1585-1743fps 3 4.5" triangle 15 ft. Supplemental rating for levels 1, an to 1 1i0i uprted ed 1 r R,E Ij E A S E T A�, IN K�,t^d± ,.kir .+, i"'� ' ,. .. .. �� 2004 �x 103 APPENDIX E. CARTRIDGE SIZE COMPARISONS To clarify any ambiguity that the proponents of a ban on fifty caliber rounds have created, the Expert Commission collected various firearm cartridges, including pistol rounds, and photographed them to demonstrate size comparisons with other rounds. A. THE FIFTY CALIBER CARTRIDGE CONIES IN VARIOUS SIZES Firearm ammunition of the same caliber {including fifty caliber d s •il r av v t• is , eg ,�i de ,ding 'their t d u: hil h ay e be ,: m s thi ecame vant a r atio -wh a : . g l c0 i1 c her held up a fifty caliber rifle cartridge as an example of why the public ot•. fifty alib 49 at ct n th ft and it becomes clear that the i r nv sticall epending on the firearm that it is designed to be used in, o s igu s vici ee blocks. The bottom 1oc on is of fi if ent e fifty caliber cartridges. Figure 25: The large A. e first' o fifty ca fiber c ridges wit "'}n this block(12.7 mm cartridge on the left is a and .50 BAT) are intended for use in rifles and not handguns. The .30mm anti-tank round that dwarfs all other ammunition e t7v t ; c er ri ' rckadn, .§ ary greatly. pictured here. (The size of thePridaye T 1e t al ° y e remaining fifty caliber .30 sheds light on the proponents exaggerations of this picture a, S&W, 50 AE), which are the fifty calibers anti-armor intended for handguns/pistols. capabilities) The top row contains lesser caliber B OI' TkE G AND ammunition similar to the P t" DEMONSTRATE Caliber(including the . _.4 ." M common .338 Winchester hunti, cartr „ e) th twill, W c p, ' .g all f e fi Rcaliber ca'trid es di cussed,above not b " ohil d un the it. are t t t sizes th ferent typ tS ' fi"t be ands props Th m d tically ri Thu when iting the cad tI t o cular row=uont3n .e t4�s t . ? , ° „ . . 50 Caliber ammunition, f1 rm, tis no `inti ative tli papa dttle�'b a parttc l cal! er. A demonstrating that not all .50 fifty caliber handgun will have nowhere near the distance, power, or caliber ammunition is the same. 104 accuracy of a fifty caliber rifle. The only thing these two cartridges II have in common is the diameter of the bullet. This is because caliber measurement has nothing to do with the length, size, or velocity of the cartridge or bullet, but rather it is an measurement of the diameter of the bullet. In November 2003, the City of Long Beach sought to ban fifty caliber rifles. To opine on why he believed that civilian access to fifty caliber handguns is unnecessary because the size of the ammunition is too great, a Long Beach.City Councilmember compared a fifty caliber rifle cartridge to a forty-five caliber handgun cartridge. As discussed above, there is a drastic physical difference between a fifty caliber rifle cartridge and a fifty caliber handgun cartridge. Thus, the demonstration comparing a fifty Figure 26:The top row caliber rifle cartridge to a lesser caliber handgun was spewed and consists of oder lamer caliber illogical on that basis. pistol cartridges such as the.45 W ildley.The bottom row,from To be done appropriately, a comparison of fifty caliber left to right is the 20rnm Vulcan, handgun ammunition with other handgun ammunition including, the 14.5mm,and the .50 BMG. butrit;�!. t o� iv c d r . n hi it don . ren t i - a .(Co c e � an, ._m 1tr til � tgh Ioc ;af F ,��;r t ° gun ammunition in the top block of Figure 26, which includes a forty-five caliber cartridge known as a .45 Wildley.) ,� • , C. PROPER COMPAIit (� � S T HA HE FIFTY CALIBER ROUND IS �NCtT I" _ ,. . Lm�s�Eu�<�..•„AIt ....DGE F+ }R SMALL ARMS The proponents comparison of a fifty caliber rifle cartridge to a lesser caliber handgun cartridge is skewed on tlt eI A focd Zvi >1 f ctive such as only comparing a select few wil av ,.:ne heli th the t • er is the largest small arms cartridge. Using t e p p nt 0 atio 1, corn � ring , t e al rims rifle cartridges pictured in bottom block of Figure 26, the fifty caliber rifle cartridge appears small in comparison. Looking at this comp s �`ctured"i + u '25 and 6, � re mes clear the fifty caliber round is not, in fact, the lar arms rt dg, Smal r cartrsdges are offered in a range of sizes including 20mm an ' 14.5 alptlur ,; its hel ° m oclaf Figure 26. When comparing any fifty caliber to a 30mm cartridge (left block of Figure 25), the fifty caliber cartridge is dwarfed and a pears minuscule. A proper compa or1tom ",re a fy alibo : fleSvil d � I cartridges within a similar grouping, both all T t tl�cd ra ,.� perspective. .. _ .�.. . r "' Comparing the fifty caliber rifle rounds to the common hunting rounds (pictured in the top block of Fi ure 25) as well as the larger 14.5mm and 20mm rifle cartridges (pictured in the bottom bloc Fi e 2f .�. em t es- . ache�fty� liber �tri�; is not the args � ca, idge. Rather, c pa i , t _� - iber rife dart-idges epic e yhere are st�rrt� � b tom on huh in ro ds- d It mall amens rtridg , 105