From the Left



The NRA's idea of recreation: Assault rifles, armor-piercing bullets and silencers

Dana Milbank on

The bill, notably, has not been embraced by the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, and it is likely to draw a lot of opposition from Democrats. Clearly, both groups are dominated by elites who do not understand the joy of pheasant hunting with tungsten-tipped bullets. Allow me to explain.

Consider Title XV of the sportsmen's bill, also known as the "Hearing Protection Act," which makes it easier for gun owners to buy silencers for their weapons. The uninformed might suspect that silencers are used by people who want to fire weapons without being caught by cops or observed by witnesses. But more and more hunters are finding that conventional earplugs and muffs are not adequate for today's weapons -- for example, quail hunting with an M777 howitzer or grouse hunting with an FIM-92 Stinger missile launcher.

Sportsmen are further protected by a "Destruction of Records" provision requiring the government to delete silencer sale and transfer information. For obvious reasons, law-abiding hunters would not want silencer purchases to be logged. Such a paper trail would be an obvious tip-off to game animals, particularly those, such as the white-tailed deer, with access to the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.

Title XVI of the bill, the "Lawful Purpose and Self-Defense Act," denies the government authority to reclassify bullets as "armor piercing ammunition." It's OK if the ammunition pierces body armor, as long as the manufacturer claims the ammo is meant to be used for sport and not for killing people wearing body armor. This provision is particularly timely because a growing percentage of Western grizzlies have been seen in recent years wearing Kevlar vests when they attack schools in Wyoming.

I take personal comfort in Title XI of the sportsmen's bill, which says that if you can legally own a gun in states with anything-goes gun laws (such as Texas), you can transport that gun through places with restrictive laws (such as Washington, D.C.). People could be free to take their AR-15s, their AK-47s or perhaps even their M134 machine guns to the capital. They wouldn't be allowed to leave them here, but it's likely some would do so anyway -- a welcome development, because I have discovered a population of moles burrowing in my lawn. A weapon that fires 100 rounds a minute would make quick work of them.

Title V, the "Farmer and Hunter Protection Act," would enhance hunters' enjoyment (and farmers' finances) by allowing them to lure migrating birds to certain fields where crops have not been harvested -- and shoot them. Those "Sportsmen" who find this unsporting could instead make their way to one of the recreational areas run by the Army Corps of Engineers, which receive 370 million visitors a year -- and would receive armed visitors under Title III, the "Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act."

The need for this is transparent. Suppose you are with your family, drinking beer on a pontoon boat on the lake, and another family's boat bumps yours. Under current law, you have no recourse. But under this bill, you could settle things according to your sportsmen's heritage, by raising your silencer-equipped assault gun and firing armor-piercing bullets at migratory birds.


Follow Dana Milbank on Twitter, @Milbank.

(c) 2017, Washington Post Writers Group



blog comments powered by Disqus

Social Connections


Marshall Ramsey Gary Varvel Darrin Bell Clay Bennett Gary Markstein Chip Bok