S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,557
Posts546,294
Members14,423
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212 |
...Gun proofing reflects the philosophical divide between the US and Europe on the regulation of risks generally. In Europe, there is risk until proven otherwise. In the US, there is no risk until it is proven....
I believe Tony's example of the Clarke barrel failing within a few rounds of being proofed is very telling. The gun was proven otherwise, but the proof house was very quick to blame the shooter. Why not skip the middle man and his fees and just blame the shooter. The fellow that picks up the gun, loads and fires it should be responsible.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 319
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 319 |
Under NO circumstances should we encourage the federal government to "help" us any more than they already do!!
N.R.A lifer
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,531 Likes: 82
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,531 Likes: 82 |
I suggested this last year . I also get asked to sleeve guns ,welded joints ,bored up to .736" no proof and not marked sleeved . I can only guess this to "keep " the gun "original" . Not the machinations of some unscrupulous con man . I dont.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 364
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 364 |
That an American, living in America, presumably a supporter of the Republic and who also owns a gun should even contemplate for one second such an idea gives me a pain in my brain. For f##k sake, don't we have enough of "our betters" telling us what to do? In NJ you have to be approved by the State Police to even buy a gun and I know some States have equally silly laws. Yeah, just what we need, some douche bag telling you that you have to have your firearm tested and approved. Not many subjects provoke me to profanity, this is one. nial
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,021
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,021 |
To intentionally steer this topic in a completely different direction as some people are starting to get really worked up over this, of course I dont blame them, but why has not someone in someplace living in New Jersey taken their stupid a$$ laws to Federal court. I would think that asking for permission to own a long gun from a state bureau would definitely violate someones constitutional rights.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 121
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 121 |
Aside from the big brother aspect, how would you apply proof, retroactively to the millions of guns floating around America? You can't put the manure back in the horse.
I have to imagine establishing a proof house must have been deliberated by early congress'. Could make for an interesting article for enterprising writer.
More than anything, I imagine folks here want protection from dealers selling a shotgun with thin or otherwise unsafe barrels. Only two ways to do that, get a written statement from the dealer that states the minimum wall thickness 3-9" from the breech, 4 inches from the muzzle, and the thinnest point between. Or, a simple, written, no questions asked, return period and the buyer can have the barrels measured elsewhere.
I doubt a proof house would catch guns that had been artfully humped into something else.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,385 Likes: 106
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,385 Likes: 106 |
Ben, proof would not be applied "retroactively" any more than it was when proofhouses and proofing were first required in European countries. It would apply only to new guns, or to guns undergoing alterations (such as lengthening of chambers) that would require reproof in countries that do have proofhouses.
Right now, we have gunsmiths who solve the "problem" of short-chambered guns by boring them out to 2 3/4", sometimes without marking the new chamber length--or the fact that the gun has been altered. As Buzz pointed out, there are a whole lot of Americans outside of our little clique here who do not realize that the solution to shooting 2 3/4" shells in a 2 1/2" gun is not punching the chamber and then feeding it a steady diet of American factory ammo. I can verify that fact, because long ago and far away, I was part of that group. So there are some reasons why we should do business differently than we now do it. If, after all, the govt is going to license barbers--for example--then should it be all that unreasonable that they also license gunsmiths, or somehow exercise some control over practices which can result in danger to the user of the gun in question? SAAMI works well enough to establish standards for ammunition, and for the proof of new guns by American manufacturers. Where the system falls apart is that nothing happens once a gun has left the factory.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 364
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 364 |
Wait a minute, Larry. In Britain and Europe the proof laws apply to all firearms, not just shotguns, so the implications of bringing proof laws into the USA would be far reaching indeed. It would have to be at the federal level because the states could never be coerced into all passing similar rules and establishing 50 proof houses. How would it be enforced? If you want to sell a shotgun to a friend will you first have to have it proved? Perhaps some fool has punched the chambers before you got it, now what do you do? I say, the few freedoms we have left should be guarded. We don't need Dudley Dorights telling us how to live our lives. That Government is best which governs least. Sometimes I swear there are still a lot of Tories lurking in the underbrush wanting to bring back kings and queens and other assorted trash. nial
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 517
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 517 |
Guns here are exempt from consumer protection legislation. Leave it that way.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 683
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 683 |
It's a fundamentaly dumb idea. I've never heard of a shotgun blowing up that wasn't obstructed, in which case proof wouldn't have helped anyway.
Proof houses were Tax cherries for the government to pluck. We certainly don't need additional taxes on our gun owning citizens.
|
|
|
|
|