Conversely, if you want off my ping-list, let me know.
And my apologies for any redundant pings.
Posted on 08/05/2005 9:24:35 PM PDT by epow
There has been some discussion this week concerning two amendments to S. 397. The first, by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.), requires federally licensed dealers to provide a "secure gun storage or safety device" with the sale/transfer of every handgun (it does not apply to long guns). The measure, which passed by a vote of 70-30, does not require gun owners to use the device, does not apply to private transfers, and does not create any new civil liability for gun owners who choose not to use these storage devices. Virtually all new handguns today are sold with some type of secure storage or safety device. The amendment has no significant impact on current law.
The other amendment, by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), passed by a margin of 87-11, and was offered this year (as it was in 2004) in a successful attempt to defeat Sen. Edward Kennedy's "armor piercing" ammunition amendment that would have banned all centerfire rifle ammunition. By providing an alternative to Sen. Kennedy's amendment, pro-gun senators were able to marshal the votes to defeat the Kennedy amendment.
Here's what this amendment does:
* The amendment (section 6 of the bill) restates the existing prohibition (in 18 USC Sec. 922(a)) on manufacture, or on sale by manufacturers, of "armor piercing ammunition," except for government use, for export, or for use in testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General. This law has been in effect for nearly two decades.
* It increases the mandatory minimum sentence for the use of "armor piercing ammunition" in a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. Use of armor piercing ammunition in a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime is already a federal offense punishable by 5 years in prison; the amendment increases the penalty to 15 years, and authorizes the death penalty if the ammunition is used in a murder.
* It directs the Attorney General to conduct a study "to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible." In fact, we know such a standard is "feasible" because the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has been testing projectiles against body armor since the early 1970s, and has regularly written and updated the standards for testing projectiles against armor. NIJ's research has saved lives by improving the design and manufacture of body armor. (NIJ standards and background information are available online at http://www.justnet.org/testing/bodyarmor.html.)
Here's what this amendment does not do:
* The amendment does not give the Attorney General (or anyone else) any new authority to ban ammunition.
* The amendment does not change the definition of "armor piercing ammunition." Under current law (18 USC Sec. 921(a)(17)(B)), ammunition is only "armor piercing" if it has a bullet that "may be used in a handgun" and that is made entirely from certain hard metals such as tungsten, steel, bronze or depleted uranium; or if the bullet is "designed and intended for use in a handgun" and has a jacket that weighs more than 25% of the weight of the projectile. The current definition has been in place for more than 12 years.
* The amendment does not create any kind of new ammunition ban. The only ammunition that is banned as "armor piercing" is ammunition that fits the current definition, and neither the amendment nor the study would change the definition.
As you know, the fight now moves to the U.S. House of Representatives, so it is critical that you once again contact your U.S. Representative and urge him/her to pass S. 397!
Thanks for the post.
hrmn...
let's see if I recall how it goes:
1. The Congress passes a law requiring all car manufacturers to include a seatbelt in every single car they sell. This does not make its use mandatory for the drivers, and "never will"
2. Later on, however...
Conversely, if you want off my ping-list, let me know.
And my apologies for any redundant pings.
Any time a firearms-related thread is created on FreeRepublic, please be sure to add the "banglist" keyword to it so that interested FReepers don't miss it.
Let Freedom Ring,
If government gets an opening it can stretch a frogs ass over a rain barrel.
We not only have to watch out for the anti-gun politicians but we also have to be on the lookout for well meaning gun groups who aren't happy with the NRA. Is the bill perfect? Absolutely not. It doesn't protect other industries and it has the ammunition language hidden in the text. But if we don't pass it, we might not have a gun industry for long. We not only need manufacturers we need gun ranges and the ability to shoot what we want, when we want to and the freedom to keep it.
We still need pro-gun, pro-freedom legislators. We're close to a majority but we can't quit now. I think we may have a chance if we have a supreme court that knows how to read on a elementrey school level so they can read a simple sentence.
If 80 million gun owners joined the NRA, we could pass better laws protecting our freedoms. We wouldn't have to worry about anything in the fine print.
S. 397 is another chip off what is left of our Second Amendment liberties.
I used to be a member of the National Rifle Association. Since I cannot afford the dues, I am tranferring my credit card balance to a company that funds the National Rifle Association. I figure my debt payments can atleast in part fund the National Rifle Association.
And to those who are NRA members, get an NRA credit card!
Especially when it's buried in a new 400 page bill, it wouldn't be hard at all. And if's nothing new, why is it necessary to rewrite it? Did the other law sunset?
Today's compromise is the path to tomorrow's surrender. Pass a clean bill or don't pass it at all.
It has been my sad experience that if a portion of a law can be interpreted to be benign or malignant, it's usually going to be interpretted to be malignant by our Government.
This amendment should be thrown out completely. Otherwise what we fear here will come to pass.
How hard would it be to go from the way it is written now to this:
"Under current law (18 USC Sec. 921(a)(17)(B)), ammunition is only "armor piercing" if it has a bullet that "may be used in a firearm handgun, firearm" and that is made entirely from certain hard metals such as tungsten, steel, bronze or depleted uranium; or if the bullet is "designed and intended for use in a handgun" and has a jacket that weighs more than 25% of the weight of the projectile."
Especially when it's buried in a new 400 page bill, it wouldn't be hard at all. And if's nothing new, why is it necessary to rewrite it? Did the other law sunset?
Today's compromise is the path to tomorrow's surrender.
Pass a clean bill or don't pass it at all.
Good idea. I hadn't thought of that. I do have a debit card that I don't use at all. It's just in emergencies.
There's also the idea of dumping loose change into the collection jars at the gun shows.
Midway and Dillon Precision have a round off policy were you round off your charges to the nearest dollar. The rest is donated to the NRA.
That day isn't today, and until it is, worry is reasonable. Look at the several precedents offered in this thread.
I understand what you're saying, and I realize that the antis will never give up trying to rid the US of all guns and gunowners. Our G-G-Grandkids will be fighting these same battles 100 years from now, if there are any guns and gunowners left by then.
But, if NRA is right about the Craig amendment it would take an entirely new bill passed through both houses of Congress and signed by a president to do anything more than complete a new study of so-called armor piercing ammo. A ban on all or even most types of ammo would wake up the 20 million hunters who aren't doing anything to help fight more gun laws because they think their shotguns and deer rifles are safe from the grabbers. If they are ever forced to realize that the antis want ALL guns banned and are trying to do it by banning all ammunition, maybe they would get their heads out of their arses and join the rest of us who have been fighting the antis for so many years. I don't think the antis want to do anything that would cause that to happen, at least not at this stage of the game.
I guess what I'm saying is that we should take what we can get for now, and fight the next battle when we come to it. There will never be a time when we won't have to fight the antis, and we had best take advantage of any point in time when we have a slight majority of Congress and a president who is, while not nearly as favorable to us as we would like, is at least not our sworn enemy as other governments have been in recent years.
I got my LIFE MEMBER status on a quarterly deferred payment plan over a number of years. Heck you could work for babysitter's wages and afford that!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.