NRA Says Ammo Study Is Not A Trojan Horse

NRA - email alert ^ | 8/6/05 | staff

[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!

[Shooter 2.5]

My point was to continue the fight. We can take this legislation, work to get the language removed and if not work, make sure ammuntion isn't banned in another bill. We can't work for that bill if we don't have a clear pro-gun majority. If we had 80 milion gun owners working for it, we can make it happen.

Join the NRA, call your legislators and activate those gun owners who aren't doing anything. You can worry on another day.

[blackie]

The Second Amendment...
America's Original Homeland Security!

Be Ever Vigilant!

[King Prout]

where did I suggest that we should not support the anti-lawsuit bill?

nowhere.

I simply pointed out the way a similarly phrased law on safety measures went from optional for the end-user to mandatory.

As a reminder: Never believe the government when they say a law's reach shall not be extended.

[metalurgist]

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.

We're 2 years away from a new congress and 4 years away from a new president and another new congress.

I absolutely hate large bills. What other mischief from congress critters and staff (yes, staff. It has happened that some crat staffers inserted language into a bill and it was passed without being caught) are hidden in this bill?

If Craig wants to do something for the American people he needs to pass a law that limits all new laws to no more than 4 pages.

[kerryusama04]

There's also the idea of dumping loose change into the collection jars at the gun shows.

I use http://www.outdrs.net for my isp. They give a buck a month for every subscriber to the NRA (or gun/hunting group of your choice).

[xsrdx]

SEN Craig is a stalwart friend of gun owners - if this is what it took to get S.397 thorough, so be it.

I don't like it, but I'm confident that SEN Craig's amendment was crafted in the long term interest of RKBA and the domestic firearms industry.