Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/1/2005 6:22:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 5:21:09 AM EDT by lippo]
Remember this?


S.397
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON BRINGING OF QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTIONS IN FEDERAL OR STATE COURT.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
SEC. 5. CHILD SAFETY LOCKS.
SEC. 6. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.



Call your US House Rep and tell them to deep six the Armor Piercing Ammunition part of this bill. It "could" have disasterous results if the wrong people get involved with it. And here's what that parts says...



SEC. 6. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

(a) Unlawful Acts- Section 922(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraphs (7) and (8) and inserting the following:

`(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, unless--

`(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

`(B) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the purpose of exportation; or

`(C) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;

`(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, unless such sale or delivery--

`(A) is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

`(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or

`(C) is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;'.

(b) Penalties- Section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(5) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided under this subsection, or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries armor piercing ammunition, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses armor piercing ammunition, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime or conviction under this section--

`(A) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 years; and

`(B) if death results from the use of such ammunition--

`(i) if the killing is murder (as defined in section 1111), be punished by death or sentenced to a term of imprisonment for any term of years or for life; and

`(ii) if the killing is manslaughter (as defined in section 1112), be punished as provided in section 1112.'.

(c) Study and Report-

(1) STUDY- The Attorney General shall conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible.

(2) ISSUES TO BE STUDIED- The study conducted under paragraph (1) shall include--

(A) variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired; and

(B) the amount of powder used to propel the projectile.


(3) REPORT- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report containing the results of the study conducted under this subsection to--

(A) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and

(B) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
Passed the Senate July 29, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.



In the wrong hands, the government could actually regulate how much powder and what kind of "bullets" you can use in your rifle or handgun. This part is just wrong and should be taken out.

ALSO, call the NRA and tell them how bad this is and to also put pressure on the powers to be to get rid of it.

Personally, I doubt they'll take it out, but EVERYONE needs to get on their backs about this.

So please do your part and CALL!!!!!
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 6:24:04 AM EDT
btt Will do right now. Patty
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 6:56:28 AM EDT
Here is a sample letter than you can change to place your Rep in, print off and send.


August 1, 2005

The Honorable (representative name)
The United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. Office
128 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Subject: S. 397, Section 6 ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION

Dear Representative (name),

There is a provision within S.397, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate) that passed the Senate on July 29, 2005. SEC. 6. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION grants increased penal time for committing crime using AP ammunition, and gives the Attorney General, two years to come up with a study defining Armor Piercing ammunition. If there is a shift of thought process within the government, this study could in effect BAN ALL ammunition from the market place. As a 2nd Amendment supporter, you should know that most ammunition will pierce body armor and even with hunting rounds, they can pierce steel plate. This provision within S.397 could have disastrous consequences for people wanting to exercise their 2nd Amendment Right under the Bill of Rights. And this provision could be a CLEAR violation of law if this study were to be used to infringe upon our Rights. Which, within the Democratic Party, there would be no hesitating on doing. Please vote Section 6. of S.397 down when it comes to the floor before the President signs this bill into law. Otherwise, “Shall not be infringed” means nothing. Thank you.

Sincerely,

(your name)
(Your address)

cc: Faxed to all offices and enclosed is a copy of the section.

S.397

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)

SEC. 6. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

(a) Unlawful Acts- Section 922(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraphs (7) and (8) and inserting the following:

`(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, unless--

`(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

`(B) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the purpose of exportation; or

`(C) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;

`(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, unless such sale or delivery--

`(A) is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State,
or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

`(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or

`(C) is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;'.

(b) Penalties- Section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(5) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided under this subsection, or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries armor piercing ammunition, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses armor piercing ammunition, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime or conviction under this section--

`(A) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 years; and

`(B) if death results from the use of such ammunition--

`(i) if the killing is murder (as defined in section 1111), be punished by death or sentenced to a term of imprisonment for any term of years or for life; and

`(ii) if the killing is manslaughter (as defined in section 1112), be punished as provided in section 1112.'.

(c) Study and Report-

(1) STUDY- The Attorney General shall conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible.

(2) ISSUES TO BE STUDIED- The study conducted under paragraph (1) shall include--

(A) variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired; and

(B) the amount of powder used to propel the projectile.

(3) REPORT- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report containing the results of the study conducted under this subsection to--

(A) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and

(B) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.


Passed the Senate July 29, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.

109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 397

AN ACT
To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.


Link Posted: 8/1/2005 7:18:46 AM EDT
tag so I can come back and use the sample letter.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 7:36:22 AM EDT
Here's the first part of the letter I am faxing Senator Craig:


August 1, 2005

The Honorable Larry Craig
The United States Senate
Washington, DC 20515

Subject: S. 397, Section 6 ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION

Dear Senator Craig,

There is a provision within S.397, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate) that passed the Senate on July 29, 2005. SEC. 6. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION grants increased penal time for committing crime using AP ammunition, and gives the Attorney General, two years to come up with a study defining Armor Piercing ammunition. If there is a shift of thought process within the government, this study could in effect BAN ALL ammunition from the market place. As a 2nd Amendment supporter, you should know that most ammunition will pierce body armor at some point with the number of “hits” and even with hunting rounds, they can pierce steel plate. This provision within S.397 could have disastrous consequences for people wanting to exercise their 2nd Amendment Right and is an Un-Constitutional Section in direct violation to the Bill of Rights. And this provision is a CLEAR violation of law if this study were to be used to infringe upon our Rights. Which, within the Democratic Party, there would be no hesitating in doing so. Please make sure with your influence, Section 6. of S.397 is voted down when it comes to the floor of the House of Representatives for passage and before the President signs this bill into law. Otherwise, “Shall not be infringed” means nothing. Thank you.

Sincerely,

My name
My address

Enclosed: is a copy of the section.

Link Posted: 8/1/2005 7:37:54 AM EDT
And here is the NRA ILA phone number, to give them an ear full...



NRA-ILA
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, Virginia 22030

1-800-392-8683 - Grassroots Hotline

Link Posted: 8/1/2005 8:10:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/1/2005 8:32:32 AM EDT by lippo]
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 8:15:16 AM EDT
damn lippo. that is some good writing.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 8:29:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By torstin:
damn lippo. that is some good writing.




Thank you.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 8:31:10 AM EDT
Done and Done. Too bad McCain is a chode.

- Gazukull
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 8:36:23 AM EDT
Does anyone have the senate link to the bill as passed?
I didn't see anything about this amendment getting passed,just the gunlock amendment.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 8:39:24 AM EDT
done.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 8:40:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/1/2005 8:43:16 AM EDT by lippo]

Originally Posted By Poodleshooter:
Does anyone have the senate link to the bill as passed?
I didn't see anything about this amendment getting passed,just the gunlock amendment.




thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109cMKncl::



S.397
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON BRINGING OF QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTIONS IN FEDERAL OR STATE COURT.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
SEC. 5. CHILD SAFETY LOCKS.
SEC. 6. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.




thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00397:@@@S


Bill Summary & Status for the 109th Congress
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW SEARCH | HOME | HELP | ABOUT STATUS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S.397
Title: A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
Sponsor: Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID] (introduced 2/16/2005) Cosponsors (61)
Related Bills: H.R.800
Latest Major Action: 7/29/2005 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Passed Senate with amendments by Yea-Nay. 65 - 31. Record Vote Number: 219.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL ACTIONS: (color indicates Senate actions)
2/16/2005:
Introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1529)
2/16/2005:
Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1529-1530)
2/17/2005:
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 15.
7/22/2005:
Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate.
7/22/2005:
Cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the measure presented in Senate. (consideration: CR S8740-8741; text: CR S8740-8741)
7/22/2005:
Motion to proceed to consideration of measure withdrawn in Senate.
7/26/2005:
Cloture on the Motion to proceed to the bill invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 66 - 32. Record Vote Number: 206. (consideration: CR S8908-8909)
7/26/2005:
Motion to proceed to measure considered in Senate. (consideration: CR S8908-89027)
7/27/2005:
Motion to proceed to measure considered in Senate. (consideration: CR S9059-9086)
7/27/2005:
Motion to proceed to consideration of measure agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
7/27/2005:
Measure laid before Senate by motion. (consideration: CR S9059-9087, S9087-9115)
7/27/2005:
Cloture motion on the bill presented in Senate. (consideration: CR S9087)
7/27/2005:
S.AMDT.1605 Amendment SA 1605 proposed by Senator Frist for Senator Craig. (consideration: CR S9087; text: CR S9087)
To make clear that the bill does not apply to actions commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the Gun Control Act.
7/27/2005:
S.AMDT.1606 Amendment SA 1606 proposed by Senator Frist to Amendment SA 1605. (consideration: CR S9087-9114; text: CR S9087)
To make clear that the bill does not apply to actions commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act.
7/27/2005:
S.AMDT.1626 Amendment SA 1626 proposed by Senator Reed for Senator Kohl. (consideration: CR S9114-9115; text: CR S9114)
To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require the provision of a child safety lock in connection with the transfer of a handgun.
7/28/2005:
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S9217-9244)
7/28/2005:
S.AMDT.1605 Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S9217-9222; text as modified: CR S9222)
7/28/2005:
S.AMDT.1606 Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S9217-9222; text as modified: CR S9222)
7/28/2005:
S.AMDT.1626 Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S9217-9222)
7/28/2005:
S.AMDT.1626 Amendment SA 1626 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 70 - 30. Record Vote Number: 207.
7/28/2005:
S.AMDT.1623 Amendment SA 1623 proposed by Senator Levin. (consideration: CR S9222-9230; text: CR S9222)
To clarify the prohibition on certain civil liability actions.
7/28/2005:
S.AMDT.1623 Motion to table amendment SA 1623 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 62 - 37. Record Vote Number: 208.
7/29/2005:
Considered by Senate.
7/29/2005:
S.AMDT.1605 Considered by Senate.
7/29/2005:
S.AMDT.1606 Considered by Senate.
7/29/2005:
S.AMDT.1620 Amendment SA 1620 proposed by Senator Lautenberg.
To exempt lawsuits involving injuries to children from the definition of qualified civil liability action.
7/29/2005:
S.AMDT.1644 Amendment SA 1644 proposed by Senator Craig.
To protect the rights of children who are victimized by crime to secure compensation from those who participate in the arming of criminals.
7/29/2005:
S.AMDT.1644 Amendment SA 1644 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 72 - 26. Record Vote Number: 214.
7/29/2005:
S.AMDT.1620 Amendment SA 1620 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay. 35 - 64. Record Vote Number: 215.
7/29/2005:
S.AMDT.1615 Amendment SA 1615 proposed by Senator Kennedy.
To expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition and for other purposes.
7/29/2005:
S.AMDT.1645 Amendment SA 1645 proposed by Senator Craig.
To regulate the sale and possession of armor piercing ammunition, and for other purposes.
7/29/2005:
S.AMDT.1645 Amendment SA 1645 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay. 87 - 11. Record Vote Number: 216.

7/29/2005:
S.AMDT.1615 Amendment SA 1615 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 31 - 64. Record Vote Number: 217.
7/29/2005:
S.AMDT.1619 Amendment SA 1619 proposed by Senator Corzine.
To protect the rights of law enforcement officers who are victimized by crime to secure compensation from those who participate in arming criminals.
7/29/2005:
S.AMDT.1619 Amendment SA 1619 not agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
7/29/2005:
S.AMDT.1642 Amendment SA 1642 proposed by Senator Reed.
To provide a complete substitute.
7/29/2005:
S.AMDT.1642 Amendment SA 1642 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 33 - 63. Record Vote Number: 218.
7/29/2005:
S.AMDT.1606 Amendment SA 1606 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
7/29/2005:
S.AMDT.1605 Amendment SA 1605 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
7/29/2005:
Passed Senate with amendments by Yea-Nay. 65 - 31. Record Vote Number: 219.

Link Posted: 8/1/2005 8:41:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/1/2005 8:41:48 AM EDT by dport]
Excellent thread.
Excellent advice.
Bump.
Actually, this deserves a tack.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 8:43:10 AM EDT
Um guys didn't this already pass the house and the senate??? wouldn't it be alittle late to try and get that shit removed???
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 8:44:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
Um guys didn't this already pass the house and the senate??? wouldn't it be alittle late to try and get that shit removed???



From what some have said, this Amendment passed the Senate, but needs to be approved by the House before it can get signed by the President. If it get approved by the House, the President should be HAMMERED before he signs it.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 8:50:17 AM EDT
Wait a minute. Larry Craig proposed the AP ammo ban? Or am I reading that wrong? If he did, WTF? I thought he was on our side. What's he doing adding anti-gun amendments? Or is he a for-the-duck-hunters-only type of pro-gun?
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 9:05:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/1/2005 9:06:45 AM EDT by lippo]

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:
Wait a minute. Larry Craig proposed the AP ammo ban? Or am I reading that wrong? If he did, WTF? I thought he was on our side. What's he doing adding anti-gun amendments? Or is he a for-the-duck-hunters-only type of pro-gun?




Yes he did and I have no clue why he'd do something like this. Politicians defy logic.I called his office and they said someone would get back with me. I'm not counting on recieving any phone calls. And I did fax his DC office and his Boise office.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 9:10:47 AM EDT
Is there an agreed upon definion of "armor piercing" like there is for "assault rifle"?

Or is it like "assault weapon" and can be whatever? Because.. well an acme brick can be armor piercing if you throw it fast enough.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 9:15:10 AM EDT
Lippo, thanks for the heads up. I will try and contact my reps after lunch. Thanks for the form letter as well.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 9:18:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:
Is there an agreed upon definion of "armor piercing" like there is for "assault rifle"?

Or is it like "assault weapon" and can be whatever? Because.. well an acme brick can be armor piercing if you throw it fast enough.

.

From reading the info in this thjread it looks like anything that would go through a kevlar vest would be considered AP, that means ANY rifle bullet basicly. But thats just the way it read to me, I could be very wrong.

Well I guess it's time to start getting on peoples asses about this.....
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 9:19:15 AM EDT
If I recal (and I watched CSPAN all last week) the 'Armor Piercing' legislation offered by Craig does nothing more than increase the penalty for criminals who use armor piercing rounds during the commission of a crime.

THIS IS NOT THE KENNEDY ARMOR PIERCING AMMO BAN
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 9:32:28 AM EDT
Hasn't hand gun AP ammo been banned for atleast 10 years already?
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 10:14:17 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 10:27:12 AM EDT
Reality check: There is no AP ammo ban in S. 397. The Graig Amendment increases the penalty for murders commited with AP ammo. It also asks the AG to study how AP bullets work. There is no ban in the bill.

As usual, Lippo is over-reacting.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 10:34:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Reality check: There is no AP ammo ban in S. 397. The Graig Amendment increases the penalty for murders commited with AP ammo. It also asks the AG to study how AP bullets work. There is no ban in the bill.

As usual, Lippo is over-reacting.



The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 10:40:39 AM EDT
What is the effect of changing "Secretary" to "Attorney General"?
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 11:20:45 AM EDT
Lippo has valid concerns about the study that is called for in the amendment. A politically-charged study could be used to change the definition of AP to include almost anything.

I jumped on him the hardest in his last thread, but he's right to be worried. The language for the study needs to be removed. An ounce of prevention, so to speak.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 11:28:58 AM EDT
What bugs me is the study.

I did call the NRA-ILA about this.

Link Posted: 8/1/2005 12:29:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/1/2005 12:30:20 PM EDT by Bartholomew_Roberts]

Originally Posted By Jetlag:
What is the effect of changing "Secretary" to "Attorney General"?



None - when the original language was written the ATF was under the Department of the Treasury and reported to the Secretary of the Treasury. Since the reorganization for homeland security, the ATF now reports to the Department of Justice and its boss is the Attorney General.


Lippo has valid concerns about the study that is called for in the amendment. A politically-charged study could be used to change the definition of AP to include almost anything.


Actually his concerns are about as close to invalid as I can imagine. The study doesn't authorize Congress to do anything except:


determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible.


It does not authorize the ATF to create any rules to that effect. It does not ask Congress to do anything about the results of the study. As far as what the study results COULD be used to support... the fact of the matter is either you have the votes for legislation or you don't. The Clinton Administration cranked out anti-gun studies through the DoJ and CDC for 6 years after the 1994 laws and still didn't change a thing in legislation.

Personally, I wish Congress would study the issue. Maybe then they would realize what a load of crap is being foisted on them by the likes of Sen. Kennedy. Should that study be formed and commissioned while there is a friendly administration in the White House with an NRA Board of Director writing the legislation that forms it, well... all the better for educating those who don't understand our position eh?

However, if you doubt my position on this amendment then simply take a look at the people who supported Lippo's position and voted to kill this amendment in the Senate:

Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Feingold (D-WI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Wyden (D-OR)

Note that even Senators such as Sen. Coburn of OK, a Senator who is so hardcore that GOA called his election "The most important Senate race in 2004" supported this amendment. Now you basically have two choices here - you can believe that GOAs top politician and multiple members of the NRA Board of Directors have conspired to sell us out or you can believe that Lippo is maybe reading a bit too much into this legislation.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 12:35:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
However, if you doubt my position on this amendment then simply take a look at the people who supported Lippo's position and voted to kill this amendment in the Senate:

Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Feingold (D-WI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Wyden (D-OR)

Note that even Senators such as Sen. Coburn of OK, a Senator who is so hardcore that GOA called his election "The most important Senate race in 2004" supported this amendment. Now you basically have two choices here - you can believe that GOAs top politician and multiple members of the NRA Board of Directors have conspired to sell us out or you can believe that Lippo is maybe reading a bit too much into this legislation.






pwned!
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 1:23:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:

Originally Posted By Jetlag:
What is the effect of changing "Secretary" to "Attorney General"?



None - when the original language was written the ATF was under the Department of the Treasury and reported to the Secretary of the Treasury. Since the reorganization for homeland security, the ATF now reports to the Department of Justice and its boss is the Attorney General.


Lippo has valid concerns about the study that is called for in the amendment. A politically-charged study could be used to change the definition of AP to include almost anything.


Actually his concerns are about as close to invalid as I can imagine. The study doesn't authorize Congress to do anything except:


determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible.


It does not authorize the ATF to create any rules to that effect. It does not ask Congress to do anything about the results of the study. As far as what the study results COULD be used to support... the fact of the matter is either you have the votes for legislation or you don't. The Clinton Administration cranked out anti-gun studies through the DoJ and CDC for 6 years after the 1994 laws and still didn't change a thing in legislation.

Personally, I wish Congress would study the issue. Maybe then they would realize what a load of crap is being foisted on them by the likes of Sen. Kennedy. Should that study be formed and commissioned while there is a friendly administration in the White House with an NRA Board of Director writing the legislation that forms it, well... all the better for educating those who don't understand our position eh?

However, if you doubt my position on this amendment then simply take a look at the people who supported Lippo's position and voted to kill this amendment in the Senate:

Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Feingold (D-WI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Wyden (D-OR)

Note that even Senators such as Sen. Coburn of OK, a Senator who is so hardcore that GOA called his election "The most important Senate race in 2004" supported this amendment. Now you basically have two choices here - you can believe that GOAs top politician and multiple members of the NRA Board of Directors have conspired to sell us out or you can believe that Lippo is maybe reading a bit too much into this legislation.


This has been gone over in a weekend thread. I think the study could be misused. Can you imagine if they study came back and said the following calibers are capable of penetrating police body armor and then listed basically every rifle cartridge out there? The left would go nuts calling every caliber out there a "cop killer." The reason this study wording is even in there is to buy off parts of the left. Notice that Feinstien voted for the amendment. The only reason they would buy into it is if they decided something could be of future political value.

That being said, overall the bill is very good. And we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. But if we can get the House to pass a version without the study wording why not do it? Better safe than sorry, IMO.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 7:44:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/1/2005 7:44:57 PM EDT by lippo]

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:

Originally Posted By Jetlag:
What is the effect of changing "Secretary" to "Attorney General"?



None - when the original language was written the ATF was under the Department of the Treasury and reported to the Secretary of the Treasury. Since the reorganization for homeland security, the ATF now reports to the Department of Justice and its boss is the Attorney General.


Lippo has valid concerns about the study that is called for in the amendment. A politically-charged study could be used to change the definition of AP to include almost anything.


Actually his concerns are about as close to invalid as I can imagine. The study doesn't authorize Congress to do anything except:


determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible.


It does not authorize the ATF to create any rules to that effect. It does not ask Congress to do anything about the results of the study. As far as what the study results COULD be used to support... the fact of the matter is either you have the votes for legislation or you don't. The Clinton Administration cranked out anti-gun studies through the DoJ and CDC for 6 years after the 1994 laws and still didn't change a thing in legislation.

Personally, I wish Congress would study the issue. Maybe then they would realize what a load of crap is being foisted on them by the likes of Sen. Kennedy. Should that study be formed and commissioned while there is a friendly administration in the White House with an NRA Board of Director writing the legislation that forms it, well... all the better for educating those who don't understand our position eh?

However, if you doubt my position on this amendment then simply take a look at the people who supported Lippo's position and voted to kill this amendment in the Senate:

Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Feingold (D-WI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Wyden (D-OR)

Note that even Senators such as Sen. Coburn of OK, a Senator who is so hardcore that GOA called his election "The most important Senate race in 2004" supported this amendment. Now you basically have two choices here - you can believe that GOAs top politician and multiple members of the NRA Board of Directors have conspired to sell us out or you can believe that Lippo is maybe reading a bit too much into this legislation.


This has been gone over in a weekend thread. I think the study could be misused. Can you imagine if they study came back and said the following calibers are capable of penetrating police body armor and then listed basically every rifle cartridge out there? The left would go nuts calling every caliber out there a "cop killer." The reason this study wording is even in there is to buy off parts of the left. Notice that Feinstien voted for the amendment. The only reason they would buy into it is if they decided something could be of future political value.

That being said, overall the bill is very good. And we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. But if we can get the House to pass a version without the study wording why not do it? Better safe than sorry, IMO.




Dport...Thank you and very well put. This "study" could be very damaging in the future and yes, common sense alone would tell you that just about any ammunition could be considered AP if you shot a vest enough times or if you increased it's speed. Vests and armor are rated for certain calibers at certain speeds. If you increase the speed, you can make a caliber AP. The likes of the democrats could use this in a very serious way. If they can get flash hiders banned for 10 years, the current AP banned and certain "foriegn" rifles banned, so on and so on...what the hell do you think antis could do with this if they got back into power?

Anyone that doesn't see that or calls chicken little has their blinders on and is on the side of the Anti's. It's funny how so many "so called" gun people don't see how, "just" this study is a violation of the Bill of Rights. Just like every other group, gun owners can be their worst enemies at times. Gun owners that don't want to stand up for their Right =
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 8:11:21 PM EDT
Here's a nice little IM I received from Lippo:




Fuck you! Asshole

People like you are why this country is so fucked up. I suggest you pull your head out of your ass for two seconds and read the bill you fucking moron!



I have read the bill you dumb shit, quit overreacting.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 9:05:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lippo:
Dport...Thank you and very well put. This "study" could be very damaging in the future and yes, common sense alone would tell you that just about any ammunition could be considered AP if you shot a vest enough times or if you increased it's speed. Vests and armor are rated for certain calibers at certain speeds. If you increase the speed, you can make a caliber AP. The likes of the democrats could use this in a very serious way.



You mean more serious than the second attempt in two years to ban pretty much all centerfire rifle ammo and a good chunk of pistol ammo as well? You act like if this study is never done that the antis will never bring up these topics. I don't think that is a very realistic view. The lack of a study hasn't prevented any of the current attempts to ban ammo - having pro-gun Senators who understand the issues is what has prevented those attempts.


If they can get flash hiders banned for 10 years, the current AP banned and certain "foriegn" rifles banned, so on and so on...what the hell do you think antis could do with this if they got back into power?


OK, in this hypothetical future what do the antis do if there is no study and they get back in power? Pretty much the same thing I would guess since there has not yet been any study and they are already proposing much worse legislation. So whether we have this study or not, the antis will continue to propose anti legislation.

For that matter, how do you figure this study somehow puts us on some slippery slope? If this study is the powerful polticial medicine you seem to think it is, then what would stop the antis from commissioning their own study if they get back in power? If this study is such a threat then isn't it going to be much worse to let the antis pick the people who will conduct the study? Wouldn't we be better off having those people picked by someone on the NRA Board of Directors?


Anyone that doesn't see that or calls chicken little has their blinders on and is on the side of the Anti's.


So guys like Chris Cox, Larry Craig, Chris Knox, Wayne LaPierre, and even Tom Coburn are on the side of the antis? Does that make any sense to you? Do you mind if I ask what your background is in law or legislation that I should weigh your opinion on this issue more heavily than guys like Tom Coburn who are 100% with both GOA and NRA?

How is it that not one of the pro-gun Senators in the Congress, including the 30 guys who voted against even the Kohl gun lock amendment because they were such strong supporters of the Second Amendment, agreed with your interpretation? Are all 30 sell-outs or are all 30 too stupid to see what you see?


It's funny how so many "so called" gun people don't see how, "just" this study is a violation of the Bill of Rights.


Congressional studies are a violation of the Bill of Rights? That's a novel statement. Care to elaborate on it?



Just like every other group, gun owners can be their worst enemies at times.


YWell, we certainly agree on this though I doubt it is from the same perspective.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 9:21:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By roboman:
Here's a nice little IM I received from Lippo:




Fuck you! Asshole

People like you are why this country is so fucked up. I suggest you pull your head out of your ass for two seconds and read the bill you fucking moron!



I have read the bill you dumb shit, quit overreacting.



You are wasting your time he ain’t going to hyperventilating long enough to listen to anybody… but I think you know that already.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 9:22:56 PM EDT
what an appeasing dickhead Craig is for adding this
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 9:27:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Black_Talon:
what an appeasing dickhead Craig is for adding this





Yea you are right… let us start eating our own that is a winning plan.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 9:32:42 PM EDT
Look, I understand your concerns about the study, but the thread title is hyperbole.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 9:44:10 PM EDT
Tag to read when I wake up later in the morning.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 9:45:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By roboman:
Here's a nice little IM I received from Lippo:




Fuck you! Asshole

People like you are why this country is so fucked up. I suggest you pull your head out of your ass for two seconds and read the bill you fucking moron!



I have read the bill you dumb shit, quit overreacting.



You are wasting your time he ain’t going to hyperventilating long enough to listen to anybody… but I think you know that already.



He's too busy showing us how an AWB-rider was tacked onto the recess appointment of John Bolton
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 9:59:36 PM EDT
Uh, from the way I read it, with the right Attorney General in office, this could provide the legal justification for him to instruct the ATF to designate any centerfire rifle round with over x number of grains of powder an AP round.

I'm not certain I understand the jumping all over lippo...

I mean really, theres no such thing as paranoid when it comes to the Federal Government.
Its only common sense to be picking over everything congress does with a fine tooth comb.

Oh, and posting someone's IM to you really shows alot of class.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 10:02:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Uh, from the way I read it, with the right Attorney General in office, this could provide the legal justification for him to instruct the ATF to designate any centerfire rifle round with over x number of grains of powder an AP round.

I'm not certain I understand the jumping all over lippo...

I mean really, theres no such thing as paranoid when it comes to the Federal Government.
Its only common sense to be picking over everything congress does with a fine tooth comb.

Oh, and posting someone's IM to you really shows alot of class.



About as much class as going out of your way to IM someone and call them and asshole and say fuck you.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 10:07:00 PM EDT
I'm not saying what he said was mature either.

Tattle-telling, however is still low no matter what the other person said.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 10:10:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
I'm not saying what he said was mature either.

Tattle-telling, however is still low no matter what the other person said.



Tattle-telling would be running to a mod or site staff and trying to get him banned for personal attacks.

I was merely making an observation as to how he likes his paranoid theories criticized.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 10:44:24 PM EDT
It is more than just a "study": It bans the manufacture and sale to civilians.


for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, unless--

`(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

`(B) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the purpose of exportation; or

`(C) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;

`(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, unless such sale or delivery--

`(A) is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

`(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or

`(C) is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;'.

Link Posted: 8/2/2005 1:25:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Fletchette:
It is more than just a "study": It bans the manufacture and sale to civilians.


for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, unless--

`(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

`(B) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the purpose of exportation; or

`(C) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;

`(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, unless such sale or delivery--

`(A) is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

`(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or

`(C) is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney
General;'.




And that's the part that says box up your Dillon loading press, you can't use it any more to load what "they" have decided are AP rounds. The interesting thing about legal jargon is the way it's interpreted, for example the AWB was not a ban on assault rifles it was a ban on cosmetic features and hi cap mags and that's the way the law read in layman's terms. However the anti's twisted things around to suit their agenda and mislead people. It's a case of saying one thing and meaning another, on the surface the wording looks benign, but it could carry consequences down the road. The anti's will use such a study to mislead people who are ignorant to the truth.

The fact is if you go to the web site of a manufacturer of body armor they will have what level of protection and the calibers that each class of armor will protect against, but dose any think the anti's will tell the general public when the results of the study are in? No they will say that XYZ rounds defeat body amour (not what rounds will defeat what class body amour) thus XYZ rounds need to be banned. Unfortunately there are idiots out there that will buy it , just like they bought that the ban was a ban on assault rifles. Yes it's just an authorization to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible. No it dose not authorize the ATF to make it's own judgments and determinations or any thing else for that matter, dose it need to? The then president can give the ATF any authorization the need to ban XYZ calibers in the form of an executive order, 89" ban anyone?
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 4:30:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 4:51:53 AM EDT by lippo]

Originally Posted By roboman:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Uh, from the way I read it, with the right Attorney General in office, this could provide the legal justification for him to instruct the ATF to designate any centerfire rifle round with over x number of grains of powder an AP round.

I'm not certain I understand the jumping all over lippo...

I mean really, theres no such thing as paranoid when it comes to the Federal Government.
Its only common sense to be picking over everything congress does with a fine tooth comb.

Oh, and posting someone's IM to you really shows alot of class.



About as much class as going out of your way to IM someone and call them and asshole and say fuck you.



Ok, I'll say it to you right here...fuck you you stupid asshole. Why do you think they put that section in there you mental midget? There's no need for it, but all you'd like to do is drink the kool-aid, along with the rest of the idiots here. All you can do is bash instead of engaging in honest discussion. You are nothing but a stupid, suck up to a people that you want to put on a pedestal. While you are making no sense bashing me and in denial of that fact that there SHOULDN'T be a study in the first place, you might want to wipe your chin. I thing Craig got something on it.

I can't believe how many dickheads there are on this site now.

You and the others that can only bash, you might want to think about this...



Link Posted: 8/2/2005 5:08:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 5:13:38 AM EDT by mgw1181]

Originally Posted By AKSU-74:

Originally Posted By Fletchette:
It is more than just a "study": It bans the manufacture and sale to civilians.


for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, unless--

`(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

`(B) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the purpose of exportation; or

`(C) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;

`(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, unless such sale or delivery--

`(A) is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

`(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or

`(C) is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney
General;'.




And that's the part that says box up your Dillon loading press, you can't use it any more to load what "they" have decided are AP rounds. The interesting thing about legal jargon is the way it's interpreted, for example the AWB was not a ban on assault rifles it was a ban on cosmetic features and hi cap mags and that's the way the law read in layman's terms. However the anti's twisted things around to suit their agenda and mislead people. It's a case of saying one thing and meaning another, on the surface the wording looks benign, but it could carry consequences down the road. The anti's will use such a study to mislead people who are ignorant to the truth.

The fact is if you go to the web site of a manufacturer of body armor they will have what level of protection and the calibers that each class of armor will protect against, but dose any think the anti's will tell the general public when the results of the study are in? No they will say that XYZ rounds defeat body amour (not what rounds will defeat what class body amour) thus XYZ rounds need to be banned. Unfortunately there are idiots out there that will buy it , just like they bought that the ban was a ban on assault rifles. Yes it's just an authorization to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible. No it dose not authorize the ATF to make it's own judgments and determinations or any thing else for that matter, dose it need to? The then president can give the ATF any authorization the need to ban XYZ calibers in the form of an executive order, 89" ban anyone?

You misunderstand, it is amending the penalties for the 1980s AP ban law, not expanding the defintion of AP. That law applied to handgun projectiles with steel, tungsten, etc, there is no way it can be applied to a standard lead core projectile. Note that there is no amendment to the definition of "armor piercing ammunition", it still uses the 1980s definition that is already in the US Code.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 5:13:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lippo:

Originally Posted By roboman:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Uh, from the way I read it, with the right Attorney General in office, this could provide the legal justification for him to instruct the ATF to designate any centerfire rifle round with over x number of grains of powder an AP round.

I'm not certain I understand the jumping all over lippo...

I mean really, theres no such thing as paranoid when it comes to the Federal Government.
Its only common sense to be picking over everything congress does with a fine tooth comb.

Oh, and posting someone's IM to you really shows alot of class.



About as much class as going out of your way to IM someone and call them and asshole and say fuck you.



Ok, I'll say it to you right here...fuck you you stupid asshole. Why do you think they put that section in there you mental midget? There's no need for it, but all you'd like to do is drink the kool-aid, along with the rest of the idiots here. All you can do is bash instead of engaging in honest discussion. You are nothing but a stupid, suck up to a people that you want to put on a pedestal. While you are making no sense bashing me and in denial of that fact that there SHOULDN'T be a study in the first place, you might want to wipe your chin. I thing Craig got something on it.

I can't believe how many dickheads there are on this site now.

You and the others that can only bash, you might want to think about this...

www.counterintelligence4u.com/prodimages/assHol_small.jpg


Link Posted: 8/2/2005 5:18:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 5:19:43 AM EDT by lippo]

Originally Posted By mgw1181:

Originally Posted By AKSU-74:

Originally Posted By Fletchette:
It is more than just a "study": It bans the manufacture and sale to civilians.


for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, unless--

`(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

`(B) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the purpose of exportation; or

`(C) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;

`(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, unless such sale or delivery--

`(A) is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

`(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or

`(C) is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney
General;'.




And that's the part that says box up your Dillon loading press, you can't use it any more to load what "they" have decided are AP rounds. The interesting thing about legal jargon is the way it's interpreted, for example the AWB was not a ban on assault rifles it was a ban on cosmetic features and hi cap mags and that's the way the law read in layman's terms. However the anti's twisted things around to suit their agenda and mislead people. It's a case of saying one thing and meaning another, on the surface the wording looks benign, but it could carry consequences down the road. The anti's will use such a study to mislead people who are ignorant to the truth.

The fact is if you go to the web site of a manufacturer of body armor they will have what level of protection and the calibers that each class of armor will protect against, but dose any think the anti's will tell the general public when the results of the study are in? No they will say that XYZ rounds defeat body amour (not what rounds will defeat what class body amour) thus XYZ rounds need to be banned. Unfortunately there are idiots out there that will buy it , just like they bought that the ban was a ban on assault rifles. Yes it's just an authorization to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible. No it dose not authorize the ATF to make it's own judgments and determinations or any thing else for that matter, dose it need to? The then president can give the ATF any authorization the need to ban XYZ calibers in the form of an executive order, 89" ban anyone?

You misunderstand, it is amending the penalties for the 1980s AP ban law, not expanding the defintion of AP. That law applied to handgun projectiles with steel, tungsten, etc, there is no way it can be applied to a standard lead core projectile. Note that there is no amendment to the definition of "armor piercing ammunition", it still uses the 1980s definition that is already in the US Code.



Did you read it? The increase in penalty for using AP isn't what the problem is. It's the study! And yes, it COULD expand the definition of what AP is. You can stick up for this all you want, you can do your own spin, just like the rest of the here. This study is NOT a good thing. Because of people like you and the others, I hope it does pass, because it WILL come back to bite us in the ass. You can count on that. So go spin this in your head anyway you want.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top