Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 8/4/2005 8:54:58 AM EDT
www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1456859/posts?page=1

Mods if this has been poted before sorry...please delete
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:58:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 9:00:38 AM EDT by NimmerMehr]
I think it is a dupe, but I'd like to say, would this issue final get the (supposed) bolt action only hunters who hate ERBs to realize that .. err realize anything.

yup, dupe - http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=375220
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:02:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 9:04:47 AM EDT by LoginName]


(it's a partial dupe... meaning in prvious discussions, the JPFO wasn't involved)
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:02:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 9:03:12 AM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:
I think it is a dupe, but I'd like to say, would this issue final get the (supposed) boltaction only hunters who hate ERBs to realize that .. err realize anything.



Yes which makes the whole idea a moot point.

The last thing the gun control folks want to do is awaken the slumbering hunter and target shooter crowd. Trying to ban centerfire ammo would create a firestorm.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:06:32 AM EDT
AJNTSA but.....

would it make sense for us to lobby our congressfolk to define AP in the bill that is worked out in conference?

To wit: body armor is not armor.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:07:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 9:11:02 AM EDT by lippo]
Not a dupe actually, but I've posted about it and got hammered on it.

Glad I'm not the "only" one that is being "hysterical" about this.

THE QUESTION IS "WHY" DO THEY WANT THIS??? If it's all good intentioned, then WHY can't I get an answer and an explaination by the people that WROTE this!


ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

August 4, 2005

JPFO ALERT: IS S. 397 A TROJAN HORSE?

You may have heard a lot of praise for S. 397, which last week passed the U.S. Senate. This bill is supposedly intended to protect firearms manufacturers against nuisance lawsuits.

There's been minor grumbling about the "safety lock" provisions in the proposed legislation, but otherwise S. 397 has had overwhelming support.

Just about the time we were wondering why even some usually gun-unfriendly senators like Herb Kohl (D-WI) were in favor of this bill, an alert Congresswatcher contacted us with a warning.

"The only thing I see that's good about the bill," this sharp-eyed observer wrote, "is that it hasn't become law."

After taking a closer look, we agree.

As our correspondent pointed out, the real problem lies in Sec. 6 "Armor Piercing Ammunition."

THIS SECTION COULD ALLOW ALL CENTERFIRE RIFLE AMMO TO BE BANNED

Here's how.

Part One of Sec. 6 makes it illegal to make, import, sell or deliver any "armor-piercing" ammunition EXCEPT:

1) For the use of state and federal government departments or agencies.

2) For export

3) For Attorney General-approved testing.

Part Two "enhances" criminal sentences for anyone who possesses "armor-piercing" ammunition during the commission of a crime.

Part Three is where the trap is really sprung. Because this part instructs the U.S. Attorney General to "conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible."

NOTE WELL: The tests to determine whether or not ammo is "armor piercing" are NOT to be conducted against armor plate, such as that used on military combat vehicles. The tests are to be conducted against body armor. And as anyone knowledgeable about firearms knows, VIRTUALLY ALL RIFLE AMMO WILL PENETRATE BODY ARMOR. So will some pistol ammo.

We asked firearms maker Len Savage if the warning we received was well-taken or whether this was simply a misinterpretation of the proposed law. Here's Len's reply:

"Yes. This gives the A.G. the power to say what is and is not "armor piercing." There is no language for what type of test is to be conducted (other than ballistic vests). If the test were on 1 inch "rolled homogeneous armor plate" then there would be no problem. If the test is a level I "vest" material, then EVERYTHING including .22 longs, are going to be illegal ammo.

"The bill would effectively give the power to decide to ONE person. NO vote, NO appeal, NO rights. (Just like the current mess with [the sloppy, no-standards testing practices of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms].


"I figured it was a matter of time before they got around to figuring out: Control the ammo and you control the guns. Of course there would be born a "black market" for ammo, very close to the black market for marijuana, in size, scope, and risks. Next will be the sentencing recommendations for possession, and distributing (dealing). Components will be viewed as constructive intent of illegal manufacturing of "terrorist material."

"This is a dangerous path for America. I am forced to ask myself: Why the continued attack and obvious methodical disarming of American Citizens? There is only one answer: control and power." (Just like I said)

Just as "Saturday-Night specials," "military-style assault weapons," "cop-killer bullets," and "sporting purposes" have all been used as deceptive, emotionally loaded key words to justify regulations and outright bans, it now appears that the designation "armor-piercing ammunition" is likely to be mis-applied in an attempt to deprive Americans of their rights.

We should all be asking some serious questions about the real impact S. 397 will have on our freedoms if it becomes law. One important question is: Why are our "leaders" so desperate that they would attempt to slip such a potentially draconian provision into a supposedly pro-gun bill? (That's what the BIGGEST problem is with this...WHY DO WE NEED A STUDY??? I'd just like to know and ALL of the people I've called, INCLUDING Senator Craigs office WILL NOT give me an answer.)

The Liberty Crew

LINKS:

S. 397, Sec. 6 http://tinyurl.com/9u8mt (click on [S.397.ES])

A reality check on the U.S. government's sloppy firearms testing procedures: http://www.jpfo.org/alert20050701a.htm


Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:09:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lippo:
Not a dupe actually, but I've posted about it and got hammered on it.

Glad I'm not the "only" one that is being "hysterical" about this.


ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

August 4, 2005

JPFO ALERT: IS S. 397 A TROJAN HORSE?

You may have heard a lot of praise for S. 397, which last week passed the U.S. Senate. This bill is supposedly intended to protect firearms manufacturers against nuisance lawsuits.

There's been minor grumbling about the "safety lock" provisions in the proposed legislation, but otherwise S. 397 has had overwhelming support.

Just about the time we were wondering why even some usually gun-unfriendly senators like Herb Kohl (D-WI) were in favor of this bill, an alert Congresswatcher contacted us with a warning.

"The only thing I see that's good about the bill," this sharp-eyed observer wrote, "is that it hasn't become law."

After taking a closer look, we agree.

As our correspondent pointed out, the real problem lies in Sec. 6 "Armor Piercing Ammunition."

THIS SECTION COULD ALLOW ALL CENTERFIRE RIFLE AMMO TO BE BANNED

Here's how.

Part One of Sec. 6 makes it illegal to make, import, sell or deliver any "armor-piercing" ammunition EXCEPT:

1) For the use of state and federal government departments or agencies.

2) For export

3) For Attorney General-approved testing.

Part Two "enhances" criminal sentences for anyone who possesses "armor-piercing" ammunition during the commission of a crime.

Part Three is where the trap is really sprung. Because this part instructs the U.S. Attorney General to "conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible."

NOTE WELL: The tests to determine whether or not ammo is "armor piercing" are NOT to be conducted against armor plate, such as that used on military combat vehicles. The tests are to be conducted against body armor. And as anyone knowledgeable about firearms knows, VIRTUALLY ALL RIFLE AMMO WILL PENETRATE BODY ARMOR. So will some pistol ammo.

We asked firearms maker Len Savage if the warning we received was well-taken or whether this was simply a misinterpretation of the proposed law. Here's Len's reply:

"Yes. This gives the A.G. the power to say what is and is not "armor piercing." There is no language for what type of test is to be conducted (other than ballistic vests). If the test were on 1 inch "rolled homogeneous armor plate" then there would be no problem. If the test is a level I "vest" material, then EVERYTHING including .22 longs, are going to be illegal ammo.

"The bill would effectively give the power to decide to ONE person. NO vote, NO appeal, NO rights. (Just like the current mess with [the sloppy, no-standards testing practices of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms].


"I figured it was a matter of time before they got around to figuring out: Control the ammo and you control the guns. Of course there would be born a "black market" for ammo, very close to the black market for marijuana, in size, scope, and risks. Next will be the sentencing recommendations for possession, and distributing (dealing). Components will be viewed as constructive intent of illegal manufacturing of "terrorist material."

"This is a dangerous path for America. I am forced to ask myself: Why the continued attack and obvious methodical disarming of American Citizens? There is only one answer: control and power." (Just like I said)

Just as "Saturday-Night specials," "military-style assault weapons," "cop-killer bullets," and "sporting purposes" have all been used as deceptive, emotionally loaded key words to justify regulations and outright bans, it now appears that the designation "armor-piercing ammunition" is likely to be mis-applied in an attempt to deprive Americans of their rights.

We should all be asking some serious questions about the real impact S. 397 will have on our freedoms if it becomes law. One important question is: Why are our "leaders" so desperate that they would attempt to slip such a potentially draconian provision into a supposedly pro-gun bill? (That's what the BIGGEST problem is with this...WHY DO WE NEED A STUDY??? I'd just like to know and ALL of the people I've called, INCLUDING Senator Craigs office WILL NOT give me an answer.)

The Liberty Crew

LINKS:

S. 397, Sec. 6 http://tinyurl.com/9u8mt (click on [S.397.ES])

A reality check on the U.S. government's sloppy firearms testing procedures: http://www.jpfo.org/alert20050701a.htm





what is wrong with having a study? They did the same thing for the AWB and it wound up helping us in the end. This has potential to turn out the same way.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:10:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lippo:
Not a dupe actually, but I've posted about it and got hammered on it.

Glad I'm not the "only" one that is being "hysterical" about this.




He made a post...

You have made "hysterical" a art form.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:10:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 9:12:57 AM EDT by NoVaGator]
Here's the current definition of AP:




(B) The term ''armor piercing ammunition'' means -
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a
handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence
of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of
tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or
depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber
designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a
weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the
projectile.
(C) The term ''armor piercing ammunition'' does not include
shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game
regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed
for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds
is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any
other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General
finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a
charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.



Interesting...the current definition does not address a round's ability to actually pierce armor!

That is where the battle lies....the definition of AP and of armor.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:11:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By lippo:
Not a dupe actually, but I've posted about it and got hammered on it.

Glad I'm not the "only" one that is being "hysterical" about this.




He made a post...

You have made "hysterical" a art form.




Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:13:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:

Originally Posted By lippo:
Not a dupe actually, but I've posted about it and got hammered on it.

Glad I'm not the "only" one that is being "hysterical" about this.


ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

August 4, 2005

JPFO ALERT: IS S. 397 A TROJAN HORSE?

You may have heard a lot of praise for S. 397, which last week passed the U.S. Senate. This bill is supposedly intended to protect firearms manufacturers against nuisance lawsuits.

There's been minor grumbling about the "safety lock" provisions in the proposed legislation, but otherwise S. 397 has had overwhelming support.

Just about the time we were wondering why even some usually gun-unfriendly senators like Herb Kohl (D-WI) were in favor of this bill, an alert Congresswatcher contacted us with a warning.

"The only thing I see that's good about the bill," this sharp-eyed observer wrote, "is that it hasn't become law."

After taking a closer look, we agree.

As our correspondent pointed out, the real problem lies in Sec. 6 "Armor Piercing Ammunition."

THIS SECTION COULD ALLOW ALL CENTERFIRE RIFLE AMMO TO BE BANNED

Here's how.

Part One of Sec. 6 makes it illegal to make, import, sell or deliver any "armor-piercing" ammunition EXCEPT:

1) For the use of state and federal government departments or agencies.

2) For export

3) For Attorney General-approved testing.

Part Two "enhances" criminal sentences for anyone who possesses "armor-piercing" ammunition during the commission of a crime.

Part Three is where the trap is really sprung. Because this part instructs the U.S. Attorney General to "conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible."

NOTE WELL: The tests to determine whether or not ammo is "armor piercing" are NOT to be conducted against armor plate, such as that used on military combat vehicles. The tests are to be conducted against body armor. And as anyone knowledgeable about firearms knows, VIRTUALLY ALL RIFLE AMMO WILL PENETRATE BODY ARMOR. So will some pistol ammo.

We asked firearms maker Len Savage if the warning we received was well-taken or whether this was simply a misinterpretation of the proposed law. Here's Len's reply:

"Yes. This gives the A.G. the power to say what is and is not "armor piercing." There is no language for what type of test is to be conducted (other than ballistic vests). If the test were on 1 inch "rolled homogeneous armor plate" then there would be no problem. If the test is a level I "vest" material, then EVERYTHING including .22 longs, are going to be illegal ammo.

"The bill would effectively give the power to decide to ONE person. NO vote, NO appeal, NO rights. (Just like the current mess with [the sloppy, no-standards testing practices of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms].


"I figured it was a matter of time before they got around to figuring out: Control the ammo and you control the guns. Of course there would be born a "black market" for ammo, very close to the black market for marijuana, in size, scope, and risks. Next will be the sentencing recommendations for possession, and distributing (dealing). Components will be viewed as constructive intent of illegal manufacturing of "terrorist material."

"This is a dangerous path for America. I am forced to ask myself: Why the continued attack and obvious methodical disarming of American Citizens? There is only one answer: control and power." (Just like I said)

Just as "Saturday-Night specials," "military-style assault weapons," "cop-killer bullets," and "sporting purposes" have all been used as deceptive, emotionally loaded key words to justify regulations and outright bans, it now appears that the designation "armor-piercing ammunition" is likely to be mis-applied in an attempt to deprive Americans of their rights.

We should all be asking some serious questions about the real impact S. 397 will have on our freedoms if it becomes law. One important question is: Why are our "leaders" so desperate that they would attempt to slip such a potentially draconian provision into a supposedly pro-gun bill? (That's what the BIGGEST problem is with this...WHY DO WE NEED A STUDY??? I'd just like to know and ALL of the people I've called, INCLUDING Senator Craigs office WILL NOT give me an answer.)

The Liberty Crew

LINKS:

S. 397, Sec. 6 http://tinyurl.com/9u8mt (click on [S.397.ES])

A reality check on the U.S. government's sloppy firearms testing procedures: http://www.jpfo.org/alert20050701a.htm





what is wrong with having a study? They did the same thing for the AWB and it wound up helping us in the end. This has potential to turn out the same way.



Then why won't they explain that? Senator Craigs office won't tell me anything..."The person that deals with that is out at the moment, can I get your name and phone number and I'll have them call you back". Only to never call back.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:20:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lippo:

Then why won't they explain that? Senator Craigs office won't tell me anything..."The person that deals with that is out at the moment, can I get your name and phone number and I'll have them call you back". Only to never call back.



Ummm...maybe they have more important things to do than to "get back to you" at this moment?
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:20:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lippo:

Then why won't they explain that? Senator Craigs office won't tell me anything..."The person that deals with that is out at the moment, can I get your name and phone number and I'll have them call you back". Only to never call back.



Were you "hysterical" when you spoke with the person?

Anyhow, it would probably have helped or made a difference if you were actually one of Craigs constituents.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:23:27 AM EDT
Congress needs a study so they can say "See, anything bigger than a .22 will penetrate cheap body armor, this is all a bunch of BS."

Kharn
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:30:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 9:31:35 AM EDT by lippo]

Originally Posted By LoginName:

Originally Posted By lippo:

Then why won't they explain that? Senator Craigs office won't tell me anything..."The person that deals with that is out at the moment, can I get your name and phone number and I'll have them call you back". Only to never call back.



Were you "hysterical" when you spoke with the person?

Anyhow, it would probably have helped or made a difference if you were actually one of Craigs constituents.



Actually, I was very polite and asked, "I have seen Section 6 and I'd just like to know why the study?" You're probably right, but I don't care if, "I'm a constituent" or not, this WILL effect me. So it's my Right to know what they are thinking. No matter where I live. THIS is FEDERAL LAW, not state law, so yes I DO have a right to know. If they don't think that way, it's too bad.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:37:30 AM EDT
so what are going to do?????

did anyone read my post above?

Let's come up with a letter to send to committee members and encourage them to refine the definition of AP.

Suggestions?

Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:48:27 AM EDT
Dear Congressman:

I'm writing you in reference to S.397.

The bill, as approved by the Senate, instructs the U.S. Attorney General to "conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible."

Many law-abiding sportsmen (myself included) feel that this provision of the bill has the potential to end the time-honored tradition of hunting and target shooting in America.

Virtually every popular rifle round in common usage will easily penetrate most body armor!

If the AG issues a report that points out this fact, would there not be a cry from the media and anti-2nd Amendment lobby to ban this type of ammunition?

ok, you guys take it from there...

Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:56:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:

what is wrong with having a study? They did the same thing for the AWB and it wound up helping us in the end. This has potential to turn out the same way.



Whats wrong with it???Try everything. First off look at how armor is is defined in most legislation, normaly it's what the Attorney General decides meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers. Notice nowhere in that amendment does it spesify that the bullet has to be designed/marketed as AP ammo, or made of certain materials, as was the case in the past. The only requirement is that it can penetrat body armor. The study is to determine what barrel length and powder charge play into that. And well it could get ugly. They can then go out and define AP ammo as any ammo in a rifle or pistol that has Xpowder charge out of X barrel length if they wanted to. Or they could say you can't use X bullet with X powder charge because it can defeate a kevlar vest. With the right administration in office that could lead to what becomes a defacto ban on all ammo as most all rifle rounds will penetrate a common kevlar vest, without having to have a special core or be made out of a spesific metal.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 11:27:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 11:28:08 AM EDT by Enigma102083]

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:

what is wrong with having a study? They did the same thing for the AWB and it wound up helping us in the end. This has potential to turn out the same way.



Whats wrong with it???Try everything. First off look at how armor is is defined in most legislation, normaly it's what the Attorney General decides meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers. Notice nowhere in that amendment does it spesify that the bullet has to be designed/marketed as AP ammo, or made of certain materials, as was the case in the past. The only requirement is that it can penetrat body armor. The study is to determine what barrel length and powder charge play into that. And well it could get ugly. They can then go out and define AP ammo as any ammo in a rifle or pistol that has Xpowder charge out of X barrel length if they wanted to. Or they could say you can't use X bullet with X powder charge because it can defeate a kevlar vest. With the right administration in office that could lead to what becomes a defacto ban on all ammo as most all rifle rounds will penetrate a common kevlar vest, without having to have a special core or be made out of a spesific metal.



Yes, or they could find that any common rifle round, and pistol rounds from rifle barrels will penitrate most common body armor, and they realize that trying to regulate AP ammo based on those criteria would be impractical and near impossible. The same thing happened with the AWB, they did a study and found out that the AWB did nothing. I think doing this would do the same thing, alot of poli's would learn that body armor isn't some magical device that stops all but a few bullets.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 11:44:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 11:45:42 AM EDT by AKSU-74]
NoVaGator,
I don't think I'd put this line in there.

"Virtually every popular rifle round in common usage will easily penetrate most body armor"

That line there could throw an anti into panic mode and make a person who is uneducated think that these calibers do need to be banned. If anything I would list what types of armor protect against what calibers, thus showing that the need for this study in and of it's self is moot do to the fact that it is already well documented. Also that testing armor against calibers that they were not designed to protect against is misleading, unethical and will produce erroneous data. Then there is the type of body armor that it is tested against, if they test it against Zylon the should be slapped just look at the Second Chance fiasco. If any one wants good info on body armor go to www.tacticalforums.com look in the MD Labs forum, you would be amazed at the fact that there are only a couple of companies and a couple of fibers used to make armor that you could trust your life to and how many unscrupulous companies that are out there that are getting sued right now. The point I'm trying to make is make the response clinical have scientific data to support your argument, don't be vague or general, or use alarmist language. Show how the use of flawed amour from disreputable companies would produce false data.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 12:16:28 PM EDT
Just found some info for the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) www.nlectc.org/ I belive they are under the NIJ. Also search for.

Body Armor Standards and Testing

Selection and Application Guide to Police Body Armor (NIJ Guide 100-01)

Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body Armor (NIJ Standard 0101.04)

www.fortliberty.org/military-library/body-armor.shtml

http://www.scitechresources.gov/Results/show_result.php?rec=1912

Would also be a good Idea to check out the NIJ www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/

Or anything relating to the testing protocols that are already put forth by the NIJ, which since this already exsists it makes this study a waste of taxpayers money.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 12:23:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AKSU-74:
NoVaGator,
I don't think I'd put this line in there.

"Virtually every popular rifle round in common usage will easily penetrate most body armor"

That line there could throw an anti into panic mode and make a person who is uneducated think that these calibers do need to be banned. If anything I would list what types of armor protect against what calibers, thus showing that the need for this study in and of it's self is moot do to the fact that it is already well documented. Also that testing armor against calibers that they were not designed to protect against is misleading, unethical and will produce erroneous data. Then there is the type of body armor that it is tested against, if they test it against Zylon the should be slapped just look at the Second Chance fiasco. If any one wants good info on body armor go to www.tacticalforums.com look in the MD Labs forum, you would be amazed at the fact that there are only a couple of companies and a couple of fibers used to make armor that you could trust your life to and how many unscrupulous companies that are out there that are getting sued right now. The point I'm trying to make is make the response clinical have scientific data to support your argument, don't be vague or general, or use alarmist language. Show how the use of flawed amour from disreputable companies would produce false data.



I agree that the sentence in question is inflammatory. I really wanted to get rise from you guys so I threw that in there.

Having worked on Cap Hill, I should mention that detailed data or long-winded letters generally don't accomplish anything. Note my language about hunting. I personally don't care about hunting, but most Congressmen (pro or anti) really don't care about black rifles.

They (congress) will eventually need the data and details, but that is really the purpose of lobbyists. We just need to make them aware that this is an issue of concern...they'll proceed from there.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 1:07:08 PM EDT
Foe all of y'all who are worrid about that part, I'm with ya 100%

Its to open to interpretation where they could ban ALL centerfire ammo

I will be writing my congress critters and we should be LEARY when anti's support ANYTHING "pro-Gun"

Could be a trap
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 1:22:51 PM EDT
Anyone who believes that ANY gun law will ever return even a portion of the rights guaranteed to the people, then they are on crack.

Individual rights, and the ability of the people, to withstand and potentially unseat a despotic government are diametricall at odds with the .gov bureaucracy.

The .gov is too big, too powerful, and there is too much money at stake for it to relinquish any power, ever.

It can only consume. It HAS to get bigger, that is its nature.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 2:24:54 PM EDT
This "study" can only give more ammo to the anti's .What happens if Hillary gets into office in 3 years? Probably around the same time the "study" comes out. I don't like it. We'll all be stuck with 500fps rounds that have no points to them putting a new meaning to the word BALL.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 3:17:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By magnum_99:
Anyone who believes that ANY gun law will ever return even a portion of the rights guaranteed to the people, then they are on crack.



Wrong. It's happened before.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 4:00:00 PM EDT
I have just adjusted the GONZO annual budget in order to divert $180 a month of normal "leisure" money, and $200/month of investiment money into the purchase of Ammo.

Those of us who think that an A.G. study that will be ripe and ready right at the moment where a viciously anti-gun democrat controls the A.G. are called chicken littles, but so be it.

Those of us who are offended at Congress delegating this much power to an unaccountable member of the executive branch are said to be reactionary, but so be it.

Those of us who have watched when a backroom compromise and the "hidden" meaning of pandora's box-like clauses inserted into putatively pro-gun legislation are told to ignore history and experience, but so be it.

Those of us who can see a politically motivated pol "causing" an A.G. to issue a report talking about the real issue being "ball / FMJ" ammo (thereby keeping the hunters off their backs), are said to be overthinking things, but so be it.

Someday, y'all will be begging those of us concerned about this to share some of our ammo stash.

So be it.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:02:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:
what is wrong with having a study? They did the same thing for the AWB and it wound up helping us in the end. This has potential to turn out the same way.




I'm not saying you are wrong, but WHAT AWB study? I never heard of one and I'd sure like to see it, if it exists. Can you post a link to this study?
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:12:13 PM EDT
Agreed. The more I look at this the more it seems ominous to me.


If passed, the study probably won't come under the current administration. It'll come when we get another anti-gun President. And thats ALL it would take, because the AG would do whatever the President directed in this regard...

I'm calling my Representative tomorrow even if he is a crooked Democrat.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:15:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 9:16:16 PM EDT by NYPatriot]
I called the NRA today about this amendment, and asked if they had an official stance on it. I was told that they do not as of yet, but that they "looking into it". I also asked if they would be releasing their opinion when one is reached, but was told that they are not sure as of yet.

I was a little taken aback by the noncommittal stance that they seem to be taking, so I related my opinion that the NRA should pressure the House of Reps. to pass a "clean" version of this bill. The woman on the other end of the phone took my message, name, and member ID#, and said that my opinion will be duly noted and passed along.

I really think that we need to make damn sure that this amendment is NOT part of the companion bill in the House, because the potential for this "study" to blow back at us in the form of a ban on FMJ ammo is too great to ignore!

To this end, I suggest that we ALL call the NRA-ILA @1-800-392-8683 and let them know that we want their considerable influence brought to bear in the cause of passing an "AP ammo amendment" free House bill & in striking this amendment from the Senate's bill!

An ounce of prevention...
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 12:18:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 12:31:58 AM EDT by Noname]

Originally Posted By lippo:

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:
what is wrong with having a study? They did the same thing for the AWB and it wound up helping us in the end. This has potential to turn out the same way.




I'm not saying you are wrong, but WHAT AWB study? I never heard of one and I'd sure like to see it, if it exists. Can you post a link to this study?





Go just past the ATF Letters...

www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/law.html


Read all these different "ruling" etc and note how the "Secretary Of The Treasury" (old school head of BATF) and now the AG (under the direction of the POTUS) can pretty much declare any firearm/ammo illegal, unimportable, or reclassify it to be a NFA item.


The studies that Enigma is referring to (FED and the Calif one for example) showed stats that AW's played a minuscule part in crime but the involved lawmakers choose to disregard them while preaching how dangerous the guns were as to get their pet laws passed...


Here are some links to various studies etc...

www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/index.html

www.urban.org/Template.cfm?NavMenuID=24&template=/TaggedContent/ViewPublication.cfm&PublicationID=6178
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 6:48:41 AM EDT
This has gone beyond the point of being fucking ridiculous. Especially considering Craig submitted the same amendment last year and we had the same panicky overblown reactions to it.

First of all, JPFO needs to pull its head out of its ass and get someone who is qualified to do legal analysis. If you are going to send out chicken-little warnings, then you should at least have a lawyer do the legal analysis rather than asking some random gun shop owner how he would interpret the law.


We asked firearms maker Len Savage if the warning we received was well-taken or whether this was simply a misinterpretation of the proposed law. Here's Len's reply:

"Yes. This gives the A.G. the power to say what is and is not "armor piercing." There is no language for what type of test is to be conducted (other than ballistic vests).



THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS BILL THAT ALLOWS THE A.G. OR ANY OTHER ENTITY TO CHANGE THE CURRENT DEFINITION OF "ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION" AS DEFINED IN TITLE 18, Sec. 921 of U.S. Code.

B) The term ''armor piercing ammunition'' means -
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a
handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence
of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of
tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or
depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber
designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a
weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the
projectile.
(C) The term ''armor piercing ammunition'' does not include
shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game
regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed
for target shooting, a projectile which the Secretary finds is
primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other
projectile or projectile core which the Secretary finds is intended
to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an
oil and gas well perforating device.


All this bill does is create a study and enhance the penalties for possessing the above-defined ammo while committing a crime. We can argue over whether or not the study will be used against us by the antis - although apparently the 30 Senators who were so pro-gun they voted against the gun lock amendment didn't have any problems with this study. We can argue whether we are secretly being sold out by an NRA Board of Director acting in conjunction with GOAs top Senator .

But let's make one thing perfectly clear....

THIS BILL DOES NOT DO A GODDAMN THING TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMO!
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 7:13:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
This has gone beyond the point of being fucking ridiculous. Especially considering Craig submitted the same amendment last year and we had the same panicky overblown reactions to it.

First of all, JPFO needs to pull its head out of its ass and get someone who is qualified to do legal analysis. If you are going to send out chicken-little warnings, then you should at least have a lawyer do the legal analysis rather than asking some random gun shop owner how he would interpret the law.


We asked firearms maker Len Savage if the warning we received was well-taken or whether this was simply a misinterpretation of the proposed law. Here's Len's reply:

"Yes. This gives the A.G. the power to say what is and is not "armor piercing." There is no language for what type of test is to be conducted (other than ballistic vests).



THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS BILL THAT ALLOWS THE A.G. OR ANY OTHER ENTITY TO CHANGE THE CURRENT DEFINITION OF "ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION" AS DEFINED IN TITLE 18, Sec. 921 of U.S. Code.

B) The term ''armor piercing ammunition'' means -
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a
handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence
of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of
tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or
depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber
designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a
weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the
projectile.
(C) The term ''armor piercing ammunition'' does not include
shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game
regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed
for target shooting, a projectile which the Secretary finds is
primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other
projectile or projectile core which the Secretary finds is intended
to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an
oil and gas well perforating device.


All this bill does is create a study and enhance the penalties for possessing the above-defined ammo while committing a crime. We can argue over whether or not the study will be used against us by the antis - although apparently the 30 Senators who were so pro-gun they voted against the gun lock amendment didn't have any problems with this study. We can argue whether we are secretly being sold out by an NRA Board of Director acting in conjunction with GOAs top Senator .

But let's make one thing perfectly clear....

THIS BILL DOES NOT DO A GODDAMN THING TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMO!




You made some good points in my thread, but now you are just "hysterical".

Both, you and I have very strong feelings about this. But here's the END result. You can say that there are 30 pro-gun senators that went for it, Craig put it in there and did the last time too...but the question remains... WHY! It doesn't matter "what" the legal grounds are. The question is "WHY"?

And I talked to my State Reps staff about the wording, "political subdivision of a State", they said, it "PROBABLY" meant a town's police department or county sheriffs department. "PROBABLY"! Along with the study, I have a REAL problem with the use of the word, "POLITICAL". What the ? does the word "political" have to do with a town police department. I'd RATHER have them spell it out..."a local police department or any law enforcement agency within a State" or something like that.

BR, you want to discount the "ability" for this section to do harm. You "MAY" be right. But for some like me, I don't want it in there. I think it's a waste of money and it "MAY" be used against us. The BIGGEST reason I want to keep this talk alive is...Until I find out "WHY" they want it and why they worded it this way...I don't stop bugging them. I called Senator Craigs office again and this time, "Brenda" told me she'd get back with me after contacting the DC office. The DC office won't return a answer to me, and I haven't gotten ANY response from Brenda yet. So later today, I'll just follow up. Brenda was really nice an polite, so I returned the favor. But "I" will not stop until I get some kind of answer. Same goes for the NRA, I've been calling them, but no one there seems to know anything either.

So, let's put the emotion on the back burner until we get an answer on "WHY" they put this in there. Deal? I'm willing too.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 7:46:25 AM EDT
I am out of the discussion as far as whether the study os a good or bad thing for us. I don't think it matters much in either direction. The Clinton Administration commissioned studies that were composed of anti-gun researchers and still ended up helping us more than hurting us. In any case, the studies mean nothing in practical terms - you either have the votes to enact legislation or you don't.

The antis are already trying to ban any ammo that can penetrate body armor. They have submitted the legislation for the past two years at least. Not having a study hasn't slowed them down any and has probably hurt us more since it is a case of the deceptive leading the ignorant.

What pisses me off though is seeing this amendment misinterpreted by people who should know better. Claiming that this study allows the AG to change the definition of armor-piercing ammo is, at best, a misunderstanding by someone ignorant of either the law or the amendment; and at worst, an outright lie designed to manipulate people.

Neither one helps RKBA in any way, shape or form and JPFO should be embarrased and ashamed at promoting such a myth. Anybody who can read plain English can read Craig's amendment and see that it does not grant any authority to the Attorney General to change the definition of armor piercing ammo and yet here we have a group that is supposed to be a professional lobbying organization and it cannot read or interpret correctly an amendment of only a few paragraphs.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 8:14:37 AM EDT
well, hysterical or not, i'm writing my sens and reps assuming this amendment will ban all centerfire ammo and telling them i adamantly oppose it.

better than sitting here fucking arguing about it like a buncha perry mason/dr fackler wannabees while congress fucks us up the ass. god, this shit never stops!!! every poll says americans want guns yet they keep trying to take them away!!!
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 8:28:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
This has gone beyond the point of being fucking ridiculous. Especially considering Craig submitted the same amendment last year and we had the same panicky overblown reactions to it.

First of all, JPFO needs to pull its head out of its ass and get someone who is qualified to do legal analysis. If you are going to send out chicken-little warnings, then you should at least have a lawyer do the legal analysis rather than asking some random gun shop owner how he would interpret the law.


We asked firearms maker Len Savage if the warning we received was well-taken or whether this was simply a misinterpretation of the proposed law. Here's Len's reply:

"Yes. This gives the A.G. the power to say what is and is not "armor piercing." There is no language for what type of test is to be conducted (other than ballistic vests).



THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS BILL THAT ALLOWS THE A.G. OR ANY OTHER ENTITY TO CHANGE THE CURRENT DEFINITION OF "ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION" AS DEFINED IN TITLE 18, Sec. 921 of U.S. Code.

B) The term ''armor piercing ammunition'' means -
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a
handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence
of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of
tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or
depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber
designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a
weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the
projectile.
(C) The term ''armor piercing ammunition'' does not include
shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game
regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed
for target shooting, a projectile which the Secretary finds is
primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other
projectile or projectile core which the Secretary finds is intended
to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an
oil and gas well perforating device.


All this bill does is create a study and enhance the penalties for possessing the above-defined ammo while committing a crime. We can argue over whether or not the study will be used against us by the antis - although apparently the 30 Senators who were so pro-gun they voted against the gun lock amendment didn't have any problems with this study. We can argue whether we are secretly being sold out by an NRA Board of Director acting in conjunction with GOAs top Senator .

But let's make one thing perfectly clear....

THIS BILL DOES NOT DO A GODDAMN THING TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMO!



So the AG comes back and says that every single centerfire rifle caliber penetrates body armor with a "standard" load.

What could congress do with that? I would say that it is LIKELY that a dem controlled congress would vote to closely regulate ammo. Don't just do it for the kids! Do it for the hard working american heros that risk their life every day! I can hear it now.

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 8:54:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
I am out of the discussion as far as whether the study os a good or bad thing for us. I don't think it matters much in either direction. The Clinton Administration commissioned studies that were composed of anti-gun researchers and still ended up helping us more than hurting us. In any case, the studies mean nothing in practical terms - you either have the votes to enact legislation or you don't.



And the propoganda effect of the "armor piercing" ammo may cost us either votes or seats. Can't you guys see that? Headline: "REPUBLICANS IGNORE THEIR OWN STUDY: DECLINE TO BAN AMMO FOUND TO BE ARMOR PIERCING. WOMEN, MINORITIES, AND COPS HARDEST HIT."



The antis are already trying to ban any ammo that can penetrate body armor. They have submitted the legislation for the past two years at least. Not having a study hasn't slowed them down any and has probably hurt us more since it is a case of the deceptive leading the ignorant.



But by putting the "study" under the executive, instead of an actual congressional special committee, they leave it to political whim.


What pisses me off though is seeing this amendment misinterpreted by people who should know better. Claiming that this study allows the AG to change the definition of armor-piercing ammo is, at best, a misunderstanding by someone ignorant of either the law or the amendment; and at worst, an outright lie designed to manipulate people.


True or falses: The ATF has power to issue orders relative to "sporting purposes" and "destructive devices." What is to stop some executive from acting on the study and having ATF deem all ammo not otherwise defined as AP ammo under the statute into "DD" type materials anyway? How'd you like to pay $200 a shot for your cheap WOLF ammo. And don't mistake it: The goal here, at least from the U.S. firearms industry standpoint (you know, the proponents of this bill) has been to try and deal with the influx of cheap import ammo that competes with the US products. Its protectionism by another name. Bill Ruger did it with the AWBan, if you'll recall.


Anybody who can read plain English can read Craig's amendment and see that it does not grant any authority to the Attorney General to change the definition of armor piercing ammo


Whether it is devined as "AP ammo" or not, the Executive branch already has some plenary authority especially re: importation of ammunition. Do you remember how Klinton in a single wide swath issued an EO banning the surplussing of US ammo?

Don't get caught up in what definition might be used to regulate this. Just understand that there is some merit in recognizing that the anti's new strategy is focusing on ammunition, and that this study could very easily (far too easily) be coopted into a trojan horse.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 8:55:28 AM EDT

well, hysterical or not, i'm writing my sens and reps assuming this amendment will ban all centerfire ammo and telling them i adamantly oppose it.


Unless they are on the House-Senate conference committee that marks up the bill, I wouldn't bother but do as you like - even if that means sending a letter to your reps and Senators indicating you don't even understand the basic legislation you are opposing.

Don't take my word for it, read the current legislation and the Craig amendment and decide for yourself.


Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
So the AG comes back and says that every single centerfire rifle caliber penetrates body armor with a "standard" load.

What could congress do with that? I would say that it is LIKELY that a dem controlled congress would vote to closely regulate ammo. Don't just do it for the kids! Do it for the hard working american heros that risk their life every day! I can hear it now.



If you haven't noticed, Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) has been proposing that very bill for at least the last two years even though he has no study that states this very basic fact of physics. The answer isn't to kick our own guys in the nads over an ineffectual congressional study. The answer is to make sure antis don't get back into Congress.

Let's flip that argument around - what happens if the Dems get control of Congress and there is no study? Are they going to suddenly stop submitting this legislation? If the study is THAT important, why won't they just form a study when they get power again? Who would you rather have determining who writes that study - the current AG or the future Janet Reno?

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 8:58:28 AM EDT
It's always better to try and get crap like this stopped BEFORE it's put into law.

Always easier to stop it before, than after.

And it "does" give the AG the ability to "define" AP ammo. Because the AG is going to be doing the study! After that, it'll be the congress to decide if they'll "allow" us to have ammo or not.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 9:03:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:

well, hysterical or not, i'm writing my sens and reps assuming this amendment will ban all centerfire ammo and telling them i adamantly oppose it.


Unless they are on the House-Senate conference committee that marks up the bill, I wouldn't bother but do as you like - even if that means sending a letter to your reps and Senators indicating you don't even understand the basic legislation you are opposing.

Don't take my word for it, read the current legislation and the Craig amendment and decide for yourself.


Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
So the AG comes back and says that every single centerfire rifle caliber penetrates body armor with a "standard" load.

What could congress do with that? I would say that it is LIKELY that a dem controlled congress would vote to closely regulate ammo. Don't just do it for the kids! Do it for the hard working american heros that risk their life every day! I can hear it now.



If you haven't noticed, Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) has been proposing that very bill for at least the last two years even though he has no study that states this very basic fact of physics. The answer isn't to kick our own guys in the nads over an ineffectual congressional study. The answer is to make sure antis don't get back into Congress.

Let's flip that argument around - what happens if the Dems get control of Congress and there is no study? Are they going to suddenly stop submitting this legislation? If the study is THAT important, why won't they just form a study when they get power again? Who would you rather have determining who writes that study - the current AG or the future Janet Reno?





BR...you asked me a bunch of questions in my thread about this. So I hope you'll answer one for me. All of this other stuff aside...WHY? Why the study? What purpose is it serving? Why did Craig want it in there? That's the REAL question. He proposed it before? Why did he do that? What's the root at "why" they want to do this study and rewrite the current definition of "WHO" can get AP ammo? Political Subdivision? You seem to have a grasp of this from the past, so WHY do they want this study in the first place?
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 9:04:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 9:09:46 AM EDT by lippo]
oops...
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 9:15:48 AM EDT



Originally Posted By GonzoAR15-1:
And the propoganda effect of the "armor piercing" ammo may cost us either votes or seats. Can't you guys see that? Headline: "REPUBLICANS IGNORE THEIR OWN STUDY: DECLINE TO BAN AMMO FOUND TO BE ARMOR PIERCING. WOMEN, MINORITIES, AND COPS HARDEST HIT."



Here is a dirty secret Gonzo - it is true that most centerfire rifle ammo pierces body armor. This is true whether there is a study or not. Now would you like a Congressional study that explains the different levels of body armor and takes a fairly scientific approach or would you like the Ted Kennedy study?

Because this fantasy that if we don't say anything at all that nobody will know any different is about the same thing as hiding under your blanket to be safe from the monster in the closet. Either there is no monster in the closet and the blanket is unnecessary or the monster is real and the blanket doesn't help you much.



But by putting the "study" under the executive, instead of an actual congressional special committee, they leave it to political whim.



And if that study is commissioned now, then whose political whim would that be, Gonzo?



True or falses: The ATF has power to issue orders relative to "sporting purposes" and "destructive devices."



The ATF has those powers only as defined by law. For instance, the ATF can determine a firearm does not have a "generally recognized sporting purpose" and declare it a destructive device if the bore is 0.50" in diameter or greater. This isn't an unlimted power that the ATF gets to apply at will.


What is to stop some executive from acting on the study and having ATF deem all ammo not otherwise defined as AP ammo under the statute into "DD" type materials anyway?


The ATF has those powers only as defined by law. For instance, the ATF can determine a firearm does not have a "generally recognized sporting purpose" and declare it a destructive device if the bore is 0.50" in diameter or greater. This isn't an unlimted power that the ATF gets to apply at will. Therefore your hypothetical scenario is completely impossible because the ATF has no statutory authority under either "sporting purposes" or "destructive device" to restrict normal ammunition.


How'd you like to pay $200 a shot for your cheap WOLF ammo. And don't mistake it: The goal here, at least from the U.S. firearms industry standpoint (you know, the proponents of this bill) has been to try and deal with the influx of cheap import ammo that competes with the US products. Its protectionism by another name. Bill Ruger did it with the AWBan, if you'll recall.


Except that nowhere - not one place, not anywhere, is there any authority for this to happen. Let's look at the other side of that as well - are you claiming that there isn't a single pro-gun Senator in the U.S. Senate that won't sell us out at the request of the firearms industry? Because that is what it would take in the case of this amendment. If that really is the case, then brother we have problems that are much worse than a congressional study.



Whether it is devined as "AP ammo" or not, the Executive branch already has some plenary authority especially re: importation of ammunition. Do you remember how Klinton in a single wide swath issued an EO banning the surplussing of US ammo?


The executive branch has no authority to redefine what armor-piercing ammunition is. Congress has already defined it. It is part of U.S. Code. I linked to the definition in the very post you are replying to.

This bill does NOTHING to give the Executive branch any more authority over the importation of ammunition. Any evil things they can do with that authority are things they already can do whether this amendment passes or not.


Don't get caught up in what definition might be used to regulate this. Just understand that there is some merit in recognizing that the anti's new strategy is focusing on ammunition, and that this study could very easily (far too easily) be coopted into a trojan horse.


Which I guess explains why the 30 pro-gun Senators who wouldn't even support the gun lock amendment all voted for it - they were unable to see the diabolcal plot because all the legislative experts were here on ARFCOM wetting their pants.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 9:26:18 AM EDT

Because this fantasy that if we don't say anything at all that nobody will know any different is about the same thing as hiding under your blanket to be safe from the monster in the closet. Either there is no monster in the closet and the blanket is unnecessary or the monster is real and the blanket doesn't help you much.


You misunderstand me.

My point is a very simple one: WE have the Presidency, the House, and the Senate.

Why the FUCK are we letting the libs dictate the agenda. Take a good look at how the HOUSE republicans have operated, especially Delay. Say what you want, but he has basically said: We're not doing gun shit right now, and we're in power so we're setting the agenda.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 9:37:50 AM EDT

All of this other stuff aside...WHY? Why the study? What purpose is it serving? Why did Craig want it in there? That's the REAL question.


Well, not being Senator Craig I couldn't say with any authority WHY he chose to offer this amendment. If I were going to speculate I could suggest the following reasons though:

1) To reduce support for Sen. Kennedy's amendment that really did ban all centerfire rifle ammo

2) To gain enough votes to enable the bill to pass cloture (which it did by 2 votes)

3) To be able to have a Congressional study on the subject done by a more gun-friendly administration that supports our position.

4) To officially reframe the terms of the debate by using the study to debunk some of the myths surrounding AP ammo.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 10:05:09 AM EDT

Which I guess explains why the 30 pro-gun Senators who wouldn't even support the gun lock amendment all voted for it - they were unable to see the diabolcal plot because all the legislative experts were here on ARFCOM wetting their pants.


As someone who's spent some time in back rooms on capitol hill, I can say that the above statement shows a lat of misplaced faith on the congresscritters.

They voted for Craig's amendment because they were told to and because, well, it was Craig.

I'm tired of debating this issue. Both sides have their own views, and only time will tell. I'll agree to publically kiss your ass if there is not a single attempt to coopt the study, or to use it during the Hillary Clinton administration for naughty purposes.

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:04:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 11:05:54 AM EDT by LoginName]
I wish someone (anyone), would point out exactly where in this amendment is there any language that mandates a study by the AG to determine the characteristics (using a performance based model), of various ammunition to see which is capable of penetrating body armor.

From Craigs amendment..

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.


I'm no lawyer or legal scholar, but my reading of that is that the AG is being directed to conduct a study to determine if it's even "feasible" to come up with a "uniform testing" procedure... to see if it's practical to even test ammo to begin with.

If that's the case, then it's a study where the findings are already known... that given all the variables (caliber, powder charge,barrel length, etc), it would be damn near impossible to derive a "uniform standard" for testing. Notice that Craigs amendment doesn't mention any set of specific criteria (unlike the 1986 legislation which specified:" when fired from a 5" barrelled handgun, would be capable of penetrating the equivalent of 18 layers of Kevlar, the tradename of a fiber used in the construction of soft body armor"). If similar language had been used in Craigs "study" clause, then yeah, it would be easy to come up with a "uniform standard" (and then from there proceed to actual testing).
Except that Craigs bill isn't nearly as specific... just vague references to barrel length and amount of powder.

The final finding will be something like... "we have determined that given such a broad array of firearms, ammunition and powder combinations that it would be impractical and impossible to set a "uniform standard" testing procedure to determine the body armor penetration capabilities of commonly available small arms ammunition".

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:10:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 11:11:22 AM EDT by NYPatriot]
Lippo, please let us know if you get an answer from Craig's office.

Anyone else call the NRA yet?
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 8:01:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LoginName:
I wish someone (anyone), would point out exactly where in this amendment is there any language that mandates a study by the AG to determine the characteristics (using a performance based model), of various ammunition to see which is capable of penetrating body armor.

From Craigs amendment..

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.


I'm no lawyer or legal scholar, but my reading of that is that the AG is being directed to conduct a study to determine if it's even "feasible" to come up with a "uniform testing" procedure... to see if it's practical to even test ammo to begin with.

If that's the case, then it's a study where the findings are already known... that given all the variables (caliber, powder charge,barrel length, etc), it would be damn near impossible to derive a "uniform standard" for testing. Notice that Craigs amendment doesn't mention any set of specific criteria (unlike the 1986 legislation which specified:" when fired from a 5" barrelled handgun, would be capable of penetrating the equivalent of 18 layers of Kevlar, the tradename of a fiber used in the construction of soft body armor"). If similar language had been used in Craigs "study" clause, then yeah, it would be easy to come up with a "uniform standard" (and then from there proceed to actual testing).
Except that Craigs bill isn't nearly as specific... just vague references to barrel length and amount of powder.

The final finding will be something like... "we have determined that given such a broad array of firearms, ammunition and powder combinations that it would be impractical and impossible to set a "uniform standard" testing procedure to determine the body armor penetration capabilities of commonly available small arms ammunition".




I hope you are right. God I hope you are right. But this is like opening up Pandora's box. That's what I am afraid of. We don't know "how" this information will be used. Good or bad, it'll get used one way or another.

I have called Craigs office again. Nothing, nada, no information. I called the NRA again. Nothing, nada, no information. All I get is...I don't know anything about this, give me your name and number and I'll have someone get back with you.

I know Craig is suppose to be a VERY big supporter of ours. He IS on the NRA board. But....but....I just wish I could get come clarification on this. It'd make me feel better. Maybe! I guess you could say, some of us have shell shock after witnessing the anti-gun events since 1986. I'm getting really tired of people not understanding or carring what..."Inalienable" means. Just like..."Thall Shall Not"..."Shall Not Be Infringed" means just that.
Top Top