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
Posted: 8/12/2005 9:19:16 AM EDT
I just figured I ask the legal minds of ARCOM regarding the new law passed under S. 397 because there is a section (Sec. 6) in this bill that addresses armor piercing ammunition that seems disturbing based on it calling for a Study and Report by the Attorney General for testing ammunition against Body Armor. Is this a new standard they are going to create that may in the future classify more ammunition as armor piercing than the current steel core? I find this to be a concern, one that was not brought to light by the media and such.

Opinions being solicited.

S. 397 link in PDF doc

Text below edited for readability

(c) STUDY AND REPORT.—
19 (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.
23 (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.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:04:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AZ_Hoplite:
I just figured I ask the legal minds of ARCOM regarding the new law passed under S. 397 because there is a section (Sec. 6) in this bill that addresses armor piercing ammunition that seems disturbing based on it calling for a Study and Report by the Attorney General for testing ammunition against Body Armor. Is this a new standard they are going to create that may in the future classify more ammunition as armor piercing than the current steel core? I find this to be a concern, one that was not brought to light by the media and such.

Opinions being solicited.

S. 397 link in PDF doc

Text below edited for readability

(c) STUDY AND REPORT.—
19 (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.
23 (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.




Where have you been?
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:10:18 AM EDT
From GOA


As introduced, S. 397 would have been a good first step towards curtailing anti-gun lawsuits.  Unfortunately, Senator Frist allowed two anti-gun amendments to be offered, and they turned a marginally beneficial bill into a huge albatross.

The first amendment -- offered by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) -- requires gun dealers to include a "lock-up-your-safety" device with every handgun sold.  In addition to imposing a "gun tax" on every handgun buyer, this amendment paves the way for future legislation mandating that gun owners use those trigger locks.

The second provision -- offered by Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) -- amended the armor-piercing bullet provisions of federal law.  At its core, the Craig language did two things:

* It gave impetus to adopting a "penetration standard" for armor piercing bullets by commissioning a Justice Department study of the issue.  If a "penetration standard" were adopted, a gun-adverse administration could probably use it to ban virtually all ammunition.

* It established a fifteen year MANDATORY MINIMUM PRISON SENTENCE for anyone who carries a single armor piercing bullet during the commission of a "crime of violence" -- or who "possesses" such a bullet "in furtherance of... such crime..."

It is significant that "crime of  violence" is defined in 18 U.S.C.
924(c)(3) to mean a felony that (1) involves the actual, attempted, or threatened use of force against person or property, or (2) involves a "substantial risk" of force against person or property.

Hence, if a concealed carry permit holder opens his coat to display a firearm in order to thwart an assault -- and such an action is prohibited by a state's anti-self defense law and therefore constitutes a felony of "criminal threatening" -- then the court must sentence the concealed carry permit holder to a fifteen year mandatory minimum sentence if he is carrying an "armor piercing bullet."  The judge has no discretion.

The only "good news" in regard to the Craig language is that the 18 U.S.C. 921 definition of "armor piercing ammunition" was not affected.  The definition is fairly restricted and limited to:

* A handgun projectile wholly made of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium, or

* A handgun projectile larger than .22 caliber with a jacket weighing more than 25% of the total weight of the projectile.

Thankfully, Rep. Musgrave is pushing the House leadership to get real lawsuit protection enacted, without endangering the Second Amendment rights of gun owners in any way.


Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:43:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 10:44:12 AM EDT by AZ_Hoplite]

Where have you been?

I don't know, this just seemed to pass by me in my ARCOM sphere.

I guess its a DUPE, appologies submitted.
Top Top