Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/9/2005 7:03:15 AM EDT

S. 397 Update

Monday, August 08, 2005
www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1696

As we reported last week, thanks to your great efforts, the U.S. Senate
passed S. 397--the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act"--by a
strong bipartisan vote of 65-31! This action represents a MAJOR first
step toward ending the anti-gun lobby's extreme and immoderate attempts
to bankrupt the firearm industry through reckless, predatory lawsuits,
and was a ground breaking step forward for law-abiding firearm
manufacturers, retailers and owners in this country.

There has been some discussion this week concerning two amendments to S.
397. The first, by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.), requires federally
licensed dealers to provide a "secure gun storage or safety device" with
the sale/transfer of every handgun (it does not apply to long guns).
The measure, which passed by a vote of 70-30, does not require gun
owners to use the device, does not apply to private transfers, and does
not create any new civil liability for gun owners who choose not to use
these storage devices. Virtually all new handguns today are sold with
some type of secure storage or safety device. The amendment has no
significant impact on current law.

The other amendment, by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), passed by a margin
of 87-11, and was offered this year (as it was in 2004) in a successful
attempt to defeat Sen. Edward Kennedy's "armor piercing" ammunition
amendment that would have banned all centerfire rifle ammunition. By
providing an alternative to Sen. Kennedy's amendment, pro-gun senators
were able to marshal the votes to defeat the Kennedy amendment.

Here's what this amendment does:

* The amendment (section 6 of the bill) restates the existing
prohibition (in 18 USC Sec. 922(a)) on manufacture, or on sale by
manufacturers, of "armor piercing ammunition," except for government
use, for export, or for use in testing or experimentation authorized by
the Attorney General. This law has been in effect for nearly two decades.

* It increases the mandatory minimum sentence for the use of "armor
piercing ammunition" in a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime.
Use of armor piercing ammunition in a crime of violence or drug
trafficking crime is already a federal offense punishable by 5 years in
prison; the amendment increases the penalty to 15 years, and authorizes
the death penalty if the ammunition is used in a murder.

* It directs the Attorney General to conduct a study "to determine
whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body
Armor is feasible." In fact, we know such a standard is "feasible"
because the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has been testing
projectiles against body armor since the early 1970s, and has regularly
written and updated the standards for testing projectiles against
armor. NIJ's research has saved lives by improving the design and
manufacture of body armor. (NIJ standards and background information
are available online at http://www.justnet.org/testing/bodyarmor.html.)

Here's what this amendment does not do:

* The amendment does not give the Attorney General (or anyone else) any
new authority to ban ammunition.

* The amendment does not change the definition of "armor piercing
ammunition." Under current law (18 USC Sec. 921(a)(17)(B)), ammunition
is only "armor piercing" if it has a bullet that "may be used in a
handgun" and that is made entirely from certain hard metals such as
tungsten, steel, bronze or depleted uranium; or if the bullet is
"designed and intended for use in a handgun" and has a jacket that
weighs more than 25% of the weight of the projectile. The current
definition has been in place for more than 12 years.

* The amendment does not create any kind of new ammunition ban. The
only ammunition that is banned as "armor piercing" is ammunition that
fits the current definition, and neither the amendment nor the study
would change the definition.

As you know, the fight now moves to the U.S. House of Representatives,
so it is critical that you once again contact your U.S. Representative
and urge him/her to pass S. 397!

Members should also express their gratitude to Senate Majority Leader
Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Senator Minority Leader Harry Reid, Senate
Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and bill sponsors Sens. Larry
Craig and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) for their leadership and stewardship on
S. 397.

(For a list of roll call votes on these amendments and final passage of
S. 397, please go to www.NRAILA.org. Take note of how your Senators
voted, and please thank those who voted in support of gun owners and let
those who voted against our rights know that you will keep their votes
in mind when they are up for re-election. BE SURE TO ALSO ATTEND ANY OF
YOUR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE'S TOWN HALL MEETINGS DURING THE "SUMMER
DISTRICT WORK PERIOD" [Aug. 1-Sept. 5] and encourage him/her to bring up
and pass S. 397 as soon as possible.)






So, are we getting a poison pill? A bad bill of goods dressed as a savior? Again, 'splain it to me. I don' get it. Anytime Teddy the Hutt attaches something to a pro-gun bill, it's very bad for gunowners. Volkmer-McClure Act with its "no more new Class III guns" sound familiar?
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:11:38 AM EDT
um, that article did explain it to you...read it again until you understand it. Here's a tip Ted Kennedy's amendment failed. You won't find a better explaination than the article you posted.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:23:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
um, that article did explain it to you...read it again until you understand it.


Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:27:41 AM EDT
Maybe he has to run down to the mall to get his utility bill paid and doesn't have time.

G
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:27:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 7:29:06 AM EDT by 95thFoot]

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
um, that article did explain it to you...read it again until you understand it. Here's a tip Ted Kennedy's amendment failed. You won't find a better explaination than the article you posted.



I did read it.
I did understand what it said, but not what it meant. What are we being really asked to swallow?

Should we accept the law with attachments? Should we accept that all handguns sold new MUST come with trigger locks,"The amendment has no significant impact on current law." And where else have we seen THAT sort of thing in the past?

And once trigger locks HAVE to be sold with new handguns, how long, once we are accustomed to seeing them and having this law around, will we be asked to buy trigger locks for all guns? And to have them on guns, all the time? This happened in MA, it could happen anywhere.

FOPA, an NRA-touted bill, was supposed to free gunowners from unconstitutional search and seizure of firearms in interstate travel, but with it came the end of new Class III guns. And FOPA was touted by the NRA as a win-win for gunowners....just like this one. The antigunners only view incremnental wins in their plus column. Everything else is a temprary setback. "Three steps forward, two steps back" is still another step forward to them, another rob of our rights.

And yes, I am a member of the NRA.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:28:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 95thFoot:

S. 397 Update

Monday, August 08, 2005
www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1696

As we reported last week, thanks to your great efforts, the U.S. Senate
passed S. 397--the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act"--by a
strong bipartisan vote of 65-31! This action represents a MAJOR first
step toward ending the anti-gun lobby's extreme and immoderate attempts
to bankrupt the firearm industry through reckless, predatory lawsuits,
and was a ground breaking step forward for law-abiding firearm
manufacturers, retailers and owners in this country.

There has been some discussion this week concerning two amendments to S.
397. The first, by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.), requires federally
licensed dealers to provide a "secure gun storage or safety device" with
the sale/transfer of every handgun (it does not apply to long guns).
The measure, which passed by a vote of 70-30, does not require gun
owners to use the device, does not apply to private transfers, and does
not create any new civil liability for gun owners who choose not to use
these storage devices. Virtually all new handguns today are sold with
some type of secure storage or safety device. The amendment has no
significant impact on current law.

The other amendment, by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), passed by a margin
of 87-11, and was offered this year (as it was in 2004) in a successful
attempt to defeat Sen. Edward Kennedy's "armor piercing" ammunition
amendment that would have banned all centerfire rifle ammunition. By
providing an alternative to Sen. Kennedy's amendment, pro-gun senators
were able to marshal the votes to defeat the Kennedy amendment.

Here's what this amendment does:

* The amendment (section 6 of the bill) restates the existing
prohibition (in 18 USC Sec. 922(a)) on manufacture, or on sale by
manufacturers, of "armor piercing ammunition," except for government
use, for export, or for use in testing or experimentation authorized by
the Attorney General. This law has been in effect for nearly two decades.

* It increases the mandatory minimum sentence for the use of "armor
piercing ammunition" in a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime.
Use of armor piercing ammunition in a crime of violence or drug
trafficking crime is already a federal offense punishable by 5 years in
prison; the amendment increases the penalty to 15 years, and authorizes
the death penalty if the ammunition is used in a murder.

* It directs the Attorney General to conduct a study "to determine
whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body
Armor is feasible." In fact, we know such a standard is "feasible"
because the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has been testing
projectiles against body armor since the early 1970s, and has regularly
written and updated the standards for testing projectiles against
armor. NIJ's research has saved lives by improving the design and
manufacture of body armor. (NIJ standards and background information
are available online at http://www.justnet.org/testing/bodyarmor.html.)

Here's what this amendment does not do:

* The amendment does not give the Attorney General (or anyone else) any
new authority to ban ammunition.
Then why the study?? NIJ already does study ammo and it's effect on body armor, the AG can also determine what is AP, see 18 U.S.C Sec 921(a)(17)(c)

(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.
Now imagine that we get another president like Billyboy, and another AG like Reno. Gee she''s looking at a study that says a 150gr failsafe in a 308 at XXXXFPS will penetrate body armor as worn by plice officers. Well gee the AG could just decide, well this round could kill a cop so it's not a spoting round. Yah it may seem like a far fetched tin foil hat idea, but shit like that got us the AWB, the sporting purposes clause and other related BS anti-gun laws. They should pull the amendment, there is already a law that defines AP ammo let it be, there was nothing wrong with it for the last 12 years so why change anything?



* The amendment does not change the definition of "armor piercing
ammunition." Under current law (18 USC Sec. 921(a)(17)(B)), ammunition
is only "armor piercing" if it has a bullet that "may be used in a
handgun" and that is made entirely from certain hard metals such as
tungsten, steel, bronze or depleted uranium; or if the bullet is
"designed and intended for use in a handgun" and has a jacket that
weighs more than 25% of the weight of the projectile. The current
definition has been in place for more than 12 years.

* The amendment does not create any kind of new ammunition ban. The
only ammunition that is banned as "armor piercing" is ammunition that
fits the current definition, and neither the amendment nor the study
would change the definition.

As you know, the fight now moves to the U.S. House of Representatives,
so it is critical that you once again contact your U.S. Representative
and urge him/her to pass S. 397!

Members should also express their gratitude to Senate Majority Leader
Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Senator Minority Leader Harry Reid, Senate
Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and bill sponsors Sens. Larry
Craig and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) for their leadership and stewardship on
S. 397.

(For a list of roll call votes on these amendments and final passage of
S. 397, please go to www.NRAILA.org. Take note of how your Senators
voted, and please thank those who voted in support of gun owners and let
those who voted against our rights know that you will keep their votes
in mind when they are up for re-election. BE SURE TO ALSO ATTEND ANY OF
YOUR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE'S TOWN HALL MEETINGS DURING THE "SUMMER
DISTRICT WORK PERIOD" [Aug. 1-Sept. 5] and encourage him/her to bring up
and pass S. 397 as soon as possible.)






So, are we getting a poison pill? A bad bill of goods dressed as a savior? Again, 'splain it to me. I don' get it. Anytime Teddy the Hutt attaches something to a pro-gun bill, it's very bad for gunowners. Volkmer-McClure Act with its "no more new Class III guns" sound familiar?

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:35:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 95thFoot:

Originally Posted By SWIRE:
um, that article did explain it to you...read it again until you understand it. Here's a tip Ted Kennedy's amendment failed. You won't find a better explaination than the article you posted.



I did read it.
I did understand what it said, but not what it meant. What are we being really asked to swallow?

Should we accept the law with attachments? Should we accept that all handguns sold new MUST come with trigger locks,"The amendment has no significant impact on current law." And where else have we seen THAT sort of thing in the past?

And once trigger locks HAVE to be sold with new handguns, how long, once we are accustomed to seeing them and having this law around, will we be asked to buy trigger locks for all guns? And to have them on guns, all the time? This happened in MA, it could happen anywhere.

FOPA, an NRA-touted bill, was supposed to free gunowners from unconstitutional search and seizure of firearms in interstate travel, but with it came the end of new Class III guns. And FOPA was touted by the NRA as a win-win for gunowners....just like this one. The antigunners only view incremnental wins in their plus column. Everything else is a temprary setback. "Three steps forward, two steps back" is still another step forward to them, another rob of our rights.

And yes, I am a member of the NRA.




There are two ways to look at things in this bill from the "no restrictions" side and the "ban them all side". The reality falls somewhere in the middle. From the no-restrictions side sure with the trigger lock requirement it would be that much easier to require them to be used. From the "ban them all" side they wanted to force the usage of legal liablity of trigger locks, instead they got defeated and all that is required is for the manufacture to include them, there is no usage requirement and no legal liablity if they aren't used. So if you look at it from both extremes it is a failure for both sides. But if you look at it from the middle of the road what you see is the anti's screaming about "trigger locks" getting the public all in a tizzy about all the guns that aren't stored safely to make that a mute point the manufacturers are now including "trigger locks" effectively making the anti's "trigger lock" issue a dead issue that no one wants to touch. This is a win for us because it really doesn't require anything more from the manufacturers since almost all handguns shipped with a lock anyway and it takes the issue away from the anti's.
Top Top