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: 8/11/2005 6:24:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2005 10:37:27 AM EDT by leo6223]
Some people got pretty upset over the amendment offered in the latest S.397

I thought this was interesting (perhaps it's a dupe)

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.

Link Posted: 8/11/2005 6:27:13 AM EDT
So, if it doesn't add anything new, why did they allow it to be added?
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 6:27:32 AM EDT
what happened to it being a bad thing?
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 6:28:15 AM EDT
So, It would really help if you had the NIJ's definition of "armor piercing ammunition". I still don't feel better about it. Does it include surplus ss109, M855? Any rifle round will penetrate a IIa vest. Need more info here, bro.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 6:36:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By leo6223:

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




Correct, but what it does do is now give the AG a nice all inclusive study that says a rifle bullet fired out of X length barrel and using X powder charge and X bullet type, can penetrat a bullet proof vest. So any anti gun AG in the feuture can then declare that said round is not a sporting round, and then it can be banned. We all know the NIJ test bullet proof vests but they test for handgun rounds, not rifle rounds on vests without plates, because it is a well known fact already that almost all rifle rounds will defeat body armor if it not used in conjunction with a plate. The new study they want would include pistol and rifle rounds. Remember the definition of armor in almost all legislation is what the AG determines to be suitable for LE use/protection. So this amendment can open up a big ass can of worms in the feuture. After all the AG gets to determine if a particular round is for "SPORTING USE" all the AG has to do is decide it's not a sporting round and thats it. They can at anytime decid hey Full Metal Jacket ammo isn't for sporting, most states don't allow it to be used for hunting, so it's not a sporting use round, so it's gone. Guess what, bye bye to all the XM193/XM855 FMJ hand gun rounds, cheap plinking ammo all gone.

It does leave a potential problem, I will always blieve that. But it's not as bad as it seems because it could be made completly toothless by doing one thing, getting the damn sporting purposes clauses pulled from the laws. So everyone should support HR1703 and get on thier elected officals to do the same thing.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 6:44:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2005 6:45:18 AM EDT by hardcorps1775]
it's a bad thing, for fuck's sake. it's just couched in weaselese. if it's not black and white and clearly understood, just assume it's meant to fuck us over somewhere down the line!

and you need to take a look at folks who tell you there's "nothing to worry about" or accuse you of being paranoid.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 10:36:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By atomicferret:
So, if it doesn't add anything new, why did they allow it to be added?



To counter act Senator Ted's all inclusive amendment which would have labled ALL centerfire ammo as armor piercing. Ted's amendment got shot down, this one gave the libs something to vote on.

Link Posted: 8/11/2005 10:41:57 AM EDT
Steel core ammo.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 1:11:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leo6223:

Originally Posted By atomicferret:
So, if it doesn't add anything new, why did they allow it to be added?



To counter act Senator Ted's all inclusive amendment which would have labled ALL centerfire ammo as armor piercing. Ted's amendment got shot down, this one gave the libs something to vote on.





Sorry to include some reality...this study will ALSO "label" ALL centerfire ammo as armor piercing. You know they aren't going to include ballistic plates in their tests.

The real question is, why did they include this study? Couldn't they have effectively countered uncle teds Amendment with everything in this section, without the study?

Just remember this..."Most of the most harmful anti-2nd Amendment legislation has come through the Republicans" And you can't refute that fact.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 1:15:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leo6223:

Originally Posted By atomicferret:
So, if it doesn't add anything new, why did they allow it to be added?



To counter act Senator Ted's all inclusive amendment which would have labled ALL centerfire ammo as armor piercing. Ted's amendment got shot down, this one gave the libs something to vote on.



It does add two things new.
#1 It adds sentencing guidlines for violations of existing law.
#2 It commissions a "study" that could easily be misused.

Feinstein voted FOR it.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 1:18:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2005 1:28:25 PM EDT by dport]

Originally Posted By lippo:
Just remember this..."Most of the most harmful anti-2nd Amendment legislation has come through the Republicans" And you can't refute that fact.


Easily refuted:
1934- Democrats in the Congress and White House.
1968- Democrats in the the Congresse, and the White House.
1986- Democrats in the House, Republicans in the Senate, and Reagan in the White House. Bill introduced by a Democrat
1994- Democrats in the Congress and White House.

Care to edit that statement now?

ETA: Party control of the Senate in '68 and '86.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 2:08:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
It does add two things new.
#1 It adds sentencing guidlines for violations of existing law.
#2 It commissions a "study" that could easily be misused.

Feinstein voted FOR it.



Yeah, #1 just bumped a pre-existing sentence from 5-15 years. Not a bad thing. Lock drug dealers and murderers up for life.

#2.....yes, this could be a slippery slope. But if taken at face value all it will do is allow the AG to say "NIJ is already conducting this test, so yes it's possible"

Link Posted: 8/11/2005 2:34:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2005 2:44:49 PM EDT by lippo]

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By lippo:
Just remember this..."Most of the most harmful anti-2nd Amendment legislation has come through the Republicans" And you can't refute that fact.


Easily refuted:
1934- Democrats in the Congress and White House.
1968- Democrats in the House, I don't know about the Senate, and the White House.
1986- Democrats in the House, I don't know about the Senate, and Reagan in the White House.
1994- Democrats in the Congress and WHite House.

Care to edit that statement now?




No...


1934...Roosevelt...NFA...Tax on fully automatic firearms (does not ban)

1938...Roosevelt...Federal Firearms Act
Congress aimed this law at those involved in selling and shipping firearms through interstate or foreign commerce channels. Anyone involved in the selling of firearms was required to obtain a Federal Firearms License from the Secretary of Commerce ($1 annual fee). They were also required to record the names and addresses of everyone they sold guns to and were prohibited from selling to those people who were convicted of certain crimes or lacked a permit.

"FFA38 was repealed by the Gun Control Act of 1968. However, many of its provisions were reenacted as part of the subsequent act"

1954...Eisenhower...1954: Internal Revenue Code of 1954: Section 5845(a): Lists firearms readily suited for sporting purposes. This code was intended to take fully automatic firearms like the "Tommy Gun" out of the hands of private citizens. The SKS was not addressed in this Code because it was still a viable Soviet military firearm and not exported to the West.

1968...Johnson...Gun Control Act of 1968

The assassination of John F. Kennedy, who was killed by a mail-order gun that belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald, inspired this major revision to federal gun laws. The subsequent assasinations of Martin Luther King and presidential candidate Robert Kennedy fueled its quick passage. License requirements were expanded to include more dealers, and more detailed record keeping was expected of them; handgun sales over state lines were restricted; the list of persons dealers could not sell to grew to include those convicted of felonies (with some exceptions), those found mentally incompetent, drug users and more. The act also defined persons who were banned from possessing firearms.

The key element of this bill outlawed mail order sales of rifles and shotguns; Up until this law, mail order consumers only had to sign a statement that they were over 21 years of age for a handgun (18 for rifle or shotgun); it also detailed more persons who were banned from possessing certain guns, including drug users, and further restricted shotgun and rifles sales.

1972...Nixon...Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms created
Enforcement of the Gun Control Act was given to the Dept. of the Treasury's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Internal Revenue Service. The organization replaced "tax" with "firearms," nearly doubled in size, and became the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). (Largest violation of our Constitutional Rights under a Republican)

1986...Ronald Reagan...Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act
Made it illegal for anyone to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, or "cop-killer bullets," which are capable of penetrating bulletproof clothing.

Firearms Owners' Protection Act
Eased restrictions on gun sellers and the sale of some guns. Imposed additional penalties for persons using a firearm during certain crimes and persons with robbery or burglary convictions who are illegally shipping guns.

- Prohibits civilians from possessing full-auto firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986.
- Redefines 'machine gun' to include those sets of parts or parts that could be used to convert a semiautomatic firearm into a machine gun.


1989...George H. Bush...Executive Order...Prohibits the importation of non-sporting weapons.

The importation of "Saturday Night Special" handguns and some semiautomatic assault rifles (the 43 weapons covered in the 1989 Bush Administration ban) as well as two military shotguns have been barred under this section of the law.

1994...Clinton..AWB..banned 3 of 5 "evil" features and it included a sunset clause..."there was an AWB?"

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
Imposed, on an interim basis, a five-day waiting period and background check before a licensed gun importer, manufacturer or dealer can sell or deliver a handgun to an unlicensed individual.

Required a new National Instant Criminal Background Check System, run by the FBI, be ready to replace the waiting period by Nov. 30, 1998. The new background check system will apply to all firearms and will allow checks to be done over the phone or electronically with results returned immediately in most cases.
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
Commonly referred to as the "Assault Weapons Ban," this bill banned the manufacture, possession, and importation of new semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (or magazines) for civilian use.

Criteria for semiautomatic assault weapons that fall under the ban are provided as well as a list of 19 specific firearms.

Prohibits juveniles from possessing or selling handguns and directs the attorney general to evaluate proposed and existing state juvenile gun laws.



So under the Democrats, we have a tax, some paper work regulations, can't sell through mail order and a "evil" feature ban that expired.

Under the Republicans, we have "sporting purposes" that bans military and military "style" guns, the creation of the ATF, a law banning civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons made after 1986, the banning of 43 "military" style semi-automatic rifles, more import restrictions and the banning of a pistol.

So no, I do not want to retract my statement. And I'll like you to look up the make up of the congress under the democratic presidents. I'd be a LOT of republicans voted FOR those anti-2nd Amendment laws. Democrats are bad, Republicans are bad...when are you people going to wake up? You have to keep your eye on BOTH of them.

AND these Republican Presidents are the ones that SIGNED these un-Constitutional laws into existence. I didn't see one of them veto them.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 2:37:28 PM EDT
IBTLippo
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 2:44:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2005 2:45:54 PM EDT by dport]

Originally Posted By lippo:
So under the Democrats, we have a tax, some paper work regulations, can't sell through mail order and a "evil" feature ban that expired.

Under the Republicans, we have "sporting purposes" that bans military and military "style" guns, the creation of the ATF, a law banning civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons made after 1986, the banning of 43 "military" style semi-automatic rifles, more import restrictions and the banning of a pistol.

So no, I do not want to retract my statement. And I'll like you to look up the make up of the congress under the democratic presidents. I'd be a LOT of republicans voted FOR those anti-2nd Amendment laws. Democrats are bad, Republicans are bad...when are you people going to wake up? You have to keep your eye on BOTH of them.


The Dems started the whole FFL thing, and you don't see that as a violation? In fact, they pretty much founded gun control as a political issue. Ike and Nixon used the tax on guns the Dems created.
The Democrats started the restictions on FA, but that's just a tax, according to you. It was a Democrat that proposed the ban on MGs made after 1986, you know Volkmer right?
BTW the law passed after the 1989 EO was passed by a Democratic House and Senate, you know 922r don't you?
Oh and the only reason there was even a sunset provision in the AWB, is because of the Republicans in the House. You might also want to look at the laws your beloved Dems are proposing, you know the permanate establishment of an AWB. It ain't Republicans proposing it.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 2:48:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2005 3:03:48 PM EDT by lippo]

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By lippo:
So under the Democrats, we have a tax, some paper work regulations, can't sell through mail order and a "evil" feature ban that expired.

Under the Republicans, we have "sporting purposes" that bans military and military "style" guns, the creation of the ATF, a law banning civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons made after 1986, the banning of 43 "military" style semi-automatic rifles, more import restrictions and the banning of a pistol.

So no, I do not want to retract my statement. And I'll like you to look up the make up of the congress under the democratic presidents. I'd be a LOT of republicans voted FOR those anti-2nd Amendment laws. Democrats are bad, Republicans are bad...when are you people going to wake up? You have to keep your eye on BOTH of them.


The Dems started the whole FFL thing, and you don't see that as a violation? In fact, they pretty much founded gun control as a political issue. Ike and Nixon used the tax on guns the Dems created.
The Democrats started the restictions on FA, but that's just a tax, according to you. It was a Democrat that proposed the ban on MGs made after 1986, you know Volkmer right?
BTW the law passed after the 1989 EO was passed by a Democratic House and Senate, you know 922r don't you?
Oh and the only reason there was even a sunset provision in the AWB, is because of the Republicans in the House. You might also want to look at the laws your beloved Dems are proposing, you know the permanate establishment of an AWB. It ain't Republicans proposing it.




While you have your BLINDERS on. I DID say that these were violations. What I said at the beginning was....Just remember this..."Most of the most harmful anti-2nd Amendment legislation has come through the Republicans" And you can't refute that fact.

THE MOST...THE MOST...God you are dumb!


Democrats are bad, Republicans are bad...when are you people going to wake up? You have to keep your eye on BOTH of them.



Or is that Republican &*$# in your mouth, competing with your ability to think correctly?

BOTH PARTIES HAVE TAKEN AWAY OUR RIGHTS!
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 2:59:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2005 3:00:13 PM EDT by magnum_99]
There is language that would seem to support study findings where centerfire rifle ammo that penetrates body armor is to be banned as "AP."

This is not good when we get a less gun friendly administration.


The heat on the pot has been turned up a notch.

RRRRRibbit.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 3:02:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lippo:
While you have your BLINDERS on. I DID say that these were violations. What I said at the beginning was....Just remember this..."Most of the most harmful anti-2nd Amendment legislation has come through the Republicans" And you can't refute that fact.

THE MOST...THE MOST...God you are dumb!

Or is that Republican &*$# in your mouth, competing with your ability to think correctly?

BOTH PARTIES HAVE TAKEN AWAY OUR RIGHTS!


When people resort to personal insults it means they have been defeated in the realm of ideas.

When you consider an enforcement agency the biggest loss of rights, you have your priorities backwards, FYI. Enforcement agencies can only enforce laws, most of which were passed with a Dem Congress and President.

Good day sir.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 3:06:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By lippo:
Just remember this..."Most of the most harmful anti-2nd Amendment legislation has come through the Republicans" And you can't refute that fact.


Easily refuted:
1934- Democrats in the Congress and White House.
1968- Democrats in the the Congresse, and the White House.
1986- Democrats in the House, Republicans in the Senate, and Reagan in the White House. Bill introduced by a Democrat
1994- Democrats in the Congress and White House.

Care to edit that statement now?

ETA: Party control of the Senate in '68 and '86.



None of which would have passed if the "Republicans" had the balls to stand up to this bullshit the way the Democrats do whenever something threatens their sacred "right" to an ultra-tolerant drive-through multicultural partial birth abortion. Face it: the Republicans (most of them) aren't your friend. They pretend to be your friend, and then they sell you out when its politically expedient to do so. The Democrats may be raging, oppressive tyrants, but at least you know for sure that they are your enemy.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 3:07:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By lippo:
While you have your BLINDERS on. I DID say that these were violations. What I said at the beginning was....Just remember this..."Most of the most harmful anti-2nd Amendment legislation has come through the Republicans" And you can't refute that fact.

THE MOST...THE MOST...God you are dumb!

Or is that Republican &*$# in your mouth, competing with your ability to think correctly?

BOTH PARTIES HAVE TAKEN AWAY OUR RIGHTS!


When people resort to personal insults it means they have been defeated in the realm of ideas.

When you consider an enforcement agency the biggest loss of rights, you have your priorities backwards, FYI. Enforcement agencies can only enforce laws, most of which were passed with a Dem Congress and President.

Good day sir.




Dport, you sound like this guy more and more...
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 3:09:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By libertyforall:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By lippo:
Just remember this..."Most of the most harmful anti-2nd Amendment legislation has come through the Republicans" And you can't refute that fact.


Easily refuted:
1934- Democrats in the Congress and White House.
1968- Democrats in the the Congresse, and the White House.
1986- Democrats in the House, Republicans in the Senate, and Reagan in the White House. Bill introduced by a Democrat
1994- Democrats in the Congress and White House.

Care to edit that statement now?

ETA: Party control of the Senate in '68 and '86.



None of which would have passed if the "Republicans" had the balls to stand up to this bullshit the way the Democrats do whenever something threatens their sacred "right" to an ultra-tolerant drive-through multicultural partial birth abortion. Face it: the Republicans (most of them) aren't your friend. They pretend to be your friend, and then they sell you out when its politically expedient to do so. The Democrats may be raging, oppressive tyrants, but at least you know for sure that they are your enemy.


That statement is factually incorrect. In 1934, for instance, the Dems so controlled both houses of Congress that they were able to threaten to pack the USSC to get unConstitutional programs, like SS passed. It wouldn't have mattered a whit what the R's wanted or didn't want.

That, however, is in the past. How many R's do you see proposing Gun Control? How many D's?
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 3:13:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By libertyforall:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By lippo:
Just remember this..."Most of the most harmful anti-2nd Amendment legislation has come through the Republicans" And you can't refute that fact.


Easily refuted:
1934- Democrats in the Congress and White House.
1968- Democrats in the the Congresse, and the White House.
1986- Democrats in the House, Republicans in the Senate, and Reagan in the White House. Bill introduced by a Democrat
1994- Democrats in the Congress and White House.

Care to edit that statement now?

ETA: Party control of the Senate in '68 and '86.



None of which would have passed if the "Republicans" had the balls to stand up to this bullshit the way the Democrats do whenever something threatens their sacred "right" to an ultra-tolerant drive-through multicultural partial birth abortion. Face it: the Republicans (most of them) aren't your friend. They pretend to be your friend, and then they sell you out when its politically expedient to do so. The Democrats may be raging, oppressive tyrants, but at least you know for sure that they are your enemy.


That statement is factually incorrect. In 1934, for instance, the Dems so controlled both houses of Congress that they were able to threaten to pack the USSC to get unConstitutional programs, like SS passed. It wouldn't have mattered a whit what the R's wanted or didn't want.

That, however, is in the past. How many R's do you see proposing Gun Control? How many D's?



You're right--R's don't usually propose these bad laws, but they certainly have no trouble voting for them when they come up. R's could have easily filibustered the AWB. R's could get together right now and abolish the ATF. But they don't. Because most of them are R's in name only.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 3:19:20 PM EDT
I still want that language REMOVED from the bill, its to "interpritable" and can be used againt us
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 3:19:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By libertyforall:
Because most of them are R's in name only.


I don't know about "most" but there are plenty of RINOs.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 3:21:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NonConformist:
I still want that language REMOVED from the bill, its to "interpritable" and can be used againt us




+1

Exaclty!
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 3:59:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2005 4:42:08 PM EDT by DonS]

Originally Posted By lippo:
1934...Roosevelt...NFA...Tax on fully automatic firearms (does not ban)



The tax was $200.00. In todays economy, that is about $2,900.

It was "only" a tax since back then the Supreme Court still took the Tenth Amendment seriously--in fact in the Miller decision the Supremes rulled that the Tenth wasn't violated because NFA '34 was only a tax. So had they made it an outright ban, it would likely have been struck down by the Court.

In any case, it was way more than a hefty tax. It was registration as well.


Originally Posted By lippo:
1938...Roosevelt...Federal Firearms Act
. . . They were also required to record the names and addresses of everyone they sold guns to and were prohibited from selling to those people who were convicted of certain crimes or lacked a permit.



More defacto registration . . .


Originally Posted By lippo:
1954...Eisenhower...1954: Internal Revenue Code of 1954: Section 5845(a): Lists firearms readily suited for sporting purposes. This code was intended to take fully automatic firearms like the "Tommy Gun" out of the hands of private citizens.



Tommy guns are still in the hands of citizens.


Originally Posted By lippo:
1968...Johnson...Gun Control Act of 1968

The key element of this bill outlawed mail order sales of rifles and shotguns;



As well as most imports of surplus arms and ammunition, and mail order sales of ammunition.


Originally Posted By lippo:
1972...Nixon...Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms created
. . .
Largest violation of our Constitutional Rights under a Republican)



Someone was already enforcing gun laws; it is one agency or another.


Originally Posted By lippo:
1986...Ronald Reagan...Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act
Made it illegal for anyone to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, or "cop-killer bullets," which are capable of penetrating bulletproof clothing.



Yes, the NRA version, designed not to ban AP rifle ammo.


Originally Posted By lippo:
Firearms Owners' Protection Act
Eased restrictions on gun sellers and the sale of some guns. Imposed additional penalties for persons using a firearm during certain crimes and persons with robbery or burglary convictions who are illegally shipping guns.

-Prohibits civilians from possessing full-auto firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986.
- Redefines 'machine gun' to include those sets of parts or parts that could be used to convert a semiautomatic firearm into a machine gun.



On balance, a good law (NRA wanted Reagan to sign it despite MG ban--he asked). It didn't take any rights away (1934 & FDR already did that), and it made surplus arms and ammunition once again importable, and mail order ammo sales legal.


Originally Posted By lippo:
1989...George H. Bush...Executive Order...Prohibits the importation of non-sporting weapons.

The importation of "Saturday Night Special" handguns and some semiautomatic assault rifles (the 43 weapons covered in the 1989 Bush Administration ban) as well as two military shotguns have been barred under this section of the law.



This EO was just an expansion of GCA '68, passed by LBJ. The real evil behind this, really, is GCA '68. If it wasn't for GCA '68, Bush wouldn't have been able to do this EO.

Incidently, it was Clinton, not Bush, who signed the EO banning shotguns. Further, Clinton signed EOs banning some surplus ammunition and Chinese imports.


Originally Posted By lippo:

1994...Clinton..AWB..



Clinton banned AWBs, signed Brady, attempted to bankrupt the industry with lawsuits, and signed a series of EOs, including one you falsly attributed to Bush.

The worst firearms legislation came from FDR, LBJ, and Clinton.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 5:20:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DonS:

Originally Posted By lippo:
1934...Roosevelt...NFA...Tax on fully automatic firearms (does not ban)



The tax was $200.00. In todays economy, that is about $2,900.

It was "only" a tax since back then the Supreme Court still took the Tenth Amendment seriously--in fact in the Miller decision the Supremes rulled that the Tenth wasn't violated because NFA '34 was only a tax. So had they made it an outright ban, it would likely have been struck down by the Court.

In any case, it was way more than a hefty tax. It was registration as well. (Did I say it was good? NO, but it also didn't outright ban full autos like Reagan did. I don't like the democrats for it and I still think it was unConstitutional.)


Originally Posted By lippo:
1938...Roosevelt...Federal Firearms Act
. . . They were also required to record the names and addresses of everyone they sold guns to and were prohibited from selling to those people who were convicted of certain crimes or lacked a permit.



More defacto registration . . .(Yeah? And your point is? Do you register your guns? Yes, and thanks to Nixon and the BATFE, you'll have even more chance to register more.)


Originally Posted By lippo:
1954...Eisenhower...1954: Internal Revenue Code of 1954: Section 5845(a): Lists firearms readily suited for sporting purposes. This code was intended to take fully automatic firearms like the "Tommy Gun" out of the hands of private citizens.



Tommy guns are still in the hands of citizens. (And try buying one today that's under $25,000)


Originally Posted By lippo:
1968...Johnson...Gun Control Act of 1968

The key element of this bill outlawed mail order sales of rifles and shotguns;



As well as most imports of surplus arms and ammunition, and mail order sales of ammunition.


Originally Posted By lippo:
1972...Nixon...Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms created
. . .
Largest violation of our Constitutional Rights under a Republican)



Someone was already enforcing gun laws; it is one agency or another. (And I didn't see any other agency before the ATF attack someones home over a $200 tax! Justify all you like, the ATF is one of the WORST agencies in our government. They abuse power like any dictator would like too.)


Originally Posted By lippo:
1986...Ronald Reagan...Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act
Made it illegal for anyone to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, or "cop-killer bullets," which are capable of penetrating bulletproof clothing.



Yes, the NRA version, designed not to ban AP rifle ammo. (So now we'll get a really good version of what AP ammo is, with this new "study", huh?)


Originally Posted By lippo:
Firearms Owners' Protection Act
Eased restrictions on gun sellers and the sale of some guns. Imposed additional penalties for persons using a firearm during certain crimes and persons with robbery or burglary convictions who are illegally shipping guns.

-Prohibits civilians from possessing full-auto firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986.
- Redefines 'machine gun' to include those sets of parts or parts that could be used to convert a semiautomatic firearm into a machine gun.



On balance, a good law (NRA wanted Reagan to sign it despite MG ban--he asked). It didn't take any rights away (1934 & FDR already did that), and it made surplus arms and ammunition once again importable, and mail order ammo sales legal. (A good law????? I'd hate to see what you call a bad law. ALL of these so called laws are UnConstitutional, and this one BANNED future full autos for civilians, backed up by your precious ATF.)


Originally Posted By lippo:
1989...George H. Bush...Executive Order...Prohibits the importation of non-sporting weapons.

The importation of "Saturday Night Special" handguns and some semiautomatic assault rifles (the 43 weapons covered in the 1989 Bush Administration ban) as well as two military shotguns have been barred under this section of the law.



This EO was just an expansion of GCA '68, passed by LBJ. The real evil behind this, really, is GCA '68. If it wasn't for GCA '68, Bush wouldn't have been able to do this EO.

Incidently, it was Clinton, not Bush, who signed the EO banning shotguns. Further, Clinton signed EOs banning some surplus ammunition and Chinese imports.


Originally Posted By lippo:

1994...Clinton..AWB..



Clinton banned AWBs(IT WAS NOT A Assault Weapons Ban...IT banned 3 "evil" features! Can you read??? Where have you been?), signed Brady, attempted to bankrupt the industry with lawsuits, and signed a series of EOs, including one you falsly attributed to Bush.

The worst firearms legislation came from FDR, LBJ, and Clinton.



You're full of


You can kiss the republicans ass all you want, but you are WRONG....BOTH sides have stabbed us in the back and you'll like to lick the boots of the ones that are kicking you in the face.

Go ahead and appologize all you'd like for the republicans, BOTH parties have lost my respect and at least I am willing to accept the fact that ALL of these people want power over us.

You must like getting
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:22:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 12:35:01 PM EDT by DonS]

Originally Posted By lippo:
[(Did I say it was good? NO, but it also didn't outright ban full autos like Reagan did. I don't like the democrats for it and I still think it was unConstitutional.)



You implied that it was "only" a tax. Further, it so marginalized full auto ownership that by '86 few cared about the MG ban Democrats added to Reagan's gun control roll back


Originally Posted By lippo:
[More defacto registration . . .(Yeah? And your point is? Do you register your guns? Yes, and thanks to Nixon and the BATFE, you'll have even more chance to register more.)



It is thanks to FDR & LBJ. BATF is just enforcment.


Originally Posted By lippo:
(And try buying one today that's under $25,000)



The high price is due to '34 & '86, at least in part.


Originally Posted By lippo:
(And I didn't see any other agency before the ATF attack someones home over a $200 tax! Justify all you like, the ATF is one of the WORST agencies in our government. They abuse power like any dictator would like too.)



A few years back there was discussion of eliminating ATF. Several gun banners were hopping that Treasury (Secret Service) would get the role, since (they claimed) they would be harder on "offenders". In any case, it isn't clear to me which alphabet soup agency is worse; the real problem is the legislation.


Originally Posted By lippo:
(So now we'll get a really good version of what AP ammo is, with this new "study", huh?)



Doesn't change the fact that Reagan's AP ban was NRA approved, and that it replaced a much worse law proposed by antis. The bottom line in real politics is that late 80s, an AP ban was going to happen. In that context, we got the best we could.


Originally Posted By lippo:
I'd hate to see what you call a bad law. ALL of these so called laws are UnConstitutional, and this one BANNED future full autos for civilians, backed up by your precious ATF.)



Full atuo was already a privledge that few enjoyed (MG ownership ceased being a right in '34). Of bigger consequence was the liberlization of GCA '68--a major step forwards.

'86 was a good law in light of '34 and '68.


Originally Posted By lippo:
(IT WAS NOT A Assault Weapons Ban...IT banned 3 "evil" features! Can you read??? Where have you been?).



It banned a combination of 2 or more from a list of features:
1) Flash hider
2) Granade launcher
3) folding stock
4) pistol grip
for semi auto rifles with detachable mags (had similar regulation for handguns and shotguns). It also banned new mags over 10 rounds. And it banned a list of 19 weapons.

It was a stepping stone to more restrictive legislation, and represented the "best" the antis could do in '94 (it barely passed). Now, with gun control hurting the Dems, and with '94's AWB passing into history, it has become irrelevent. But that sure wasn't the intent back in '94.


Originally Posted By lippo:
You're full of BS



You're out of mental ammunition.


Originally Posted By lippo:
You can kiss the republicans ass all you want, but you are WRONG....BOTH sides have stabbed us in the back and you'll like to lick the boots of the ones that are kicking you in the face.

Go ahead and appologize all you'd like for the republicans, BOTH parties have lost my respect and at least I am willing to accept the fact that ALL of these people want power over us.



Dude, the Dems are loosing on gun control. Get a clue.

So sad . . . adults with the maturity of 4 year olds . . . "waaaa . . . I don't always get my way . . . waaaa"
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:43:44 AM EDT
Can we knock off the fucking pissing match and just get back to the topic at hand, the AP amendment on the damn bill!!! Go fucking pollute your own damn threads with the pissing match.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:48:31 AM EDT






SSDD from the same old whiners.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:49:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 10:54:03 AM EDT by LARRYG]

Originally Posted By lippo:

Originally Posted By leo6223:

Originally Posted By atomicferret:
So, if it doesn't add anything new, why did they allow it to be added?



To counter act Senator Ted's all inclusive amendment which would have labled ALL centerfire ammo as armor piercing. Ted's amendment got shot down, this one gave the libs something to vote on.





Sorry to include some reality...this study will ALSO "label" ALL centerfire ammo as armor piercing. You know they aren't going to include ballistic plates in their tests.

The real question is, why did they include this study? Couldn't they have effectively countered uncle teds Amendment with everything in this section, without the study?

Just remember this..."Most of the most harmful anti-2nd Amendment legislation has come through the Republicans" And you can't refute that fact.



What fact?????? Do you just pull these "fact" out of your ass just you can bash Bush? It doesn't really matter what the subject is, you just wanna bash.
Top Top