Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/23/2005 11:10:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2005 11:16:05 AM EDT by CRC]
Tuesday, September 20, 2005


"The anti-gun provisions in S. 397 would probably be stripped out in the House if all the gun groups were working together with GOA." -- Rep. Ron Paul, Sept. 15, 2005

Thank you, Ron Paul, for your kind words. Sometimes it's a lonely battle fighting gun control. GOA was the only gun group fighting trigger locks in the Senate, and once again, is the only group fighting these gun restrictions in the House.

The drums in the House are beating for gun control. There are two bills that would take baby steps toward protecting gun makers from the frivolous lawsuits that are plaguing the industry. The House bill (H.R. 800) would help protect gun makers WITHOUT imposing any new gun restrictions. The Senate bill (S. 397) attempts to help gun makers, but does so by "sticking it" to all gun owners as well.

So doesn't it make sense for pro-gun leaders to push the House bill over the weaker, gun control-ridden Senate version? [You can read about the two gun control provisions that were stuck into S. 397 by going to http://www.gunowners.org/a081105.htm on the GOA website.]

It makes sense to choose the House version, which is free of all gun control. Unfortunately, more than 100 Representatives have signed a letter asking the leadership to bring up the Senate-passed bill.

A number of strategists on Capitol Hill promised that any gun control that was added to S. 397 would be removed in a future conference committee. But now, those same forces are asking the House to bring up the Senate bill (which means there would be no opportunity for a House-Senate conference committee, and no opportunity to strike the offending gun control provisions from the bill).

It's getting late in the game. You can help by asking Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) to take action. Musgrave is a leader of the Second Amendment Caucus. As such, she is the best person in the House to approach the leadership on behalf of gun owners.

Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:11:47 AM EDT
CALL 1-202-225-4000 AND TELL THEM TO BRING UP HR 800.

Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:40:37 AM EDT
btt
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:45:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:45:45 AM EDT
Bump
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:50:00 AM EDT
Sorry but the ammo study is BAD NEWS.

It should never happen.



Don't give a crap about the trigger lock amendment.

Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:50:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2005 11:52:50 AM EDT by LARRYG]
Damn, this is OLD news.

I suggest you look up the meaning of "mandatory".
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:51:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:
Are you really this stupid or not? The provision requires that locks be included with pistols. Not that they be used, nor is there any civil liability attatched for not using one. If it took a $2 lock to get this bill passed than what the hell is your whining bitch about?



Because as SOON as the libs get the locks to be MANDANTORY the next step will be legislating our use of them. A locked gun is USELESS for self defense
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:51:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
Sorry but the ammo study is BAD NEWS.

It should never happen.



Don't give a crap about the trigger lock amendment.




NIJ has been doing these studies for .gov for years. The amendment does NOTHING new. It wasjust a sop to soccer moms.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:53:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:
Are you really this stupid or not? The provision requires that locks be included with pistols. Not that they be used, nor is there any civil liability attatched for not using one. If it took a $2 lock to get this bill passed than what the hell is your whining bitch about?



Just his excuse to bash Repubs, an OLD excuse at that.

Nothing new.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:57:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By shotar:
Are you really this stupid or not? The provision requires that locks be included with pistols. Not that they be used, nor is there any civil liability attatched for not using one. If it took a $2 lock to get this bill passed than what the hell is your whining bitch about?



Just his excuse to bash Repubs, an OLD excuse at that.

Nothing new.



And why is it the Republicans can never pass a totally clean of gun control pro gun bill?

Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:58:06 AM EDT
More freaking alarmist bullshit.....another typical CRC post.





Link Posted: 9/23/2005 11:58:16 AM EDT
The ammo study does have the potential for extremely bad juju later on down the road. You can ignore it now all you want but it won't go away.


If the Republicans are so pro-2nd Amendment, why pass this with any gun control at all?

Yeah gun locks will be mandatory to be included. How long do you suppose it will be before they make it mandatory to use them? (seatbelts anyone?)

There is no reason to adopt 397 over 800. None whatsoever.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:00:46 PM EDT
What's this about an ammo study?
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:00:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
The ammo study does have the potential for extremely bad juju later on down the road. You can ignore it now all you want but it won't go away.


If the Republicans are so pro-2nd Amendment, why pass this with any gun control at all?

Yeah gun locks will be mandatory to be included. How long do you suppose it will be before they make it mandatory to use them? (seatbelts anyone?)

There is no reason to adopt 397 over 800. None whatsoever.



BINGO!

Gimme one good reason to vote on HR 800 over S 397?

Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:01:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheSneak:
What's this about an ammo study?



An ammo study to scare all the soccer moms into getting ALL centerfire rifle ammo banned.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:02:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By shotar:
Are you really this stupid or not? The provision requires that locks be included with pistols. Not that they be used, nor is there any civil liability attatched for not using one. If it took a $2 lock to get this bill passed than what the hell is your whining bitch about?



Just his excuse to bash Repubs, an OLD excuse at that.

Nothing new.



And why is it the Republicans can never pass a totally clean of gun control pro gun bill?




And why is it you are totally ignorant of how the senate works?

Or just how thin our margin of victory is in these votes.

And how did you miss the huge victory we scored, defeating the lefts strategy to destroy the American firearms industry?

Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:03:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheSneak:
What's this about an ammo study?



Gives the Attorney General broad powers to set up a study to determine what is an armor peircing round. I think we all know what that is a bad idea.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:04:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By shotar:
Are you really this stupid or not? The provision requires that locks be included with pistols. Not that they be used, nor is there any civil liability attatched for not using one. If it took a $2 lock to get this bill passed than what the hell is your whining bitch about?



Just his excuse to bash Repubs, an OLD excuse at that.

Nothing new.



And why is it the Republicans can never pass a totally clean of gun control pro gun bill?




Because you have no clue about how things work.

I am sure that the Libertarian/Constitution/whatwhacknutpartyyoucanthinkof could have done sooooooooooooooooooooo much better.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:05:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
The ammo study does have the potential for extremely bad juju later on down the road. You can ignore it now all you want but it won't go away.


If the Republicans are so pro-2nd Amendment, why pass this with any gun control at all?

Yeah gun locks will be mandatory to be included. How long do you suppose it will be before they make it mandatory to use them? (seatbelts anyone?)

There is no reason to adopt 397 over 800. None whatsoever.



Yeah, it's better not to get the main bill passed. Who needs a firearms industry.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:06:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2005 12:07:05 PM EDT by CRC]
We would still have machine gun registration today.

The Republicans in 1986 rolled over and took it during the FOPA fight.


And I belong to no party whatsoever. I registered as an independent.


Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:10:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
The ammo study does have the potential for extremely bad juju later on down the road. You can ignore it now all you want but it won't go away.


If the Republicans are so pro-2nd Amendment, why pass this with any gun control at all?

Yeah gun locks will be mandatory to be included. How long do you suppose it will be before they make it mandatory to use them? (seatbelts anyone?)

There is no reason to adopt 397 over 800. None whatsoever.



Yeah, it's better not to get the main bill passed. Who needs a firearms industry.



we won't need one if anything that penetrates a level II vest is considered AP.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:14:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
The ammo study does have the potential for extremely bad juju later on down the road. You can ignore it now all you want but it won't go away.


If the Republicans are so pro-2nd Amendment, why pass this with any gun control at all?

Yeah gun locks will be mandatory to be included. How long do you suppose it will be before they make it mandatory to use them? (seatbelts anyone?)

There is no reason to adopt 397 over 800. None whatsoever.



Yeah, it's better not to get the main bill passed. Who needs a firearms industry.



I'm sure it'll be my fault for voting Libertarian if Hillary gets in office and appoints an Attorney general who subsequently sets up a study under this bill and determines all centerfire rifle ammo as AP.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:15:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
We would still have machine gun registration today.

The Republicans in 1986 rolled over and took it during the FOPA fight.


And I belong to no party whatsoever. Why not?I registered as an independent. Most independents vote Democrat.




You really need to get a clue about how laws are passed, the give and take, to get the big prize sometimes you have to pay lip service to the moderate fence sitters.

CRC, these post make you look like an idiot and thats not a good thing.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:18:26 PM EDT
And allowing a study to be passed that will be used to ban most all ammo?



How does that help us?

Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:18:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
The ammo study does have the potential for extremely bad juju later on down the road. You can ignore it now all you want but it won't go away.


If the Republicans are so pro-2nd Amendment, why pass this with any gun control at all?

Yeah gun locks will be mandatory to be included. How long do you suppose it will be before they make it mandatory to use them? (seatbelts anyone?)

There is no reason to adopt 397 over 800. None whatsoever.



Yeah, it's better not to get the main bill passed. Who needs a firearms industry.



Great logic there champ.

Who needs full-autos? Who needs imported rifles with no Sporting Purpose? Who needs "Assault Rifles".

Your logic falls right in line with those. Swallow a big of Gun Control at a time for the sake of some benefit.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:21:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
And allowing a study to be passed that will be used to ban most all ammo?



How does that help us?




Bullshit. The study can't be used to do anything. There is nothing to it.

Get a clue.

Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:21:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2005 12:22:51 PM EDT by CRC]
WRONG!

When the Dems get their hands on it, kiss your ammo goodbye!

Don't be naive enough to think Boxer, Corzine, Schumer et al won't use it against us.

Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:23:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
We would still have machine gun registration today.

The Republicans in 1986 rolled over and took it during the FOPA fight.


And I belong to no party whatsoever. I registered as an independent.





So did I. However, who did you vote for in the last presidential election?
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:25:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By roboman:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
The ammo study does have the potential for extremely bad juju later on down the road. You can ignore it now all you want but it won't go away.


If the Republicans are so pro-2nd Amendment, why pass this with any gun control at all?

Yeah gun locks will be mandatory to be included. How long do you suppose it will be before they make it mandatory to use them? (seatbelts anyone?)

There is no reason to adopt 397 over 800. None whatsoever.



Yeah, it's better not to get the main bill passed. Who needs a firearms industry.



Great logic there champ.

Who needs full-autos? Who needs imported rifles with no Sporting Purpose? Who needs "Assault Rifles".

Your logic falls right in line with those. Swallow a big of Gun Control at a time for the sake of some benefit.



You question my logic????????? If there is no firearms industry at all, the rest of that is moot.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:27:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By CRC:
We would still have machine gun registration today.

The Republicans in 1986 rolled over and took it during the FOPA fight.


And I belong to no party whatsoever. I registered as an independent.





So did I. However, who did you vote for in the last presidential election?



Bush.

Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:34:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2005 12:35:05 PM EDT by NH_AR_Shooter]

Originally Posted By CRC:
WRONG!

When the Dems get their hands on it, kiss your ammo goodbye!

Don't be naive enough to think Boxer, Corzine, Schumer et al won't use it against us.




Oh, like they're not trying now......as if they need some silly study.......these studies have always been done as far back as I can remember, and thats about 7 Presidents ago....and none of them have ever amounted to anything.

Boxer, Corzine and Schumer would love to see you get your way on this, because it would torpedo the far more important anti lawsuit legislation.

You are your own worst enemy.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:36:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By roboman:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
The ammo study does have the potential for extremely bad juju later on down the road. You can ignore it now all you want but it won't go away.


If the Republicans are so pro-2nd Amendment, why pass this with any gun control at all?

Yeah gun locks will be mandatory to be included. How long do you suppose it will be before they make it mandatory to use them? (seatbelts anyone?)

There is no reason to adopt 397 over 800. None whatsoever.



Yeah, it's better not to get the main bill passed. Who needs a firearms industry.



Great logic there champ.

Who needs full-autos? Who needs imported rifles with no Sporting Purpose? Who needs "Assault Rifles".

Your logic falls right in line with those. Swallow a big of Gun Control at a time for the sake of some benefit.



You question my logic????????? If there is no firearms industry at all, the rest of that is moot.



I question your logic over supporting an act which has unnecessary and dangerous amendments when there is a perfectly clean alternative waiting in the wings.

And don't give me that "You don't know how it all works" BS. They could've blocked those amendments in the first place, but they intentionally did not.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:40:06 PM EDT
On top is the NRA position; below that is the GOA position:

Alerts from some "pro-Second Amendment" groups have suggested that the National Rifle Association is not on the side of gun owners in regards to the Senate-passed S. 397 legislation. Not only are these claims completely false and ridiculous but they are also extremely counterproductive to our legislative strategy and agenda. Gun control groups are spreading the same rumors in hopes of confusing pro-gun Representatives as to our position in hopes of gaining their support.

There has been some discussion concerning the two amendments to the Senate-passed 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.

It is our hope that supposed "friends of the Second Amendment" will cease to provide ammunition to the enemy by disseminating this false information. Unfortunately, some of these groups seem intent on finding or creating any excuse to defeat Senate-passed S. 397, perhaps because its passage has been a priority of the NRA for four years. The anti-gunners are seeking to undermine the Second Amendment and the legislative process by seeking to bankrupt firearms and ammunition manufacturers or get gun control restrictions through the courts through dozens of pending municipal lawsuits -- blaming the gun industry for the acts of criminals -- initiated by anti-gun big city mayors and greedy trial lawyers. A single judgement by a rogue judge or jury could wipe out the entire firearms industry making our gun rights worthless. Passage of Senate-passed S. 397 is critical. Pro-gun grassroots activists who want to advance our cause should not be distracted by misinformation and disinformation by our "friends."
Best Regards,

NRA-ILA Grassroots
Ryan Irsik
New Mexico Grassroots Coordinator
rirsik@nrahq.org
11250 Waples Mill Rd.
Fairfax, VA 22030
tel: 703-267-1384
fax: 703-267-3918

-----Original Message-----
From: nmssa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:nmssa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Antony TRENNEL
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 3:57 PM
To: Bill Clark; Carol weitzel; charlie weisleder; cmoody12; DeniseandScott Fernau; dnwhitham; Ed Dresdner; gwen castaldi; John Laude; juratic; kentgl; Larry Trennel; Lopenfire; Lori Morgan`; nmssa group; Phil Morgan; pjmarko; SUSAN MILLER; Rathner, Todd; WIESE, EARL
Subject: [nmssa] Fw: NRA says Yes to Gun Control

Read and respond. I find it ridiculous to disarm lawful citizens in an emergency when "authorities" add to the threat by releasing prisoners and having knowledge of terrorist like activities from some of the low life -- just when you need a gun.

Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: Dudley Brown
To: rmgo@lists.kci.net
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 4:05 PM
Subject: NRA says Yes to Gun Control


NRA says: 'Accept gun control' - ACTION NEEDED

If you're an NRA donor, it appears your pro-gun money may now be funding an insider deal to push gun control into law. And
with gun owners being dragged from their homes and disarmed in the wake of the recent natural disaster, this is the worst
possible time for such complicity.

That's why you must call the NRA today (800.392.8683), so we can pass H.R. 800 -- a clean House version of the gun makers
and sellers protection act.

As you know, the Senate version of this bill (S 397) recently passed with several anti-gun amendments. But the House
version, H.R. 800, is still a straight forward pro-gun bill with no concessions to the gun grabbers.

However, right now, NRA staffers are telling gun rights activists that they "must" accept anti-gun provisions to pass the
gun makers protection bill.

They are also telling activists that the trigger lock amendment is "no big deal" and the new provision to "study" so
called "armor piercing" ammo is "nothing to worry about."

Don't buy it. Next, you can rest assured, anti-gunners will draft legislation making it mandatory that you use those
trigger locks in your home, and THAT will be a very big deal. And you can be sure that all who voted for the mandatory
trigger locks, will have no choice but to vote to mandate their use. What possible excuse could they have not to?

The excuses used to justify the anti-gun amendments are the same dishonest tactics that politicians use to appease and buy
off activists. But coming from NRA leadership, one might wonder whether NRA bosses view themselves as activists
representing gun owners, or as lobbyists working to justify the backroom deals of the politicians.

Why are they making excuses for the people who voted to sell out gun owners, rather than standing firm for the people who
fund them?

This is worse than any politician's flip-flop, because NRA leadership said they would be sure to strip off any gun control
amendments in conference committee. As you know, we opposed that strategy from the beginning and now you can see why.

Unless we hold NRA leadership accountable, they will cut a backroom deal with your freedoms and go against their word.

What's worse, this strategy is doomed to failure. You do the math: If we "accept" two major gun controls in exchange for
one pro-gun bill, doesn't that equate to the anti-gunners advancing their agenda twice as far as ours?

We must not allow the anti-freedom radicals to gain ground with the blessing of those who should be defending gun rights.

The "armor piercing ammunition" study could turn into more restrictions on almost any round that can be chambered in any
firearm, and the mandatory trigger lock legislation is a totally unacceptable intrusion into your business that serves no
purpose other than to extend the heavy hand of the government.

What's more, you can bet that the House Leadership will gladly roll over and ignore the house version of this bill -- H.R.
800 -- which is a good, clean bill without any gun control if they think they can get the thumbs up from NRA leadership,
who say they speak for you.

Now is the time to pressure your Congress member, and NRA to pass a clean bill with no attacks on your gun rights.

Action:

1. Call the NRA at 800.392.8683 and tell them to stop supporting S.397 and support H.R. 800. The NRA always says they
don't support gun control. This is their chance to PROVE it. Tell them to fight for H.R. 800 -- a gun control FREE
version of S 397. As you know, the NRA often reminds you that they are among the "most effective" and most "feared"
lobbying organizations on Capitol Hill. Tell them to use that clout to protect your rights instead of negotiating with
them. If they can't manage that -- with a Republican Congress and White House -- then we will all know the emporer has no
clothes.

2. Call your Congressman and tell him to vote for H.R. 800 and against S. 397. You can find their number by going to
http://www.rmgo.org/co_delegation.shtml

While most NRA members are staunch, no-compromise gun owners, NRA leadership is willing to support legislation that will
hurt gun owners. They MUST hear from you.

The recent unlawful seizure of civilian firearms in New Orleans has proven beyond any doubt that government actors are
willing to trample Constitutional Rights, and that many law enforcement and military personnel are more than willing to
obey orders to attack law abiding America citizens. Now is no time for gun owners to stand for more attacks on their
liberties.

Gun Owners of America has put together a number of links that document the outrageous behavior of "authorities" in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. They can be viewed (at least for now) here <http://www.gunowners.org/notb.htm>

Please contact you Congressman and the NRA today, and tell them NO to any new laws that attack your rights. And please
demand to know what your Congressman plans to do to prevent another attack on gun owners such as the one we witnessed in
New Orleans.


________________________________________________________

Did someone forward this to you? To receive the most up to date information consider subscribing directly to the Rocky
Mountain Gun Owners' e-mail list. The volume of mail usually is quite low.

To get more info about RMGO, just go to: http://www.rmgo.org/mailing_list.html




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.0/103 - Release Date: 9/15/2005


----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the Rocky Mountain Gun Owner's E-mail Alert
Network.
Direct any replies, comments, or concerns to exdir@rmgo.org
To unsubscribe from this network, send an e-mail to
majordomo@lists.kci.net with the following text body:
Unsubscribe RMGO
To subscribe to this free list, send an e-mail to
majordomo@lists.kci.net with the following text body:
Subscribe RMGO


Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:42:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
The ammo study does have the potential for extremely bad juju later on down the road. You can ignore it now all you want but it won't go away.


If the Republicans are so pro-2nd Amendment, why pass this with any gun control at all?

Yeah gun locks will be mandatory to be included. How long do you suppose it will be before they make it mandatory to use them? (seatbelts anyone?)

There is no reason to adopt 397 over 800. None whatsoever.



Exactly.
Once it is mandatory to use them, well then someone has to make "compliance checks" to make sure the subjec...I mean citizens are following the law.
And so on, and so forth.
It's not alarmist at all - any gun control proposal, no matter how innocent or "common sense" is being pushed by the people who's ultimate goal is the confiscation of all privately owned firearms in America.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:44:16 PM EDT
And why was the Kennedy Amendment brought up TWICE?

Craig and Frist screwed us.

Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:46:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
And why was the Kennedy Amendment brought up TWICE?

Craig and Frist screwed us.




Hey Chicken Little, give it a rest for a few minutes, will ya?
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:48:02 PM EDT
Hey CRC, didn't you do this already:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=375365
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:52:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NonConformist:

Originally Posted By shotar:
Are you really this stupid or not? The provision requires that locks be included with pistols. Not that they be used, nor is there any civil liability attatched for not using one. If it took a $2 lock to get this bill passed than what the hell is your whining bitch about?



Because as SOON as the libs get the locks to be MANDANTORY the next step will be legislating our use of them. A locked gun is USELESS for self defense



Michigan has mandated that a gunlock be sold/provided with the sale of each firearm for quite a while now, without the 'sky is falling' aftermath that you predict.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 12:53:57 PM EDT
California mandates you lock them up.

Yeah I'll give it a rest.

CRC
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 2:01:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
And why is it the Republicans can never pass a totally clean of gun control pro gun bill?



Just a GUESS, mind you, but because of "New Republicans" (AKA:RINOs) who have all of the "virtues" I despise, and none of the "vices" I condone?

Such as: Dewine:Sen.- Ohio, Voinovich - Sen. - Ohio and so on. But just a guess.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 3:12:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 3:13:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 3:21:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2005 3:22:38 PM EDT by Gloftoe]
Link Posted: 9/24/2005 7:39:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gloftoe:

Originally Posted By CRC:
WRONG!

When the Dems get their hands on it, kiss your ammo goodbye!

Don't be naive enough to think Boxer, Corzine, Schumer et al won't use it against us.

One more. Here's the text of the amendment that is relevant:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



So let's see. "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act,..."

This will happen before Bush and Co. are out of office. After the 2 years, it's over. How are the Dems going "to get their hands on this" again?



Never underestimate the power of Government - The republicans are better than democrates but don't forget, we got a bunch of Gun Control under REAGAN. The study WILL INCLUDE Rifle ammunition. the way the Republicans are spending this country into the poor house it is just a matter of time before the Democrates beat them up good in an election. They Can't ban 30 million rifles, but they sure can cut off the Ammo - and never violate the 2nd Ammendment.

Oh, and if we (the Govt.) catches you at the shooting range practicing with your newly defined "AP" Ammo, we have a nice 10 year jail cell for you. Oh yes, you can keep your guns - it's your constitutional right. But Ammo - that ISN'T protected.
Link Posted: 9/24/2005 7:42:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:
Are you really this stupid or not? The provision requires that locks be included with pistols. Not that they be used, nor is there any civil liability attatched for not using one. If it took a $2 lock to get this bill passed than what the hell is your whining bitch about?


A big plus one.
Link Posted: 9/24/2005 7:44:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
And why is it the Republicans can never pass a totally clean of gun control pro gun bill?


For the same reason the Dems couldn't pass a totally clean anti-gun bill.
Link Posted: 9/24/2005 7:57:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/24/2005 8:07:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:
Are you really this stupid or not? The provision requires that locks be included with pistols. Not that they be used, nor is there any civil liability attatched for not using one. If it took a $2 lock to get this bill passed than what the hell is your whining bitch about?



The inevitable ammo ban. The funded study in S.397 will no doubt lead to bans on anything foreign that could defeat body armor. 7.62X39, 7.62X25, 5.7, and 5.45X39 come immediately to mind. This will lead to an ATF "ruling" or "opinion" banning future importation. That concern you?


Heres the text:

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SEC. 6. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(c) Study and Report-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attest:

Secretary.


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 397
Link Posted: 9/24/2005 8:21:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Progunvoter:
Never underestimate the power of Government - The republicans are better than democrates but don't forget, we got a bunch of Gun Control under REAGAN. The study WILL INCLUDE Rifle ammunition. the way the Republicans are spending this country into the poor house it is just a matter of time before the Democrates beat them up good in an election. They Can't ban 30 million rifles, but they sure can cut off the Ammo - and never violate the 2nd Ammendment.

Oh, and if we (the Govt.) catches you at the shooting range practicing with your newly defined "AP" Ammo, we have a nice 10 year jail cell for you. Oh yes, you can keep your guns - it's your constitutional right. But Ammo - that ISN'T protected.



Well if the Consitiution gives Congress inplied power as well as explicitly granted powers, a case could be made that the 2A protection of ammo is implied because one without the other is useless.

car & fuel, pencil & paper, penis & vagina, etc
Top Top