User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 6:22:25 AM EDT
Remember this?
Call your US House Rep and tell them to deep six the Armor Piercing Ammunition part of this bill. It "could" have disasterous results if the wrong people get involved with it. And here's what that parts says...
In the wrong hands, the government could actually regulate how much powder and what kind of "bullets" you can use in your rifle or handgun. This part is just wrong and should be taken out. ALSO, call the NRA and tell them how bad this is and to also put pressure on the powers to be to get rid of it. Personally, I doubt they'll take it out, but EVERYONE needs to get on their backs about this. So please do your part and CALL!!!!!  |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 6:24:04 AM EDT
[#1]
btt Will do right now. Patty
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 6:56:28 AM EDT
[#2]
Here is a sample letter than you can change to place your Rep in, print off and send.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 7:18:46 AM EDT
[#3]
tag so I can come back and use the sample letter.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 7:36:22 AM EDT
[#4]
Here's the first part of the letter I am faxing Senator Craig:
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 7:37:54 AM EDT
[#5]
And here is the NRA ILA phone number, to give them an ear full...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 8:10:41 AM EDT
[#6]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 8:15:16 AM EDT
[#7]
damn lippo. that is some good writing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 8:29:51 AM EDT
[#8]
Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 8:31:10 AM EDT
[#9]
Done and Done. Too bad McCain is a chode.
- Gazukull |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 8:36:23 AM EDT
[#10]
Does anyone have the senate link to the bill as passed?
I didn't see anything about this amendment getting passed,just the gunlock amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 8:39:24 AM EDT
[#11]
done.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 8:40:50 AM EDT
[#12]
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109cMKncl::
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00397:@@@S
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 8:41:25 AM EDT
[#13]
Excellent thread.
Excellent advice. Bump. Actually, this deserves a tack. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 8:43:10 AM EDT
[#14]
Um guys didn't this already pass the house and the senate??? wouldn't it be alittle late to try and get that shit removed???
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 8:44:57 AM EDT
[#15]
From what some have said, this Amendment passed the Senate, but needs to be approved by the House before it can get signed by the President. If it get approved by the House, the President should be HAMMERED before he signs it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 8:50:17 AM EDT
[#16]
Wait a minute. Larry Craig proposed the AP ammo ban? Or am I reading that wrong? If he did, WTF? I thought he was on our side. What's he doing adding anti-gun amendments? Or is he a for-the-duck-hunters-only type of pro-gun?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 9:05:56 AM EDT
[#17]
Yes he did and I have no clue why he'd do something like this. Politicians defy logic.I called his office and they said someone would get back with me. I'm not counting on recieving any phone calls. And I did fax his DC office and his Boise office. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 9:10:47 AM EDT
[#18]
Is there an agreed upon definion of "armor piercing" like there is for "assault rifle"?
Or is it like "assault weapon" and can be whatever? Because.. well an acme brick can be armor piercing if you throw it fast enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 9:15:10 AM EDT
[#19]
Lippo, thanks for the heads up. I will try and contact my reps after lunch. Thanks for the form letter as well.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 9:18:12 AM EDT
[#20]
From reading the info in this thjread it looks like anything that would go through a kevlar vest would be considered AP, that means ANY rifle bullet basicly. But thats just the way it read to me, I could be very wrong. Well I guess it's time to start getting on peoples asses about this..... 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 9:19:15 AM EDT
[#21]
If I recal (and I watched CSPAN all last week) the 'Armor Piercing' legislation offered by Craig does nothing more than increase the penalty for criminals who use armor piercing rounds during the commission of a crime.
THIS IS NOT THE KENNEDY ARMOR PIERCING AMMO BAN |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 9:32:28 AM EDT
[#22]
Hasn't hand gun AP ammo been banned for atleast 10 years already?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 10:14:17 AM EDT
[#23]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 10:27:12 AM EDT
[#24]
Reality check: There is no AP ammo ban in S. 397. The Graig Amendment increases the penalty for murders commited with AP ammo. It also asks the AG to study how AP bullets work. There is no ban in the bill.
As usual, Lippo is over-reacting. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 10:34:04 AM EDT
[#25]
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 10:40:39 AM EDT
[#26]
What is the effect of changing "Secretary" to "Attorney General"?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 11:20:45 AM EDT
[#27]
Lippo has valid concerns about the study that is called for in the amendment. A politically-charged study could be used to change the definition of AP to include almost anything.
I jumped on him the hardest in his last thread, but he's right to be worried. The language for the study needs to be removed. An ounce of prevention, so to speak. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 11:28:58 AM EDT
[#28]
What bugs me is the study.
I did call the NRA-ILA about this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 12:29:43 PM EDT
[#29]
None - when the original language was written the ATF was under the Department of the Treasury and reported to the Secretary of the Treasury. Since the reorganization for homeland security, the ATF now reports to the Department of Justice and its boss is the Attorney General.
Actually his concerns are about as close to invalid as I can imagine. The study doesn't authorize Congress to do anything except:
It does not authorize the ATF to create any rules to that effect. It does not ask Congress to do anything about the results of the study. As far as what the study results COULD be used to support... the fact of the matter is either you have the votes for legislation or you don't. The Clinton Administration cranked out anti-gun studies through the DoJ and CDC for 6 years after the 1994 laws and still didn't change a thing in legislation. Personally, I wish Congress would study the issue. Maybe then they would realize what a load of crap is being foisted on them by the likes of Sen. Kennedy. Should that study be formed and commissioned while there is a friendly administration in the White House with an NRA Board of Director writing the legislation that forms it, well... all the better for educating those who don't understand our position eh? However, if you doubt my position on this amendment then simply take a look at the people who supported Lippo's position and voted to kill this amendment in the Senate: Akaka (D-HI) Boxer (D-CA) Corzine (D-NJ) Feingold (D-WI) Kennedy (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Wyden (D-OR) Note that even Senators such as Sen. Coburn of OK, a Senator who is so hardcore that GOA called his election "The most important Senate race in 2004" supported this amendment. Now you basically have two choices here - you can believe that GOAs top politician and multiple members of the NRA Board of Directors have conspired to sell us out or you can believe that Lippo is maybe reading a bit too much into this legislation. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 12:35:05 PM EDT
[#30]
 pwned! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 1:23:33 PM EDT
[#31]
This has been gone over in a weekend thread. I think the study could be misused. Can you imagine if they study came back and said the following calibers are capable of penetrating police body armor and then listed basically every rifle cartridge out there? The left would go nuts calling every caliber out there a "cop killer." The reason this study wording is even in there is to buy off parts of the left. Notice that Feinstien voted for the amendment. The only reason they would buy into it is if they decided something could be of future political value. That being said, overall the bill is very good. And we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. But if we can get the House to pass a version without the study wording why not do it? Better safe than sorry, IMO. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 7:44:31 PM EDT
[#32]
Dport...Thank you and very well put. This "study" could be very damaging in the future and yes, common sense alone would tell you that just about any ammunition could be considered AP if you shot a vest enough times or if you increased it's speed. Vests and armor are rated for certain calibers at certain speeds. If you increase the speed, you can make a caliber AP. The likes of the democrats could use this in a very serious way. If they can get flash hiders banned for 10 years, the current AP banned and certain "foriegn" rifles banned, so on and so on...what the hell do you think antis could do with this if they got back into power? Anyone that doesn't see that or calls chicken little has their blinders on and is on the side of the Anti's. It's funny how so many "so called" gun people don't see how, "just" this study is a violation of the Bill of Rights. Just like every other group, gun owners can be their worst enemies at times. Gun owners that don't want to stand up for their Right = 
|
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 8:11:21 PM EDT
[#33]
Here's a nice little IM I received from Lippo:
I have read the bill you dumb shit, quit overreacting. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 9:05:07 PM EDT
[#34]
You mean more serious than the second attempt in two years to ban pretty much all centerfire rifle ammo and a good chunk of pistol ammo as well? You act like if this study is never done that the antis will never bring up these topics. I don't think that is a very realistic view. The lack of a study hasn't prevented any of the current attempts to ban ammo - having pro-gun Senators who understand the issues is what has prevented those attempts.
OK, in this hypothetical future what do the antis do if there is no study and they get back in power? Pretty much the same thing I would guess since there has not yet been any study and they are already proposing much worse legislation. So whether we have this study or not, the antis will continue to propose anti legislation. For that matter, how do you figure this study somehow puts us on some slippery slope? If this study is the powerful polticial medicine you seem to think it is, then what would stop the antis from commissioning their own study if they get back in power? If this study is such a threat then isn't it going to be much worse to let the antis pick the people who will conduct the study? Wouldn't we be better off having those people picked by someone on the NRA Board of Directors?
So guys like Chris Cox, Larry Craig, Chris Knox, Wayne LaPierre, and even Tom Coburn are on the side of the antis? Does that make any sense to you? Do you mind if I ask what your background is in law or legislation that I should weigh your opinion on this issue more heavily than guys like Tom Coburn who are 100% with both GOA and NRA? How is it that not one of the pro-gun Senators in the Congress, including the 30 guys who voted against even the Kohl gun lock amendment because they were such strong supporters of the Second Amendment, agreed with your interpretation? Are all 30 sell-outs or are all 30 too stupid to see what you see?
Congressional studies are a violation of the Bill of Rights? That's a novel statement. Care to elaborate on it?
YWell, we certainly agree on this though I doubt it is from the same perspective. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 9:21:45 PM EDT
[#35]
You are wasting your time he ain’t going to hyperventilating long enough to listen to anybody… but I think you know that already. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 9:22:56 PM EDT
[#36]
what an appeasing dickhead Craig is for adding this
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 9:27:14 PM EDT
[#37]
Yea you are right… let us start eating our own that is a winning plan. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 9:32:42 PM EDT
[#38]
Look, I understand your concerns about the study, but the thread title is hyperbole.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 9:44:10 PM EDT
[#39]
Tag to read when I wake up later in the morning.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 9:45:39 PM EDT
[#40]
He's too busy showing us how an AWB-rider was tacked onto the recess appointment of John Bolton
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 9:59:36 PM EDT
[#41]
Uh, from the way I read it, with the right Attorney General in office, this could provide the legal justification for him to instruct the ATF to designate any centerfire rifle round with over x number of grains of powder an AP round.
I'm not certain I understand the jumping all over lippo... I mean really, theres no such thing as paranoid when it comes to the Federal Government. Its only common sense to be picking over everything congress does with a fine tooth comb. Oh, and posting someone's IM to you really shows alot of class.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 10:02:48 PM EDT
[#42]
About as much class as going out of your way to IM someone and call them and asshole and say fuck you.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 10:07:00 PM EDT
[#43]
I'm not saying what he said was mature either.
Tattle-telling, however is still low no matter what the other person said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 10:10:06 PM EDT
[#44]
Tattle-telling would be running to a mod or site staff and trying to get him banned for personal attacks. I was merely making an observation as to how he likes his paranoid theories criticized. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2005 10:44:24 PM EDT
[#45]
It is more than just a "study": It bans the manufacture and sale to civilians.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2005 1:25:48 AM EDT
[#46]
And that's the part that says box up your Dillon loading press, you can't use it any more to load what "they" have decided are AP rounds. The interesting thing about legal jargon is the way it's interpreted, for example the AWB was not a ban on assault rifles it was a ban on cosmetic features and hi cap mags and that's the way the law read in layman's terms. However the anti's twisted things around to suit their agenda and mislead people. It's a case of saying one thing and meaning another, on the surface the wording looks benign, but it could carry consequences down the road. The anti's will use such a study to mislead people who are ignorant to the truth. The fact is if you go to the web site of a manufacturer of body armor they will have what level of protection and the calibers that each class of armor will protect against, but dose any think the anti's will tell the general public when the results of the study are in? No they will say that XYZ rounds defeat body amour (not what rounds will defeat what class body amour) thus XYZ rounds need to be banned. Unfortunately there are idiots out there that will buy it , just like they bought that the ban was a ban on assault rifles. Yes it's just an authorization to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible. No it dose not authorize the ATF to make it's own judgments and determinations or any thing else for that matter, dose it need to? The then president can give the ATF any authorization the need to ban XYZ calibers in the form of an executive order, 89" ban anyone? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2005 4:30:08 AM EDT
[#47]
Ok, I'll say it to you right here...fuck you you stupid asshole. Why do you think they put that section in there you mental midget? There's no need for it, but all you'd like to do is drink the kool-aid, along with the rest of the idiots here. All you can do is bash instead of engaging in honest discussion. You are nothing but a stupid, suck up to a people that you want to put on a pedestal. While you are making no sense bashing me and in denial of that fact that there SHOULDN'T be a study in the first place, you might want to wipe your chin. I thing Craig got something on it. I can't believe how many dickheads there are on this site now. You and the others that can only bash, you might want to think about this...  |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2005 5:08:46 AM EDT
[#48]
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2005 5:13:11 AM EDT
[#49]
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2005 5:18:13 AM EDT
[#50]
Did you read it? The increase in penalty for using AP isn't what the problem is. It's the study! And yes, it COULD expand the definition of what AP is. You can stick up for this all you want, you can do your own spin, just like the rest of the here. This study is NOT a good thing. Because of people like you and the others, I hope it does pass, because it WILL come back to bite us in the ass. You can count on that. So go spin this in your head anyway you want.
|
||||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
