JFPO warning about S397


PDA






CentralTexas
August 4, 2005, 03:07 PM
ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

August 4, 2005

JPFO ALERT: IS S. 397 A TROJAN HORSE?

You may have heard a lot of praise for S. 397, which last
week passed the U.S. Senate. This bill is supposedly
intended to protect firearms manufacturers against nuisance
lawsuits.

There's been minor grumbling about the "safety lock"
provisions in the proposed legislation, but otherwise S.
397 has had overwhelming support.

Just about the time we were wondering why even some usually
gun-unfriendly senators like Herb Kohl (D-WI) were in favor
of this bill, an alert Congresswatcher contacted us with a
warning.

"The only thing I see that's good about the bill," this
sharp-eyed observer wrote, "is that it hasn't become law."

After taking a closer look, we agree.

As our correspondent pointed out, the real problem lies in
Sec. 6 "Armor Piercing Ammunition."

THIS SECTION COULD ALLOW ALL CENTERFIRE RIFLE AMMO TO BE
BANNED

Here's how.

Part One of Sec. 6 makes it illegal to make, import, sell
or deliver any "armor-piercing" ammunition EXCEPT:

1) For the use of state and federal government departments
or agencies.

2) For export

3) For Attorney General-approved testing.

Part Two "enhances" criminal sentences for anyone who
possesses "armor-piercing" ammunition during the commission
of a crime.

Part Three is where the trap is really sprung. Because this
part instructs the U.S. Attorney General to "conduct a
study to determine whether a uniform standard for the
testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible."

NOTE WELL: The tests to determine whether or not ammo is
"armor piercing" are NOT to be conducted against armor
plate, such as that used on military combat vehicles. The
tests are to be conducted against body armor. And as anyone
knowledgeable about firearms knows, VIRTUALLY ALL RIFLE
AMMO WILL PENETRATE BODY ARMOR. So will some pistol ammo.

We asked firearms maker Len Savage if the warning we
received was well-taken or whether this was simply a
misinterpretation of the proposed law. Here's Len's reply:

"Yes. This gives the A.G. the power to say what is and is
not "armor piercing." There is no language for what type of
test is to be conducted (other than ballistic vests). If
the test were on 1 inch "rolled homogeneous armor plate"
then there would be no problem. If the test is a level I
"vest" material, then EVERYTHING including .22 longs, are
going to be illegal ammo.

"The bill would effectively give the power to decide to ONE
person. NO vote, NO appeal, NO rights. (Just like the
current mess with [the sloppy, no-standards testing
practices of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms].)

"I figured it was a matter of time before they got around
to figuring out: Control the ammo and you control the guns.
Of course there would be born a "black market" for ammo,
very close to the black market for marijuana, in size,
scope, and risks. Next will be the sentencing
recommendations for possession, and distributing (dealing).
Components will be viewed as constructive intent of illegal
manufacturing of "terrorist material."

"This is a dangerous path for America. I am forced to ask
myself: Why the continued attack and obvious methodical
disarming of American Citizens? There is only one answer:
control and power."

Just as "Saturday-Night specials," "military-style assault
weapons," "cop-killer bullets," and "sporting purposes"
have all been used as deceptive, emotionally loaded key
words to justify regulations and outright bans, it now
appears that the designation "armor-piercing ammunition" is
likely to be mis-applied in an attempt to deprive Americans
of their rights.

We should all be asking some serious questions about the
real impact S. 397 will have on our freedoms if it becomes
law. One important question is: Why are our "leaders" so
desperate that they would attempt to slip such a
potentially draconian provision into a supposedly pro-gun
bill?

The Liberty Crew

LINKS:

S. 397, Sec. 6
http://tinyurl.com/9u8mt (click on [S.397.ES])

A reality check on the U.S. government's sloppy firearms
testing procedures:
http://www.jpfo.org/alert20050701a.htm

============================================================

JPFO mirror site: http://www.jpfo.net

============================================================

LET JPFO KEEP YOU INFORMED -- Sign up today for JPFO Alerts!
Just send a blank e-mail to jpfoalerts-subscribe@jpfo.org

=============================================================

Regain your freedom - download the song "Justice Day" today!
http://www.rebelfirerock.com/downloadjd.html

=============================================================

Original Material in JPFO ALERTS is Copyright 2005 JPFO, Inc.
Permission is granted to reproduce this alert in full, so long
as the following JPFO contact information is included:

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
PO Box 270143
Hartford, Wisconsin 53027

Phone: 1-262-673-9745
Order line: 1-800-869-1884 (toll-free!)
Fax: 1-262-673-9746
Web: http://www.jpfo.org/

=============================================================
JPFO ALERTS is provided as a free service to the Internet
Community. If you wish to help support this service, consider
joining JPFO! $20/year (no, you don't have to be Jewish!)
Join for 2 years and receive a free JPFO lapel pin!
Life Membership: $500 or $41.67/month for 12 months.
************************

If you enjoyed reading about "JFPO warning about S397" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Beren
August 4, 2005, 03:45 PM
It's already illegal to manufacture or import armor piercing ammo. The Craig amendment does not make a change there.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=922

CURRENT LAW:

(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing
ammunition, except that this paragraph shall not apply to -
(A) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition for the
use of the United States or any department or agency thereof or
any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision
thereof;
(B) the manufacture of such ammunition for the purpose of
exportation; and
(C) any manufacture or importation for the purposes of
testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General;
(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor
piercing ammunition, except that this paragraph shall not apply
to -
(A) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of
such ammunition for use of the United States or any department
or agency thereof or any State or any department, agency, or
political subdivision thereof;
(B) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of
such ammunition for the purpose of exportation;
(C) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of
such ammunition for the purposes of testing or experimenting
authorized by the Attorney General; and

What the amendment does do is enhance penalties for use of AP ammo in crimes of violence or drug trafficking.

I'm not concerned much with the wording of the body armor study. They're going to test to see if a "uniform standard" is feasible. That is all. Anything DONE with that report would require futher legislative action.

Fletchette
August 4, 2005, 04:08 PM
It's already illegal to manufacture or import armor piercing ammo. The Craig amendment does not make a change there.

Yes, but without S397 "armor piercing ammunition" is defined as the projectile, not the cartridge. Currently, it is illegal to make an armor piercing projectile (defined as 100% steel core, or tungsten, etc. or greater than 50% copper jacket, with exemptions for shotguns, etc, etc). After S387 becomes law, "armor piercing" will be defined as...well, whatever the AG says it is.

I'm worried too.

Beren
August 4, 2005, 04:32 PM
I don't see any language there that allows the AG to define what is armor-piercing. The current law and the amendment both use the exact same term: "armor piercing ammunition."

Beren
August 4, 2005, 04:35 PM
The Attorney General shall conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible.

That's what the amendment allows. It does not let the AG SET a standard. All it does is permit a study to determine whether a standard is feasible.

Fine. So the AG comes back and says "Hey, a standard is feasible." Then Congress has to authorize a standard in law. That's when the fur will fly.

DeseoUnTaco
August 4, 2005, 05:01 PM
I'm not thrilled about manufacturer protection, either. I would rather see a) the manufacturers win these court cases and b) a lot of smaller manufacturers who can't be sued as easily.

alan
August 4, 2005, 05:22 PM
Re the "frivilous law suits" S. 397 would block, I've long wondered as to the following. Given that virtually all of these suits have been tossed out, either at trial court level or at apellate court level, how come there has yet to be A COUNTER SUIT FILED? Feel free to correct me if I'm in error here.

Regarding Section 6, how did this thing come to pass. Who is playing games with whom? "Soft Body Armor" is not designed to stop rifle projectiles, nor will it. If rifle ammunition is to be tested by firing it at "soft body armor", then there is no center fire rifle cartridge that would not be subject to being banned, on the basis of it being "armor piercing ammunition". Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here also.

NRAninja
August 4, 2005, 05:34 PM
The current AP law is NOT an outright ban, correct? So if I have a case of that steel core 7.62 that was dirt cheap back in the 80s, I can sell it to anyone, right? It looks like JFPO is saying that under the possible new law, I wouldn't be able to sell it at all.

The current law just says it is illegal to manufacture or import unless it's for government use. So if FN sells 10 crates of SS190 to the police department in town, then my armorer buddy could technically smuggle a few boxes for me since he isn't 'manufacturing' or 'importing' right? But under the new law he wouldn't be able to because the new law adds 'sell' and 'deliver' to the list.

Brett Bellmore
August 4, 2005, 05:36 PM
Because counter suits would almost certainly fail, as well, and be just as effective at wasting our side's money as defending against the other side's lawsuits. And that is the purpose of the lawsuits, the firearms industry's financial exaustion. The other side doesn't have to worry about running out of money, it's groups funded by billionares, and local governments spending tax dollars.

saltydog
August 4, 2005, 06:34 PM
The Attorney General shall conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible.

You can make excuses or viable argument's about what is or isn't armor piercing but just ask yourself "WHY" Armor Piercing "ANYTHING" is in a bill to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits? It should at least make a person "wonder why" expecially if armor piercing amunition is already defined and banned in an "existing law"? :confused:

My opinion is no amunition should be banned anyway and any excuse to why some types are is a "compromise" that will also eventually lead to a total ban or possibly very strict controls. Just my opinion. :(

Beren
August 4, 2005, 06:36 PM
It should at least make a person "wonder why" expecially if armor piercing amunition is already defined and banned in an "existing law"?

There's no need to wonder why. It was included to ensure enough votes for passage of the bill.

saltydog
August 4, 2005, 06:40 PM
There's no need to wonder why. It was included to ensure enough votes for passage of the bill.

Sounds good to me. If everybody is happy then I'm happy. :D

Dan from MI
August 4, 2005, 07:18 PM
While we should always have our guard up, this isn't as bad is it sounds.
This doesn't give the AG the power to ban AP ammo. The magic word "DEFINE" is not in there. It just wastes money on a study. It doesn't change what currently is defined as AP ammo.

Let's compare that to the Kennedy Amendment which IS what JPFO is accusing this of being.

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

Kennedy Amendment 1615

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition and for other purposes.

(a) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.--Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;

(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be capable or penetrating body armor; or

`(iv) a projectile ror a center-fire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition or the same caliber.''.

(b) DETERMINATION OF THE CAPABILITY OF PROJECTILES TO PENETRATE BODY ARMOR.--Section 926 or title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the rollowing:

``(d)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date or enactment or this subsection, the Attorney General shall promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against Body Armor Exemplar.

``(2) The standards promulgated under paragraph (1) shall take into account, among other factors, variations in perrormance that are related to the length of the barrel or the handgun or center-fire rifle rrom which the projectile is fired and the amount and kind or powder used to propel the projectile.

``(3) As used in paragraph (1), the term `Body Armor Exemplar' means body armor that the Attorney General determines meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.''.


----
The Craig/Frist Amendment sucks since it's a waste of money, and it may lead to something bad in the future if this study reports lead to more Brady and VPC crying. However, it would take a new law to ban actual ammo.

Fletchette
August 4, 2005, 08:31 PM
Yes, I agree that it would take a new law to actually ban the ammo, and the first section changes nothing essential in the existing grammar of the current law. The only thing "new" is the study, which is basically a date at which we will have to fight yet another battle. That date is to be chosen by gun-grabbers. I wish it wasn't there for just that reason.

All in all, S397 is a good bill. It would be VERY GOOD if we could scrub the AP amendment out of it in the House. I would suggest that we WRITE OUR REPRESENTATIVES! - Especially if your representative passed this bill before it went to the Senate. If you are unlucky enough to have an anti-gun statist, perhaps you should write to a different pro-gun representative! :evil:

P.S. SS109 ammuntion is specifically exempted from the current law, and will not change if S397 is passed. That is because it does not have a 100% steel core. So it can be directly sold to us serfs.

MudPuppy
August 4, 2005, 09:45 PM
I disagree. It'll be construed that the AG has the power to determine what's AP. BATFE will then issue a "policy" and that'll be that. Doesn't matter that it doesn't explicity grant that right to the AG--the fact that it's not clear is what allows them to twist it however they want.

Guess who sits in jail while it gets argued in court? Us.

Guess who actually gets a paycheck to argue about it while we're in jail? Them.

beerslurpy
August 4, 2005, 10:34 PM
You would think the JFPO would at least spend 5 minutes reading the law before whining about it. The law expressly avoids any redefinition of the term "armor piercing."

It makes gun owners look stupid when we call to complain about something that isnt happening.

Fletchette
August 4, 2005, 10:53 PM
I disagree. It'll be construed that the AG has the power to determine what's AP. BATFE will then issue a "policy" and that'll be that. Doesn't matter that it doesn't explicity grant that right to the AG--the fact that it's not clear is what allows them to twist it however they want.

Like I said, I wish the AP amendment wasn't there. It is indeed possible that the ATF(E...XYZ) will institute an unConstitutional ex-post-facto ruling like they did for USAS-12 shotguns... :fire:

beerslurpy
August 5, 2005, 01:07 AM
Uh no wrong. The 1968 GCA specifically granted, in plain english, the authority to ban "shotguns that the Secretary determines to not have a sporting purpose." Lloyd Bentsen exercised this authority after he was nominated by Bill Clinton. George Bush exercised a similarly granted authority in finding that the guns in the 89 ban were "not sporting" (and therefore not importable) and Alberto Gonzales exercised the same authority in banning the imporation of milsurp barrels.

Blame Republicans for much of this, but blame the right ones.

This bill merely orders the commission of a study on the feasibility of creating testing standards for ammunition. It neither establishes standards nor allows for anyone to alter the current definition of armor piercing. It similarly orders no additional action on the part of anyone after the study is completed. The study could be completely ignored in 2 years, or it could result in some terrible law. Unless congress has been significantly altered 2 years from now, this isnt likely to happen.

The ignorance of gun owners and gun dealers on the subject of firearms law is sometimes appalling.

NY Patriot
August 5, 2005, 01:33 AM
I called the NRA today about this amendment, and asked if they had an official stance on it. I was told that they do not as of yet, but that they "looking into it". I also asked if they would be releasing their opinion when one is reached, but was told that they are not sure as of yet.

I was a little taken aback by the noncommittal stance that they seem to be taking, so I related my opinion that the NRA should pressure the House of Reps. to pass a "clean" version of this bill. The woman on the other end of the phone took my message, name, and member ID#, and said that my opinion will be duly noted and passed along.

I really think that we need to make damn sure that this amendment is NOT part of the companion bill in the House, because the potential for this "study" to blow back at us in the form of a ban on FMJ ammo is too great to ignore!

To this end, I suggest that we ALL call the NRA-ILA @1-800-392-8683 and let them know that we want their considerable influence brought to bear in the cause of passing an "AP ammo amendment" free House bill & in striking this amendment from the Senate's bill!

An ounce of prevention...

Vang
August 5, 2005, 02:03 AM
Even if this isn't such a bad deal for gun owners, it shows where Congress's interest lies: the protection of industry over the rights of individuals.

Fletchette, it's not ex-post-facto to not offer a sunset provision (in the classification of the USAS-12 as a DD).

Bartholomew Roberts
August 5, 2005, 09:44 AM
If groups like JPFO are going to jettison their credibility with stupid warnings like this, they could at least have the common sense to ask a lawyer to comment on legislation instead of asking a guy who manufactures guns to interpret the law.

We went through this same thing last year when the exact same amendment text was proposed, so I don't know why nobody learned from last year's overblown panic attack (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=67613&highlight=Craig+ammo).

THIS SECTION COULD ALLOW ALL CENTERFIRE RIFLE AMMO TO BE
BANNED.

No, it cannot and JPFO needs to take whoever wrote that and stop them from doing analysis on legislation because it is pretty clear to anyone who is familiar with current law and can read.

Part One of Sec. 6 makes it illegal to make, import, sell
or deliver any "armor-piercing" ammunition EXCEPT:

1) For the use of state and federal government departments
or agencies.

2) For export

3) For Attorney General-approved testing.

This is already the law. Sec. 6 simply restates the current law on armor-piercing ammo.

Part Two "enhances" criminal sentences for anyone who
possesses "armor-piercing" ammunition during the commission
of a crime.

This is correct.

Part Three is where the trap is really sprung. Because this
part instructs the U.S. Attorney General to "conduct a
study to determine whether a uniform standard for the
testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible."

This is also correct.

tests to determine whether or not ammo is
"armor piercing" are NOT to be conducted against armor
plate, such as that used on military combat vehicles. The
tests are to be conducted against body armor. And as anyone
knowledgeable about firearms knows, VIRTUALLY ALL RIFLE
AMMO WILL PENETRATE BODY ARMOR. So will some pistol ammo.

This is also correct.

Yes. This gives the A.G. the power to say what is and is
not "armor piercing." ...

"The bill would effectively give the power to decide to ONE
person. NO vote, NO appeal, NO rights. (Just like the
current mess with [the sloppy, no-standards testing
practices of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms].)

This is NOT CORRECT. This is the type of ridiculous chicken-little sensationalism that does not help our cause at all. NOWHERE IN THIS BILL IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL GIVEN ANY POWER TO CHANGE THE CURRENT DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

This definition is part of law and can be found in Title 18 Section 921 of U.S. Code (ttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/44/sections/section%5F921.html):

(B) The term ''armor piercing ammunition'' means -
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

(C) The term ''armor piercing ammunition'' does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.

All the bill authorizes is a STUDY. There is no authorization for the Attorney General to do ANYTHING but report the study to Congress. This amendment was written by an NRA Board of Director. Of the 30 Senators who were so hardcore they voted against even the gunlock amendment that JPFO considers minor, all 30 of those Senators supported this amendment.

GOAs top Senator, Tom Coburn voted for this amendment.

Does anybody really believe that we were sold out by 30 solidly pro-gun Senators who somehow didn't manage to arrive at the same wild-eyed interpretation of JPFO? And it isn't because they didn't read the amendment either since the entire amendment is only a few paragraphs and can be easily read in a few minutes.

geekWithA.45
August 5, 2005, 09:47 AM
I concur here. The authority to determine if a study can be conducted is entirely different from the authority to implement the study, or the study's findings.

Lately, the JPFO and GOA have been really grasping at straws, and in my view, they're not exactly enhancing their credibility.

Henry Bowman
August 5, 2005, 10:05 AM
Lately, the JPFO and GOA have been really grasping at straws, and in my view, they're not exactly enhancing their credibility. Perhaps. Generally, I agree.

However, why spend tax money on determining a different standard for what constitutes AP ammo? The only possible reason is for no good. That is, to define it by its ballistic properties, rather than the metalic makeup. And that can have only one resul. A bad one. That is, to broaden the definition of AP to include most hunting ammo.

What possible good could come of this "study"? Well?

Beren
August 5, 2005, 10:10 AM
What possible good could come of this "study"? Well?

As already explained earlier: it was included to ensure enough votes for passage of the parent bill.

What "good" will come of the study? The gun industry now has immunity from nuisance suits.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 5, 2005, 10:18 AM
What possible good could come of this "study"? Well?

And yet 30 Senators who were so pro-gun they voted against even adding gun locks to handgun sales all thought this was a good amendment and voted in support of it.

A member of the NRA Board of Directors wrote the amendment and the top GOA Senator voted in favor of it.

How is it that these professional legislators have missed these flaws if they are indeed present? Were we sold out by these pro-gun organizations? Are these legislators simply not up to the same caliber as THR members when it comes to legislative analysis?

Ted Kennedy has been proposing legislation in the Senate for several years now that actually DOES ban any ammo that penetrates even basic body armor. He hasn't needed a study to do it.

Perhaps we are better off by defining the terms of the debate ourselves with a DoJ study rather than letting Teddy and his ".30-30 pierces 600lb armored safes and armored limousines!" define what the terms of the debate will be. Just to use one example, who would you rather see conduct this study - a John Lott or a Michael Bellesilles?

Henry Bowman
August 5, 2005, 10:18 AM
:scrutiny: MmmKay... And can you guarantee that this "study" will remain dormant and not rear its ugly head in bad, or even terrible, way in the not so distant future?

I'm not Chicken Little, but I don't like tax money being spent on funding something that can be used by those who wish to deprive us of rights.


What I really want to know is what are the chances of getting the clean bill pasted in the Senate if this gets stripped out in committee?

geekWithA.45
August 5, 2005, 10:39 AM
And can you guarantee that this "study" will remain dormant

A fundamental legislative problem is that we can't guarantee bumpkus, EVER.

A law could be enacted requiring surrender of arms, funny hat wearing, and mass lobotomization tomorrow.

jefnvk
August 5, 2005, 11:34 AM
I'm not thrilled about manufacturer protection, either. I would rather see a) the manufacturers win these court cases and b) a lot of smaller manufacturers who can't be sued as easily.
Even if this isn't such a bad deal for gun owners, it shows where Congress's interest lies: the protection of industry over the rights of individuals.

So, I guess you guys support someone's right to sue the manufacturer of the gun that the drug dealer used to shoot their 'little angel' drug addict who couldn't come up with money?

The fact is, junk suits are no longer laughed out of court. Anti gun groups have specifically stated that they intend to bankrupt the firearm industry via junk lawsuits.

The Drew
August 5, 2005, 12:09 PM
(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.


As far as I'm concerned you guys that don't see a problem with this provision are not helping the cause... You are effectively AIDING the anti's in their drive to deprive us of our rights!

We already have a VERY specific definition of what is AP and what is NOT. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE LAW AS IT ALREADY STANDS!!!

This law, if passed, opens the door for the AG to completely rewrite what is and isn't AP. If you don't see that then you've got your head in the sand....

Henry Bowman
August 5, 2005, 12:35 PM
This law, if passed, opens the door for the AG to completely rewrite what is and isn't AP. If you don't see that then you've got your head in the sand.... That's pretty much how I see it, too. But call me paranoid, call me Chicken Little...

I don't see anything good coming of this. And the potential for bad may be much greater than the benefit of bassing the Protection bill. Maybe not. We'll see. I hope it gets stripped out in committee and that we can get a clean(er) bill back through the Senate.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 5, 2005, 12:42 PM
This law, if passed, opens the door for the AG to completely rewrite what is and isn't AP.

No, it does not. The AG does not have the authority to make new law and this bill does not give him the authority to either make new law OR to change the definition of the current law.

In order for the definition of AP ammo to change, someone has to propose a new bill or amendment and it has to make it through both the House and Senate and then be signed by the President.

Is everybody clear on that?

Henry Bowman
August 5, 2005, 12:59 PM
Clear, Bart.

I had almost edited my last post to make it clear that it may not be the AG who could unilaterally change the law. That is the only exaggeration in the original report. But... it lays the ground work for a weaker Congress and a different President (not that Bush, whom I really like, has ever vetoed a bill) to redefine AP based on the finings of a study commissioned by a Republican-controlled Congress and Administration in response to some yet-to-be-announced "crisis." Also, a "Janet Reno" AG might do just that and dare the Congress to challenge it.

Case in point, "assault weapon" had a specific legal definition just like AP ammo does. Clear and objective, but not exactly effective for the stated purpose. The definition of "AW" grew (with the help of the MSM) to cover whatever it took to say that X% of LEO had been killed with an AW. Now a government study concludes that the metalic makeup of the bullet is not a very effective way to define what is or is not armor piercing. It will get revised to include all steel core (even if not effective against armor) as well as most all hunting ammo (that is not somehow neutered to make it unable to pierce soft bidy armor. I am not dreaming here, mark my words.

I still see no good coming of this "study." The handgun locks was de minimus. This has the potential for bad written all over it.

The Drew
August 5, 2005, 01:31 PM
Even if this law DOES NOT specifically say that the AG can change the definition of AP ammo, NO GOOD can come of this amendment...

For instance recently the BATF determined that they aren't going to allow importation of barrels of "non sporting" rifles... This is an interpretation of a somewhat vague law... Do you actually believe that this cannot happen with this amendment???

alan
August 5, 2005, 02:27 PM
Gentlemen:

I have read section 6, section 5 too, which speaks of other things, and re the testing mentioned in 6, the following question looms large, at least to me.

What will be the medium used in these tests, which is to ask, WHAT IN BLAZES ARE THEY GOING TO SHOOT AT???

"Body Armor" as in "SOFT BODY ARMOR", was designed to stop handgun cartridge projectiles. It does not always do even this, however it was not designed to stop, or even to slow down the projectiles fired from center fire rifle cartridges, nor will it.

What this could well mean is the following, please correct me if you think I'm all wet. Given that the say 180 grain projectile commonly loaded in 30-06 ammunition, to mention just one caliber cartridge, a common one at that, will blow completely through "body armor", said ammunition could well end up being determined, from the above mentioned testing, as being "armor piercing" and therefore subject to bans or major restrictions and so forth and so on.

In any event, The Attorney Genereal is a Political Appointee, and the present holder of that office has already spoken on the subject of firearms, (those so-called assault weapons), the nature of his comments being less than encouraging.

Of course, we could then get into why not a "clean bill", which is another matter entirely. Take that up with your elected things.

Al Norris
August 5, 2005, 02:31 PM
You guys are all worried about the wrong things.

The house version and the senate version do not match. Thus the bills have to be resolved in conference. This is where you need to get worried! Not because the conference may or may not strip out the "offending" amendments, but because all knids of things can be "clarified" and slipped in.

It is not at all unusual for a bill to go into conference and come out looking like a completely different bill, only to have it ratified by both houses, because the conference committee says it's ok!

Be much more worried about what comes out of conference than what goes in....

Bartholomew Roberts
August 5, 2005, 03:43 PM
(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.

This is all the study is going to do. I've explained this issue a thousand times now. Those who wish to remain skeptical are welcome to contact their Congresscritters and exercise their rights as a citizen.

Although what possible hope you could have in contacting your Congresscritter after having just been the victim of an evil NRA/GOA cooperative conspiracy to deny you your Second Amendment rights remains to be seen...

Libertyteeth
August 5, 2005, 04:06 PM
... `(iv) a projectile ror a center-fire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition or the same caliber.''. ... [Such as FMJ ammo?]

... (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
the amount of powder used to propel the projectile..."

So they are looking at body armor penetration issues with respect to center fire rifles. Existing law refers only to handgun ammo. True, new law would need to be passed to implement any changes, but it seems to me they are likely up to no good. These cats think long term.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 6, 2005, 01:04 AM
Uh Libertyteeth, you've mixed text from the Kennedy ammo ban amendment (section iv) with text from the Craig amendment (Section 2) in your post. Was that intentional?

Libertyteeth
August 6, 2005, 02:09 AM
My apologies. I did mix the two bills, and it was unintentional.

S 397 does mention centerfire rifles in the study, at any rate, and that is what concerned me.

alan
August 6, 2005, 07:28 PM
Al Norris writes:

You guys are all worried about the wrong things.

The house version and the senate version do not match. Thus the bills have to be resolved in conference. This is where you need to get worried! Not because the conference may or may not strip out the "offending" amendments, but because all knids of things can be "clarified" and slipped in.

It is not at all unusual for a bill to go into conference and come out looking like a completely different bill, only to have it ratified by both houses, because the conference committee says it's ok!

Be much more worried about what comes out of conference than what goes in....

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

So far as I know, The House hasn't passed anything this year, their bill or their version of S.379 is "pending".

As to that holy of holies, The Conference Committee, Al is right, one never knows what might come out of one. Another question is the following. Given the setting of a conference committee, who are "the conferees"??

Bartholomew Roberts
August 8, 2005, 09:06 AM
Given the setting of a conference committee, who are "the conferees"??

The conferees are appointed by the Majority and Minority leaders of each House. On the NRA side, we have Reid, Frist and Hastert appointing. On the anti side, Pelosi. Of course Reid and Hastert aren't exactly strong supporters; but overall we should do OK in conference.

alan
August 9, 2005, 01:56 AM
A couple of quick points.

Given the afore mentioned nature of those who appoint the "conferees" I'm not certain that I'd be willing to bet a bunch of money on the happy tidings, for our side, that would come out of this conference committee.

Earlier, re my mention of counter suits, one poster offered that as they were bound to fail, they were wasteful of resources, wording to that effect. What makes you so certain of their failure?

Lastly, respecting what might be expected from "government agencies" JPFO has available, both in tape format as well as on DVD, BATF fails the test, dealing with BATF claims that one John Glover was in possession of an "illegal machinegun", which turned out to be a MALFUNCTIONING FAL TYPE RIFLE. The ATF agent who wrote the original report it seems, had never stripped and carefully inspected the rifle before firing it. Test firings at Charlotte, North Carolina showed multiple roinds fired with one brand of amunution, Winchester commercial loads, out of 4 different makes of ammunition tried. Detail dissembly and post firing inspection showed that the rifle was not in proper mechanical condition. It contained some word and broken parts, which could have contributed to the "automatic fire" accomplished with 1 out of 4 makes of ammunition tried. One would think that a mal functioning rifle does not, a machinegun make, but ATF in the person of Mr. Michael Cooney, their firearms examiner/enforcement agent would have it otherwise.

I understand that all charges were subsequently dismissed against Mr. Glover. Whether or not his property, seized firearms, have been returned to him by BATF, I cannot say. In any event, JPFO is certainly capable of mistakes, and or misconstruing things, but they do not bring criminal charges, with all that such things involve against anyone. BATF can and does, and they also make mistakes. Have they ever so admitted? Not that I've noticed.

If you enjoyed reading about "JFPO warning about S397" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!