S397 another Republican sell out?


August 6, 2005, 02:58 PM
Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.
P.O. Box 270143
Hartford, WI 53027

Phone (262) 673-9745
Fax (262) 673-9746


August 4, 2005
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."


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


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

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

If you enjoyed reading about "S397 another Republican sell out?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
August 6, 2005, 03:01 PM
Dupe and no.

Besides all major gun control legislation has been signed and passed by Democrats.

The machinegun ban of 1986 was Democrat authored.

FFA of 1938- Democrat
NFA of 1934- Democrat
GCA of 1968- Democrat
RFOPSA of 1994- Democrat

See the trend?

Poppy Bush in 1989 used a DEMOCRAT AUTHORED AND PASSED provision in the law to prod the BATF to ban certain semi automatic rifles.

August 6, 2005, 03:12 PM
I'm saying aren't the so called pro gun people in control of both houses? Guess doing that you think they are looking out for your interest. Guess I don't see it that way

August 6, 2005, 03:39 PM
Guess I don't see it that way
You don't see anything Bush and the republicans as right, so that's no suprise.

This legislation is a major win for gun owners and the RKBA, for which we should be mighty grateful to the republicans for delivering, over the best efforts of the democrats to stop. Their efforts to destroy the gun culture in America by ruining manufacturers and drying up the supply of firearms is now over.

The added amendments are so minor as to be almost not worth discussing. Funny how the Bush-bashers feel the need to blow them way out of any proportion to steal credit where the credit is clearly due.

August 6, 2005, 04:08 PM
I like JPFO. I'm not a member but my names scrolls by at the end of "Innocents Betrayed". Nevertheless, I can't get excited about the worries.

It's interesting that another pro RKBA group feels compelled to email me a counterpoint. Anybody that wants to fret is encouraged to do so, but I'm taking a pass.

From Fifty Cal Inst:
It has come to my attention that some well-meaning pro-gun activists have expressed concern about an amendment on armor-piercing ammunition that was added to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act S. 397 during consideration of the measure on the Senate floor.

Those concerns are unwarranted and many of the assumptions and interpretations concerning that provision are just plain wrong.
Here's what the amendment does:

1. The amendment (section 6 of the bill) restates the existing prohibition contained in 18 USC Sec. 922(a) on manufacture or sale by manufacturers of "armor-piercing ammunition", except for government use, export or testing/experimentation authorized by the attorney general.

This law has been in effect for nearly two decades and was not changed by the Sec. 6 amendment.

2. It increases the mandatory minimum sentence for the criminal use of "armor-piercing ammunition" in a crime of violence or drug trafficking case from the current federal minimum of five years in prison to an increased penalty of 15 years in prison. It also authorizes the use of the death penalty if the ammunition is used in a murder. So, this is simply a penalty enhancement provision. I think we all agree that bad guys should go to jail.

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

Here's what the amendment does not do:

1. The amendment does not give the Attorney General - or anyone else - any new authority to ban ammunition.

2. The amendment does not change the definition of "armor-piercing ammunition" under federal law. Under the current federal 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 is made "entirely" from certain hard materials 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 total weight of the projectile. The current definition has been in place for more than 12 years and this amendment does not change that definition.

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

Republican sellout or JPFO over reaction? Read both opinions, read whatever else you can find, research the matter then decide.

August 6, 2005, 05:32 PM
I have no respect on either side that hypes and misinforms to gain support.

August 7, 2005, 10:28 AM
If they are so minor why put them in? GOA isn't to happy about it. Say by the way Rebar pick up the new issue of Guns And Ammo see what they have so say about the freedoms before King put in the Patroit Act. See the issue before were it tells you about the Kings office doesn't even have the courtesy to call them and answer some questions about National Park Carry

August 7, 2005, 11:28 AM
Um, which King are you talking about? We have a President.


August 7, 2005, 11:32 AM
I liked this thread better when it was called JFPO Warning about S397 (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=150183). Search is your friend.

If you enjoyed reading about "S397 another Republican sell out?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!