New "Armor Piercing" Ammo Legislation Being Considered


PDA






Torian
July 2, 2013, 12:53 PM
The teflon-coated bullet quote I have bolded in the paragraph tells you everything you need to know and worry about in this worthless AND dangerous piece of legislation.

Tucson Gun Rights Examiner Chris Woodard alerted readers Friday to some of the most recently introduced federal gun bills (both anti-rights and pro-rights). In fact, his Constitution Watch blog is a great resource for keeping current on pending federal gun legislation. Today, we will focus on Representative Jackie Speier's (D-CA) H.R. 2566, the "Modernized Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 2013."
Related topics

gun rights
'Cop Killer' bullets
50 caliber
body armor

The text is not yet available, so the look will necessarily be somewhat cursory, but there are some assumptions that are probably safe to make.

For one thing, we can almost certainly assume that by "armor piercing," Rep. Speier means that the ammunition is capable of defeating soft body armor, like that worn by cops on the beat, rather than the much heavier and bulkier rigid body armor worn by combat troops and S.W.A.T. team personnel. To be considered "armor piercing," in other words, the ammunition would need only, at most, to defeat Level IIIa armor (if Speier lowers the standard below that, even more ammunition would be banned). In fact, Speier makes that pretty clear in her press release, which talks about "first responders," rather than soldiers:

“It’s been 27 years since Congress acted to protect law enforcement personnel from so-called “cop-killer” bullets. Our first responders are at a greater disadvantage today than they were decades ago. If they are going to put themselves in the line of fire in our communities and neighborhoods, we owe it to them to update existing laws and get with the times.”

This is significant because soft body armor is not intended to be capable of stopping most centerfire rifle fire. In other words, if all ammunition with the ability to defeat typical police body armor is to be considered "armor piercing," and thus illegal, nearly all centerfire rifle ammunition would be banned.

But it's worse than that, because for nearly every rifle cartridge, someone has built a handgun to fire it, such as the handgun pictured above, chambered for the .50 BMG, already demonized for its power and armor-defeating prowess (New York's new "SAFE Act" bans the .50 BMG, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is expected to sign into law a bill banning the .50 BMG any day now).

This is how legislation proposed by the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) would have threatened the legality of all centerfire rifle ammunition--legislation supported by then-Senator Barack Obama, whose Attorney General Eric Holder has openly advocated "armor piercing" ammo bans (under the Kennedy legislation, incidentally, it is the Attorney General who would determine whether or not handgun ammunition is "armor piercing," and even which rifle ammunition had a more than "standard" ability to defeat armor, and would thus be subject to banning, even if no handgun were chambered for it).

Speier's press release also resurrected the tired old myth of the supposed armor-piercing qualities of Teflon-coated bullets:

Because of significant developments in bullet propellants, coatings and materials, such as Teflon, the original Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986 is outdated.

Respected attorney and Second Amendment scholar Dave Kopel soundly debunked this notion nearly a decade ago, explaining that the Teflon coating did nothing to enhance a bullet's ability to defeat armor, but only served to protect the rifling in the barrel from damage caused by extremely hard and dense tungsten bullets. It is the tungsten that provides the bullet with the ability to penetrate armor, and federal law bans tungsten handgun bullets (the "mere metallurgical content" standard that Speier says is inadequate).

More fundamentally, of course, why shouldn't private citizens be permitted the ability to defend themselves from armored assailants? A growing number of killers wear body armor, thus extending the amount of time available to kill--and no--the solution is not to impose "body armor control."

More fundamentally even than that, though, is that even if it were true that only the government's hired guns had access to armor, the entire purpose of the Second Amendment would be defeated by laws that made effective resistance against them impossible.

If oath-breaking cops choose to enforce tyrannical evil, "cop killer" bullets are just what we the people will need.

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-armor-piercing-ammo-legislation-might-outlaw-nearly-all-rifle-ammunition

If you enjoyed reading about "New "Armor Piercing" Ammo Legislation Being Considered" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
316SS
July 2, 2013, 02:07 PM
Because of significant developments in bullet propellants, coatings and materials, such as Teflon, the original Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986 is outdated.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon)
PTFE was accidentally discovered in 1938 ...


They don't even bother to make their lies remotely plausible.

Edit: "Cop killer bullets" were developed by law enforcement and began production in the 1960s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon-coated_bullet

dogtown tom
July 2, 2013, 02:20 PM
Torian The teflon-coated bullet quote I have bolded in the paragraph tells you everything you need to know and worry about in this worthless AND dangerous piece of legislation.


Quote:
Tucson Gun Rights Examiner Chris Woodard .....The text is not yet available, so the look will necessarily be somewhat cursory, but there are some assumptions that are probably safe to make.
Amazing.
The writer has not read the actual legislation?

Why would you post a link to such nonsense?

Torian
July 2, 2013, 02:38 PM
Amazing.
The writer has not read the actual legislation?

Why would you post a link to such nonsense?
Perhaps because the sponsor of the bill has already put out a press release on the legislation, which gives insight into her understanding, or lack thereof, of 2nd amendment issues. If she is directly involved in writing the text of the bill, it is helpful to understand her mindset and rationale.

If you think we are going to have time to act once the text is finally released, you might want to ask Nancy Pelosi how much time she thinks Congress needs to read a bill before they vote on it, or whether they even need to read it to vote on it for that matter.

Anytime we analyze what a politician says in regards to 2nd amendment rights, it is not a wasted effort, nor is it "nonsense" as you say. Once the actual text of the bill is posted, I will link it on this thread.

Apuuli
July 2, 2013, 04:03 PM
Just to be clear, Pelosi was talking about the Senate needing to vote on and pass a bill before the specific contents of the bill would be set and final. Until a bill is passed, it is still changeable and therefore no one can say what will be or won't be in the final version. Until it's passed by the Senate, there's little point in discussing the differences between the House's version and the Senate's version. The text of the original bill was LONG available when she spoke those words, in spite of what the internet will tell you.

Torian
July 2, 2013, 04:27 PM
Just to be clear, Pelosi was talking about the Senate needing to vote on and pass a bill before the specific contents of the bill would be set and final. Until a bill is passed, it is still changeable and therefore no one can say what will be or won't be in the final version. Until it's passed by the Senate, there's little point in discussing the differences between the House's version and the Senate's version. The text of the original bill was LONG available when she spoke those words, in spite of what the internet will tell you.

The idea that you can't or shouldn't discuss the implications of what you are voting on, until you've already voted to pass it to the House, is an absurdity pushed by career, multi-term politicians (from both sides) who've forgotten why they are there, and who they serve / represent. I expect politicians to do their job, not do what is easier or more convenient for them.

That said, I'd prefer to not go down the Obamacare route, and keep this focused on 2nd amendment issues.

I regret even bringing it up dangnabit! :)

guyfromohio
July 2, 2013, 04:29 PM
Well crap... Just when I was going to start reloading Teflon.

dogtown tom
July 2, 2013, 05:40 PM
Torian Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom
Amazing.
The writer has not read the actual legislation?

Why would you post a link to such nonsense?

Perhaps because the sponsor of the bill has already put out a press release on the legislation, which gives insight into her understanding, or lack thereof, of 2nd amendment issues. If she is directly involved in writing the text of the bill, it is helpful to understand her mindset and rationale.

If you think we are going to have time to act once the text is finally released, you might want to ask Nancy Pelosi how much time she thinks Congress needs to read a bill before they vote on it, or whether they even need to read it to vote on it for that matter.

Anytime we analyze what a politician says in regards to 2nd amendment rights, it is not a wasted effort, nor is it "nonsense" as you say. Once the actual text of the bill is posted, I will link it on this thread.
No sir, its complete nonsense to get folks wound up over a press release on mystery "legislation".

Even now there are hundreds of nutjobs writing and posting about all the secret anti gun legislation embeded in Obamacare.......yet not one has been able to provide a citation.

The "article" and "writer" you quote and link to makes no attempt to report facts.........he invents his own. This taints (if not absolutely destroys) the credibility of that writer.

Legislation isn't secret. Once filed, its a matter of public record.

Apuuli
July 2, 2013, 05:52 PM
The idea that you can't or shouldn't discuss the implications of what you are voting on, until you've already voted to pass it to the House, is an absurdity pushed by career, multi-term politicians (from both sides) who've forgotten why they are there, and who they serve / represent. I expect politicians to do their job, not do what is easier or more convenient for them.

That said, I'd prefer to not go down the Obamacare route, and keep this focused on 2nd amendment issues.

I regret even bringing it up dangnabit! :)

Pelosi, the then Speaker of the House, was not saying senators shouldn't discuss the bill or its implications before voting on the bill, she was not addressing the Senate. She was saying that it's better to wait for the Senate's bill to be passed in its final form before the American people in general started debating the specifics.

This was in response to political games concerning what was in the bill that encouraged strong visceral reactions to the bill in its entirety based on wild stories and misrepresentations of specifics that were never in any version of the bill or might not be in the final bill. She was essentially saying that it's best to discuss things when all the information is in rather than on speculation.

However, I do agree that we should get off healthcare and stick to more appropriate subjects! :)

Torian
July 2, 2013, 06:34 PM
Dogtown tom: this is her press release posted by her office...I have no idea what you are getting worked up about, nor did anyone bring up conspiracy theories about antigun legislation in Obamacare. The article I originally linked was based on it...and here is:

http://speier.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1105:congresswoman-jackie-speier-introduces-two-gun-safety-bills-including-the-child-handgun-safety-act-&catid=1:press-releases&Itemid=14

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) introduced two bills aimed at reducing gun violence and increasing firearm safety. One of the bills calls for safety modifications in handguns to guard against incidents among children. This past weekend, another child death occurred, as a 5-year old girl in New Orleans accidentally shot and killed herself with a .38 caliber revolver.

Speier stated: “Each year, we are saddened by unspeakable tragedies involving guns and children. Yet, a majority of gun deaths involving children are preventable at the point of manufacturing. More than half of child deaths from guns result from accidents or failure to secure guns in the home. In the past, we have taken similar safety measures with products such as butane lighters and prescription drug bottles. It’s inexcusable we haven’t done the same with deadly weapons. We have an urgent responsibility to prevent these tragic deaths through smart, more effective handgun policies.”

In particular, the Child Handgun Safety Act would require that all handguns manufactured, sold in, or imported into the United States to incorporate technology that precludes the average 5-year-old child from operating a handgun when it is ready to fire. The Act would also require any handgun sold, offered for sale, traded, transferred, shipped, leased, or distributed in the U.S. two years after enactment to be child-resistant or retrofitted with a child-resistant mechanism. The Child Handgun Safety Act is supported by the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center.

June 14th marked the six-month anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in Newtown, Conn., which took the lives of 20 first-grade children and six adults. Despite calls for reevaluating how we ensure the well-being of Americans of all ages, no significant gun safety or protection legislation has been passed since that national tragedy. In that time, 73 more children aged 12 and under have been killed by guns. Of those 71 deaths, 40 were due to accidental shootings – 29 of which involved a teen or child aged 17 or younger pulling the trigger. In just the past two months, six horrific accidental shootings involving children aged 5 and under have lent grim urgency to this issue:

Corsicana, TX, a 3-year-old boy died after a self-inflicted shooting with a handgun inside a bedroom in his home, striking himself in the head.

Tampa, FL, A 3-year-old boy who found a gun in his uncle’s backpack shot himself and died.

Greenville County, SC, A 2-year-old child reached into his father’s pocket, grabbed a gun and shot himself at his grandparents’ home.

Brighton, AL, a 4-year-old shot 4-year-old cousin with .38 Special pistol left on a bed.

Lebanon, TN, a 4-year-old boy shot the wife of a sheriff with a pistol.

Liberty, MI, the 3-year old son of a Jackson County Sheriff’s Office deputy, accidentally shot and killed himself with his father’s weapon.

Congresswoman Speier also introduced the Modernized Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 2013, which would require the Attorney General to modify the definition of armor-piercing ammunition to conform to the performance of the bullet, rather than mere metallurgical content. Because of significant developments in bullet propellants, coatings and materials, such as Teflon, the original Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986 is outdated. As a result, the marketplace has been flooded by growing volumes of ammunition that are fully capable of piercing body armor while skirting the definition of the 1986 ban.

“It’s been 27 years since Congress acted to protect law enforcement personnel from so-called “cop-killer” bullets. Our first responders are at a greater disadvantage today than they were decades ago. If they are going to put themselves in the line of fire in our communities and neighborhoods, we owe it to them to update existing laws and get with the times.”

Seems pretty clear to me what the intent is of this bill...a very dangerous infringement on 2nd amendments rights. Almost every high velocity rifle round with a FMJ profile is capable of defeating some level of body armor, whether it is steel core or not. There is no mystery to be had, unless the press release is outright deception. Let's assume, for the sake of giving her the benefit of the doubt, that she is being honest about the bill and her intentions.

I hope we are done talking about Obamacare, conspiracy theories, and nutjobs. I'd like to stay on topic!

Frank Ettin
July 2, 2013, 08:08 PM
Unless/until the bill is actually introduced and the actual text is available, this is all idle speculation. And a bill being introduced is a still a long way from being enacted.

It's pretty much a waste of time to discuss a self-serving, attention grabbing press release.

When there's a bill in play it might be useful to discuss its exact terms and the political maneuvering as it works its way through the process.

If you enjoyed reading about "New "Armor Piercing" Ammo Legislation Being Considered" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!