FactCheck blew it. They claim
Ignored both by Craig and the NRA, however, is the plain language of the amendment itself, which referred to ammunition that could penetrate body armor and is designed or sold as "armor piercing." Both conditions would have had to apply for the ammunition to fall under the proposed ban.
But guess what; the amendment didn't say "and." It said "OR."
I sent the following letter to '
[email protected]' (formatted text in the email; I apologize for the lack of format here). Thanks to a previous poster in this thread who put the idea in my head.
'
[email protected]'
I was surprised to find a rather glaring error in the article
http://www.factcheck.org/article296.html. The article states that
"Ignored both by Craig and the NRA, however, is the plain language of the amendment itself, which referred to ammunition that could penetrate body armor and is designed or sold as "armor piercing." Both conditions would have had to apply for the ammunition to fall under the proposed ban."
But in the language of the bill in the sidebar at the left (and verified by a look at thomas.loc.gov), the conjunction at the end of paragraph (iii) is clearly "or",
not "and." This means that if ammunition meets the criteria of either paragraph (iii) OR (iv), it can be banned at the Attorney General's discretion.
Paragraph (iii) bans a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor.
So there are only two criteria to meet before ammunition can be banned:
(1) it can be used in a handgun, and
(2) it can penetrate body armor.
The firearm in the following link is a moderately common hunting handgun: (
http://www.tcarms.com/encpistol/index.php). Therefore, any ammunition that can be used in this firearm meets criteria (1) above, including such common rifle calibers as .223 Remington, .45-70, .22-250, .243, .25-06, .270 Winchester, 7mm-08, .30-30 Winchester, .308 Winchester, .30-06, and .450 Marlin.
Every single cartridge I have listed will penetrate level II or IIIA body armor--the kind most police officers wear--as if it's not there, thereby satisfying criteria (2).*
So, ipso facto, any of the above calibers can be banned by paragraph (iii), and there is no legal reason why an Attorney General could not declare any of the above calibers "armor piercing," based on a close reading of the amendment. Doing so would be politically unwise, but it would indeed be fully authorized by the text of the proposed amendment.
It is unclear whether Senator Kennedy meant to give the Attorney General such broad powers; he summarizes the bill as excluding hunting rifles, but the only rifle caliber he mentions in the floor debate that is not already covered by the 1986 construction-based standard** is the .30-30 Winchester, a relatively low-powered deer hunting cartridge dating from the late 1800's and typically chambered in lever-action "cowboy style" rifles.
BTW, I am not in any way a professional spokesperson on this issue, just a gun enthusiast who has been following the issue for some time.
Thank you for your time, and I would welcome further correspondence on this issue if you wish.
[benEzra]
*Concealable body armor is designed to stop the most common handgun rounds, not rifle rounds; Mach 1.4 is a very high velocity for a handgun bullet, whereas Mach 3 is not unusually high for a rifle bullet, and some hunting rifles are capable of throwing a projectile at Mach 4. To stop rifle rounds, Level IV armor is ordinarily required, though a level III (not IIIA) vest will suffice for some relatively low-powered rifle rounds like 7.62x39.
**Per a 1994 BATF administrative ruling, .223 Remington, 7.62x39mm (.30 Russian Short), and .308 Winchester are subject to the same construction-based design standards as handgun rounds, under the 1986 law prohibiting steel- or tungsten-core handgun bullets.
