1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

S397 another Republican sell out?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by lostone1413, Aug 6, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lostone1413

    lostone1413 Member

    Jan 13, 2004
    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
  2. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Senior Member

    Mar 1, 2004
    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.
  3. lostone1413

    lostone1413 Member

    Jan 13, 2004
    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
  4. Rebar

    Rebar member

    Feb 20, 2003
    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.
  5. Hawk

    Hawk Senior Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    Grand Prairie, TX
    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:
    Republican sellout or JPFO over reaction? Read both opinions, read whatever else you can find, research the matter then decide.
  6. jefnvk

    jefnvk Senior Member

    Jun 3, 2004
    The Copper Country, Michigan
    I have no respect on either side that hypes and misinforms to gain support.
  7. lostone1413

    lostone1413 Member

    Jan 13, 2004
    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
  8. Kharn

    Kharn Senior Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    Um, which King are you talking about? We have a President.

  9. Beren

    Beren Moderator Emeritus

    Dec 30, 2002
    Pittsburgh, PA
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page