Congress Passes "Gun Industry Shield"

[TexasRifleman]

Why have any anti-gun BS in it at all?

I agree it would be nice to have passed a clean version, but you have to remember that not all folks in Congress with an R behind their name are really Republicans. Some are on the fence, with on the fence voters.

At least the provisions here don't seem to have any real impact.

The AP thing just changes some of the penalties, no new law really.

The lock thing seems to be a moot point, every new firearm I've purchased in the last few years came with a lock. So many states already require locks that the manufacturers have been including them anyway.

So yes, it could be better, but it's certainly not as bad as could have been.
We all remember being thrown under the bus in 1985 on the MG last minute midnight dirty dealings.

 

[Kharn]

Are Congressional Findings admissable in court?

Kharn

 

[Dan from MI]

Glad to see it passed. It's not perfect, but we gain much more than we lose here.

 

[Standing Wolf]

At least the provisions here don't seem to have any real impact.

I'd be extremely cautious about betting the family farm on that statement. What's to prevent the leftist extremists from turning the so-called "study" into a de facto prohibition with the B.A.T.F.E.'s connivance? What's to keep the leftist extremists from starting with so-called "safety locks" and ending up with a requirement that every firearm owner carry $10,000,000.00 in insurance on every firearm?

We can tell ourselves it's only the camel's nose in the tent, but...

 

[moorerwc]

Did nobody notice the civil liability provision for gunowners who don't use a gun lock?
This looks like the most onerous section of the law, along with the fear of what a Reno-esque AG would do with the AP ammo "study".

-Chad

 

[Ironbarr]

Fletcher:
The AP ammo amendment was just restating current US law (with more severe penalties for using AP during crime) and requiring the DOJ to do an AP study (which the NIJ branch of the DOJ has been doing since the early 1970s), the ban is not expanded, no new ammo has been banned.

Kharn

What happens when another administration decides it doesn't like the "study" in progress and uses this (latest) act to start a new one - with tighter restrictions??

I can see, down the not-so-distant road, where if the testing was purposely done on an early-model "armor" protective device (even if only quantity one was in service "somewhere") and the protective device was defeated by some minimum load (can we say .22-Short?), that all ammo stronger than .22-CB is banned.

I suppose there is a firm, set-in-concrete, definition of "armor piercing" - though I haven't read it.

Sorry, I call this bill "irregular" and fraught with a danger/damage potential for Second Amendment hopes. Face it, it should have been the House version - or the original Senate version S-397 PCS. IMO tagging these amendments on (and we thought they'd be stripped in conference) makes the bill a ticking bomb.

We just didn't generate enough "squeaky wheel"... again.

BTW: GOA was, AFAIK, the only group championing the House version - even through last night's push for Reps to kill S397 and send theirs to the Senate.

-AndyB

 

[Werewolf]

This:

`(B) PROSPECTIVE ACTIONS- A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court. Emphasis mine

Appears to be in clear violation of this:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Fodder for the Brady Bunch I'm sure.

Even though the 10th has been pretty much ignored since 1787 or so...

 

[RealGun]

Insurance companies can pick up the trigger lock deal. Didn't use a lock? No liability coverage. Policy cancelled. Disincentive to own guns.

 

[alan]

House passed S. 397, bill goes to president
That is essentially what I've read in a Citizens Committee Press Release, as well as hearing in a couple of news broadcasts.

According to the latter, House leadership acted to block amendments to the legislation, the nature of these amendments and or by whom they were offered was unstated.

Mention was made of the possibility of legal action to block or overturn this legislation, by anti gun interests. Who knows what the outcome of such action might be.

It does appear that our side has won one, possibly a big one, though questions have been raised about a couple of amendments that were attached in The Senate, one of them by Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, dealing with gun safety locks. Looking at the way legislation gets to be "interpreted", some might describe it as "twisted", this gun locks business is something that we need to keep our eyes on.

On the whole however, it looks like The Good Guys have won one. Some thank you calls and or e-mails to House Members who supported passage might well be appropriate.

 

[alan]

Werewolf:

Respecting your reference to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, and your observation regarding S.397 being violative thereof, this being "fodder for The Brady Group", possibly so, however respecting the Tenth amendment, and things that are or might be violative thereof, what about the several federal laws that address firearms, being sometimes known as gun control laws.

I know that The Constitution vests with The Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce as well as the power to raise revenue, this last being the legal hook on which the 1934 Act was hung, there are other theories related to that construction, however that holding has always struck me as more than a little strained, especially looking at the era or time in which the law was passed, and the level of taxation imposed.

Re the 10th, as you noted, it's been a very long time since it was much looked at, isn't it?

 

[enfield]

Quick - I need to invest in whatever company makes the cheapest trigger locks! We're all going to own a sh*tload of them.

 

[UnknownSailor]

Quick - I need to invest in whatever company makes the cheapest trigger locks! We're all going to own a sh*tload of them.

I've already got 5 of them, from my more recent purchases. I couldn't possibly use them all.

 

[kbheiner7]

The NRA will no doubt claim this as a great victory and never mention the potential nightmare this legislation opens the door for. Looked like good news to start with, but upon closer inspection is another inroad to raping American liberty.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

SEC. 6. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

(a) Unlawful Acts- Section 922(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraphs (7) and (8) and inserting the following:

`(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, unless--

`(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

`(B) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the purpose of exportation; or

`(C) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;

`(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, unless such sale or delivery--

`(A) is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

`(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or

`(C) is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;'.

Ummm ... does this mean we can't buy mil-surp M855/SS109 5.56 ammo with the penetrator tip? It certainly would appear to prohibit same, since the purpose of the penetrator tip is to ... penetrate.

 

[Mulliga]

I agree that the lock amendment is troubling (mostly because if you use a lock, you are exempt from lawsuits against you, implying that if you do not, people can sue away), but some of the stuff I've seen written about the AP ammo study is pretty far-out - it's not a backdoor ban on rifle ammo, it's just a study.

 

[GunGoBoom]

Remember that the "Pro-Gun" Republicans passed this bill with the AP ban clauses in it, when they control the House, Senate AND Presidency!...with enough votes to stop a filibuster!

Why have any anti-gun BS in it at all?

+1.

This is utterly absurd if you think about it. The preamble findings say that the 2A says what it says, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Then they amend, thereby extending, the unconstitutional ban on certain types of effective homeland defense ammo, and authorize a study that may very well be used as the justification for further bans! I guess they figure the 2A says nothing about the right to keep and bear ammo. Another huge question: Why in the name of holy hell is the ATTORNEY GENERAL's office the one who is to do the researching? The purpose of that office is to interpret (to some extent) and enforce the laws, not to research bases for policy decisions. They're confusing enforcement with policy-making functions - mission creep and featherbedding the budget of the AG. The trigger lock thing I don't mind, cuz you can throw it in the trash if you wish. But the "AP" ammo thing is blatently unconstitutional AND highly illogical in that selective enforcement MUST be followed or else everyone with a bottle-necked-round Contender/Encore barrel would be doing extended vacations on the gov'ts dollar. Makes no sense whatsoever to me. (and if it's not obvious, selective enforcement scenarios are inherently quite a bad thing, because they can and will obviously lead to abuse of discretion on the part of the LEOAs & DAs offices).

 

[RealGun]

Quick - I need to invest in whatever company makes the cheapest trigger locks! We're all going to own a sh*tload of them.

It would be something in Chinese that you couldn't pronounce.

 

[Vex]

Economics?

I wonder if we will see a decline in prices of firearms. No more lawsuits and no more rediculous jury awards equals more money for the manufacturers, right?

 

[joab]

I suppose there is a firm, set-in-concrete, definition of "armor piercing" - though I haven't read it

.
Is the purpose of the study to redefine armor piecing ammo?

Who will be the one to determine the new definition?

Hopefully it wont be anybody Kennedyesq or we will be hunting with slingshots

 

[Kharn]

Hawkmoon:

Ummm ... does this mean we can't buy mil-surp M855/SS109 5.56 ammo with the penetrator tip? It certainly would appear to prohibit same, since the purpose of the penetrator tip is to ... penetrate.

AP ammo is strictly defined in federal law (that section is the same exact wording as before, but with harsher penalties, no new ammo has been banned with this bill), M855/SS109 and M2 .30-06 AP are specifically exempted by name.

Kharn

 

[pcf]

Remember that the "Pro-Gun" Republicans passed this bill with the AP ban clauses in it, when they control the House, Senate AND Presidency!...with enough votes to stop a filibuster!
Why have any anti-gun BS in it at all?

Unfortunately Republicans nor gun owners have enough votes to stop a filibuster.

To end a filibuster, a petition of cloture has to be signed by 16 Senators and introduced. The petition then sits for one business day. The petition is then voted on and must be passed by 60 votes (3/5th majority).

Once passed there are limited rules on debate.

Wishful thinking, but there's no way to break a filibuster against progun legislation.

What happens when another administration decides it doesn't like the "study" in progress and uses this (latest) act to start a new one - with tighter restrictions??

If it so pleases the President, he doesn't have to get approval from Congress to have an ammunition study performed. The DOJ and NIJ fall under the executive branch, so does the BATF. Who needs Congress?

The ammunition amendment to S.397 doesn't do anything new in regards to ammunition. There has been no change to the definition of armor piercing ammunition. And at the expense of several million tax-payer dollars, we will discover that the NIJ has an expansive system in place to test the ability of firearm projectiles to penetrate armor.

 

[enfield]

We have a mandatory trigger lock law in Michigan, but we (the peasants/commoners) got the best of the deal. We have to get a trigger lock with every gun purchase. With that done, we get a presumption that the trigger lock was used in storage of the gun. As I understand it, we are practically, if not totally, immune from charges that our gun was not properly stored; therefore the felon that breaks into our home, steals it and uses it in a homicide is totally responsible for the misuse of the gun and the owner is not culpable.

Also, if you keep a receipt in your purse/wallet showing that you already own a trigger lock, you don't have to buy new ones with every gun purchase.

 

[SIGarmed]

Fletcher:
The AP ammo amendment was just restating current US law (with more severe penalties for using AP during crime) and requiring the DOJ to do an AP study (which the NIJ branch of the DOJ has been doing since the early 1970s), the ban is not expanded, no new ammo has been banned.

Kharn

Am I wrong or isn't the current law relating to handguns? This bill does not exclude rifle ammunition.

 

[Steam dragon]

And further fall out was found at Of Arms and the Law

Congress may decide in conference to ease District of Columbia gun restrictions (H.R. 3058). The House will vote Wednesday on shielding gunmakers from liability suits (S. 397). And last year, Congress let the assault weapons ban (P.L. 103-322) expire.

It's enough to make a gun-control advocate quit.

"It's not an easy job to get up every day and duke it out with the gun lobby," Michael Barnes, president and CEO of the Brady Campaign and Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said Tuesday, "but it's very important."

Barnes resigned this week.

Hey, Mr. Barnes....

Sucks to be you, Eh?

 

[boofus]

The definition of ap ammo is at 18 USC 921(a)(17):
"(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 Secretary finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting
purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Secretary
finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge
used in an oil and gas well perforating device."