cracked butt
Member
That was Senator Kohl's doing. He had to take care of his bigwig contributors from Master Lock, and of course the companies outsourced workers in China too.
Congress Passes "Gun Industry Shield"
- Thread starter fletcher
- Start date
- Status
That was Senator Kohl's doing. He had to take care of his bigwig contributors from Master Lock, and of course the companies outsourced workers in China too.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
I don't think we should underestimate the potent juju in the findings and purposes segment.
They very cleanly decapitate every unconstitutional circuit and state supreme court holding that obstructs the People from fuller excercise of the fundamental right to be armed. (That I can think of offhand, anyway)
Mark my words.
This may well be the turning point in the war for RKBA.
They very cleanly decapitate every unconstitutional circuit and state supreme court holding that obstructs the People from fuller excercise of the fundamental right to be armed. (That I can think of offhand, anyway)
Mark my words.
This may well be the turning point in the war for RKBA.
Live Free Or Die
Member
geekWithA.45 said:
I like what I read in the findings and purposes section. But how can this be used to our advantage? In what venue would it be appropriate, useful, or even meaningful to cite these findings and purposes in order to advance a pro-RKBA cause?
jmtgsx
Member
geekWithA.45 said:
Words so marked, geek. Let's hope so.
D
DanS
Guest
I still think we got screwed.
"I didn't write this I just copied and pasted."
Wrap Up On New Gun Control Bill.
Senate Bill 397 has now passed both the US Senate and the House of Representatives.
As you probably know, the National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation/ Citizens Committee to Keep and Bear Arms, were relentless in their support of this bill. If you receive alerts from these organizations, you know that they were adamant that the bill be passed in the House, in the form it was agreed to in the Senate.
These organizations were determined, for whatever reason, to make sure that the gun control provisions that were added in the Senate were KEPT in the bill and NOT removed.
Gun Owners of America was the only national organization to oppose the bill because of the new gun control provisions included.
If the President signs the bill, which we assume he will, you will now be required to purchase a trigger lock with every handgun you buy.
The supporters of the bill have insisted this is "no big deal." In fact, this is a very big deal and a slap in the face to every responsible gun owner in America.
Let's can the nonsense and be real for just a minute here. Does anyone think that an irresponsible person will suddenly change his ways because a cheap trigger lock came with his gun? Of course not. So what purpose does this part of the law serve?
Well it served to get the NRA to continue to support the bill and demand that the bill be passed with that provision included.
There was an alternative bill that DID NOT have that provision, but NRA insisted that their members support the version with gun control in it.
What are the practical ramifications of this?
They are pretty clear. As a result of the lobbying for this bill, the NRA has stated very clearly that trigger locks are not only acceptable, but are a "good idea."
Here's the problem. The bill does not mandate that the trigger locks be used. But there can be no rational reason to promote something if it is not intended to be used. It simply makes no sense.
When Hillary Clinton or Chuck Schumer, or Diane Feinstein or any of the other anti-gun nuts introduce legislation to make their use mandatory, how exactly will all the "pro-gun" organizations who demanded this law argue against it? The "gun lobby" has signed off on trigger locks, how can they then claim they should not be used?
The bill contains this interesting language:
"(3) LIABILITY FOR USE-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a qualified civil liability action."
So, do you really believe you WON'T be subject civil liability if you DON'T lock up your guns?
There are countless prosecutors out there just dying to hang any rap on gun owners that they can. This provision is an open invitation to do just that.
Let's see what happens if a dealer forgets to sell you what may be an entirely unnecessary lock. The rules about that follow:
"(Sec. 5) Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 - Prohibits the sale, delivery, or transfer by a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer of a handgun to any person other than a person with a firearms license unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device. Lists exceptions, including for U.S. and state agencies and for law enforcement. Grants immunity from a qualified civil liability action for a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device. Establishes as penalties for violations: (1) license revocation or suspension for up to six months; or (2) a civil penalty of up to $2,500."
Given the NRA's ferocious desire to see "all gun" laws enforced, this is not really a good thing for the dealers they claimed to be trying to help.
No, what we have here is simply more rules, more restrictions and more opportunities for gun owners and dealers to run afoul of the thousands of ridiculous laws that serve no purpose other than to harass us.
Why are the people who claim to be protecting your rights so eager to make these deals?
We now have a Republican controlled House, a Republican controlled Senate and a Republican controlled White House. For all the years the anti-gun Democrats were in charge, we were told, "Elect Republicans and your gun rights will be restored." What happened?
There was a great, clean, gun maker's protection bill in the House, HR 800. But it was not even considered.
We gave them the control they asked for, and now we have more anti-gun rules.
Do you really feel you need the government to tell you have to safely handle guns?
Do you know that the government is exempted from the trigger lock rule? Why is that?
"(2) EXCEPTIONS- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
`(A)(i) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the United States, a department or agency of the United States, a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or
`(ii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off duty); or
`(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);
"
If trigger locks are so important, why does the government exempt its agencies from their acquisition? What magical powers do these people have that you lack?
We have been sold out once again.
As we stated in a previous e-mail, Joe Waldron, the executive director of Citizens Committee to Keep and Bear Arms, is telling people that "politics is compromise."
Who authorized anyone to "compromise" something that belongs to you?
Did you make that deal? And exactly what did you agree to give up?
For too long, gun owners have been force fed the line that they have to give something up to keep something else. Why? Rights are rights. Why should you have to give up any of them to keep any others?
When a thief breaks in and steals your TV and your DVD player and you catch him and he offers to simply steal your TV and leave your DVD player, that's not a "compromise."
There is simply NO reason that a clean bill could not have passed except for the demands of the NRA.
The militant anti-gun "Violence Policy Center" had this to say about the success of S 397 and the failure of the clean bill HR 800
"The bill was not as bad as the gun lobby wanted it to be, however. The bill passed by the House last Congress did not contain the gun control measures included in S. 397: a requirement that gun dealers provide a child safety lock when they sell a handgun; and, a provision requiring a study that may ultimately lead to a strengthening and expansion of the federal ban on armor-piercing ammunition."
<http://www.vpc.org/press/0510pass.htm>
So the anti-gun nuts are cheering because the NRA insisted on passing the version with gun control in it. That's just great isn't it? Note how happy they are about the possibility that the new bill "may ultimately lead to a strengthening and expansion of the federal ban on armor-piercing ammunition." That's funny, that's exactly what the NRA promised would never happen.
So now we have a new gun law that VPC has found reason to embrace, for all the reasons that the NRA told us we had nothing to worry about.
And as we told you in a previous alert, the fringe anti-gun group "Coalition To Stop Gun Violence" is confident that their lawsuits will go forward anyway. Part of their press release is copied below:
"The only good news is that many lawsuits against the firearms industry are likely to survive despite the NRA's ham-fisted attempt to protect gun sellers from the consequences of their own misconduct. We plan to move forward with our lawsuit against the gun makers and dealers involved in the sale of guns to Buford Furrow, the convicted felon, ex-mental patient, and white supremacist who went on a shooting rampage at a Jewish day care center near Los Angeles, and we believe nothing in the new gun industry immunity bill will prevent us from obtaining a judgment against these companies"
<http://www.csgv.org/>
Gun owners have been hosed again. And there was not a single reason for it. The people in control of Congress and the White House were supposed to be pro-gun. But even with all that control they refused to give us a clean bill, and they got tremendous political cover from the people who claim to speak for you.
This is a shame.
A roll call vote on the bill can be seen here:
<http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2005&rollnumber=534>
The bill can be viewed here: <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109soygoz::>
"I didn't write this I just copied and pasted."
Wrap Up On New Gun Control Bill.
Senate Bill 397 has now passed both the US Senate and the House of Representatives.
As you probably know, the National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation/ Citizens Committee to Keep and Bear Arms, were relentless in their support of this bill. If you receive alerts from these organizations, you know that they were adamant that the bill be passed in the House, in the form it was agreed to in the Senate.
These organizations were determined, for whatever reason, to make sure that the gun control provisions that were added in the Senate were KEPT in the bill and NOT removed.
Gun Owners of America was the only national organization to oppose the bill because of the new gun control provisions included.
If the President signs the bill, which we assume he will, you will now be required to purchase a trigger lock with every handgun you buy.
The supporters of the bill have insisted this is "no big deal." In fact, this is a very big deal and a slap in the face to every responsible gun owner in America.
Let's can the nonsense and be real for just a minute here. Does anyone think that an irresponsible person will suddenly change his ways because a cheap trigger lock came with his gun? Of course not. So what purpose does this part of the law serve?
Well it served to get the NRA to continue to support the bill and demand that the bill be passed with that provision included.
There was an alternative bill that DID NOT have that provision, but NRA insisted that their members support the version with gun control in it.
What are the practical ramifications of this?
They are pretty clear. As a result of the lobbying for this bill, the NRA has stated very clearly that trigger locks are not only acceptable, but are a "good idea."
Here's the problem. The bill does not mandate that the trigger locks be used. But there can be no rational reason to promote something if it is not intended to be used. It simply makes no sense.
When Hillary Clinton or Chuck Schumer, or Diane Feinstein or any of the other anti-gun nuts introduce legislation to make their use mandatory, how exactly will all the "pro-gun" organizations who demanded this law argue against it? The "gun lobby" has signed off on trigger locks, how can they then claim they should not be used?
The bill contains this interesting language:
"(3) LIABILITY FOR USE-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a qualified civil liability action."
So, do you really believe you WON'T be subject civil liability if you DON'T lock up your guns?
There are countless prosecutors out there just dying to hang any rap on gun owners that they can. This provision is an open invitation to do just that.
Let's see what happens if a dealer forgets to sell you what may be an entirely unnecessary lock. The rules about that follow:
"(Sec. 5) Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 - Prohibits the sale, delivery, or transfer by a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer of a handgun to any person other than a person with a firearms license unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device. Lists exceptions, including for U.S. and state agencies and for law enforcement. Grants immunity from a qualified civil liability action for a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device. Establishes as penalties for violations: (1) license revocation or suspension for up to six months; or (2) a civil penalty of up to $2,500."
Given the NRA's ferocious desire to see "all gun" laws enforced, this is not really a good thing for the dealers they claimed to be trying to help.
No, what we have here is simply more rules, more restrictions and more opportunities for gun owners and dealers to run afoul of the thousands of ridiculous laws that serve no purpose other than to harass us.
Why are the people who claim to be protecting your rights so eager to make these deals?
We now have a Republican controlled House, a Republican controlled Senate and a Republican controlled White House. For all the years the anti-gun Democrats were in charge, we were told, "Elect Republicans and your gun rights will be restored." What happened?
There was a great, clean, gun maker's protection bill in the House, HR 800. But it was not even considered.
We gave them the control they asked for, and now we have more anti-gun rules.
Do you really feel you need the government to tell you have to safely handle guns?
Do you know that the government is exempted from the trigger lock rule? Why is that?
"(2) EXCEPTIONS- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
`(A)(i) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the United States, a department or agency of the United States, a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or
`(ii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off duty); or
`(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);
"
If trigger locks are so important, why does the government exempt its agencies from their acquisition? What magical powers do these people have that you lack?
We have been sold out once again.
As we stated in a previous e-mail, Joe Waldron, the executive director of Citizens Committee to Keep and Bear Arms, is telling people that "politics is compromise."
Who authorized anyone to "compromise" something that belongs to you?
Did you make that deal? And exactly what did you agree to give up?
For too long, gun owners have been force fed the line that they have to give something up to keep something else. Why? Rights are rights. Why should you have to give up any of them to keep any others?
When a thief breaks in and steals your TV and your DVD player and you catch him and he offers to simply steal your TV and leave your DVD player, that's not a "compromise."
There is simply NO reason that a clean bill could not have passed except for the demands of the NRA.
The militant anti-gun "Violence Policy Center" had this to say about the success of S 397 and the failure of the clean bill HR 800
"The bill was not as bad as the gun lobby wanted it to be, however. The bill passed by the House last Congress did not contain the gun control measures included in S. 397: a requirement that gun dealers provide a child safety lock when they sell a handgun; and, a provision requiring a study that may ultimately lead to a strengthening and expansion of the federal ban on armor-piercing ammunition."
<http://www.vpc.org/press/0510pass.htm>
So the anti-gun nuts are cheering because the NRA insisted on passing the version with gun control in it. That's just great isn't it? Note how happy they are about the possibility that the new bill "may ultimately lead to a strengthening and expansion of the federal ban on armor-piercing ammunition." That's funny, that's exactly what the NRA promised would never happen.
So now we have a new gun law that VPC has found reason to embrace, for all the reasons that the NRA told us we had nothing to worry about.
And as we told you in a previous alert, the fringe anti-gun group "Coalition To Stop Gun Violence" is confident that their lawsuits will go forward anyway. Part of their press release is copied below:
"The only good news is that many lawsuits against the firearms industry are likely to survive despite the NRA's ham-fisted attempt to protect gun sellers from the consequences of their own misconduct. We plan to move forward with our lawsuit against the gun makers and dealers involved in the sale of guns to Buford Furrow, the convicted felon, ex-mental patient, and white supremacist who went on a shooting rampage at a Jewish day care center near Los Angeles, and we believe nothing in the new gun industry immunity bill will prevent us from obtaining a judgment against these companies"
<http://www.csgv.org/>
Gun owners have been hosed again. And there was not a single reason for it. The people in control of Congress and the White House were supposed to be pro-gun. But even with all that control they refused to give us a clean bill, and they got tremendous political cover from the people who claim to speak for you.
This is a shame.
A roll call vote on the bill can be seen here:
<http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2005&rollnumber=534>
The bill can be viewed here: <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109soygoz::>
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
JohnBT said:
Bushmaster paid off the victim's families. It was cheaper than a lawsuit.
Harry Tuttle
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,093
Mongol General: "What is best in life?"
CONGRESS IGNORES RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF GUN VIOLENCE
AND GRANTS GUN INDUSTRY SWEEPING LEGAL IMMUNITY
PRESIDENT BUSH URGED TO REJECT BILL
For Immediate Release:
10-20-2005
Contact Communications:
(202) 898-0792
Washington DC – The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence today said that the House of Representatives' passage of a bill taking away the rights of gun victims is a step backwards for a country founded on the rule of law. The bill has already been approved by the Senate, and if signed into law by President Bush, would essentially place the entire gun industry beyond the bounds of civil liability law.
"This is a tragic capitulation to the special interest gun lobby," said Brady Campaign President Michael Barnes. "It's yet another example of how much power a small group can wield behind closed doors."
Dennis Henigan, Director of the Brady Center's Legal Action Project, issued this statement: "The Congress can pass it. The President can sign it. But this shameful law will not stand. We will challenge the constitutionality of this special interest extravaganza in every court where the rights of gun violence victims are being threatened. This bill is an unprecedented attack on the due process rights of victims injured by the misconduct of an industry that seeks to escape the legal rules that govern the rest of us. We believe state and federal courts across this Nation are prepared to strike it down."
The New York Times earlier encouraged the President to consider the rights of people who have already lost too much to gun violence, instead of the financial concerns of a profitable industry. "Surely he would not compound the nation's gun scourge by signing the immunity bill," the Times said. The White House has previously stated its support for the bill.
# # #
As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, working with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, is devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.
CONGRESS IGNORES RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF GUN VIOLENCE
AND GRANTS GUN INDUSTRY SWEEPING LEGAL IMMUNITY
PRESIDENT BUSH URGED TO REJECT BILL
For Immediate Release:
10-20-2005
Contact Communications:
(202) 898-0792
Washington DC – The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence today said that the House of Representatives' passage of a bill taking away the rights of gun victims is a step backwards for a country founded on the rule of law. The bill has already been approved by the Senate, and if signed into law by President Bush, would essentially place the entire gun industry beyond the bounds of civil liability law.
"This is a tragic capitulation to the special interest gun lobby," said Brady Campaign President Michael Barnes. "It's yet another example of how much power a small group can wield behind closed doors."
Dennis Henigan, Director of the Brady Center's Legal Action Project, issued this statement: "The Congress can pass it. The President can sign it. But this shameful law will not stand. We will challenge the constitutionality of this special interest extravaganza in every court where the rights of gun violence victims are being threatened. This bill is an unprecedented attack on the due process rights of victims injured by the misconduct of an industry that seeks to escape the legal rules that govern the rest of us. We believe state and federal courts across this Nation are prepared to strike it down."
The New York Times earlier encouraged the President to consider the rights of people who have already lost too much to gun violence, instead of the financial concerns of a profitable industry. "Surely he would not compound the nation's gun scourge by signing the immunity bill," the Times said. The White House has previously stated its support for the bill.
# # #
As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, working with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, is devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.
RealGun
Member
What if NRA was actually in favor of trigger locks? They are hardly purest, no compromise kinda guys. Kind of explains why it wasn't seriously challenged and how it leaked into a bill when it could have been stopped.
I like how the GOA neglects to mention that if the House had stripped the trigger lock and AP amendments, the bill would have to go back to the Senate for another vote (and it took two years to even get them to pass the amended version), while saying the NRA wanted it made into law. 
Kharn
Kharn
Sean Cloherty
Member
So now that the industry is no longer faced with these legal costs, are we going to see some reduction in the retail price of firearms?
RealGun
Member
Kharn said:I like how the GOA neglects to mention that if the House had stripped the trigger lock and AP amendments, the bill would have to go back to the Senate for another vote (and it took two years to even get them to pass the amended version), while saying the NRA wanted it made into law.
Kharn
Not having any real boundaries is what makes the problem grow. Look at the history.
RealGun
Member
Interesting to note how much interest there is now that it's too late.
"It is shameful that Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that guarantees their gun-dealing cronies receive special treatment and are above the law," said Rep. Robert Wexler D-Calif.
It's as low as you can go Robert Wexler D-calf. to think gun manufactures should be liable for human actions. You are incompetent on your best day. I for one will never vote for Democrats. Never have never will. Among other things they are in favor of gays being married and giving illegal aliens all the rights of citzenship instead of being arrested/deported. End of stor
P.S. GREAT JOB MR. PRESIDENT and those who voted in favor of this.
It's as low as you can go Robert Wexler D-calf. to think gun manufactures should be liable for human actions. You are incompetent on your best day. I for one will never vote for Democrats. Never have never will. Among other things they are in favor of gays being married and giving illegal aliens all the rights of citzenship instead of being arrested/deported. End of stor
P.S. GREAT JOB MR. PRESIDENT and those who voted in favor of this.
Hawk
Member
What is best in life?
Plus 1 to Harry Tuttle, above.
To crush your enemies, to drive them before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.
Sweetest music I've heard in a hound's age.
Plus 1 to Harry Tuttle, above.
To crush your enemies, to drive them before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.
Sweetest music I've heard in a hound's age.
YES! Yes it is.
Unfortunately most gun owners are like starving children. They'll gladly and gratefully accept any crumb - no matter how distasteful - thrown to them.
The two anti-gun amendments in S397 are ripe with possibilities as lawyers and especially politicians can twist a law to mean what ever they want it to mean. They then leave the results to be sorted out by the courts which can take years and I for one do not trust the courts to sort it out correctly.
If it took another year to get a clean bill then so be it but the republicans, as usual, bent over and spread'm in the name of bipartisanship.
So what else is new...
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
This may be news to you; but gun owners who don't use a lock ARE ALREADY subject to civil liability in many states. Even gun owners who USE a lock are subject to civil liability in some states right now.
All that section does is protect gun owners who make some attempt to be responsible. It isn't onerous at all and is actually a plus.
For all the criticism of this bill in this thread, it is amazing how little informed criticism I see of it, which is odd given that many of the people here listened to the Senate debate and have followed the bill closely.
The other popular myth I see is that this bill contains a new "AP ammo ban". It doesn't and nobody could truthfully say it does. People who DO say that kind of thing are using ridiculous hyperbole to stretch the truth and usually when you have to resort to that kind of exaggeration it is a good sign of how weak your argument is.
Some more thoughts on this from noted RKBA activist and lawyer, Dave Kopel, including his evaluation of the "slippery slope" danger posed by the AP ammo language:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_10_16-2005_10_22.shtml#1129830865
Seriously, some of you amaze me. When you are in the trenches and look to your side and see Kristen Rand of VPC standing with you, that isn't a good thing,
pcf
Member
Here's a link to the bill that was passed.
SEC. 6. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.
(c) Study and Report-
(1) STUDY- The Attorney General shall conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible.
(2) ISSUES TO BE STUDIED- The study conducted under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired; and
(B) the amount of powder used to propel the projectile.
(3) REPORT- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report containing the results of the study conducted under this subsection to--
(A) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and
(B) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
********************
The purpose of the "study" is to determine if a uniform testing system is feasible. Answer: Yes. NIJ has been doing everything specified for a while. And report results of the study back to congress. Nothing more, Nothing less.
Otherwise the only change to any existing laws are penalties for using AP pistol ammo, as already defined under federal law.
SEC. 6. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.
(c) Study and Report-
(1) STUDY- The Attorney General shall conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible.
(2) ISSUES TO BE STUDIED- The study conducted under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired; and
(B) the amount of powder used to propel the projectile.
(3) REPORT- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report containing the results of the study conducted under this subsection to--
(A) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and
(B) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
********************
The purpose of the "study" is to determine if a uniform testing system is feasible. Answer: Yes. NIJ has been doing everything specified for a while. And report results of the study back to congress. Nothing more, Nothing less.
Otherwise the only change to any existing laws are penalties for using AP pistol ammo, as already defined under federal law.
RealGun
Member
The purpose is to establish specifications and language for what to ban in later legislation (2 years). Look at what the stated goals try to establish. It was created in early 2004 to try to make some rational sense out of Kennedy's ranting and to get him to back off on the general AP ammo ban idea. It ain't over.
Well now... Cheaper Than Dirt has an ammo sale today - http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd/product.asp?sku=AMM-201 -Hawkmoon said:
I wonder if they are off-loading stock... and if I buy these 109's do I to turn them in, or do I turn me in?
I still don't like the two amendments - time bombs!
Maybe POTUS should veto this and let them start over - there are enough votes considering the tally.
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
When Is Bush Going To Sign?
Does anyone know when President Bush is going to sign this legislation?
Does anyone know when President Bush is going to sign this legislation?
ReadyontheRight
Member
From the VPC:The camel by the tent pulls out a hoof and sticks in a snout.
Hawk
Member
Thank you, BR.
I'm a life member of GOA and, great group that they are, they are given to a degree of hyperbole.
Further, IMNSHO, the internecine feuding that's been going on since the NRA downrated GOA's poster child to a "B" for opposing S397 has been an embarrassment to those of us involved in both organizations.
Read the amendments and draw your own conclusions. Nobody here needs GOA or NRA to help them with the plain english involved.
GOA is hyperventilating in this specific case. Thinking people may well agree and go along.
However, I expect Mr. Roberts and I will retire over a few Shiner Bock's, repair to the VPC and Brady websites and enjoy the show. Such weeping and rending of shirts will likely not be repeated in our lifetimes.
- Status
