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

JFPO warning about S397

Discussion in 'Legal' started by CentralTexas, Aug 4, 2005.

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

    CentralTexas Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,235
    Location:
    Austin Texas
    ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
    America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

    August 4, 2005

    JPFO ALERT: 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."

    THIS SECTION COULD ALLOW ALL CENTERFIRE RIFLE AMMO TO BE
    BANNED

    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

    LINKS:

    S. 397, Sec. 6
    http://tinyurl.com/9u8mt (click on [S.397.ES])

    A reality check on the U.S. government's sloppy firearms
    testing procedures:
    http://www.jpfo.org/alert20050701a.htm

    ============================================================

    JPFO mirror site: http://www.jpfo.net

    ============================================================

    LET JPFO KEEP YOU INFORMED -- Sign up today for JPFO Alerts!
    Just send a blank e-mail to jpfoalerts-subscribe@jpfo.org

    =============================================================

    Regain your freedom - download the song "Justice Day" today!
    http://www.rebelfirerock.com/downloadjd.html

    =============================================================

    Original Material in JPFO ALERTS is Copyright 2005 JPFO, Inc.
    Permission is granted to reproduce this alert in full, so long
    as the following JPFO contact information is included:

    Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
    PO Box 270143
    Hartford, Wisconsin 53027

    Phone: 1-262-673-9745
    Order line: 1-800-869-1884 (toll-free!)
    Fax: 1-262-673-9746
    Web: http://www.jpfo.org/

    =============================================================
    JPFO ALERTS is provided as a free service to the Internet
    Community. If you wish to help support this service, consider
    joining JPFO! $20/year (no, you don't have to be Jewish!)
    Join for 2 years and receive a free JPFO lapel pin!
    Life Membership: $500 or $41.67/month for 12 months.
    ************************
     
  2. Beren

    Beren Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,388
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    It's already illegal to manufacture or import armor piercing ammo. The Craig amendment does not make a change there.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=922

    CURRENT LAW:

    (7) for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing
    ammunition, except that this paragraph shall not apply to -
    (A) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition for the
    use of the United States or any department or agency thereof or
    any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision
    thereof;
    (B) the manufacture of such ammunition for the purpose of
    exportation; and
    (C) any manufacture or importation for the purposes of
    testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General;
    (8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor
    piercing ammunition, except that this paragraph shall not apply
    to -
    (A) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of
    such ammunition for use of the United States or any department
    or agency thereof or any State or any department, agency, or
    political subdivision thereof;
    (B) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of
    such ammunition for the purpose of exportation;
    (C) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of
    such ammunition for the purposes of testing or experimenting
    authorized by the Attorney General; and

    What the amendment does do is enhance penalties for use of AP ammo in crimes of violence or drug trafficking.

    I'm not concerned much with the wording of the body armor study. They're going to test to see if a "uniform standard" is feasible. That is all. Anything DONE with that report would require futher legislative action.
     
  3. Fletchette

    Fletchette Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Location:
    WY
    Yes, but without S397 "armor piercing ammunition" is defined as the projectile, not the cartridge. Currently, it is illegal to make an armor piercing projectile (defined as 100% steel core, or tungsten, etc. or greater than 50% copper jacket, with exemptions for shotguns, etc, etc). After S387 becomes law, "armor piercing" will be defined as...well, whatever the AG says it is.

    I'm worried too.
     
  4. Beren

    Beren Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,388
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    I don't see any language there that allows the AG to define what is armor-piercing. The current law and the amendment both use the exact same term: "armor piercing ammunition."
     
  5. Beren

    Beren Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,388
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    That's what the amendment allows. It does not let the AG SET a standard. All it does is permit a study to determine whether a standard is feasible.

    Fine. So the AG comes back and says "Hey, a standard is feasible." Then Congress has to authorize a standard in law. That's when the fur will fly.
     
  6. DeseoUnTaco

    DeseoUnTaco Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2005
    Messages:
    290
    I'm not thrilled about manufacturer protection, either. I would rather see a) the manufacturers win these court cases and b) a lot of smaller manufacturers who can't be sued as easily.
     
  7. alan

    alan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,598
    Location:
    sowest pa.
    Re the "frivilous law suits" S. 397 would block, I've long wondered as to the following. Given that virtually all of these suits have been tossed out, either at trial court level or at apellate court level, how come there has yet to be A COUNTER SUIT FILED? Feel free to correct me if I'm in error here.

    Regarding Section 6, how did this thing come to pass. Who is playing games with whom? "Soft Body Armor" is not designed to stop rifle projectiles, nor will it. If rifle ammunition is to be tested by firing it at "soft body armor", then there is no center fire rifle cartridge that would not be subject to being banned, on the basis of it being "armor piercing ammunition". Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here also.
     
  8. NRAninja

    NRAninja Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    41
    Location:
    South Georgia
    The current AP law is NOT an outright ban, correct? So if I have a case of that steel core 7.62 that was dirt cheap back in the 80s, I can sell it to anyone, right? It looks like JFPO is saying that under the possible new law, I wouldn't be able to sell it at all.

    The current law just says it is illegal to manufacture or import unless it's for government use. So if FN sells 10 crates of SS190 to the police department in town, then my armorer buddy could technically smuggle a few boxes for me since he isn't 'manufacturing' or 'importing' right? But under the new law he wouldn't be able to because the new law adds 'sell' and 'deliver' to the list.
     
  9. Brett Bellmore

    Brett Bellmore Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    979
    Location:
    Capac, Michigan
    Because counter suits would almost certainly fail, as well, and be just as effective at wasting our side's money as defending against the other side's lawsuits. And that is the purpose of the lawsuits, the firearms industry's financial exaustion. The other side doesn't have to worry about running out of money, it's groups funded by billionares, and local governments spending tax dollars.
     
  10. saltydog

    saltydog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    391
    Location:
    From The Free State of Okla
    You can make excuses or viable argument's about what is or isn't armor piercing but just ask yourself "WHY" Armor Piercing "ANYTHING" is in a bill to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits? It should at least make a person "wonder why" expecially if armor piercing amunition is already defined and banned in an "existing law"? :confused:

    My opinion is no amunition should be banned anyway and any excuse to why some types are is a "compromise" that will also eventually lead to a total ban or possibly very strict controls. Just my opinion. :(
     
  11. Beren

    Beren Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,388
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    There's no need to wonder why. It was included to ensure enough votes for passage of the bill.
     
  12. saltydog

    saltydog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    391
    Location:
    From The Free State of Okla
    Sounds good to me. If everybody is happy then I'm happy. :D
     
  13. Dan from MI

    Dan from MI Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Messages:
    430
    Location:
    Livingston County, MI
    JPFO is blowing smoke IMO on this

    While we should always have our guard up, this isn't as bad is it sounds.
    This doesn't give the AG the power to ban AP ammo. The magic word "DEFINE" is not in there. It just wastes money on a study. It doesn't change what currently is defined as AP ammo.

    Let's compare that to the Kennedy Amendment which IS what JPFO is accusing this of being.

    ---------------------------------------------------

    Kennedy Amendment 1615

    AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
    To expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition and for other purposes.

    (a) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.--Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

    1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;

    (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

    (3) by adding at the end the following:

    ``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be capable or penetrating body armor; or

    `(iv) a projectile ror a center-fire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition or the same caliber.''.

    (b) DETERMINATION OF THE CAPABILITY OF PROJECTILES TO PENETRATE BODY ARMOR.--Section 926 or title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the rollowing:

    ``(d)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date or enactment or this subsection, the Attorney General shall promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against Body Armor Exemplar.

    ``(2) The standards promulgated under paragraph (1) shall take into account, among other factors, variations in perrormance that are related to the length of the barrel or the handgun or center-fire rifle rrom which the projectile is fired and the amount and kind or powder used to propel the projectile.

    ``(3) As used in paragraph (1), the term `Body Armor Exemplar' means body armor that the Attorney General determines meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.''.


    ----
    The Craig/Frist Amendment sucks since it's a waste of money, and it may lead to something bad in the future if this study reports lead to more Brady and VPC crying. However, it would take a new law to ban actual ammo.
     
  14. Fletchette

    Fletchette Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Location:
    WY
    Yes, I agree that it would take a new law to actually ban the ammo, and the first section changes nothing essential in the existing grammar of the current law. The only thing "new" is the study, which is basically a date at which we will have to fight yet another battle. That date is to be chosen by gun-grabbers. I wish it wasn't there for just that reason.

    All in all, S397 is a good bill. It would be VERY GOOD if we could scrub the AP amendment out of it in the House. I would suggest that we WRITE OUR REPRESENTATIVES! - Especially if your representative passed this bill before it went to the Senate. If you are unlucky enough to have an anti-gun statist, perhaps you should write to a different pro-gun representative! :evil:

    P.S. SS109 ammuntion is specifically exempted from the current law, and will not change if S397 is passed. That is because it does not have a 100% steel core. So it can be directly sold to us serfs.
     
  15. MudPuppy

    MudPuppy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,529
    Location:
    UK and Texas
    I disagree. It'll be construed that the AG has the power to determine what's AP. BATFE will then issue a "policy" and that'll be that. Doesn't matter that it doesn't explicity grant that right to the AG--the fact that it's not clear is what allows them to twist it however they want.

    Guess who sits in jail while it gets argued in court? Us.

    Guess who actually gets a paycheck to argue about it while we're in jail? Them.
     
  16. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    You would think the JFPO would at least spend 5 minutes reading the law before whining about it. The law expressly avoids any redefinition of the term "armor piercing."

    It makes gun owners look stupid when we call to complain about something that isnt happening.
     
  17. Fletchette

    Fletchette Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Location:
    WY
    Like I said, I wish the AP amendment wasn't there. It is indeed possible that the ATF(E...XYZ) will institute an unConstitutional ex-post-facto ruling like they did for USAS-12 shotguns... :fire:
     
  18. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    Uh no wrong. The 1968 GCA specifically granted, in plain english, the authority to ban "shotguns that the Secretary determines to not have a sporting purpose." Lloyd Bentsen exercised this authority after he was nominated by Bill Clinton. George Bush exercised a similarly granted authority in finding that the guns in the 89 ban were "not sporting" (and therefore not importable) and Alberto Gonzales exercised the same authority in banning the imporation of milsurp barrels.

    Blame Republicans for much of this, but blame the right ones.

    This bill merely orders the commission of a study on the feasibility of creating testing standards for ammunition. It neither establishes standards nor allows for anyone to alter the current definition of armor piercing. It similarly orders no additional action on the part of anyone after the study is completed. The study could be completely ignored in 2 years, or it could result in some terrible law. Unless congress has been significantly altered 2 years from now, this isnt likely to happen.

    The ignorance of gun owners and gun dealers on the subject of firearms law is sometimes appalling.
     
  19. NY Patriot

    NY Patriot Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2003
    Messages:
    171
    Location:
    NY
    I called the NRA today about this amendment, and asked if they had an official stance on it. I was told that they do not as of yet, but that they "looking into it". I also asked if they would be releasing their opinion when one is reached, but was told that they are not sure as of yet.

    I was a little taken aback by the noncommittal stance that they seem to be taking, so I related my opinion that the NRA should pressure the House of Reps. to pass a "clean" version of this bill. The woman on the other end of the phone took my message, name, and member ID#, and said that my opinion will be duly noted and passed along.

    I really think that we need to make damn sure that this amendment is NOT part of the companion bill in the House, because the potential for this "study" to blow back at us in the form of a ban on FMJ ammo is too great to ignore!

    To this end, I suggest that we ALL call the NRA-ILA @1-800-392-8683 and let them know that we want their considerable influence brought to bear in the cause of passing an "AP ammo amendment" free House bill & in striking this amendment from the Senate's bill!

    An ounce of prevention...
     
  20. Vang

    Vang Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Messages:
    91
    Even if this isn't such a bad deal for gun owners, it shows where Congress's interest lies: the protection of industry over the rights of individuals.

    Fletchette, it's not ex-post-facto to not offer a sunset provision (in the classification of the USAS-12 as a DD).
     
  21. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    If groups like JPFO are going to jettison their credibility with stupid warnings like this, they could at least have the common sense to ask a lawyer to comment on legislation instead of asking a guy who manufactures guns to interpret the law.

    We went through this same thing last year when the exact same amendment text was proposed, so I don't know why nobody learned from last year's overblown panic attack.

    No, it cannot and JPFO needs to take whoever wrote that and stop them from doing analysis on legislation because it is pretty clear to anyone who is familiar with current law and can read.

    This is already the law. Sec. 6 simply restates the current law on armor-piercing ammo.

    This is correct.

    This is also correct.

    This is also correct.

    This is NOT CORRECT. This is the type of ridiculous chicken-little sensationalism that does not help our cause at all. NOWHERE IN THIS BILL IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL GIVEN ANY POWER TO CHANGE THE CURRENT DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

    This definition is part of law and can be found in Title 18 Section 921 of U.S. Code:

    All the bill authorizes is a STUDY. There is no authorization for the Attorney General to do ANYTHING but report the study to Congress. This amendment was written by an NRA Board of Director. Of the 30 Senators who were so hardcore they voted against even the gunlock amendment that JPFO considers minor, all 30 of those Senators supported this amendment.

    GOAs top Senator, Tom Coburn voted for this amendment.

    Does anybody really believe that we were sold out by 30 solidly pro-gun Senators who somehow didn't manage to arrive at the same wild-eyed interpretation of JPFO? And it isn't because they didn't read the amendment either since the entire amendment is only a few paragraphs and can be easily read in a few minutes.
     
  22. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,056
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    I concur here. The authority to determine if a study can be conducted is entirely different from the authority to implement the study, or the study's findings.

    Lately, the JPFO and GOA have been really grasping at straws, and in my view, they're not exactly enhancing their credibility.
     
  23. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Perhaps. Generally, I agree.

    However, why spend tax money on determining a different standard for what constitutes AP ammo? The only possible reason is for no good. That is, to define it by its ballistic properties, rather than the metalic makeup. And that can have only one resul. A bad one. That is, to broaden the definition of AP to include most hunting ammo.

    What possible good could come of this "study"? Well?
     
  24. Beren

    Beren Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,388
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    As already explained earlier: it was included to ensure enough votes for passage of the parent bill.

    What "good" will come of the study? The gun industry now has immunity from nuisance suits.
     
  25. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    And yet 30 Senators who were so pro-gun they voted against even adding gun locks to handgun sales all thought this was a good amendment and voted in support of it.

    A member of the NRA Board of Directors wrote the amendment and the top GOA Senator voted in favor of it.

    How is it that these professional legislators have missed these flaws if they are indeed present? Were we sold out by these pro-gun organizations? Are these legislators simply not up to the same caliber as THR members when it comes to legislative analysis?

    Ted Kennedy has been proposing legislation in the Senate for several years now that actually DOES ban any ammo that penetrates even basic body armor. He hasn't needed a study to do it.

    Perhaps we are better off by defining the terms of the debate ourselves with a DoJ study rather than letting Teddy and his ".30-30 pierces 600lb armored safes and armored limousines!" define what the terms of the debate will be. Just to use one example, who would you rather see conduct this study - a John Lott or a Michael Bellesilles?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page