JFPO warning about S397

[Henry Bowman]

MmmKay... And can you guarantee that this "study" will remain dormant and not rear its ugly head in bad, or even terrible, way in the not so distant future?

I'm not Chicken Little, but I don't like tax money being spent on funding something that can be used by those who wish to deprive us of rights.


What I really want to know is what are the chances of getting the clean bill pasted in the Senate if this gets stripped out in committee?

 

[geekWithA.45]

And can you guarantee that this "study" will remain dormant

A fundamental legislative problem is that we can't guarantee bumpkus, EVER.

A law could be enacted requiring surrender of arms, funny hat wearing, and mass lobotomization tomorrow.

 

[jefnvk]

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.

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.

So, I guess you guys support someone's right to sue the manufacturer of the gun that the drug dealer used to shoot their 'little angel' drug addict who couldn't come up with money?

The fact is, junk suits are no longer laughed out of court. Anti gun groups have specifically stated that they intend to bankrupt the firearm industry via junk lawsuits.

 

[The Drew]

(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.


As far as I'm concerned you guys that don't see a problem with this provision are not helping the cause... You are effectively AIDING the anti's in their drive to deprive us of our rights!

We already have a VERY specific definition of what is AP and what is NOT. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE LAW AS IT ALREADY STANDS!!!

This law, if passed, opens the door for the AG to completely rewrite what is and isn't AP. If you don't see that then you've got your head in the sand....

 

[Henry Bowman]

This law, if passed, opens the door for the AG to completely rewrite what is and isn't AP. If you don't see that then you've got your head in the sand....

That's pretty much how I see it, too. But call me paranoid, call me Chicken Little...

I don't see anything good coming of this. And the potential for bad may be much greater than the benefit of bassing the Protection bill. Maybe not. We'll see. I hope it gets stripped out in committee and that we can get a clean(er) bill back through the Senate.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

This law, if passed, opens the door for the AG to completely rewrite what is and isn't AP.

No, it does not. The AG does not have the authority to make new law and this bill does not give him the authority to either make new law OR to change the definition of the current law.

In order for the definition of AP ammo to change, someone has to propose a new bill or amendment and it has to make it through both the House and Senate and then be signed by the President.

Is everybody clear on that?

 

[Henry Bowman]

Clear, Bart.

I had almost edited my last post to make it clear that it may not be the AG who could unilaterally change the law. That is the only exaggeration in the original report. But... it lays the ground work for a weaker Congress and a different President (not that Bush, whom I really like, has ever vetoed a bill) to redefine AP based on the finings of a study commissioned by a Republican-controlled Congress and Administration in response to some yet-to-be-announced "crisis." Also, a "Janet Reno" AG might do just that and dare the Congress to challenge it.

Case in point, "assault weapon" had a specific legal definition just like AP ammo does. Clear and objective, but not exactly effective for the stated purpose. The definition of "AW" grew (with the help of the MSM) to cover whatever it took to say that X% of LEO had been killed with an AW. Now a government study concludes that the metalic makeup of the bullet is not a very effective way to define what is or is not armor piercing. It will get revised to include all steel core (even if not effective against armor) as well as most all hunting ammo (that is not somehow neutered to make it unable to pierce soft bidy armor. I am not dreaming here, mark my words.

I still see no good coming of this "study." The handgun locks was de minimus. This has the potential for bad written all over it.

 

[The Drew]

Even if this law DOES NOT specifically say that the AG can change the definition of AP ammo, NO GOOD can come of this amendment...

For instance recently the BATF determined that they aren't going to allow importation of barrels of "non sporting" rifles... This is an interpretation of a somewhat vague law... Do you actually believe that this cannot happen with this amendment???

 

[alan]

Gentlemen:

I have read section 6, section 5 too, which speaks of other things, and re the testing mentioned in 6, the following question looms large, at least to me.

What will be the medium used in these tests, which is to ask, WHAT IN BLAZES ARE THEY GOING TO SHOOT AT???

"Body Armor" as in "SOFT BODY ARMOR", was designed to stop handgun cartridge projectiles. It does not always do even this, however it was not designed to stop, or even to slow down the projectiles fired from center fire rifle cartridges, nor will it.

What this could well mean is the following, please correct me if you think I'm all wet. Given that the say 180 grain projectile commonly loaded in 30-06 ammunition, to mention just one caliber cartridge, a common one at that, will blow completely through "body armor", said ammunition could well end up being determined, from the above mentioned testing, as being "armor piercing" and therefore subject to bans or major restrictions and so forth and so on.

In any event, The Attorney Genereal is a Political Appointee, and the present holder of that office has already spoken on the subject of firearms, (those so-called assault weapons), the nature of his comments being less than encouraging.

Of course, we could then get into why not a "clean bill", which is another matter entirely. Take that up with your elected things.

 

[Al Norris]

You guys are all worried about the wrong things.

The house version and the senate version do not match. Thus the bills have to be resolved in conference. This is where you need to get worried! Not because the conference may or may not strip out the "offending" amendments, but because all knids of things can be "clarified" and slipped in.

It is not at all unusual for a bill to go into conference and come out looking like a completely different bill, only to have it ratified by both houses, because the conference committee says it's ok!

Be much more worried about what comes out of conference than what goes in....

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

(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.

This is all the study is going to do. I've explained this issue a thousand times now. Those who wish to remain skeptical are welcome to contact their Congresscritters and exercise their rights as a citizen.

Although what possible hope you could have in contacting your Congresscritter after having just been the victim of an evil NRA/GOA cooperative conspiracy to deny you your Second Amendment rights remains to be seen...

 

[Libertyteeth]

... `(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.''. ... [Such as FMJ ammo?]

... (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
the amount of powder used to propel the projectile..."

So they are looking at body armor penetration issues with respect to center fire rifles. Existing law refers only to handgun ammo. True, new law would need to be passed to implement any changes, but it seems to me they are likely up to no good. These cats think long term.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Uh Libertyteeth, you've mixed text from the Kennedy ammo ban amendment (section iv) with text from the Craig amendment (Section 2) in your post. Was that intentional?

 

[Libertyteeth]

My apologies. I did mix the two bills, and it was unintentional.

S 397 does mention centerfire rifles in the study, at any rate, and that is what concerned me.

 

[alan]

Al Norris writes:

You guys are all worried about the wrong things.

The house version and the senate version do not match. Thus the bills have to be resolved in conference. This is where you need to get worried! Not because the conference may or may not strip out the "offending" amendments, but because all knids of things can be "clarified" and slipped in.

It is not at all unusual for a bill to go into conference and come out looking like a completely different bill, only to have it ratified by both houses, because the conference committee says it's ok!

Be much more worried about what comes out of conference than what goes in....

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

So far as I know, The House hasn't passed anything this year, their bill or their version of S.379 is "pending".

As to that holy of holies, The Conference Committee, Al is right, one never knows what might come out of one. Another question is the following. Given the setting of a conference committee, who are "the conferees"??

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Given the setting of a conference committee, who are "the conferees"??

The conferees are appointed by the Majority and Minority leaders of each House. On the NRA side, we have Reid, Frist and Hastert appointing. On the anti side, Pelosi. Of course Reid and Hastert aren't exactly strong supporters; but overall we should do OK in conference.

 

[alan]

A couple of quick points.

Given the afore mentioned nature of those who appoint the "conferees" I'm not certain that I'd be willing to bet a bunch of money on the happy tidings, for our side, that would come out of this conference committee.

Earlier, re my mention of counter suits, one poster offered that as they were bound to fail, they were wasteful of resources, wording to that effect. What makes you so certain of their failure?

Lastly, respecting what might be expected from "government agencies" JPFO has available, both in tape format as well as on DVD, BATF fails the test, dealing with BATF claims that one John Glover was in possession of an "illegal machinegun", which turned out to be a MALFUNCTIONING FAL TYPE RIFLE. The ATF agent who wrote the original report it seems, had never stripped and carefully inspected the rifle before firing it. Test firings at Charlotte, North Carolina showed multiple roinds fired with one brand of amunution, Winchester commercial loads, out of 4 different makes of ammunition tried. Detail dissembly and post firing inspection showed that the rifle was not in proper mechanical condition. It contained some word and broken parts, which could have contributed to the "automatic fire" accomplished with 1 out of 4 makes of ammunition tried. One would think that a mal functioning rifle does not, a machinegun make, but ATF in the person of Mr. Michael Cooney, their firearms examiner/enforcement agent would have it otherwise.

I understand that all charges were subsequently dismissed against Mr. Glover. Whether or not his property, seized firearms, have been returned to him by BATF, I cannot say. In any event, JPFO is certainly capable of mistakes, and or misconstruing things, but they do not bring criminal charges, with all that such things involve against anyone. BATF can and does, and they also make mistakes. Have they ever so admitted? Not that I've noticed.