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

JPFO rebuttal on S.397

Discussion in 'Legal' started by longrifleman, Aug 9, 2005.

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

    longrifleman Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    849
    Location:
    western Missouri
    Link to rebuttal


    I think they have some valid concerns.
     
  2. Dionysusigma

    Dionysusigma Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    3,671
    Location:
    Okay City
  3. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    Let's just pause for a second and consider what JPFO is asking us to believe. Let's assume they do have valid concerns and that we should exercise the maximum distrust of our government.

    In order to accept JPFOs concerns, we must believe that every single pro-gun Senator in the Senate is either too stupid to recognize the threat posed by this study or is corrupt to the degree that they are conspiring to pass future gun control even now.

    Now, let's just assume that JPFO is right - that all the Senators who supported this bill, including the 30 Senators who wouldn't even vote for the gun lock amendment, are stupid, corrupt or both. JPFOs remedy for this is to contact these same stupid and/or corrupt Senators and ask them for relief? Exactly how do they expect that to work?

    In my view, this is one of those instances where we should trust government, not because government is inherently trustworthy; but because if we cannot trust government in this particular circumstance, then we have problems on a level so much deeper and so much more serious than this AP study.

    If JPFOs concerns are valid, then EVERY SINGLE SENATOR in the United States Senate is either hopelessly stupid or corrupt and working towards gun control even now. Personally I don't find that to be credible; but even if you do find it credible, you have to wonder exactly what you are going to gain by contacting these same stupid/corrupt Senators and asking for relief?
     
  4. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    It is entirely possible, and more likely, that they are all simply ignorant. That is, they did not carefully read and consider the amendment and its potential unintended consequences. They were told, "This is pro-gun and/or pro-safety and the NRA is OK with it." So they voted for it.

    Unlike stupidity, ignorance is curable.
     
  5. longrifleman

    longrifleman Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    849
    Location:
    western Missouri
    Henry's take is the feeling I had when I read through the argument's for and against. How many times have we heard that the congresscritters don't read the bills they vote on, but rely on staff or outside groups to tell them how to vote?

    Prophetic words. And depressing.
     
  6. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    22,098
    this completely defies logic. The fact is, as most of us are aware, we DO have problems on a much deeper and so much more serious level than this AP study... like, say, all three branches of our government totally ignoring the constitution! So your contention is, since we have problems, we should trust the government? uhh, hello?


    what we hope to accomplish is to NOT permit any stupid compromises like a "study". Come on! Is there anybody on this forum who doesn't realize that any of our rifle rounds will go through "body armor"?? What possible good could come of a congressionally driven study, the only possible outcome of which, WILL conclude that ALL of our ammo is "armor piercing" and thus illegal?
     
  7. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    Except the amendment was only a few paragraphs and was written by a member of the Board of Directors on the NRA.

    My contention is that if you believe the above to be true then going to the same government that is actually conspiring against you for relief is a pretty stupid solution, isn't it?

    I don't believe that the evidence supports the amount of corruption and ignorance necessary for JPFOs concerns to be valid, so I don't have any problem trusting the Senators in this case.

    However, if you don't agree feel free to consider the full implications of what that disagreement means. It means not only can you not trust the government. It also means you cannot trust the NRA or even the GOA because they both went along with this as well. It means that even the groups that claim to fight for your freedom are actively working against you. Personally, I think that is pretty far-fetched; but there just isn't any other way to interpret it.
     
  8. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    22,098
    no. the problem is they've corrupted the system. there is still a system and we can still work within it. it's just suboptimal now. therefore going to the government isn't stupid. it's politics. it's the NRA's "compromise" and "grease their palms more than the antis" strategy.

    umm, i don't know where you've been, but a substantial portion of this board, myself included, clearly doesn't trust the NRA and hasn't since the early '90s, for good reason.

    We don't have to trust ANYBODY. We are capable of reading the bills and laws ourselves. Gun owners have been characterized as paranoid for generations. This lack of trust shouldn't be a revelation here.

    Even so, it doesn't mean GOA and NRA are "actively working against" us. It can also mean they made a mistake, or that they decided the risk was worth compromising.
     
  9. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    So the system is corrupt; but we can still expect favorable results by appealing to the corrupt system?

    Well, if it is a mistake, then it is a mistake that 30 Senators who were so pro-gun they wouldn't support the enormously popular gun lock amendment made. It is also a mistake made by both NRA and GOA and their lobbyists. Apparently it is a mistake that only JPFO and certain Internet forums are capable of recognizing.

    That is all certainly possible; but is it probable that all these people just made an honest mistake? I mean how can it be that this study represents both a clear threat to our rights and yet is reasonable enough that this threat doesn't occur to a single pro-gun Senator including the one who wrote it? That is kind of a contradictory message don't you think?
     
  10. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    22,098
    the system has been corrupt for quite a while (say, 100 yrs) and we've had our share of favorable results appealing to the system.


    you say "contradictory"
    the NRA says "compromise"

    potato potatoe
     
  11. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Bart,

    Please explain what potential good may come from the study (beyond that it was a necessary compromise to achive passage of the host bill). What is the separate pro-gun effect or potential effect?

    HB
     
  12. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Still haven't heard about the benefits of this armor-piercing study...

    And not to keep beating this horse, but the GOA has issued a denoucement of the armor-piercing study, but without "the sky is falling" hype:

    Thursday, August 11, 2005


    ? "We're going to hit them right where it hurts -- in their bank
    ? accounts -- and we won't stop hitting until they stop flooding our
    ? streets with guns." -- Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, a leading
    ? proponent of the "bankrupt the gun industry" movement

    This quote demonstrates the rabid zealotry that exists in the
    anti-gun community.? It also shows why it's so important for Congress
    to enact good legislation that will put an end to the dozens of
    frivolous lawsuits that have been launched against the gun industry.

    At least two gun makers -- Bryco and Navegar -- have already been put
    out of business.? And many other gun makers have been forced to dole
    out millions of dollars to protect themselves from these unscrupulous
    attorneys.

    If we want to continue enjoying our Second Amendment rights, it is
    imperative that we work through the Congress to put a halt to these
    injurious attacks.

    Rep. Marilyn Musgrave has taken up the cause in the House.? She wants
    the Congress to send the President a CLEAN bill that will protect gun
    makers and sellers, without punishing gun owners in any way.? The
    House bill (H.R. 800) is much better than the Senate version (S.
    397), since the former is free and clear of all gun control.

    As introduced, S. 397 would have been a good first step towards
    curtailing anti-gun lawsuits.? Unfortunately, Senator Frist allowed
    two anti-gun amendments to be offered, and they turned a marginally
    beneficial bill into a huge albatross.

    The first amendment -- offered by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) -- requires
    gun dealers to include a "lock-up-your-safety" device with every
    handgun sold.? In addition to imposing a "gun tax" on every
    handgun
    buyer, this amendment paves the way for future legislation mandating
    that gun owners use those trigger locks.

    The second provision -- offered by Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) -- amended
    the armor-piercing bullet provisions of federal law.? At its core,
    the Craig language did two things:

    * It gave impetus to adopting a "penetration standard" for armor
    piercing bullets by commissioning a Justice Department study of the
    issue. If a "penetration standard" were adopted, a gun-adverse
    administration could probably use it to ban virtually all ammunition.


    * It established a fifteen year MANDATORY MINIMUM PRISON SENTENCE for
    anyone who carries a single armor piercing bullet during the
    commission of a "crime of violence" -- or who
    "possesses" such a
    bullet "in furtherance of... such crime..."

    It is significant that "crime of? violence" is defined in 18
    U.S.C.
    924(c)(3) to mean a felony that (1) involves the actual, attempted,
    or threatened use of force against person or property, or (2)
    involves a "substantial risk" of force against person or property.

    Hence, if a concealed carry permit holder opens his coat to display a
    firearm in order to thwart an assault -- and such an action is
    prohibited by a state's anti-self defense law and therefore
    constitutes a felony of "criminal threatening" -- then the
    court must
    sentence the concealed carry permit holder to a fifteen year
    mandatory minimum sentence if he is carrying an "armor piercing
    bullet."? The judge has no discretion.

    The only "good news" in regard to the Craig language is that the 18
    U.S.C. 921 definition of "armor piercing ammunition" was not
    affected.? The definition is fairly restricted and limited to:

    * A handgun projectile wholly made of tungsten alloys, steel, iron,
    brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium, or

    * A handgun projectile larger than .22 caliber with a jacket weighing
    more than 25% of the total weight of the projectile.

    Thankfully, Rep. Musgrave is pushing the House leadership to get real
    lawsuit protection enacted, without endangering the Second Amendment
    rights of gun owners in any way.

    ACTION:? Please ask your Representative to sign onto the Musgrave
    letter opposing the anti-gun amendments in S. 397.? And then, forward
    this alert to your pro-gun friends and family.? Even if you have
    already contacted your Rep., please consider doing so again.? Rep.
    Musgrave needs a huge outpouring of support if she is to convince the
    House leadership that they should push H.R. 800, rather than just
    taking the Senate version at face value.

    You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
    http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative a
    pre-written e-mail message such as the one below.

    Or, you can call your Representative toll-free at 877-762-8762.

    --- Pre-written letter ---

    Dear Representative:

    As you know, the Senate recently passed much-needed lawsuit
    protection for the gun industry (S. 397).? But this bill passed with
    some unwanted baggage -- specifically, two amendments that chip away
    at the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

    One amendment imposes a handgun tax and paves the way for future
    requirements that gun owners lock up their guns, thus rendering them
    unavailable for self-defense.? The second provision -- the armor
    piercing ammunition language -- would also pave the way for future
    restrictions, as explained in detail at www.gunowners.org/a081105.htm
    on the Gun Owners of America website.

    For these reasons, I urge you to sign onto a letter being circulated
    by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave which deals with real efforts to gain
    lawsuit protection for gun makers and gun dealers, without
    endangering ordinary gun owners.

    The letter asks the House leadership to push H.R. 800, a lawsuit
    protection bill that contains no gun control, rather than its Senate
    counterpart.? H.R. 800 has been well received in the House, as it
    currently has 257 cosponsors.

    America deserves a CLEAN bill which offers real protection for gun
    makers and dealers.? Thank you very much.

    Sincerely,

    ****************************
     
  13. DelayedReaction

    DelayedReaction Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    645
    I don't see the threat they're talking about. The language doesn't really provide an impetus for the creation of an armor piercing bullet standard, it asks if a standard for testing projectiles could be created. The answer is it could, but the important thing is whether or not that standard is comparable to reality. I could create a government standard where bullets of a specified mass and caliber are fired using specific propellant sizes through specific barrel lengths at designated target, but whether or not that would compare to reality is another question entirely.

    Worse yet, the creation of a standard won't really cause much of a change. Let's say that a standard is created, and the end result is that bullets which achieve a rating of 7 or greater on the Feinstein-Retard scale are considered armor piercing. Manufactuers will just find way to make bullets that are still usable and yet legal.

    Heck, I think a study is a great idea. If there's a way to create a standardized study that will lead to improved body armor, more power to them.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page