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

S.397 Armor piercing amendment clarified

Discussion in 'Legal' started by boofus, Aug 6, 2005.

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

    boofus Guest

    Just got this from NRA-ILA concerning Larry Craig's amendment for a study on armor piercing ammo:

    As we reported last week, thanks to your great efforts, the U.S. Senate passed S. 397--the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act"--by a strong bipartisan vote of 65-31! This action represents a MAJOR first step toward ending the anti-gun lobby's extreme and immoderate attempts to bankrupt the firearm industry through reckless, predatory lawsuits, and was a ground breaking step forward for law-abiding firearm manufacturers, retailers and owners in this country.

    There has been some discussion this week concerning two amendments to S. 397. The first, by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.), requires federally licensed dealers to provide a "secure gun storage or safety device" with the sale/transfer of every handgun (it does not apply to long guns). The measure, which passed by a vote of 70-30, does not require gun owners to use the device, does not apply to private transfers, and does not create any new civil liability for gun owners who choose not to use these storage devices. Virtually all new handguns today are sold with some type of secure storage or safety device. The amendment has no significant impact on current law.

    The other amendment, by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), passed by a margin of 87-11, and was offered this year (as it was in 2004) in a successful attempt to defeat Sen. Edward Kennedy's "armor piercing" ammunition amendment that would have banned all centerfire rifle ammunition. By providing an alternative to Sen. Kennedy's amendment, pro-gun senators were able to marshal the votes to defeat the Kennedy amendment.

    Here's what this amendment does:

    * The amendment (section 6 of the bill) restates the existing prohibition (in 18 USC Sec. 922(a)) on manufacture, or on sale by manufacturers, of "armor piercing ammunition," except for government use, for export, or for use in testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General. This law has been in effect for nearly two decades.

    * It increases the mandatory minimum sentence for the use of "armor piercing ammunition" in a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. Use of armor piercing ammunition in a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime is already a federal offense punishable by 5 years in prison; the amendment increases the penalty to 15 years, and authorizes the death penalty if the ammunition is used in a murder.

    * It directs the Attorney General to conduct a study "to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible." In fact, we know such a standard is "feasible" because the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has been testing projectiles against body armor since the early 1970s, and has regularly written and updated the standards for testing projectiles against armor. NIJ's research has saved lives by improving the design and manufacture of body armor. (NIJ standards and background information are available online at http://www.justnet.org/testing/bodyarmor.html.)

    Here's what this amendment does not do:

    * The amendment does not give the Attorney General (or anyone else) any new authority to ban ammunition.

    * The amendment does not change the definition of "armor piercing ammunition." Under current law (18 USC Sec. 921(a)(17)(B)), ammunition is only "armor piercing" if it has a bullet that "may be used in a handgun" and that is made entirely from certain hard metals such as tungsten, steel, bronze or depleted uranium; or if the bullet is "designed and intended for use in a handgun" and has a jacket that weighs more than 25% of the weight of the projectile. The current definition has been in place for more than 12 years.

    * The amendment does not create any kind of new ammunition ban. The only ammunition that is banned as "armor piercing" is ammunition that fits the current definition, and neither the amendment nor the study would change the definition.

    As you know, the fight now moves to the U.S. House of Representatives, so it is critical that you once again contact your U.S. Representative and urge him/her to pass S. 397!

    Members should also express their gratitude to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Senator Minority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and bill sponsors Sens. Larry Craig and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) for their leadership and stewardship on S. 397.

    (For a list of roll call votes on these amendments and final passage of S. 397, please go to www.NRAILA.org. Take note of how your Senators voted, and please thank those who voted in support of gun owners and let those who voted against our rights know that you will keep their votes in mind when they are up for re-election. BE SURE TO ALSO ATTEND ANY OF YOUR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE'S TOWN HALL MEETINGS DURING THE "SUMMER DISTRICT WORK PERIOD" [Aug. 1-Sept. 5] and encourage him/her to bring up and pass S. 397 as soon as possible.)
  2. jefnvk

    jefnvk Member

    Jun 3, 2004
    The Copper Country, Michigan
    Glad we can put th rumors to rest.

    I have no love for either side of the issue that makes false accusations, or spreads harmful rumors.
  3. Eightball

    Eightball Member

    May 31, 2005
    Louisville, KY
    At least kennedy didn't succeed in re-defining "AP Ammo" to any given centerfire bullet. :neener: to him. But, we need to be thankful to the people who already knew where the exact specifications are written to determine AP ammo from normal centerfire cartridges--and give them campaign donations to keep them in office :D .
  4. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Mar 1, 2004
    The study is still stupid and a waste of money.

    It should be stripped out.

    I don't care about the trigger lock section.

    It really is meaningless.
  5. Gifted

    Gifted Member

    Jul 28, 2004
    That's only if Congress gives the AG money for the test. Budget is still in the way, and if the Repubs know what's good for them, they'll keep that study from being funded until they can make sure that it goes our way.
  6. Poodleshooter

    Poodleshooter Member

    Dec 30, 2002
    Mr. Jefferson's country
    Bingo. A waste of time,and the possibility that it's results could stimulate some sort of attempt at redefinition. It's just not needed.
    I took the simple route and asked my rep to simply support HR 800 and to pass a clean bill if possible. I don't like the possible slippery slope that the added amendments create.
  7. Kurush

    Kurush Member

    Jul 16, 2005
    I'd say it's a shame that they didn't change the definition, "capable of being used in a handgun" is very very bad wording, and ATF has decided things like 7.62x39 and 308 are included.
  8. Brett Bellmore

    Brett Bellmore Member

    Dec 28, 2002
    Capac, Michigan
    I'd be a lot more comfortable about that amendment, if it had passed with 67 votes, not 87. The cost to buy those votes mounts up fast, and the currency it's paid in is OUR rights. Any amendment that gets 87 votes had to involve buying the support of some awfully nasty characters.

    What did they get?

    1. Reaffirms a not particularly necessary law. I'd call that a wash.

    2. If they find a joint in your possession, AND some round they don't like in your closet, an extra decade in jail. :barf:

    3. Directs the government to manufacture public relations materials in favor of making the law on AP ammo much more restrictive. Since, as we all know, the current law doesn't get in our way much only because it's so badly written that it lets a lot of ammo that's functionally armor piercing get by.

    Let's face it. most of the body armor on the market is pretty pathetic, and it takes some major penetrating power to take down some of the larger game animals, even if you're sticking to North America. Any rational definition of AP rounds that actually makes any difference would be hard on the big game hunters.
  9. Ultima-Ratio

    Ultima-Ratio Member

    Mar 16, 2004
    anchorage alaska
    Section 6 Question??

    Can someone print the section in question for all to read? I read an article on Liberty Forums that disagrees with the ILA/NRA statement..
    Thanks All
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page