NRA Director Sen. Larry Craig's Ammunition Ban Amendment

KeepAndBearArms.com ^ | February 26, 2004 | Angel Shamaya

[TERMINATTOR]

While National Rifle Association officials have been denying that they've been orchestrating a sellout in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) -- an NRA Director -- has been working on an ammunition ban. On the Senate floor today, he introduced, discussed, defended and tried to justify the "Craig/Frist" amendment. This amendment, said Craig, is needed "to strengthen current armor piercing ammunition law." NRA's point-man in the U.S. Senate says that this is "what the law enforcement community needs."

"We don't want to wipe out the hunting and sporting ammunition," said Craig. The "sporting purpose" test was used before -- as justification for firearm rights infringements via the 1938 Nazi Weapons Law and later copied nearly verbatim in the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968.

"Let's send a message that armor piercing ammunition is flat off limits," said Sen. Craig.

The NRA Director went on to support strong enforcement of his proposed ammunition ban, using phrases like "prison for life."

The Second Amendment does not enumerate the right of the people to keep and bear "sporting" arms. Banning any arms, or their ammunition, is clearly off limits to Congress. A longtime Director of the National Rifle Association ought to know that. Instead, he's supporting an ammo ban -- based on the infamous Nazi "sporting purpose" text -- on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Some might suggest that it doesn't matter what gets said on the Senate floor -- that what matters is what gets signed into law. People who believe that ought to consider the dangers here. Once a "pro gun" congressman publicly expresses support for gun control -- ammunition control is indeed gun control -- he empowers the enemy and emboldens future attempts to whittle away our rights.

The truth about civilian possession of "armor piercing ammunition" is immutable, immovable, unchanging. If government employees can deploy AP ammo against the people, denying that same ammunition to the people is directly contradictory to the meaning, purpose and intent of the Second Amendment: a balance of power.

The excuse for banning AP ammo -- "to protect law enforcement employees" -- is a dangerous road to travel. It's the same justification used to ban magazines that hold more than ten rounds. It's the same reason given to deny The People free access to machineguns. It was the same foundation upon which the Clinton/Feinstein semi-auto rifle ban was built and signed into law.

When does that excuse stop working? When the legal magazine capacity is reduced to five rounds? When all semi-auto rifles are banned? When owning a bullet-resistant vest means life imprisonment -- unless the government signs your paycheck? When all handguns are banned?

If you use "protecting law enforcement" as justification to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms -- if you accept that unacceptable excuse for chipping away at the Second Amendment -- then lay down your arms and go tend your garden, catch up on your reading and forget about restoring the Second Amendment. There's no end to that excuse other than total disarmament -- because even a mere single shot .22 caliber rifle manufactured before World War One can be used to injure a law enforcement officer.

Bear in mind that Sen. Craig's ammo ban amendment is being offered today, by him -- to his own bill. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S1805) is written to protect gun manufacturers from the frivolous lawsuits being waged by those whose ultimate goal is to ban all firearms. The bill is being used as a rider for many other gun controls today and leading up to the final vote on Tuesday. Sen. Craig wants to amend his own bill -- with an ammunition ban -- under the guise of abiding his oath of office. He said so on C-SPAN, in plain English.

We've requested text of the Amendment (SA2625) from Senator Craig's office and through another Senator's office, as well. As soon as we have it, we will publish it.

[TigersEye]

Updated info on this bill on this thread.

[Ancesthntr]

Paleo said: "Nobody needs armor piercing rounds for hunting."

Rights are not about "need." Do you "need" to read a book, go to Church or Synogogue, etc.? And who, exactly, defines "need?" The entire Bill of Rights - including the Second Amendment - is about basic rights (rights which PRE-DATE the Constitution and which are immutable) that the government may specifically NOT legislate against or infringe. When you speak of "need," you are using the language of those who would turn rights into privileges (for a fee, naturally, and revocable at the stroke of a pen when they become "inconvenient" for the grantor), and thereby giving them a substantial edge in any debate.

As for hunting, I am sick to death of that term when it is used in the context of the debate over the RKBA. Hunting has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution, which is solely concerned with the structure of our government, limitations upon its power and its relationship to the People. EFF hunting - the 2nd Amendment is about POWER, pure and simple. The Founding Fathers wanted the People to have the power, and to tell the government how to exercise it - OR ELSE. Check out The Federalist Papers, #46, by James Madison if you don't believe that. The use of the "hunting" argument in a 2nd Amendment debate only allows those that wish to limit or eliminate our RKBA (pursuant to the "sporting use" standard of the '68 Gun Control Act) set the terms of the debate. Oh, BTW, the concept of limiting firearms rights via the "sporting use" standard didn't originate here. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has proven - beyond all reasonable doubt - that Senator Thomas Dodd (father of today's rabidly anti-gun, frothing-at-the-mouth Sen. Chris Dodd) had the 1938 Nazi Weapons Law translated, and he inserted that language, nearly word-for-word, into the '68 GCA. See http://www.jpfo.org/gateway.htm for the book that details these facts.

ChicagoHebrew said: "I don't want to sound like Rosie O'Donnell...but you don't need an armor piercing bullet to defend your home, go hunting, or form the citizen's militia that defends against government oppression. About the only thing you need armor piercing ammunition for is killing cops."

I think that the several tens of millions of people who were murdered by governments during the 20th century could have found a good use for AP ammo - had they been allowed to own either guns or ammo. This includes 6 million of our co-religionists. Oh, and the murderous regimes that committed 9 large genocides during the Century of Government had no restrictions on what they could use to commit the worst atrocities the world has ever seen. Look at this site to see the link between gun control and genocide: http://www.jpfo.org/genocide.htm

Those who are "lukewarm" supporters of the RKBA need to understand - at the core of their being - what George Washington understood: "Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire; a dangerous servant and a terrible master." Washington had reason to know, having fought for a government (England in the French & Indian Wars), against a government (the Revolution), and having helped to form and run a government (the Constitutional Convention and his Presidency). Learn from history and the people who have tried to pass to us their knowledge and experience, which was often gained the hard way.

MOLON LABE!!!!

[B4Ranch]

SA 2625. Mr. CRAIG (for Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. CRAIG)) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1805, to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others; as follows:

At the appropriate place, add the following:

SEC. 5. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

(a) UNLAWFUL ACTS.--Section 922(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraphs (7) and (8) and inserting the following:

``(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, unless--

``(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

(b) PENALTIES.--Section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(5) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided under this subsection, or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries armor piercing ammunition, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses armor piercing ammunition, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime or conviction under this section--

This will restrict you from ,uses or carries armor piercing ammunition, unless-- you are a Fed.

[Dan from Michigan]

I read that too, and oppose the amendment, but those bullets are 'already banned'. (Black talons)

The 'definition' of those bullets aren't changed.

[Atlas Sneezed]

About the only thing you need armor piercing ammunition for is killing cops.

---

Actually, the AP capability has almost nothing to do with lethalithy to someone wearing a kevlar vest.

It has everything to do with tyrants and their agents who arrived in armored vehicles (including their limosines.)

Ask yourself, (knowing that AP is common and cheap because it is surplus cast-offs from militaries around the world) why it is so popular for militaries? And if it is so useful for militaries githting wars, why wouldn't it be useful for citizen militia members defending freedom?

[Atlas Sneezed]

However, more LEOs would have been killed by "AP" rounds if they had loaded them into their own duty weapons......

---

L:ike the panicky goons who killed each other at Waco with "Cyclone" 9mm rounds in their MP5s, which their vests weren't rated for.

[TigersEye]

Black Talons are not AP bullets they are just the opposite.

Are you intentionally ignoring the connection between banning AP ammunition and starting a study to determine what "AP" ammunition is?

[Dan from Michigan]

Are you intentionally ignoring the connection between banning AP ammunition and starting a study to determine what "AP" ammunition is?

Right now, yes. Later on, no.

Because there has to be a seperate bill to ban them.

[Blood of Tyrants]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1086587/posts?page=26#26

Read and compare the current law and the proposed changes. There is NO provision in Craig's amendment that redefines AP ammunition. He is proposing legislation to STUDY the feasibility of coming up with a AP standard.

Angel Shamaya has gone off half cocked with little information on this one.

[TigersEye]

Right now, yes. Later on, no. Because there has to be a seperate bill to ban them.

No. That is exactly wrong. The law is being made now to ban "armor piercing" ammo. The study creates new parameters to define ammo as "armor piercing." No new law is then necessary to ban additional types of ammunition. A bureaucrat simply adds new types of ammunition to the list of banned "armor piercing" ammo as defined by Congressional study and that's it.

Who will even say how heavy the body-armor used in the study has to be? No one will vote on a law about that.

[B4Ranch]

I saw some for sale at a recent gun show. They were .50 cal and $3 a piece.

[Paleo Conservative]

Paleo said: "Nobody needs armor piercing rounds for hunting."

No, I said, "Nobody needs armor piercing rounds for hunting. On the other hand, the second amendment is not about the rights of hunters and target shooters."

The second sentence is so important to my meaning that to only quote the first is to distort what I said.

[Mr. Mojo]

Kinda like the lefties only quoting the first part of the 2nd Amendment.

[Sofa King]

"On the other hand, the second amendment is not about the rights of hunters and target shooters."

Damn straight. All of this stuff about hunting is just a smokescreen. the 2nd amendment is about arming ourselves against the government.

[looscnnn]

Dan wrote: "but those bullets are 'already banned'. (Black talons)"

Just for handguns, you can still get them for rifles.

Tiger wrote: "Black Talons are not AP bullets they are just the opposite."

Winchester Silvertips, Nosler Ballistic tips, etc. fall in the same category.

[TigersEye]

That category being expanding bullets which is just the opposite of AP bullets.

[B4Ranch]

"To: TERMINATTOR
Nobody needs armor piercing rounds for hunting. On the other hand, the second amendment is not about the rights of hunters and target shooters.

10 posted on 02/26/2004 11:27:02 PM PST by Paleo Conservative

When I saw the "Paleo said: "Nobody needs armor piercing rounds for hunting."" I had to go and see if you had actually said it. Thank goodness for what you did say. I was about to rush some strong coffee over to you because you've never been that far out of whack before, late at night or early in the morning.

Glad to see you made your own coffee this morning. LOL

[looscnnn]

"That category being expanding bullets which is just the opposite of AP bullets."

Exactly, but they are "armor piercing bullets" because they can go through a vest. They are not true armor piercing bullets because they will not penitrate metal armor. We need to start clarifying whether bullets are "AP" or AP in the posts.

[TigersEye]

The second sentence is so important to my meaning that to only quote the first is to distort what I said.

You are right. You were absolutely hammered on that first sentence and I was one of them. I saw the second but when you open up with "Nobody needs armor piercing rounds for hunting." which is such a classic kneejerk gun-control type phrase it needs to be shot down. Sorry you were flying the plane.

Apparently you want to disenfranchise people who want to hunt rock chucks in boulder fields. /sarcasm

[TigersEye]

... but they are "armor piercing bullets" because they can go through a vest.

Don't even say that!!! ; )