Posted on 02/26/2004 11:15:11 PM PST by 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.
She pointed out how legislators (who are really responsible for the myriad laws we suffer under) are relatively inaccessible. It might be possible for an unhappy citizen to pick off one of them from time to time, but their soldiers who enforce those laws-- the police-- are a lot easier to hit.
I'm fairly unsophisticated when it comes to html, so you'll have to cut and past this:
www.lizmichael.com/mcveigh.htm
Don't let the title put you off; read the whole thing. It's worth it.
Problem #2. That ammo was purchased. It is private property. The government can not force you to "turn it in" without just compensation for the property.
Surprised several oldtimers with what "my" 30-30 would do. ;)
I wouldn't suggest using pointy-tipped bullets in a tube-feed 30-30 unless you want to surprise yourself with what your 30-30 would do. Might not be a bad idea either to set your affairs in order before you pull the trigger. Just for giggles, you might want to take that first shot from behind a very solid wall, and make it via a string tied to the trigger.
Why not? They do it all the time with eminent domain and civil forfeiture.
Eminent domain still requires just compensation. Civil forfeiture happens AFTER you are convicted of a crime. It is part of a formal sentence following due process.
I "am" here today after all. ;)
In theory, sure.
In practice, it ain't happening.
Civil forfeiture happens AFTER you are convicted of a crime. It is part of a formal sentence following due process.
Garcon! I'll have whatever he's smoking.
Not always.
You might want to check the record at FEAR.
BTW, you will for sure want to read The War on Patients over at that site some FReepers avoid like the plague.
As you are painfully aware, there are worse things than becoming an addict.
Perseverance, and God bless.
That's in the old America we knew and loved. Now judges can declare two men to be a marriage, or 2+2=5. They can easily outlaw ammo you legally own. National security, doncha know. It's in the fine print of the Patriot Act already. "Other measures as may be required." Banning deadly armor piercing cop-killer bullets (like 556, 308 etc) would be an easy sell the American sheeple.
Not hardly. Just look at bullet weight, muzzle velocity and 100-yard velocity. (from: Arizona Gun Runners)
|
Cartridge |
Bullet Type |
Bullet Weight (gr) |
Muzzle feet/sec |
100 yard feet/sec |
|
7.62x39 |
FMJ |
123 |
2350 |
2072 |
|
30-30 Win |
FASFHP |
150 |
2100 |
1769 |
|
7.62 NATO |
FMJ-BT |
147 |
2751 |
2473 |
|
30-06 |
FMJ |
150 |
2773 |
2542 |
You may have been thinking of 7.62x51 aka 7.62 NATO
Fine, so they'll conduct a giant, and mandatory, "buy back" of the ammunition. What do they care, it's not their money, but yours. Besides you are relying on the protection of the fifth amendment. If they are willing to so blatantly violate the second, why should violating the fifth bother them? When one article of the Bill of Rights goes, and they've been violating several of them for decades, they all will eventually go, either "For the Children" or in the name of "given up essential liberty to obtain temporary (and illusionary) safety"
They could just as easily charge the ammo with a crime. They've done that already with firearms suspected of being used in "drug crimes". Those folks have to sue to get their guns back, even if they, the actual humans, are never convicted of a crime, and often they run out of money before the goverment runs out of yours. The politically incorrect parts of the fifth amendment are in no better oder with the policritters than the entire second amendment is.
Just for kicks I was going to see if they had that 110gr bullet load for the 30-30 I used to like listed.
I don't even remember where I came up with that load,it's so long back(early 60s).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.