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.
I don't want to sound like Rosie O'Donnell (I strongly believe that "For every Jew, a 22"-- and fervently support gun rights), 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.
From the article: "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 Craig amendment authorizes a two year study of so-called armor piercing ammuntion. It is NOT a ban on anything. This looks like an alternative to the Mikulski/Kennedy bans.
It just requires a study and the enhanced penalties for AP ammo possession or use in violent crime. It doesn't say anything about additional legislation after the study - just that there should be a study.
Quit jumping the gun until you have all the facts!!
I need you to tell me again why the NRA is OUR savior.
Earlier today you wrote, " Oh, Bullsh!t. The NRA is blocking those amendments."
You have been in this pro NRA mode since I can recall, now I'm asking you to take off your blinders and realize that when an amendment restricting the 2nd Amendment comes from an NRA Director that you do not have the FULL picture of what has been happening!
These people are becoming afraid that a patriot will start shooting at them in their bullet proofed limousines. That can be the ONLY reason for their fear of civilians having armor piercing ammunition!
"Let's send a message that armor piercing ammunition is flat off limits," said Sen. Craig.
Sir, I am asking you to sit down and start thinking about how YOU have been taken to the cleaners by their smooth talk. You are the one who swallowed it "hook, line and sinker"
Wayne LaPierre isn't afraid for his life, it is the elected governmental officials attempting to defeat the 2nd, who have reason to fear young angry, rash thinking civilian patriots. NRA Director Sen. Larry Craig is the NRA Director who is pushing this amendment, not the NRA membership!
I'm simply asking you to take the time to do a serious reconsideration of your views.
Riight. They supported the '68 gun control act, the 1934 National Firearms Act, and others. Their "compromise" on the NFA was that the original bill would have put handguns under the same controls as machine guns. No bill that infringes upons the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a "good bill" by Constitutional definition.
The NRA's strategy has almost always been to limit the damage, rather than trying to prevent it entirely, or should the worst happen, hope the people press the "reset button". They've contributed greatly, if inadvertently, to the "boiling of the frog".
Those blinder are getting uncomforatble, aren't they. Who promoted the seat belt study?
Who's the government to decide what I need, especially in light of the Constitutional prohibition on doing just that with regard to arms. Besides, real AP, not just regular ammo that can penetrate a vest designed to stop pistol bullets, could come in mighty handy should the need to defend against government oppression ever become acute, which is undoubtedly what bothers the policritters. Secondly the performance standards for legally defined AP would likely sweep up virtually all center fire rifle ammunition, and that you do need to hunt, defend your home, etc, etc.
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.