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.
Maybe you think the UN website is informative. They are some of the best liars and have a very plain website.
"They hate the NRA but they can't tell you what their gun group does. "
Not every gun group has a communist Senator on their Board of Directors, such as the NRA.
"They hate the Republicans but they want the dems back into power."
Sorry, but you are looking at a lifetime Republican who finally woke up after Bush came on board.
"They complain they have Boxer, Feinstein or Schumer as senators but they won't sent phone calls, e mails or faxes."
Would you care to pay my monthly phone bill, just the ones to Washington positioned elected officials run $50 to a $150 a month. I don't use the 800 numbers because I prefer not to speak with clerks. On average that amounts to 30 minutes per day. I would appreciate it if you would pay the tab. So before you get too yappy why don't you read and reply to #36
The issue isn't the stated objective of the legislation, but the unstated objective. They pulled something like this years ago about steel-core bullets...and literally metric tons of cheap milsurp 7.62x39 blasting ammo immediately disappeared off the market.
Idaho? Are you kidding?
However, more LEOs would have been killed by "AP" rounds if they had loaded them into their own duty weapons......
Does is it matter who's name is on it?
This is just some BS study wasting my tax money. It's bad, but not as bad as KABA says.
(1) STUDY.--The Attorney General shall conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the uniform testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible.
How bad does it have to get for you, Dan? Will the ink have to be dry on a new law that bans it all? How close should we let them get before we say 'enough'?
(B)ATF(E)ces Online
Under Title 18, UNITED STATES CODE, CHAPTER 44 as amended by Public Law 103-322 The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (enacted September 13, 1994) 18 U.S.C. CHAPTER 44 § 921(a)(17)(B) the term 'armor piercing ammunition' means --
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.
(C) The term 'armor piercing ammunition' does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Secretary finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Secretary finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.
A better explanation of the BATFEces deranged version of "the law"...
Fact:
"Armor piercing ammunition" is defined in federal law [18 U.S.C. 921(17)(B)] as "a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed" of various metals harder than lead, or "a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile." SS-109 bullets used in M855 have a steel tip under the jacket, but they have a lead core.
As if this were not enough BATF has specifically exempted M855/SS-109 along with .30-06 M2 AP.
Straight from the horse's mouth (ATF):
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING CARTRIDGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION:
5.56MM (.223) SS-109 and M855 Ammunition, Identified by a green coating on the projectile tip.
US .30-06 M2 AP, Identified by a black coating on the projectile tip.
;-) I was trying to not be too hyperbolic for those who are still clinging to their thread of hope that 'the gun-grabbers are just misinformed do-gooders' or whatever it is they think gives us hope. Realistically? The Rubicon was twenty rivers ago.
And I never said I liked the study. For the record, I will take that in exchange for the ban on gun lawsuits. Same with the trigger locks(unless the CPSC clause is there - that's a dealbreaker). Those are PITA's. The lawsuits can break the business.
And an ammo ban(Kennedy's), gun show ban through red tape or otherwise, or AW ban will be a dealbreaker for me.
A 'study', huh? WTF is there to 'study', and what do you suppose the intended outcome of that 'study' is? And WTF is a supposedly pro-gun Senator doing even opening that can of worms?
``(A) 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; "
"This is just some BS study wasting my tax money. It's bad, but not as bad as KABA says."
And it takes YOUR right to use it away from YOU.
I'm glad you will draw the line somewhere.
I really don't like things being called a BAN unless it IS A FLAT OUT BAN. ... And I never said I liked the study.
What do you think the purpose of the study is? They plan to use the results for something.
Wow you really got a 20 watt light bulb going there don't ya!
Please take as long as you like, and get back to me with a Catalogging of every instance where a Cop was killed with AP Ammo.
To come up with even a Few it's gonna take you a LOOOONNNNGGG time. Because it just doesn't happen very often.
When any standard Centerfire Rifle round will penetrate body armor or even plate steel why not just ban them all.(/sarcasm)
Mostly likely to give a buddy of Craig or Frist's a job somewhere.
I don't trust it, but a study in itself can't do anything, unless another bill comes through 2 years from now.
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.