Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Massachusetts, his legislation goes at long guns, rifles, and their ammunition. What I did not say, with him coming back into the Chamber, is we do direct the Attorney General to look at, over a period of time, 2 years--no later than that--and report to the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which the Senator serves, a study to see whether what the Senator is proposing in his amendment wipes from the shelves of this country the kind of hunting ammunition we believe it will, and that certainly a good many others do.
I am not insensitive to what the Senator is saying, but I am saying, let's get the facts. We do not want to wipe out half the hunting or two-thirds of the hunting ammunition and the target ammunition in this country. That is legitimate. It is law abiding. Does it get misused? Yes. Does some of it have armor-piercing capability, to some extent? Yes.
Certainly this is what our intent is. In the meantime, let's toughen the law. Let's send the message to the criminal element in our country that armor-piercing ammunition is flat off limits or you pay a phenomenal price for it.
Is it a deterrent? The Senator from Massachusetts would suggest it is not. In most instances, we find good, tough law enforcement, and a reality known by those who would commit crimes with this kind of ammunition in this country, does serve as a deterrent. That is the intent of the amendment. We believe it is a good amendment.
What it looks like Craig did was give us two years to get this pulled and Kennedy out of office. In the meantime, anyone committing a felony with "AP" ammo is going away for life.
Did you read the posts above--
Senator Craig's office said "possession" is included.
How do you justify that?
Please post a link.