To: Shooter 2.5; Joe Brower
No sir, I don't like it at all. Substituting a "less restrictive" amendment for a more restrictive amendment is still a restriction.
4 posted on
02/28/2004 7:06:07 AM PST by
wysiwyg
(What parts of "right of the people" and "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?)
To: wysiwyg
Agree, Kennedy's Ammo Ban Amendment is wrong and it should be defeated on it's own lack of merit.
Any attempt, especially by an NRA Director - and cosponsor of S. 1805 (Craig), to ameliorate it is a wrongheaded strategy in my viewpoint.
It would be far better to argue for its outright defeat than attempt to make it palatable in any form.
Not to mention, such action is contrary to the President's request (as well as NRA claimed strategy) that he be sent a "clean bill."
To: wysiwyg
That can go both ways. If the bill would pass, you would have the same exact people yelling they should have introduced less restrictions.
Pay close attention to this portion of the letter by Gary Marbut, president Montana Shooting Sports at the end of the article.
"If this is correct, and if the Craig/Frist amendment language relies upon this definition found elsewhere in the USC, then the Craig/Frist amendment net effect appears to be limited to shifting authority for this area of the law enforcement from Treasury to Justice, and to commissioning the Justice Department study about AP ammunition. Hard to find much bad in that."
That study would buy us the time to defeat the amendment and the anti's. Bear in mind, all of the gun groups are still working for a clean bill.
7 posted on
02/28/2004 7:36:53 AM PST by
Shooter 2.5
(Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
To: wysiwyg
Not only that but it PAVES the Way for future(and further)RESTRICTIONS!!!!!!!!!!
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson