Amendments to Gun Mfrs Liability Protection Act (Expanded AP Bullet Amendment is a Killer)

Thomas.gov ^ | 2/27/04 | Self

[Dan from Michigan]

While the amendment sucked, that was NOT a ban. KABA was off the mark.

[Dan from Michigan]

I read the two Frist ones that related to Muhammad and to the police officers ones(Corzines)

From what I got, they could be sued if they broke the law. Frist's amendments really didn't do anything from the impression I got, and it was really just an attempt to undermine Mikulski and Corzine.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

This is the latest from NRA stratergy.

Information posted by NRA at 9:27am Chicagotime to my email.


Well you gun owners may want to hold your horses as this plays out.

Here is the latest read from NRA. I received it at 9:45am chicagotime.




On Wednesday morning, the U.S. Senate began to debate S. 1805—the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (formerly referenced as S. 659/S. 1806.) A bi-partisan 75-22 vote allowed debate to proceed, lifting the threat of a filibuster.

The debate continued late into the evening with no substantive movement on the bill and no additional votes were taken. Senators did, however, reach a "Unanimous Consent Agreement" spelling out specific amendments that would be permitted to be offered during the debate in anticipation of a final vote on the underlying measure next Tuesday.

On Thursday, the Senate reconvened and first considered was an amendment by anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that would require all handguns be sold with a mechanical safety device approved by the Consumer Product Safety Commission(CPSC). This amendment was then replaced with a "second degree" amendment by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI). The Kohl amendment is much less restrictive and also provides liability protection for gun owners. The revised amendment passed 70-27.

The Senate next debated an amendment by Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) which would permit current and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms off duty in other states. Arguing hysterically against the amendment, anti-gun Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) revealed his deep distrust of gun carrying even by sworn police officers. A vote on the Campbell amendment was deferred until Tuesday.

Sen. Kennedy then introduced an amendment to ban the manufacture and sale of "armor-piercing" ammunition. Kennedy, who actually condemned the .30-30 Winchester cartridge during debate, wants to institute a "performance-based" standard that would grant any future Attorney General sweeping authority to ban any center-fire ammunition, including most common-place rifle hunting ammunition. The standard proposed by Sen. Kennedy was rejected in the 1980s as overly broad and unnecessary to meet any threat posed to law enforcement officers` safety. A vote on this NRA-opposed amendment will take place Tuesday.

The Senate next debated and voted upon two amendments seeking to gut S. 1805. The first related to the D.C. sniper case, but the proposal by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) was defeated, 56-40. A "law enforcement" exemption offered by Sen. John Corzine (D-NJ) was soundly defeated, 56 to 38.

NRA strongly opposed both amendments. One of the strengths of S. 1805 is that it adopts the same rules for all plaintiffs, no matter how sympathetic or unsympathetic, and no matter how notorious or mundane their victimization. Plaintiffs` rights should depend on settled principles of law, not on emotion or sympathy.

NRA-ILA stands totally committed to enacting S. 1805 without anti-gun amendments, and will continue to vigorously oppose any reauthorization of the 1994 Clinton gun ban and any attempt to ban gun shows.

Please continue to contact your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121 and urge them to support S. 1805 without any anti-gun amendments. Call ILA`s Grassroots staff at (800) 392-8683, or visit http://www.nraila.org/stoprecklesslawsuits.aspx for additional information and to utilize the "Write Your Representatives" feature to contact your U.S. Senators.

This post is to provide information to the histeria that is running rapid on the internet.

I do not support NRA, nor am I a friend of NRA. However, U suggest that you don't have all the information.

[templar]

If I understand that the 'armor piercing' capability is about piercing body armor, I think it is a back door way of getting rid of milsurp ammo to the public. Milsurp stuff of almost any caliber will penetrate almost any law enforcement grade of body armor and has very little or no use for 'hunting' purposes by todays hunting standards. It effectively makes it financially improbable that the majority of gun owners will have a large supply of ammunition available or be able to purchase ammunition in large lots.

[Sofa King]

"To protect the rights of law enforcement officers who are victimized by crime to secure compensation from those who participate in the arming of criminals."

So... LEOs now have legal protection to sue gun sellers? This bill is stinking worse and worse all the time.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Okay, lets get REAL folks instead of hysterical. Text of law as it currently reads

(7)for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, except that this paragraph shall not apply to -

(A)the manufacture or importation of such ammunition for the use of the United States or any department or agency thereof or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof;

(B)the manufacture of such ammunition for the purpose of exportation; and

(C)any manufacture or importation for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary;

(8)for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, except that this paragraph shall not apply to -

(A)the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of such ammunition for use of the United States or any department or agency thereof or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof;

(B)the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of such ammunition for the purpose of exportation;

(C)the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of such ammunition for the purposes of testing or experimenting authorized by the Secretary; and

Text of proposed legislation:

striking paragraphs (7) and (8) and inserting the following:

``(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, unless--

``(A) the manufacture of such ammunition 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;

``(B) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the purpose of exportation; or

``(C) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General.

``(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, unless such sale or delivery--

``(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;

``(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or

``(C) is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General.''.

    (b) PENALTIES.--Section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

    ``(5) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided under this subsection, or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries armor piercing ammunition, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses armor piercing ammunition, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime or conviction under this section--

    ``(A) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 years;

    ``(B) if death results from the use of such ammunition--

    ``(i) if the killing is murder (as defined in section 1111), be punished by death or sentenced to a term of imprisonment for any term of years or for life; and

    ``(ii) if the killing is manslaughter (as defined in section 1112), be punished as provided in section 1112.''.

    (c) STUDY AND REPORT.--

    (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.

    (2) ISSUES TO BE STUDIED.--The study conducted under paragraph (1) shall include--

    (A) variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or centerfire rifle from which the projectile is fired; and

    (B) the amount of powder used to propel the projectile.

    (3) REPORT.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report containing the results of the study conducted under this subsection to--

    (A) the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate; and

    (B) the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives.

   

[Blood of Tyrants]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1086587/posts?page=26#26

There is NO provision in Craigs amendment that redefines the law. He is proposing legislation to STUDY the feasibility of coming up with a AP standard.

[B4Ranch]

"Larry Craig didn't amend it. Ted Kennedy did. There is some motive for blaming this on Craig that we are unaware of."

If that's the case and Craig didn't support the amendment, then Craig would pull it out from under Kennedy by withdrawing it. Very easy to put this fire out but notice he isn't doing it!

[Ronaldus Magnus]

If I understand that the 'armor piercing' capability is about piercing body armor, I think it is a back door way of getting rid of milsurp ammo to the public.

The demoncrats are intentionally confusing the issue. "Armor piercing ammunition" used to mean steel or tungsten cored bullets intended to penetrate steel armor. The demoncrats are attempting to expand that definition to include any ammunition that can penetrate soft body armor. The highest level of DOJ soft armor protection, level IIIa, is only intended to stop handgun and some shotgun ammunition. This amendment could effectively ban all center-fire rifle ammunition, since any bullet (including jacketed soft point or even cast lead) with a velocity over about 1,500 feet per second can penetrate soft body armor.

[Blood of Tyrants]

That amendment was defeated.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Read my post #26 above.

[Blood of Tyrants]

P.S. My bad. Frist and Craig did introduce a different amendment than Kennedy.

[Sofa King]

But, according to the list, it was proposed again and passed. (look at #14)

[Blood of Tyrants]

Kennedy's amendment would have done just that. The text of the Craig/FRist amendment is above along with the current law and does NOT redefine AP ammo.

[TigersEye]

If they ban armor piercing ammo now and then redefine what constitutes "armor piercing" ammo later, with the study, won't it be a matter of a bureaucrat inking in additional types of ammo as "armor piercing" to the list ala Congressional study definitions? Who decides how heavy the body-armor used in the study will be?

[Blood of Tyrants]

Once again, the devil is in the details. This link shows who voted for and against it. Do you REALLY think that Schumer, Feinswine, Boxer, clintoon, Lautenberg, ad nauseum, would vote AGAINST it if it was what they wanted?

[Blood of Tyrants]

Once again, the devil is in the details. This link shows who voted for and against it. Do you REALLY think that Schumer, Feinswine, Boxer, clintoon, Lautenberg, ad nauseum, would vote AGAINST it if it was what they wanted?

(Link works now).

[Sofa King]

I prefer to judge people on how they vote, not judge what they vote on by what I think of the people.

[B4Ranch]

"Frist and Craig did introduce a different amendment than Kennedy."

Support the NRA Director! NOT!@!

[Blood of Tyrants]

AP ammo is defined and ammo that falls under that definition is banned now. This amendment does NOT change that definition nor does it authorize anyone to do so. There is no requirement in the law to do anyting at all with the results of the study.