Protect firearm manufacturers

[andy]

Last week the U.S senate passed S.397 supposedly to protect against nuisance lawsuits.Part one of section 6 makes it illegal to make, import, sell or deliver any "armor piercing" ammo. Except-
A) for the use of state and federal governmant departments or agencies

B)for export

C)Attorney general-approved testing

This all sounds good until part three. This part instructs the U.S. Attorney General--"conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against body armor is feasible."
Herein lies the rub: "The tests to determine whether or not ammo is 'armor piercing' are not to be conducted against body armor. As anyone knowledgable about firearms knows. virtually all rifle ammo will penetrate body armor. So will some pistol ammuntion."

my question is will it be worth it to allow one man the right to decide for the nation what is or is not armor piercing-just for the sake of throwing out junk lawsuits?

 

[Cryozombie]

Is that any different than allowing a bunch of senators to decide what is an "Assault Rifle" based on how scary the weapon looks as opposed to its actual operation?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Is that any different than allowing a bunch of senators to decide what is an "Assault Rifle" based on how scary the weapon looks as opposed to its actual operation?

This is the same law making body that passed federal laws against switch blades in the 1950's because they watched Rebel Without a Cause.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Is that any different than allowing a bunch of senators to decide what is an "Assault Rifle" based on how scary the weapon looks as opposed to its actual operation?

This is the same law making body that passed federal laws against switch blades in the 1950's because they watched Rebel Without a Cause.

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Sigmund Freud "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis"

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." Mao Tse Tung

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
Mahatma Ghandi

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom ... go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels nor arms. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams

“There's no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them.” ~Israeli Police Inspector General Shlomo Aharonisk

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
Samuel Adams

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." Noah Webster

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
James Madison

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." Joseph Story

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." Aristotle

"That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a licence therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefor, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefor." North Carolina 1840 statute

"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all of this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation!" Nunn v. State (1846)

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -- ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state."
Heinrich Himmler

And my favorite...

"Hell, when the man said Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, I just thought he was making a delivery!" John Wesley Rawles

 

[KenpoTex]

Great quotes, there were some I hadn't seen before.

Check here for a more detailed explanation of the armor-piercing stuff. It's not quite as bad as it sounds.

-from the article:

* The amendment does not give the Attorney General (or anyone else) any new authority to ban ammunition.

* The amendment does not change the definition of "armor piercing ammunition." Under current law (18 USC Sec. 921(a)(17)(B)), ammunition is only "armor piercing" if it has a bullet that "may be used in a handgun" and that is made entirely from certain hard metals such as tungsten, steel, bronze or depleted uranium; or if the bullet is "designed and intended for use in a handgun" and has a jacket that weighs more than 25% of the weight of the projectile. The current definition has been in place for more than 12 years.

* The amendment does not create any kind of new ammunition ban. The only ammunition that is banned as "armor piercing" is ammunition that fits the current definition, and neither the amendment nor the study would change the definition.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Great quotes, there were some I hadn't seen before.

Check here for a more detailed explanation of the armor-piercing stuff. It's not quite as bad as it sounds.

-from the article:

As I explained in another forum, the armor piercing "Cop Killer Bullet" crap was the brain child of HCI poster child, and all around DWI advocate Ted "Guns don't kill people, my drunk driving does" Kennedy. He tried to tack it on in the hopes of gaining a bit of a pyhrric victory by backdoor banning virturally all rifle ammunition under the auspices of "Protecting the police".

As a police officer, I can safely assure Ted I don't need his protection. I'm more concerned about getting hit by a drunk driver, than I am getting shot by one of his "cop killer bullets", especially since the later doesn't exist.

Speaking of Ted Kennedy, I recently read about a dialogue that should have happened but didn't. The following is satire:

Rumsfeld: Kennedy 'All Wet' About Bush Lies

(2/5/04) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Sen. Edward
M. Kennedy yesterday that he was "all wet" when the Senator alleged
that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction to justify going to war.

The verbal clash came during Mr. Rumsfeld's testimony at a Senate
Armed Services Committee hearing probing the state of prewar
intelligence.

Sen. Kennedy began his questioning of the Defense Secretary by
saying, "Don't you think some members of the Bush administration should
be held legally accountable for the lies they told about Iraqi weapons, and
the subsequent cover-up?"

"First, with all due respect Senator Kennedy, you're all wet," said
Mr. Rumsfeld "The administration has not lied or covered up. However, in
general, I do believe that when a man commits a crime he should face the
bar of justice. He should not be allowed to serve in positions of
power in our government, and be hailed as a leader, when the question of
his guilt remains unresolved, if you know what I mean."

"I'm sure I do not know what you mean," Mr. Kennedy said. "But the
American people deserve to know why you can't find Saddam's weapons
of mass destruction."

"Sometimes things are hard to find, even when you know where they
are," said Mr. Rumsfeld. "For example, I've heard of a man who missed a
bridge and drove his car into the water, even though he knew where the
bridge was. And then sometimes you just keep diving into a problem and
despite repeated efforts, you come up empty handed. That doesn't mean
that nothing's there. As you know, eventually, the truth comes to light."

"Having no further questions, Mr. Kennedy yielded the remainder of
his time."

Now that's how the conversation should have went.

 

[MisterMike]

Some more info on S.397

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1696

Here's what this amendment does not do:

* The amendment does not give the Attorney General (or anyone else) any new authority to ban ammunition.

* The amendment does not change the definition of "armor piercing ammunition." Under current law (18 USC Sec. 921(a)(17)(B)), ammunition is only "armor piercing" if it has a bullet that "may be used in a handgun" and that is made entirely from certain hard metals such as tungsten, steel, bronze or depleted uranium; or if the bullet is "designed and intended for use in a handgun" and has a jacket that weighs more than 25% of the weight of the projectile. The current definition has been in place for more than 12 years.

* The amendment does not create any kind of new ammunition ban. The only ammunition that is banned as "armor piercing" is ammunition that fits the current definition, and neither the amendment nor the study would change the definition.

 

[andy]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,Verdana][size=+2]JPFO Alerts[/size]

Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.
P.O. Box 270143
Hartford, WI 53027


Phone (262) 673-9745
Fax (262) 673-9746

August 8, 2005​

FATAL BLINDNESS
When Good People Accept Bad Legislation

"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."
-- President Lyndon Johnson
​

The Liberty Crew has received a number of messages criticizing our last alert. In that alert we asked the question "Is S. 397 (the so-called "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act") a Trojan Horse?" We asked whether Section 6(c) of that bill might open the way to banning all rifle ammunition. (You can read the alert here: http://www.jpfo.org/alert20050804.htm)

The criticisms we've received tell us two things: first, some people misunderstood the purpose of the alert; second and far more discouraging, despite decades of evidence to the contrary, many gun owners still trust the federal government to protect their rights -- even when the facts scream, "Watch out!"

Hear what a sampling of critics had to say:

A READER WRITES:

[Section 6(c) does NOT give the Attorney General - or anyone else - any new authority to ban ammunition. It does not create any kind of new ammo ban.

OUR RESPONSE:

True. But then, the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority to tell people they can't carry firearms near schools, either. But that never stopped Congress issuing orders to peaceable gun owners. The law doesn't say that the BATFE can randomly ban importation of firearms components; but that never stopped the ATF bureaucrats.

No, S. 397 does not, in itself, create an ammo ban. We never said it did. We DID say its language sets the stage for a later ban. Such a ban could come about either by administrative fiat or by a powerful anti-gun attorney general manipulating Congress into one of its typical overreactions (see Len Savage's comments below).

A READER WRITES:

Section 6(c) does not change the definition of "armor-piercing ammunition" under federal law. Under the current federal law, 18 USC Sec. 921(a)(17)(B), ammunition is only "armor-piercing" if it has a bullet that "may be used in a handgun" and is made "entirely" from certain hard materials such as tungsten, steel, bronze or depleted uranium; or if the bullet is "designed and intended for use in a handgun" and has a jacket that weighs more than 25% of the total weight of the projectile. The current definition has been in place for more than 12 years and this amendment does not change that definition.

OUR RESPONSE:

True. But "designed and intended for use in a handgun" is the opening that lets the camel shove his smelly nose into the tent. As Len Savage, owner of Historic Arms, LLC, explains:

"Here is what they are not telling you: Practically every centerfire cartridge has been formatted into a pistol (including the 50 BMG) by some company at some time. My company made a small run of AK pistols last year in .223, 7.62x39, 5.45x39. This is the door being cracked open a little bit at a time. ...

"I may be a uneducated hillbilly gun-maker, but even I could put together a 'study' that would address the fact that all center fire ammo has been or could be formatted into a handgun, then with no smoke or mirrors (just video), show the 'devastating damage' on a vest-protected side of pork or beef. Then I could just stand back and watch the liberals scramble to pass a new 'armor-piercing ammo ban' making those nasty mean 'assult weapons' become just mere worthless scrap metal (since there would be no ammo)."

A READER WRITES:

The amendment [containing Section 6(c)] was offered this year (as it was in 2004) by pro-gun senators in what proved to be a successful attempt to defeat Senator Edward Kennedy's amendment that would have banned all center-fire rifle ammunition by labeling same as "armor-piercing." By providing an alternative to Senator Kennedy's amendment, pro-gun senators were able to marshal the votes necessary to defeat the Kennedy Amendment.

OUR RESPONSE:

This is so typical of American gun owners' losing mentality! An anti-gun legislator wants to do something horrible to gun owners. So instead of saying, "No and heck no!" (which a truly pro-gun Republican majority has the power to do), our alleged protectors say, "Let's compromise. Instead of banning all center-fire ammo NOW by labeling it 'armor-piercing,' we'll set up a mechanism by which your goal can be accomplished -- just a little more slowly and quietly."

Many gun owners keep insisting the Republicans are pro-gun. If that's true, then why -- with a strong Republican majority -- should there be ANY need for a supposedly pro-firearms bill to contain "compromise" provisions like dangerous "child safety locks," draconian prison sentences for mere possession of certain types of ammunition, and a study that opens the door for redefining an infinite number of ammunition types as "armor piercing"?

A READER WRITES: People who fear that S. 397 might lead to an ammo ban are "well-meaning but misinformed."

LEN SAVAGE RESPONDS: "The only well meaning, misinformed people are those who keep on saying "it's harmless, Congress is just re-stating existing law." I doubt that the well-intentioned senator [who proposed the amendment] has any idea the Pandora's box he is playing with. I wonder about motives of the lawmakers, and the attorney general."

IN CONCLUSION:

The purpose of our original alert was to encourage people to examine and ask questions about this (or any other) piece of legislation potentially affecting gun owners. Readers are free to draw their own conclusions.

Nevertheless, those who say, "You're wrong just because this bill doesn't explicitly ban ammo or redefine 'armor piercing'" are unbelievably short-sighted about how "government creep" works.

We've warned that Republican "pro-gun" rhetoric on firearms is no different than Charles Schumer's rhetoric on firearms and that neither R nor D political actions on firearms are truly pro-gun or pro-freedom. (http://www.jpfo.org/2nd-setup.htm)

If you read the book _The State vs. the People_ (http://www.jpfo.org/tsvtp.htm) you recognize how a police state can be imposed -- gradually, "legally," always "for the public good," and often with glowingly friendly rhetoric to cover the behind-the-scenes machinations.

The anti-gunners are patient. If S. 397 passes into law with Section 6(c) intact, they'll find a way to use that provision five years from now or 10 years from now to "prove" that all rifle ammo is "armor piercing" and that everyone who possesses even a single round of it should go to prison for a long, long time.

The great mystery is not what the anti-gunners intend or how they'll achieve their ends. The great mystery is why, year after year, decade after decade, so many people on our side fail to recognize the slow, gradual loss of rights -- and the sneaky, incremental tactics used to rob us of liberty.

Why do we go on trusting what Mark Twain called America's only "native criminal class" -- the U.S. Congress?

The Liberty Crew

​

JPFO mirror site located at www.jpfo.net. Updated simultaneously with our main site.
​

ARE YOU A DUES PAYING MEMBER? DO YOU BUY JPFO PRO-FREEDOM MATERIALS?

Visit the JPFO Gun Owners' Business and Service Directory

Regain your freedom - download the song "Justice Day" today!
http://www.rebelfirerock.com/downloadjd.html ​

Copyright © 2005 JPFO, Inc. Permission is granted to reproduce this alert in full, so long as the JPFO contact information is included.

JPFO ALERTS is provided as a free service to the Internet Community. If you wish to help support this service, consider joining JPFO! $20/year (no, you don't have to be Jewish!)



To subscribe to JPFO Alerts: send a blank e-mail to:

[email protected]

To Un-subscribe to JPFO Alerts: send a blank e-mail to:

[email protected]

To change your subscription address:

send an message to the Un-Subscribe address from your OLD e-mail address, and send a Subscribe message from the NEW e-mail address.

​

For Subscribe messages, respond to the confirmation message you will get back from Topica.com.

[ JPFO Home > Alerts > Fatal Blindness]

© 2005 JPFO < [email protected] >

[/font]

 

[sgtmac_46]

It is clear that many of the "reasonable firearms" legislation of the left is nothing but, at best, foot in the door tactics, and at worst backdoor gun bans. It's apparent that pro-gun ownership Americans cannot trust ANY piece of legislation or rhetoric pushed or spouted by the radical left who will stop at nothing short of complete disarmament of the American citizen. If we allow this, we'll end up like England where, when banning firearms hasn't succeeded in producing a violence free paradise, the legislature considers banning kitchen knives.