JPFO ALERT:Is S. 397 a Trojan Horse?

M

MicroBalrog

New member
August 4, 2005

Is S. 397 a Trojan Horse?


You may have heard a lot of praise for S. 397, which last week passed the U.S. Senate. This bill is supposedly intended to protect firearms manufacturers against nuisance lawsuits.

There's been minor grumbling about the "safety lock" provisions in the proposed legislation, but otherwise S. 397 has had overwhelming support.

Just about the time we were wondering why even some usually gun-unfriendly senators like Herb Kohl (D-WI) were in favor of this bill, an alert Congresswatcher contacted us with a warning.

"The only thing I see that's good about the bill," this sharp-eyed observer wrote, "is that it hasn't become law."

After taking a closer look, we agree.

As our correspondent pointed out, the real problem lies in Sec. 6 "Armor Piercing Ammunition."

THIS SECTION COULD ALLOW ALL CENTERFIRE RIFLE AMMO TO BE BANNED

Here's how.

Part One of Sec. 6 makes it illegal to make, import, sell or deliver any "armor-piercing" ammunition EXCEPT:

1) For the use of state and federal government departments or agencies.

2) For export

3) For Attorney General-approved testing.

Part Two "enhances" criminal sentences for anyone who possesses "armor-piercing" ammunition during the commission of a crime.

Part Three is where the trap is really sprung. Because this part instructs the U.S. Attorney General to "conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible."

NOTE WELL: The tests to determine whether or not ammo is "armor piercing" are NOT to be conducted against armor plate, such as that used on military combat vehicles. The tests are to be conducted against body armor. And as anyone knowledgeable about firearms knows, VIRTUALLY ALL RIFLE AMMO WILL PENETRATE BODY ARMOR. So will some pistol ammo.

We asked firearms maker Len Savage if the warning we received was well-taken or whether this was simply a misinterpretation of the proposed law. Here's Len's reply:

"Yes. This gives the A.G. the power to say what is and is not "armor piercing." There is no language for what type of test is to be conducted (other than ballistic vests). If the test were on 1 inch "rolled homogeneous armor plate" then there would be no problem. If the test is a level I "vest" material, then EVERYTHING including .22 longs, are going to be illegal ammo.

"The bill would effectively give the power to decide to ONE person. NO vote, NO appeal, NO rights. (Just like the current mess with [the sloppy, no-standards testing practices of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms].)

"I figured it was a matter of time before they got around to figuring out: Control the ammo and you control the guns. Of course there would be born a "black market" for ammo, very close to the black market for marijuana, in size, scope, and risks. Next will be the sentencing recommendations for possession, and distributing (dealing). Components will be viewed as constructive intent of illegal manufacturing of "terrorist material."

"This is a dangerous path for America. I am forced to ask myself: Why the continued attack and obvious methodical disarming of American Citizens? There is only one answer: control and power."

Just as "Saturday-Night specials," "military-style assault weapons," "cop-killer bullets," and "sporting purposes" have all been used as deceptive, emotionally loaded key words to justify regulations and outright bans, it now appears that the designation "armor-piercing ammunition" is likely to be mis-applied in an attempt to deprive Americans of their rights.

We should all be asking some serious questions about the real impact S. 397 will have on our freedoms if it becomes law. One important question is: Why are our "leaders" so desperate that they would attempt to slip such a potentially draconian provision into a supposedly pro-gun bill?

The Liberty Crew

LINKS:

S. 397, Sec. 6 http://tinyurl.com/9u8mt (click on [S.397.ES], then on the link for Section 6)

A reality check on the U.S. government's sloppy firearms testing procedures: http://www.jpfo.org/alert20050701a.htm
 
Can we possibly put this crap to rest?

People are getting bent out of shape when others cry about Section 5 (the handgun safety locks) and now about section 6 (AP study).

Go to http://Thomas.loc.gov and input "S.397.ES" into the query box. Then really, read what these two sections say.

Section 5 provides that safety lacks (of some form) are to be provided for every handgun sold by an FFL. This allows certain qualified immunity from civil suits, should the weapon be subsequently used in a crime. Further, if your gun is stolen and used in a crime, you are also covered under this immunity, provided you can show you had some sort of safety device on the firearm.... "Yes, your Honor, my gun was sold with a safety lock, and I used it all the time!"

How is this bad?

Section 6 provides for a study to be conducted by the AG to determine a standard of AP ammunition. It doesn't mandate the study. Nor does it allow the AG to set any standards. Only to conduct a study and then to submit that study for further revue by the Congress.

This is bad, how exactly? Given that the AG may conduct such a study anyway....

Give it a rest, folks. We so often chide the media and the gun grabbers for distributing misinformation, and here we are, falling into the same trap. Only this time, some of our "friends" are crying "wolf" over nothing.
 
I actually read this before posting. So IANAL. I always knew IANAL.

Please explain to me what this means:

(a) Unlawful Acts- Section 922(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 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;'.
 
Sounds to me like it does what original poster says... outlaws AP ammo, without defining what AP ammo is. This is a horrible idea IMO.

The only motive I can think of for banning an undefined item is to define it later in a way which you would have never been able to ban it.
 
The law, as it compares: (note: original law in plain; amended law in bold; stricken text in original is underlined; comments are italicized)

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

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

A simple rewording of verbose usage.

(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;

(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;

Allows for the domestic manufacture of AP ammo for the feds or states, but now disallows any importation of AP ammo.

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

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

Changes the word, "and" for the word, "or." This makes either exception B or C applicable but not both.

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

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

AP ammo may be manufactured for export only, OR AP ammo may be manufactured for testing/experimentation, but not both. Importation of AP ammo for testing/experimentation only.

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

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

Again, a simple streamlining. See comments at end of comparison.

(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;

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

(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or

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

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

Paragraph 7 applies to a person, while paragraph 8 applies to a company or corporation. Other than that, the comments on paragraph 7 are applicable to paragraph 8.

Essentially, the new law prohibits the domestic manufacture of AP ammo except for use by a government agency, or for testing or experimentation - but this only upon prior approval of the AG. Manufacture for export is not restricted.

Importation of AP ammo completely falls under the same rules as domestic manufacture. Please note that this says nothing about possesion, which is covered elsewhere.

AP ammo is defined under 18 USC 922 (17)(b) and (c):

(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 Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.
Click to expand...
 
So if one poster on a forum can debunk this, why couldn't the JPFO? Could it be that the JPFO thrives on contributions and therefore it is in its best interest to muck rake and--literally--scare up support by exaggeration and distortion. Should gun owners support an org with so little regard for truth?
 
Jeez! You guys didn't even let me get to the debunking of the whole body armor testing leads to new AP ammo definitions thingy (which I did post over on TAC)!!
:D

Suffice it to say that while there is the NIJ standard, there are no national standards set. That was the intent of Craig. To have the AG test for the feasibility of standards and then to impliment them, so that all buyers of body armor could rely on a single national standard.

But, thanks anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top