S.397: A/P ammo amendment is DEAD!!!

P

progunner1957

Moderator
NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 12, No. 31 8/5/05

S. 397 UPDATE

As we reported last week, thanks to your great efforts, the U.S. Senate passed S. 397--the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act"--by a strong bipartisan vote of 65-31! This action represents a MAJOR first step toward ending the anti-gun lobby's extreme and immoderate attempts to bankrupt the firearm industry through reckless, predatory lawsuits, and was a ground breaking step forward for law-abiding firearm manufacturers, retailers and owners in this country.

There has been some discussion this week concerning two amendments to S. 397. The first, by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.), requires federally licensed dealers to provide a "secure gun storage or safety device" with the sale/transfer of every handgun (it does not apply to long guns). The measure, which passed by a vote of 70-30, does not require gun owners to use the device, does not apply to private transfers, and does not create any new civil liability for gun owners who choose not to use these storage devices. Virtually all new handguns today are sold with some type of secure storage or safety device. The amendment has no significant impact on current law.

The other amendment, by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), passed by a margin of 87-11, and was offered this year (as it was in 2004) in a successful attempt to defeat Sen. Edward Kennedy's "armor piercing" ammunition amendment that would have banned all centerfire rifle ammunition.
By providing an alternative to Sen. Kennedy's amendment, pro-gun senators were able to marshal the votes to defeat the Kennedy amendment.

Here's what this amendment does:

* The amendment (section 6 of the bill) restates the existing prohibition (in 18 USC Sec. 922(a)) on manufacture, or on sale by manufacturers, of "armor piercing ammunition," except for government use, for export, or for use in testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General. This law has been in effect for nearly two decades.

* It increases the mandatory minimum sentence for the use of "armor piercing ammunition" in a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. Use of armor piercing ammunition in a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime is already a federal offense punishable by 5 years in prison; the amendment increases the penalty to 15 years, and authorizes the death penalty if the ammunition is used in a murder.

* It directs the Attorney General to conduct a study "to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible." In fact, we know such a standard is "feasible" because the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has been testing projectiles against body armor since the early 1970s, and has regularly written and updated the standards for testing projectiles against armor. NIJ's research has saved lives by improving the design and manufacture of body armor. (NIJ standards and background information are available online at http://www.justnet.org/testing/bodyarmor.html.)

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.*** :D :D :D

* 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.

As you know, the fight now moves to the U.S. House of Representatives, so it is critical that you once again contact your U.S. Representative and urge him/her to pass S. 397!

Members should also express their gratitude to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Senator Minority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and bill sponsors Sens. Larry Craig and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) for their leadership and stewardship on S. 397.

(For a list of roll call votes on these amendments and final passage of S. 397, please go to www.NRAILA.org. Take note of how your Senators voted, and please thank those who voted in support of gun owners and let those who voted against our rights know that you will keep their votes in mind when they are up for re-election. BE SURE TO ALSO ATTEND ANY OF YOUR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE'S TOWN HALL MEETINGS DURING THE "SUMMER DISTRICT WORK PERIOD" [Aug. 1-Sept. 5] and encourage him/her to bring up and pass S. 397 as soon as possible.)
 
"Search" is your friend!

The whole protest against S.397 was debunked earlier.

While I understand that some of you will not take the time to actually read the dang bill, and therefore you end up listening to others... The dang thing is written in pretty plain english.

The NRA is no more an authority than the whining of the JPFO. Read this stuff yourselves, before you begin relying upon what others (with their agendas hanging out on their sleeves) say.

With that said, the title of this thread is a misnomer. The AP ammo ban by kennedy was dead long before the final vote on approval of S.397 was made. If it has taken a briefing from the NRA to tell you this, you haven't been paying attention.

jefnvk, you're right, of course.
 
"The NRA is no more an authority than the whining of the JPFO. Read this stuff yourselves, before you begin relying upon what others (with their agendas hanging out on their sleeves) say."

So then what, exactly, does the bill say that the NRA or JPFO is misleading us about? I have not read the entire bill in detail (and almost certainly will not) but I do find this part interesting:

"a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms."

Tim
 
This time around, the NRA is not misleading anyone. Thankgoodness! It was the JPFO that that was doing the misleading.

The legislation does several things. First and foremost, it gets rid of the junk lawsuits that have been costing firearms manufacturers hundreds of millions of dollars in defense. That alone would be enough. But it goes further, it sets a precedence in civil litigation that could be used by other companies, should they be targeted for legal litigated extinction, as have been the firearms makers.

It's called Tort Reform, something that the Congress and the State legislatures have long said they would do, but never seem to get around to it. So now, the camal's nose is inside the tent.

S.397 had two amendments attached to it. The first simply makes it mandatory that FFL's will provide some sort of lock or other safety device when they sell any handgun (most if not all manufacturers provide a lock for all new handguns already). This law simply says that dealers cannot be sued for liability or negligence if their handguns are locked or otherwise stored safely. It has an added benefit that the consumer, if they use such devices and their firearm is stolen or taken or used without their consent, they will incur no civil liability also.

The second amendment to this bill simply allows for the AG to conduct a feasibility study to determine standards of body armor. It gives the AG two years to conduct a comprehensive test and report back to the Congress. It doesn't alter a thing about AP ammo definitions. The presumption, by Craig, is that the NIJ body armor tests are not a national standard, and this testing allows the congress to set standards should they so decide.

That is the bill in a nutshell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top