Say good buy to AP ammo. "Mark my words...This Amendment WILL haunt us" This is going to set a VERY BAD precedent.

Give a politician an inch and they'll take a MILE!

A lot of you think I have a tin foil hat that I carry around, I don't. But I DON'T TRUST ANY POLITICAN...PERIOD!

Gun owners...Thanks Senator Craig.

37. S.AMDT.1645 to S.397 To regulate the sale and possession of armor piercing ammunition, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID] (introduced 7/29/2005)      Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 7/29/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1645 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay. 87 - 11. Record Vote Number: 216.

thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP01645:

and

www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00216


How do you like your pro-gun people allies now? Nothing like getting a jar of vasoline while you are making sure the fox doesn't steal your chickens, huh?

SS109 isn't AP.

Quoted: SS109 isn't AP.

Oh, well goodie for you. Make some more apologies for them.

It doesn't mean what you think it means... it was passed to fend off Ted Kennedys real AP/"cop killer" bullets amendment.

FWIW... Craig did the same thing last year.

Quoted: Quoted: SS109 isn't AP. Oh, well goodie for you. Make some more apologies for them.

How about posting the text to the amendment?

Also is this the final bill coming out of the House-Senate Committee where they finalize the language before passing the final version and sending it to the President?
Riders get attached all the time before bills are sent to this committee where they get axed in the name of setting up a common language.

It doesn't mean what you think it means... it was passed to fend off Ted Kennedys real AP/"cop killer" bullets amendment.

FWIW... Craig did the same thing last year.

I can't find the full text of the amendment anywhere

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: SS109 isn't AP. Oh, well goodie for you. Make some more apologies for them. How about posting the text to the amendment? Also is this the final bill coming out of the House-Senate Committee where they finalize the language before passing the final version and sending it to the President? Riders get attached all the time before bills are sent to this committee where they get axed in the name of setting up a common language.

What I posted is what was posted on the Thomas site. I put it all there. And THIS was agreed too, and will be on the final bill given to the president to sign. Like the patriot act, it's vague and will give the government OPEN SEASON on AP ammo.

You all say, oh, don't worry, it's only some language. WHY IS IT IN THERE THEN?

And the way it looks, it WILL stay for the president to sign.

To regulate the sale and possession of armor piercing ammunition


What do you THINK it means?

Unlike the 2nd Amendment, these assholes WILL interpet this by the EXACT language in which it is read.

One step at a time, must crawl before walking, must walk before running, must run before nuke.

DUPE

There was already another thread on this, they agreed to TABLE it meaning essentually they through it out, the bill already passed, the only rider was an amendment to include trigger locks with new handguns....

thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:2:./temp/~c10936JHDi:e20799:

SEC. 6. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

     (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;'.

     (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; and

           `(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 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 center-fire 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 Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and

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

Passed the Senate July 29, 2005.

Guess Sarah won a battle and didn't even know it!


Thanks lying snake politicians.

Here's the current text of 922:

(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 Attorney General;
       (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 Attorney General; and

Quoted: DUPE There was already another thread on this, they agreed to TABLE it meaning essentually they through it out, the bill already passed, the only rider was an amendment to include trigger locks with new handguns....

NO IT IS NOT A DUPE!

The one you are talking about is the KENNEDY amendment. Reading is fundimental.

THIS ONE PASSED!

Umm, AP ammo is already regulated, so what's the big F'n deal? Unless they expanded the definition of AP, which it doesn't appear so based on the vast amount of information you've been able to post.

Ah, I see that rider didn't pass in the final version, good to know. This just shows how important it is to know about the legislative process, instead of thinking you know something and jumping to irrational conclusions.

Look who voted against:

NAYs ---11 Akaka (D-HI) Boxer (D-CA) Corzine (D-NJ) Feingold (D-WI) Kennedy (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Wyden (D-OR)

Who here really thinks Boxer, Feingold, Lautenberg and Corzine would vote against a bill to take away more gun rights?

as far as I can tell it adds sentencing guidelines and directs the AG to carry out testing

calm down man

Quoted: as far as I can tell it adds sentencing guidelines and directs the AG to carry out testing

That's my impression as well.

It has passed the Senate, but if a rider is attached to the bill and the same rider is NOT attached in the house then the bill goes to committee to reconcile the two, and then voted on again. So even if this was attached it doesn't mean it's going to make the president's desk.

Quoted: Umm, AP ammo is already regulated, so what's the big F'n deal? Unless they expanded the definition of AP, which it doesn't appear so based on the vast amount of information you've been able to post. Ah, I see that rider didn't pass in the final version, good to know. This just shows how important it is to know about the legislative process, instead of thinking you know something and jumping to irrational conclusions.

Well, lets see. YES, IT DID PASS! And no matter what. Testing will lead to confiscation or jail time for standing up for your Rights! And any anti-gun Attorney General....like Goonzales...can say, NO MORE FOR YOU....PERIOD! Just like the ATF interpeting their own version of the GCA and not allowing the imporation of barrels. No big deal? People that think like you, are one of these....



or

Quoted: Guess Sarah won a battle and didn't even know it! Thanks lying snake politicians.

Reading is fundamental:

The bill already passed and this was not attached.
What part of that don't you understand chicken little?
www.geocities.com/mjloundy/

current definition of AP:

(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.

You aren't the brightest are you?

Man, you gotta chill out and get re-educated. SS109 is NOT AP!!! AP is already banned. No need to spread unnecessary hysteria.

Quoted: Quoted: Guess Sarah won a battle and didn't even know it! Thanks lying snake politicians. Reading is fundamental: The bill already passed and this was not attached. What part of that don't you understand chicken little? www.geocities.com/mjloundy/ www.geocities.com/mjloundy/chick2.jpg

it appears to me to have passed....(ie the amedment is incorporated in S 397)

thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00397:

and click on the amendments link

Quoted: Quoted: Umm, AP ammo is already regulated, so what's the big F'n deal? Unless they expanded the definition of AP, which it doesn't appear so based on the vast amount of information you've been able to post. Ah, I see that rider didn't pass in the final version, good to know. This just shows how important it is to know about the legislative process, instead of thinking you know something and jumping to irrational conclusions. Well, lets see. YES, IT DID PASS! And any anti-gun Attorney General....like Goonzales...can say, NO MORE FOR YOU....PERIOD! Just like the ATF interpeting their own version of the GCA and not allowing the imporation of barrels. No big deal? People that think like you, are one of these.... www.gotstogo.com/images/head_up_butt.jpg or www.natural-health-information-centre.com/image-files/head-in-sand.jpg

I highly recommend editing your post.

It DID NOT EXPAND the definition of AP. Read the text of the amendment posted here vs what is already law. The only thing added is sentencing guidelines.

Also you have not shown anyone here where this same amendment has passed the House of Representatives. You do know we have two houses of congress and a bill has to pass BOTH houses in the same form in order to be sent to the President's desk don't you?

Not to mention there are people here, who have been tracking this, that say this amendment didn't make it in the FINAL version of this bill.

I highly suggest you take your own head out of your own ass before you go throwing stones at others.

Lippo,

You are either a  terribly ignorant gunowner, or you are a troll trying to stir up discontent among the faithful.

Either way, you're as much the enemy as DiFi.

Let me guess, you dont like the NRA, either.

At least edit out the HUGE BOLD LIES in your post.

Yeah, this bill has a ways to go yet before it can become law.  I also looked to see who voted against it and seeing the usual anti-gun suspcets led me to the conclusion that somehow Amd. S.1645 to S.397 by Craig was a positive thing for us gun owners.  

Of course its way better than what Kennedy was proposing in Amd. S.1615 which would have expanded the definition of armor piercing ammunition.

This whole bill still has to go through the House and then get signed by GWB.

Quoted: Umm, AP ammo is already regulated, so what's the big F'n deal?

AP ammo is only regulated if it's for handguns.
AP ammo is still entirely legal for rifles.  This admendment could have changed that.

Quoted: Man, you gotta chill out and get re-educated. SS109 is NOT AP!!! AP is already banned. No need to spread unnecessary hysteria.

Like I said, only for handgun ammunition.  The old chinese 7.62x39mm steel core was only banned after Olympic Arms introduced an OA model "AR-pistol" in that caliber.

Why the language? UH? WHY Do they need to include that? Yeah, oh, ok, it'll trump Kennedy's amendment. Oh, ok, don't worry, nothing will EVER happen with it. Oh, ok, don't worry, the AG would NEVER do ANYTHING to disrupt your firearms Rights.

1. THEY have the MAJORITY! They don't need to do anything like this. For once, I'd like to see a politician that doesn't screw around, upholds the Constitution and when they have the power...GO BACK to the Constitution.

2. THEY just AUTHORIZED the AG to do testing. Goonzales just had the ATF stop the imporation of barrels, frames and recievers...upholding a Constitional law and/or illegal interpetation.

3. You ALL that don't think this will lead to anything, have your head in the sand. By the time you realize what's going on, all you'll have left to shoot is a flintlock with bullets made out of playdough.

4. WHY THE AMENDMENT? WHY? Oh, he just did this last year, it's ok! Guess you like being a frog in a pot of boiling water, huh?

They didn't need this, they didn't need to pass it, they don't need to push it. Even if it, so called, get's yanked from the bill the president signs, THE AG has more UnConstitutional power now. Can you imagine if kennedy and democrats get power and this is on the books. The republicans just handed kennedy the power he needs to ban all ammo. Period.

Not too bright? Anyone that doesn't think outside the box isn't too bright!

We didn't need this language and it WILL put too much power in the hands of someone that shouldn't have it. Now the AG can regulate or interpet law from the justice department.

I have a hard time believing that Sen.
Craig would have introduced this amd.
if he thought that the AG would expand
the definition of AP ammo.

He might as well have allowed Fatty's
amd. if that was the case.

Quoted: Quoted: Umm, AP ammo is already regulated, so what's the big F'n deal? AP ammo is only regulated if it's for handguns. AP ammo is still entirely legal for rifles.  This admendment could change that.

Actually, it doesn't. Read NoVaGator's posts. He has the actual text of the amendment, unlike Chicken Little's posts. You can see the definition isn't touched. Only sentencing guidelines are added to the laws that are already on the books.

From the AP:

Senate Votes to Guard Gunmakers From Suits Email this Story Jul 29, 11:59 PM (ET) By MARY DALRYMPLE WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate voted Friday to shield firearms manufacturers, dealers and importers from lawsuits brought by victims of gun crimes, a measure opponents said had been ordered up by the gun lobby. The 65-31 vote passed a bill that supporters said protects the industry from financial disaster and bankruptcy caused by damage lawsuits. "This bill says go after the criminal, don't go after the law-abiding gun manufacturer or the law-abiding gun seller," said bill sponsor Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho. But Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and other opponents said the gun industry needs no such special protection. "This bill has one motivation - payback by the Bush administration and the Republican leadership of the Congress to the powerful special interest of the National Rifle Association," he said. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., yanked similar legislation from debate last year when Democrats successfully attached an extension of the ban on assault-style weapons and the NRA dropped its support. Republicans picked up four more Senate seats in last November's election, emboldening gun rights supporters to try again. The House passed a similar bill last year but has taken no action on it this year. Democrats won inclusion this year of a new requirement that each handgun be sold with a separate child safety or locking device, unless purchased by government officials or police officers. Any violation could be punished by the suspension of a dealer's license, a $10,000 fine, or both. Craig said the bill does not block gunmakers and dealers from facing product liability, negligence or breach of contract suits. Its opponents, however, say the bill effectively exempts gun manufacturers from liability. They also say dealers sometimes let weapons get into the hands of people the law says shouldn't have them. Democrats tried and lost attempts to insert special provisions in the legislation that would let children and police retain the right to sue, along with another amendment that would have let individuals but not municipalities retain the right to sue. "Should those whose actions lead to the death or injury of a child get a free pass?" asked Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., who sponsored one amendment. Supporters of the liability bill said the changes would have gutted the bill. The Senate also brushed aside a Kennedy amendment that would have banned hollow-tipped, so-called "cop killer" bullets. The gun industry gave 88 percent of its campaign contributions, or $1.2 million, to Republicans in the 2004 election cycle. Gun control advocates, meanwhile, gave 98 percent of their contributions, or $93,700, to Democrats during that election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Quoted: You aren't the brightest are you?

Absolut you are usually right on target but you just made a vast understatement LOL

The Ap amendment didn't pass
I got this email from the NRA this morning.

NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 12, No. 30 7/29/05

S. 397 PASSES U.S. SENATE!!!

Thanks to your efforts, today, the U.S. Senate passed S. 397 by a strong bipartisan vote of 65-31!  While this doesn't assure the bill will be enacted into law, it represents a MAJOR first step toward ending the anti-gun lobby's reign of extortion through reckless lawsuits against the firearm industry.  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--"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act."

As reported yesterday, an amendment by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) passed, which requires federally licensed dealers to provide a "secure gun storage or safety device" with the sale/transfer of every handgun (does not apply to long guns).  It 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 or S. 397 itself.

The U.S. Senate rejected a slew of anti-gun amendments to S. 397 including:


Special "carve out" amendments by Sens. Corzine (D-N.J.) and Lautenberg (D-N.J.) that would have permitted reckless lawsuits by law enforcement and juveniles to continue unabated.  Both were soundly defeated;

A ban on "armor piercing" ammunition (Kennedy-D-Mass.) (by a vote of 31-64) that would have banned virtually all hunting ammunition. Similar efforts have been continuously defeated by Congress, and Sen. Kennedy's most recent attempt was nothing more than anti-gun political posturing.  (The Senate did adopt an amendment by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) calling for increased penalties if "armor piercing" handgun  ammunition is used in the commission of a crime.),and;

A "gutting" amendment by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) that sought to continue to allow the very types of suits  S. 397 prohibits (by a vote of 33-63).
This long overdue victory marks the culmination of your tireless efforts--your phone calls, faxes, letters, e-mails, and personal meetings--over the past few days, and over the past many years.  As critical as these efforts were, this victory also highlights your importance in volunteering and voting for pro-gun candidates running for office.  Without your steadfast work in past election years to elect more pro-gun U.S. Senators, we simply would not have had enough votes to pass this bill in the Senate.

Defeating former Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) in the 2004 elections (Daschle, as you'll recall was the architect who last year allowed the bill to be loaded up with anti-gun amendments), and thus elevating Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), a consistent and longstanding supporter of S. 397, to that leadership position represented a major step toward guaranteeing we finally received a fair procedure to bring this measure up for a final vote, and carried out the will of a majority of the U.S. Senate.  And of course, members should express their gratitude to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Senator Minority Leader Harry Reid, and bill sponsors Sens. Larry Craig and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) for their leadership and stewardship on S. 397.

While this fight is far from over, the Senate's action today enabled us to overcome a major hurdle in enacting this legislation into law.  All of us at NRA-ILA thank you from the bottoms of our hearts for your continued vigilance in seeing this bill through the U.S. Senate.  You deserve a lion's share of the credit, and we know you will help us finish the job once and for all by now contacting your U.S. Representative and urging him/her to support "The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act."

Quoted: Lippo, You are either a  terribly ignorant gunowner, or you are a troll trying to stir up discontent among the faithful. Either way, you're as much the enemy as DiFi. Let me guess, you dont like the NRA, either. At least edit out the HUGE BOLD LIES in your post.

Piss off! I AM a member of the NRA and looks like YOU are the enemy if you don't want to stand up for your Rights!

Ignorant? Look in the mirror.

Quoted: We didn't need this language and it WILL put too much power in the hands of someone that shouldn't have it. Now the AG can regulate or interpet law from the justice department.

Where does this place any additional powers
with the Justice Dept? This amd simply orders
the AG to commission a study that is to be
reported to congress.

BTW, your use of inappropriate smilies
is disturbing.

Quoted: Why the language? UH? WHY Do they need to include that? Yeah, oh, ok, it'll trump Kennedy's amendment. Oh, ok, don't worry, nothing will EVER happen with it. Oh, ok, don't worry, the AG would NEVER do ANYTHING to disrupt your firearms Rights. 1. THEY have the MAJORITY! They don't need to do anything like this. For once, I'd like to see a politician that doesn't screw around, upholds the Constitution and when they have the power...GO BACK to the Constitution. 2. THEY just AUTHORIZED the AG to do testing. Goonzales just had the ATF stop the imporation of barrels, frames and recievers...upholding a Constitional law and/or illegal interpetation. 3. You ALL that don't think this will lead to anything, have your head in the sand. By the time you realize what's going on, all you'll have left to shoot is a flintlock with bullets made out of playdough. 4. WHY THE AMENDMENT? WHY? Oh, he just did this last year, it's ok! Guess you like being a frog in a pot of boiling water, huh? They didn't need this, they didn't need to pass it, they don't need to push it. Even if it, so called, get's yanked from the bill the president signs, THE AG has more UnConstitutional power now. Can you imagine if kennedy and democrats get power and this is on the books. The republicans just handed kennedy the power he needs to ban all ammo. Period. Not too bright? Anyone that doesn't think outside the box isn't too bright! We didn't need this language and it WILL put too much power in the hands of someone that shouldn't have it. Now the AG can regulate or interpet law from the justice department.

Can you read or do you only react?
Read the amendment vs what is already law. The difference between the two is the change. There isn't much change and NO change to the definition of AP. The AG cannot make up his own definitions.

Quoted: The Ap amendment didn't pass I got this email from the NRA this morning. NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 12, No. 30 7/29/05 S. 397 PASSES U.S. SENATE!!! Thanks to your efforts, today, the U.S. Senate passed S. 397 by a strong bipartisan vote of 65-31!  While this doesn't assure the bill will be enacted into law, it represents a MAJOR first step toward ending the anti-gun lobby's reign of extortion through reckless lawsuits against the firearm industry.  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--"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act." As reported yesterday, an amendment by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) passed, which requires federally licensed dealers to provide a "secure gun storage or safety device" with the sale/transfer of every handgun (does not apply to long guns).  It 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 or S. 397 itself. The U.S. Senate rejected a slew of anti-gun amendments to S. 397 including: Special "carve out" amendments by Sens. Corzine (D-N.J.) and Lautenberg (D-N.J.) that would have permitted reckless lawsuits by law enforcement and juveniles to continue unabated.  Both were soundly defeated; A ban on "armor piercing" ammunition (Kennedy-D-Mass.) (by a vote of 31-64) that would have banned virtually all hunting ammunition. Similar efforts have been continuously defeated by Congress, and Sen. Kennedy's most recent attempt was nothing more than anti-gun political posturing.  (The Senate did adopt an amendment by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) calling for increased penalties if "armor piercing" handgun  ammunition is used in the commission of a crime.),and; A "gutting" amendment by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) that sought to continue to allow the very types of suits  S. 397 prohibits (by a vote of 33-63). This long overdue victory marks the culmination of your tireless efforts--your phone calls, faxes, letters, e-mails, and personal meetings--over the past few days, and over the past many years.  As critical as these efforts were, this victory also highlights your importance in volunteering and voting for pro-gun candidates running for office.  Without your steadfast work in past election years to elect more pro-gun U.S. Senators, we simply would not have had enough votes to pass this bill in the Senate. Defeating former Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) in the 2004 elections (Daschle, as you'll recall was the architect who last year allowed the bill to be loaded up with anti-gun amendments), and thus elevating Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), a consistent and longstanding supporter of S. 397, to that leadership position represented a major step toward guaranteeing we finally received a fair procedure to bring this measure up for a final vote, and carried out the will of a majority of the U.S. Senate.  And of course, members should express their gratitude to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Senator Minority Leader Harry Reid, and bill sponsors Sens. Larry Craig and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) for their leadership and stewardship on S. 397. While this fight is far from over, the Senate's action today enabled us to overcome a major hurdle in enacting this legislation into law.  All of us at NRA-ILA thank you from the bottoms of our hearts for your continued vigilance in seeing this bill through the U.S. Senate.  You deserve a lion's share of the credit, and we know you will help us finish the job once and for all by now contacting your U.S. Representative and urging him/her to support "The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act."

The amendment DID pass, it just didn't alter the definition of AP.

Quoted: as far as I can tell it adds sentencing guidelines and directs the AG to carry out testing

That's all it really does.

Section 922(a) of title 18, United States Code

Insert the relevent sections of Craigs amendemnt.

(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;'.


 Penalties- Section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code

Amend relevent section of Craigs amendment.

`(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; and

`(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 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 center-fire 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 Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and

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


Note: As far as calling for a study, it doesn't call for a study to test the effects of AP ammo... it calls for a study to see if a "uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible"

(basically it's a study to examine if it's even possible to set up a uniform testing proceedure).


I couldn't find the relevent text relating to the debate of Craigs AP amendment, but I did find last years.

"Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Frist-Craig amendment relating to armor piercing ammunition. The Frist-Craig amendment restates existing law which prohibits the manufacture, import, or sale of armor  piercing ammunition except for use by the United States Government or for export. Additionally, the Frist-Craig amendment requires the Department of Justice to study and report to Congress whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against body armor is feasible.

  The Department would include in its study the standards which Senator Kennedy seeks in his proposed amendment. Ideally, this report will confirm or put to rest the issue of whether the amendment proposed by Senator Kennedy would have the effect of banning standard hunting information. This is a sensible approach to an issue which has so many legitimate hunters and other gun owners concerned. Finally, and importantly, the Frist-Craig amendment does something about Senator Kennedy's concerns in a way that his amendment does not. Specifically, the Frist-Craig amendment imposes serious penalties on those who use and carry armor piercing ammunition during and in relation to crimes of violence and drug trafficking crimes.

  The Frist-Craig amendment sends a clear message that those criminals who use this type of ammunition in their crimes that they will face significant punishment. Additionally, if the criminals murder someone with armor piercing ammunition in the course of a drug trafficking crime or crime of violence, they will face the full range of punishment, including the death penalty.

  The Frist-Craig amendment would therefore punish those who use armor piercing ammunition to carry out illegal activities while permitting those who intend to legitimately use ammunition with common and conventional hunting or sporting rifles to do so."

thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r108:1:./temp/~r108APBeOq:e0:

Edit: Not worth it.

People know that disinformation is our enemy.

We need to be on the lookout for the anti gunners in our midst.

Quoted: Quoted: Why the language? UH? WHY Do they need to include that? Yeah, oh, ok, it'll trump Kennedy's amendment. Oh, ok, don't worry, nothing will EVER happen with it. Oh, ok, don't worry, the AG would NEVER do ANYTHING to disrupt your firearms Rights. 1. THEY have the MAJORITY! They don't need to do anything like this. For once, I'd like to see a politician that doesn't screw around, upholds the Constitution and when they have the power...GO BACK to the Constitution. 2. THEY just AUTHORIZED the AG to do testing. Goonzales just had the ATF stop the imporation of barrels, frames and recievers...upholding a Constitional law and/or illegal interpetation. 3. You ALL that don't think this will lead to anything, have your head in the sand. By the time you realize what's going on, all you'll have left to shoot is a flintlock with bullets made out of playdough. 4. WHY THE AMENDMENT? WHY? Oh, he just did this last year, it's ok! Guess you like being a frog in a pot of boiling water, huh? They didn't need this, they didn't need to pass it, they don't need to push it. Even if it, so called, get's yanked from the bill the president signs, THE AG has more UnConstitutional power now. Can you imagine if kennedy and democrats get power and this is on the books. The republicans just handed kennedy the power he needs to ban all ammo. Period. Not too bright? Anyone that doesn't think outside the box isn't too bright! We didn't need this language and it WILL put too much power in the hands of someone that shouldn't have it. Now the AG can regulate or interpet law from the justice department. Can you read or do you only react? Read the amendment vs what is already law. The difference between the two is the change. There isn't much change and NO change to the definition of AP. The AG cannot make up his own definitions.

SEC. 6. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION. (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;'. (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; and `(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 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 center-fire 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 Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and (B) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. Passed the Senate July 29, 2005.

Guess, the AG won't change the definition at all, huh? This gives him the authorization to make any determination he want's and if the make up of the congress changes or we have another "terrorist" style attack where people want to support the regulation of gun, we are SCREWED AGAIN. What right does the AG have to tell you how much gun powder you can use? Almost any round can be armor defeating.


This is WRONG and that's the truth.

Quoted: Edit: Not worth it. People know that disinformation is our enemy. We need to be on the lookout for the anti gunners in our midst.

Ok, let's clear something up....

For those of you saying that the amedment wasn't included....what is your source?????

Also, the congressional record for yesterday will be published sometime today. We can see exactly what was said in support of this amendment.

Quoted: Edit: Not worth it. People know that disinformation is our enemy. We need to be on the lookout for the anti gunners in our midst.

Agreed. The OP is the horse in my sig line.

Some people just need to be outraged about something. It's probably the only exercise they get.

Quoted: Edit: Not worth it. People know that disinformation is our enemy. We need to be on the lookout for the anti gunners in our midst.

From all the reading now and yesterday I am under the impression that the only amendment that was allowed was the trigger lock.
Am I wrong?

Can someone post a definitive answer please?

Quoted: Quoted: Umm, AP ammo is already regulated, so what's the big F'n deal? Unless they expanded the definition of AP, which it doesn't appear so based on the vast amount of information you've been able to post. Ah, I see that rider didn't pass in the final version, good to know. This just shows how important it is to know about the legislative process, instead of thinking you know something and jumping to irrational conclusions. Well, lets see. YES, IT DID PASS! And no matter what. Testing will lead to confiscation or jail time for standing up for your Rights! And any anti-gun Attorney General....like Goonzales...can say, NO MORE FOR YOU....PERIOD! Just like the ATF interpeting their own version of the GCA and not allowing the imporation of barrels. No big deal? People that think like you, are one of these.... www.gotstogo.com/images/head_up_butt.jpg or www.natural-health-information-centre.com/image-files/head-in-sand.jpg

You need a valium, dude.

Quoted: Quoted: Edit: Not worth it. People know that disinformation is our enemy. We need to be on the lookout for the anti gunners in our midst. Ok, let's clear something up.... For those of you saying that the amedment wasn't included....what is your source????? Also, the congressional record for yesterday will be published sometime today. We can see exactly what was said in support of this amendment.

I agree, it passed...THE SENATE.

However, it did nothing to alter the ability to posses AP ammo, nor did it alter the definition.

Some people just need to be outraged.

Quoted: Edit: Not worth it. People know that disinformation is our enemy. We need to be on the lookout for the anti gunners in our midst.

That's right, because you know are wrong.

We won a great victory yesterday, only to be stabbed in the back. What do you call it when they want an Anti AG to do a study?

You call me an anti, you are the anti because you are not willing to stick up for your Rights. Oh, that's ok, it's only sentencing guidelines. READ it!

also, I agree with Lippo to a certain extent....

The amendment does direct the AG to conduct testing that *could* ultimately erode our rights

Say good buy to any SS109 or left over AP bullets for plinking.

Bald faced lie, complete with poor spelling.  The source speaks for itself.