Is S. 397 a Trojan Horse?

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply
User avatar

Topic author
HighVelocity
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3374
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:54 pm
Location: DFW, TX
Contact:

Is S. 397 a Trojan Horse?

#1

Post by HighVelocity »

http://www.jpfo.org/alert20050804.htm

Saw this on another forum and it's quite disturbing.

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
User avatar

dws1117
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1759
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 11:54 pm
Location: Spring, TX.

#2

Post by dws1117 »

That's pretty dang scary.
User avatar

Topic author
HighVelocity
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3374
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:54 pm
Location: DFW, TX
Contact:

#3

Post by HighVelocity »

dws1117 wrote:That's pretty dang scary.
Yeah. I'm hoping Charles will comment on this.
User avatar

dws1117
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1759
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 11:54 pm
Location: Spring, TX.

#4

Post by dws1117 »

If this is true, we ought to feel like a big bass with the hook still in our mouth.
User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

#5

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

HighVelocity wrote:
dws1117 wrote:That's pretty dang scary.
Yeah. I'm hoping Charles will comment on this.
I wish I had something on this, but I don't. I'll try to get the amendment and see what it says. If it only requires a feasibility study, then it’s too early to say the sky is falling. If it goes further, then maybe there is a real problem. I will say I’d be very surprised if a time bomb got past ILA, Sen. Craig and the others.

Regards,
Chas.

SJRTX

#6

Post by SJRTX »

Here you go, as posted by an individual on Glocktalk.com:


GOA responds to armor piercing ban issue in Senate bill S.397
I sent an email to GOA expressing concern about the armor piercing ammo part of the recently passed Senate bill S.397. The GOA email notice that I had received had expressed concern about the gun lock provisions of the bill but did not mention the armor piercing ammo issue.

Here (below) is the GOA reply. I am not 100% consoled, but at least we know that GOA is aware. Hopefully, the House will delete this portion. Otherwise, it is possibly a deal-killer amendment that makes the whole bill unaceptable to gun owners and conservative lawmakers.

Not sure I agree with the conclusions reached by Fifty Caliber Institute and quoted in GOA's email.

------------------------------------------------------
Good morning and thank you for your comments.

Ever since S.397 was amended and passed we have urged that it be either rejected in the House and that HR800 be passed outright or either amend it with HR800 in the nature of a substitute.

Our attorneys have looked Section 6, Armor Piercing Ammunition, and have concluded the following:

Armor-Piercing Bullet Provisions of Gun Liability Bill

At its core, this section would do two things:

1. It would establish a fifteen year MANDATORY MINIMUM PRISON SENTENCE for anyone who carries a single armor Piercing bullet during the commission of a “crime of violence�—or who “possesses� such a bullet “in furtherance of … such crime…�

2. It would give impetus to adopting a “penetration standard� for armor piercing bullets by commissioning a Justice Department study of the issue. If a “penetration standard� were adopted, a gun-adverse administration could probably use it to ban virtually all ammunition.

With respect to the mandatory minimum provisions, it is significant that “crime of violence� is defined in 18 U.S.C. 924 (c) (3) to mean a felony that (1) involves the actual, attempted, or threatened use of force against person or property, or (2) involves a “substantial risk� of force against person or property. Hence, if a concealed carry permit holder opens his coat to display a firearm in order to thwart an assault—and such an action is prohibited by state self-defense law and therefore constitutes a felony of “criminal threatening�—then the court must sentence the concealed carry permit holder to a fifteen year mandatory minimum sentence if he is carrying an “armor piercing bullet.� The judge has no discretion.

The only good news is that the 18 U.S.C. 921 definition of “armor piercing ammunition� is fairly restricted and limited to:

1. a handgun projectile wholly made of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium: or

2. a handgun projectile larger than .22 caliber with a jacket weighing more than 25% of the total weight of the projectile


And


The Fifty Caliber Institute [urlhttp://www.fiftycal.org/news.august.2005.php#s397050805[/url]
reports the following:

AUGUST 2005

The Truth About the S. 397 "Ammunition Study"
August 5, 2005
It has come to my attention that some well-meaning pro-gun activists have expressed concern about an amendment on armor-piercing ammunition that was added to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S. 397 during consideration of the measure on the Senate floor. Those concerns are unwarranted and many of the assumptions and interpretations concerning that provision are just plain wrong.

The amendment 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.

Here's what the amendment does:

The amendment (section 6 of the bill) restates the existing prohibition contained in 18 USC Sec. 922(a) on manufacture or sale by manufacturers of "armor-piercing ammunition", except for government use, export or testing/experimentation authorized by the attorney general. This law has been in effect for nearly two decades and was not changed by the Sec. 6 amendment.

It increases the mandatory minimum sentence for the criminal use of "armor-piercing ammunition" in a crime of violence or drug trafficking case from the current federal minimum of five years in prison to an increased penalty of 15 years in prison. It also authorizes the use of the death penalty if the ammunition is used in a murder. So, this is simply a penalty enhancement provision. I think we all agree that bad guys should go to jail.

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". (So this is a study to determine whether studies are feasible). In fact, we know that such a standard is "feasible" because the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has been testing projectiles and body armor since the early 1970's and has regularly written and updated standards for testing projectiles against body armor. NIJ's research has saved lives by improving the design and manufacture of body armor. The NIJ standards and background information are available online at

http://www.justnet.org/testing/bodyarmor.html

Here's what the 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 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.

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

Please direct any questions you might have to FCI at

info@fiftycal.org John Burtt, Chmn

Fifty Caliber Institute (FCI)

I hope I have answered you questions and concerns

Robert E. Duggar
Public Liaison
User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

#7

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

The Fifty Cal. Institute response seems to be virtually the same as the NRA response. The NRA response can be found at http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislatio ... px?ID=1696

I am still waiting on the actual amendment. However, the concern about the mandatory sentence going from 5 years to 15 years for AP rounds, while accurate, seems to be GOA looking for something to attack. If you have AP pistol rounds on you now, then you have a major federal felony problem. Yes, if S397 becomes law you'll have a 10 year bigger problem, but it's not a sea-change event. In this day of BG’s increasingly wearing body armor, I think the AP prohibition should be repealed, but that’s another issue for another day.

If all the Craig amendment does is require a study "to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible," then I will not be concerned. As the response indicates, the NIJ has been conducting such testing for years, so it is clearly feasible. The argument that the study results could be used by future administrations to push for banning more ammo is short-sighted. Since such tests have been on going for years, they could have been used for just such a purpose. In fact, attempts have been made and they have failed. A study result that merely opines that it’s feasible to do that which is already being done is meaningless. Kennedy and Schumer know this and this is why both of them were going nuts on the Senate floor.

As I said, I still want to see the actual wording of the amendment to be certain, but from what I've seen so far, I do not think all of the hand-wringing is warranted. That said, if the amendment is killed in the House, so much the better, but only if the Senate will concur with a committee report.

Regards,
Chas.

SJRTX

#8

Post by SJRTX »

Ill go to the senates website and pull up the bill for you in a minute.

SJRTX

#9

Post by SJRTX »

Here is Section 6 that refers to Armor Piercing ammo:

S.397
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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.

Attest:

Secretary.


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 397

AN ACT
To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

SJRTX

#10

Post by SJRTX »

If you want to read the entire thing, after the amendments were added, go here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c ... c109KeF8RT::

Here is the original bill text before the attachments:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c ... c109KeF8RT::
User avatar

stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

#11

Post by stevie_d_64 »

I'm kinda going back and forth on this whole AP round thing...

If those types of rounds were not as demonized by the weenies in this country, we might not be having such a problem...I think these types of issues within the bigger scope of things makes it easier to get a leg up on infringements elsewhere...

Does that mean I want to possess and use AP ammo for everyday carry???

No...Do I want it now that it appears it is illegal to mearly possess this type of ammo???

Possibly...

Do I think I really need it??? No...

It just means I continue practicing hitting a pineapple sized target at 20 yards or less, on the move, and from behind cover...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

#12

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

Thanks SJRTX. I should have just gone on-line, rather than waiting for a faxed copy.

I'll make two observations, then I'll give my reasoning.

First, the amendment does nothing more than require a feasibility study. It does not require any other ammo to be defined as "armor piercing," nor does it authorize the AG or anyone else to do so based upon the study’s findings.

Secondly, testing of this nature been on going for years and the results thereof have been used by Kennedy, Schumer and the Brady Bunch to argue for banning all ammo that will pierce soft body armor, all to no avail.

Let me say up front that I wish the amendment was not in the bill. I don't want the results of the mandated study to be waived as a flag by the anti's in the future. Perhaps the House version will not be amended to include this provision. If not, we have to deal with a conference committee. In my view, the tremendous benefits the firearms industry (including FFL’s) and gun owners receive from lawsuit preemption far outweighs any downside we may face as a result of a feasibility study to show what is already known. Kenndey, the Brady Bunch and their ilk have been waiving armor piercing ammo studies for years and no one cares.

As I said earlier, this is not a sea-change event. The results of the proposed study are already known, since the tests have been done for years. When the armor piercing ban was proposed, the anti's pushed for banning any ammo that would penetrate soft body armor. NRA opposed this and won, pointing out that virtually all centerfire rifle ammo would be banned. The Brady Bunch then started the now well known lie that the NRA supports "cop-killer" bullets being on the street. So, the new study will merely confirm what everyone has known for years and those results have already been unsuccessfully used as a basis for banning all centerfire rifle ammo.

As a side note. At the NRA Board meetings, I sit one chair away from Senator Craig. (We're in alphabetical order for the formal meetings, but not committee meetings.) I've had the opportunity for to talk with him about many matters over the years, especially S397 in recent months. While we did not discuss the nuts and bolts of the legislation (I'm not on the Legislative Policy Committee), there is no doubt in my mind that he believed the Craig amendment was absolutely necessary to keep the Kennedy amendment from passing. That would obviously be a deal-breaker and S397 would have to be killed again.

In closing let me say that this is merely my take on this issue. There has been much discussion on other boards and I suspect there will be more here. Not everyone will agree with my evaluation of the impact of S397 and that’s a good thing. This is critical legislation for the future of the firearms industry and every provision is important to gun owners. Years from now, folks will either be saying “Cotton sure called that one right,� or they will be saying “Cotton really blew that one!� I kind of like the first one better. :lol:

Regards,
Chas.
User avatar

stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

#13

Post by stevie_d_64 »

Well Chas, you always want to strive to be right 99.99% of the time...No prob...Keeps the wallet fat... :lol:

I also didn't see much of anything else than that mandated "study" as well...

That study more than likely will be evaluated and spun to fit an anti-slant anyway...So inevitably its going to be a waste of our money that will create yet another attack on our rights...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!

Baytown
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:48 pm

#14

Post by Baytown »

I hate new gun laws, but I'm not gonna loose sleep over this. I'm glad I was able to read about it hear and figure it out.

Glenn
Winners never quit, and quitters never win; but, if you never win, and never quit, you're a moron.
Post Reply

Return to “Federal”