In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Let's Remove ALL Gun Control from S. 397
pickenup
Member Posts: 22,844 ✭✭✭✭
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Thursday, August 11, 2005
"We're going to hit them right where it hurts -- in their bank
accounts -- and we won't stop hitting until they stop flooding our
streets with guns." -- Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, a leading
proponent of the "bankrupt the gun industry" movement
This quote demonstrates the rabid zealotry that exists in the
anti-gun community. It also shows why it's so important for Congress
to enact good legislation that will put an end to the dozens of
frivolous lawsuits that have been launched against the gun industry.
At least two gun makers -- Bryco and Navegar -- have already been put
out of business. And many other gun makers have been forced to dole
out millions of dollars to protect themselves from these unscrupulous
attorneys.
If we want to continue enjoying our Second Amendment rights, it is
imperative that we work through the Congress to put a halt to these
injurious attacks.
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave has taken up the cause in the House. She wants
the Congress to send the President a CLEAN bill that will protect gun
makers and sellers, without punishing gun owners in any way. The
House bill (H.R. 800) is much better than the Senate version (S.
397), since the former is free and clear of all gun control.
As introduced, S. 397 would have been a good first step towards
curtailing anti-gun lawsuits. Unfortunately, Senator Frist allowed
two anti-gun amendments to be offered, and they turned a marginally
beneficial bill into a huge albatross.
The first amendment -- offered by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) -- requires
gun dealers to include a "lock-up-your-safety" device with every
handgun sold. In addition to imposing a "gun tax" on every
handgun
buyer, this amendment paves the way for future legislation mandating
that gun owners use those trigger locks.
The second provision -- offered by Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) -- amended
the armor-piercing bullet provisions of federal law. At its core,
the Craig language did two things:
* It gave 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.
* It established 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..."
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 a state's anti-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" in regard to the Craig language is that the 18
U.S.C. 921 definition of "armor piercing ammunition" was not
affected. The definition is fairly restricted and limited to:
* A handgun projectile wholly made of tungsten alloys, steel, iron,
brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium, or
* A handgun projectile larger than .22 caliber with a jacket weighing
more than 25% of the total weight of the projectile.
Thankfully, Rep. Musgrave is pushing the House leadership to get real
lawsuit protection enacted, without endangering the Second Amendment
rights of gun owners in any way.
ACTION: Please ask your Representative to sign onto the Musgrave
letter opposing the anti-gun amendments in S. 397. And then, forward
this alert to your pro-gun friends and family. Even if you have
already contacted your Rep., please consider doing so again. Rep.
Musgrave needs a huge outpouring of support if she is to convince the
House leadership that they should push H.R. 800, rather than just
taking the Senate version at face value.
You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative a
pre-written e-mail message such as the one below.
Or, you can call your Representative toll-free at 877-762-8762.
--- Pre-written letter ---
Dear Representative:
As you know, the Senate recently passed much-needed lawsuit
protection for the gun industry (S. 397). But this bill passed with
some unwanted baggage -- specifically, two amendments that chip away
at the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.
One amendment imposes a handgun tax and paves the way for future
requirements that gun owners lock up their guns, thus rendering them
unavailable for self-defense. The second provision -- the armor
piercing ammunition language -- would also pave the way for future
restrictions, as explained in detail at www.gunowners.org/a081105.htm
on the Gun Owners of America website.
For these reasons, I urge you to sign onto a letter being circulated
by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave which deals with real efforts to gain
lawsuit protection for gun makers and gun dealers, without
endangering ordinary gun owners.
The letter asks the House leadership to push H.R. 800, a lawsuit
protection bill that contains no gun control, rather than its Senate
counterpart. H.R. 800 has been well received in the House, as it
currently has 257 cosponsors.
America deserves a CLEAN bill which offers real protection for gun
makers and dealers. Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Thursday, August 11, 2005
"We're going to hit them right where it hurts -- in their bank
accounts -- and we won't stop hitting until they stop flooding our
streets with guns." -- Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, a leading
proponent of the "bankrupt the gun industry" movement
This quote demonstrates the rabid zealotry that exists in the
anti-gun community. It also shows why it's so important for Congress
to enact good legislation that will put an end to the dozens of
frivolous lawsuits that have been launched against the gun industry.
At least two gun makers -- Bryco and Navegar -- have already been put
out of business. And many other gun makers have been forced to dole
out millions of dollars to protect themselves from these unscrupulous
attorneys.
If we want to continue enjoying our Second Amendment rights, it is
imperative that we work through the Congress to put a halt to these
injurious attacks.
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave has taken up the cause in the House. She wants
the Congress to send the President a CLEAN bill that will protect gun
makers and sellers, without punishing gun owners in any way. The
House bill (H.R. 800) is much better than the Senate version (S.
397), since the former is free and clear of all gun control.
As introduced, S. 397 would have been a good first step towards
curtailing anti-gun lawsuits. Unfortunately, Senator Frist allowed
two anti-gun amendments to be offered, and they turned a marginally
beneficial bill into a huge albatross.
The first amendment -- offered by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) -- requires
gun dealers to include a "lock-up-your-safety" device with every
handgun sold. In addition to imposing a "gun tax" on every
handgun
buyer, this amendment paves the way for future legislation mandating
that gun owners use those trigger locks.
The second provision -- offered by Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) -- amended
the armor-piercing bullet provisions of federal law. At its core,
the Craig language did two things:
* It gave 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.
* It established 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..."
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 a state's anti-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" in regard to the Craig language is that the 18
U.S.C. 921 definition of "armor piercing ammunition" was not
affected. The definition is fairly restricted and limited to:
* A handgun projectile wholly made of tungsten alloys, steel, iron,
brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium, or
* A handgun projectile larger than .22 caliber with a jacket weighing
more than 25% of the total weight of the projectile.
Thankfully, Rep. Musgrave is pushing the House leadership to get real
lawsuit protection enacted, without endangering the Second Amendment
rights of gun owners in any way.
ACTION: Please ask your Representative to sign onto the Musgrave
letter opposing the anti-gun amendments in S. 397. And then, forward
this alert to your pro-gun friends and family. Even if you have
already contacted your Rep., please consider doing so again. Rep.
Musgrave needs a huge outpouring of support if she is to convince the
House leadership that they should push H.R. 800, rather than just
taking the Senate version at face value.
You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative a
pre-written e-mail message such as the one below.
Or, you can call your Representative toll-free at 877-762-8762.
--- Pre-written letter ---
Dear Representative:
As you know, the Senate recently passed much-needed lawsuit
protection for the gun industry (S. 397). But this bill passed with
some unwanted baggage -- specifically, two amendments that chip away
at the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.
One amendment imposes a handgun tax and paves the way for future
requirements that gun owners lock up their guns, thus rendering them
unavailable for self-defense. The second provision -- the armor
piercing ammunition language -- would also pave the way for future
restrictions, as explained in detail at www.gunowners.org/a081105.htm
on the Gun Owners of America website.
For these reasons, I urge you to sign onto a letter being circulated
by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave which deals with real efforts to gain
lawsuit protection for gun makers and gun dealers, without
endangering ordinary gun owners.
The letter asks the House leadership to push H.R. 800, a lawsuit
protection bill that contains no gun control, rather than its Senate
counterpart. H.R. 800 has been well received in the House, as it
currently has 257 cosponsors.
America deserves a CLEAN bill which offers real protection for gun
makers and dealers. Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Comments
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
Time to rally the troops! This post is going out via e-mail to about a dozen people I know. I'm hoping that will generate at least one additional letter to a congressman besides mine.
-WW
MOLON LAVE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
Excerpt from NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 12, No. 31 08/05/05:
quote: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.
* 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.
Kind of reminds me of this quote:
quote:"Nobody move. Everything will be O.K. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet." -Mohammed Atta, September 11, 2001
-WoundedWolf
MOLON LAVE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
Anybody know?
I'm afraid you didn't detect my sarcasm in the last post. I don't understand why the NRA is downplaying these amendments to S.B. 397 and why I have not received any NRA-ILA alerts mentioning Rep. Musgrave's efforts. My hat is off to GOA for staying on track with this story. In fact, all I've received from the NRA this week are two e-mails DEFENDING the anti-gun amendments to S.B. 397.
I think that saying this bill "does not require gun owners to use the device" is insulting to me as an NRA member. Are we supposed to sit back and say, "Oh, well if I just have to buy it then that's OK. Just as long as it is still legal for me not to use it, yet."
The NRA's one step forward, two steps back approach is counter-productive and frustrating. Even if what they say is true, and the amendments to S.B. 397 are merely restating current Federal law, then why support them at all? The NRA is always quick to point out the insanity of our nation's 20,000 gun laws, yet they are even quicker to snatch at a compromise that will throw a few more onto the bonfire of our 2nd Amendment rights.
Once again, I have to post this quote because it is sounding a lot more like something that would come out of the NRA:
quote:"Nobody move. Everything will be O.K. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet." -Mohammed Atta, September 11, 2001
-WoundedWolf
MOLON LAVE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
I am not sure why it is still being broadcast that we gun owners are still in danger from proposed overly restrictive new laws when it appears to not be the case.
I'm sorry that you feel that being informed that there is a House bill (H.R. 800) which is much better than the Senate version (S.397), since the former is FREE AND CLEAR OF ALL GUN CONTROL, is such a waste of your precious time. EXCUSE ME, I thought this was a forum where ALL of the members would want to HELP when this type of legislation is PENDING. Obviously I WAS WRONG.
I now realize that trying to get support, from SOME of the SUPPOSED gun people, for a CLEAN bill is just too much to ask. Close your eyes like a good little sheeple, and let the bill that "may" have ANTI-GUN attachments get passed. COMPROMISING your rights away, a little at a time, is the STANDARD for SOME people now days. Which is really sad, especially when there is a better alternative available.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
You can have this rarely visited forum to yourself in regards to me.
Disappointed? IMMENSELY.
I posted this same thread in the GD forum.
You know, unlike this "rarely visited" forum.
Out in the forum that almost EVERYBODY reads.
The thread had 50 some reads, and 1 (count it) ONLY 1 reply.
And that response was NOT one of support.
I post it here and receive a reply from 3 people, 2 supportive, and one complaint. I thought you were one of the FEW that I could count on to support GOOD legislation. Maybe I read it wrong, maybe not, but you seem to be more worried about that fact that the GOA is still broadcasting AGAINST the proposed ANTI-GUN amendments that have been (or tried to be) attached to S. 397. Is it because the NRA is DEFENDING those ANTI-GUN amendments?
Your response was not about the content of the post. Which was a notification that there is a better bill, a clean one, one that needs OUR support. But rather a complaint that there are still some fighting to get a CLEAN bill passed.
As always, it is your choice to visit this forum. You are right, other than the "Paintball/reloading" forum, it is the least visited forum. GUN RIGHTS? What a JOKE. As you are well aware, MOST people are so apathetic, that they will do NOTHING to help in the fight for our rights. I admit that my response was partially aimed at you, but it was ALSO aimed at the rest of the people here (on both forums) that do not seem to care.
While I (admittedly) lean more for the way the GOA does things. I thought you, of all people, would be more in the middle. But when even YOU (who I will still count as a friend) are more interested in splitting our faction, into quibbling over what the NRA says vs. what the GOA has to say, I get more DISAPPOINTED every day. [:(]
Highball, here I come.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
The task is insurmountable. Teaching the brain-washed anything except hating the people supporting the Second Amendment and freedom is just about over.
I am the most vocal regarding the above issues..and the most hated on this board. Even Hairy/Monkey gets more respect.
The answer is always the same. Support the NRA and their failed policies...or take the heat. Reckon I will live in the edge of he**.
I am not sure why it is still being broadcast that we gun owners are still in danger from proposed overly restrictive new laws when it appears to not be the case.
Appears not to be the case? Reading what the NRA says about a bill, is not the same as reading a bill-Perhaps if you take your head out of the NRAs *, you might see the dangers.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
On this specific issue, I disagree with you. I think that the NRA has dropped the ball. However, it has made one thing clear to me: the NRA is a gun-industry lobbying organization, NOT a gun-rights lobbying organization. The NRA is going to look out for the interests of gun manufacturers first and foremost. They are not going to stick their neck out for individual gun owners if it will jeopardize their relationship with gun manufacturers. The NRA is hoping to push through S.B. 397 because they just want to get it out of the way. They don't want to stir up any controversy over it, they don't want any filibusters or prime-time specials that will crate negative publicity over it, they just want to get it passed. It doesn't matter to them that the gun-lock and ammunition amendments have been tacked onto this bill, because those amendments will probably not affect the manufacturers all that much. The NRA just wants to get that lawsuit protection through Congress, even if it means stepping on a few more individual gun rights.
I think I have learned to come to terms with this. The NRA is not going to fight for my individual right to keep and bear arms, but they do publish some interesting magazines, they have a really neat industry convention each year (which is really just a trade show), they do organize some fun shooting events, they have some good youth programs, and they do keep the gun-rights debate in the public eye, for good or bad. For those things, I will still donate my $25 per year to get their magazine, get a few discounts on hotels and car insurance, get a $25,000 death and dismemberment policy if I'm injured or killed by a firearm (covers all NRA members), and to be able to attend their cool convention when it comes to my area.
I have learned not to expect any more from the NRA. If I want to support an organization that is looking out for my individual rights then I will support GOA, JPFO, or RTKBA. The NRA is what it is.
-WW
MOLON LAVE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer