Let's Remove ALL Gun Control from S. 397 - The Firearms Forum

pickenup · 08-12-2005, 01:18 AM

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,

inplanotx · 08-12-2005, 04:15 AM

Done!

Shooter45 · 08-12-2005, 06:29 AM

Done.

LIKTOSHOOT · 08-12-2005, 09:40 AM

Where is the NRA on this????????????????????????

LTS

Gunfyter · 08-12-2005, 11:13 AM

Yep, I'm in.

Marlin · 08-12-2005, 11:43 AM

Done, in both states, as usual.

pickenup · 08-12-2005, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LIKTOSHOOT

Where is the NRA on this????????????????????????

I have asked that very same question.

I have NOT received anything from them.....yet.
Was wondering if anyone had?

Not holding my breath either.

berto64 · 08-12-2005, 05:51 PM

Done!

HiPowerKid · 08-15-2005, 03:53 PM

Gee, it's awfully funny how the NRA doesn't mention the need to strip any gun control provisions from the bill. Read it and weep. Methinks the NRA needs some GOA style leadership, what say ye?

Attend Town Hall Meetings And
Urge Passage Of S. 397 In U.S. House

Sunday, August 14, 2005

As you know, the U.S. Senate recently passed S. 397--the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act"--by a strong bipartisan vote of 65-31! This action represents a great victory and a vitally important first step toward ending the anti-gun lobby's shameless attempts to bankrupt the firearm industry through reckless, predatory lawsuits. It also represents a crucial step forward for law-abiding firearm manufacturers, retailers and owners in this country.

As we reported last week, there has been some discussion of late concerning two amendments to S. 397. The first, by Senator 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 second measure--an amendment by Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)--was passed by an overwhelming margin of 87-11, and was offered this year (as it was in 2004) in a successful attempt to defeat Senator Edward Kennedy's "armor piercing" ammunition amendment that would have banned all centerfire rifle ammunition. By providing an alternative to Senator Kennedy's amendment, pro-gun senators were able to marshal the votes to defeat the Kennedy amendment.

The amendment only restates the existing prohibition 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 also 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.

The amendment does not give the Attorney General (or anyone else) any new authority to ban ammunition, nor does it change the definition of "armor piercing ammunition." Under current law, 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. And finally, the amendment does not create any kind of new ammunition ban. The only ammunition that is banned as "armor piercing" is ammunition that fits the current definition, and neither the amendment nor the study would change the definition.

As the battle now moves to the U.S. House of Representatives, it is critical that you once again contact your U.S. Representative and urge him/her to pass S. 397, as passed by the Senate!

With Congress out for its "Summer District Work Period" (through September 5), your Senators and Representative will be back home in their respective states and districts. Many lawmakers use this time to hold town hall meetings, where they can report on what they've been doing in Washington, and take questions from their constituents. Now is the time for you to personally voice your strong support for S. 397 (in addition to S. 1082 and H.R. 1288--the Senate and House versions of the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act"). Please contact your lawmakers' district offices and ask when they plan to hold their town hall meetings during the break. If you do not know the number for your lawmakers' district offices, you can use the "Write Your Representatives" tool at www.NRAILA.org, or call the NRA-ILA Grassroots Division at (800) 392-8683.

If you get a chance to meet with your lawmakers, be sure to: Urge Your U.S. Representative To Support S. 397; And Urge Your U.S. Senators And Representative To Cosponsor And Support S. 1082/H.R. 1288.

In addition to attending meetings and speaking out in support of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, please forward the dates, times, and locations of any town hall meetings to your family, friends, and fellow firearm owners, and to the NRA-ILA Grassroots Division, so we may compile this information and share it with the pro-gun community. Please forward this information to the Grassroots Division by calling (800) 392-8683, by faxing to (703) 267-3918, or by sending an e-mail to townhall@nrahq.org.

We can and will achieve our mutual goal of finally enacting this common sense law, but only with your continued assistance. Please help us finish the job once and for all by contacting your U.S. Representative and urging him/her to support the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act," and send the bill to President Bush.

NRA-ILA Speakers Bureau

Help Spread The Truth and Promote Activism -
Identify "Second Amendment Activist Centers"

NRA-ILA Grassroots Workshop, Pittsburgh, PA
April 17, 2004

pickenup · 08-15-2005, 10:29 PM

HiPowerKid,
I would have to agree.

Deputy Dawg · 08-17-2005, 02:43 PM

Count me in.Ithink any new gun control laws are bad news for law abiding gun owners

08-12-2005, 01:18 AM	#1
pickenup Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Colorado Rocky Mountains Posts: 6,838	Let's Remove ALL Gun Control from S. 397 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, __________________ The gene pool needs chlorine -->

08-12-2005, 04:15 AM	#2
inplanotx Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 8,897	Re: Let's Remove ALL Gun Control from S. 397 Done! __________________

08-12-2005, 06:29 AM	#3
Shooter45 Administrator Join Date: Feb 2001 Contributor Posts: 8,752	Re: Let's Remove ALL Gun Control from S. 397 Done.

08-12-2005, 09:40 AM	#4
LIKTOSHOOT Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 9,367	Re: Let's Remove ALL Gun Control from S. 397 Where is the NRA on this???????????????????????? LTS

08-12-2005, 11:13 AM	#5
Gunfyter Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Western Maryland Posts: 1,956	Re: Let's Remove ALL Gun Control from S. 397 Yep, I'm in. __________________ Anything worth shooting once, is worth shooting again. If it ain't broke, break it. Someone needs the work

08-12-2005, 11:43 AM	#6
Marlin TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: At SouthernMoss' side forever! Contributor Posts: 13,853	Re: Let's Remove ALL Gun Control from S. 397 Done, in both states, as usual. __________________ *The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing.* *The only criminal class native to the United States is Congress.*

08-12-2005, 05:51 PM	#8
berto64 VMBB Admin Staff Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Owyhee County, Idaho Contributor Posts: 7,388	Re: Let's Remove ALL Gun Control from S. 397 Done! __________________ Be who you are & say what you will, Those that matter won't mind and those that mind don't matter. I'm a bitter clinger, One Nation Under God.

08-15-2005, 03:53 PM	#9
HiPowerKid V.I.P. Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: NW FL Posts: 202	Re: Let's Remove ALL Gun Control from S. 397 Gee, it's awfully funny how the NRA doesn't mention the need to strip any gun control provisions from the bill. Read it and weep. Methinks the NRA needs some GOA style leadership, what say ye? Attend Town Hall Meetings And Urge Passage Of S. 397 In U.S. House Sunday, August 14, 2005 As you know, the U.S. Senate recently passed S. 397--the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act"--by a strong bipartisan vote of 65-31! This action represents a great victory and a vitally important first step toward ending the anti-gun lobby's shameless attempts to bankrupt the firearm industry through reckless, predatory lawsuits. It also represents a crucial step forward for law-abiding firearm manufacturers, retailers and owners in this country. As we reported last week, there has been some discussion of late concerning two amendments to S. 397. The first, by Senator 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 second measure--an amendment by Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)--was passed by an overwhelming margin of 87-11, and was offered this year (as it was in 2004) in a successful attempt to defeat Senator Edward Kennedy's "armor piercing" ammunition amendment that would have banned all centerfire rifle ammunition. By providing an alternative to Senator Kennedy's amendment, pro-gun senators were able to marshal the votes to defeat the Kennedy amendment. The amendment only restates the existing prohibition 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 also 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. The amendment does not give the Attorney General (or anyone else) any new authority to ban ammunition, nor does it change the definition of "armor piercing ammunition." Under current law, 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. And finally, the amendment does not create any kind of new ammunition ban. The only ammunition that is banned as "armor piercing" is ammunition that fits the current definition, and neither the amendment nor the study would change the definition. As the battle now moves to the U.S. House of Representatives, it is critical that you once again contact your U.S. Representative and urge him/her to pass S. 397, as passed by the Senate! With Congress out for its "Summer District Work Period" (through September 5), your Senators and Representative will be back home in their respective states and districts. Many lawmakers use this time to hold town hall meetings, where they can report on what they've been doing in Washington, and take questions from their constituents. Now is the time for you to personally voice your strong support for S. 397 (in addition to S. 1082 and H.R. 1288--the Senate and House versions of the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act"). Please contact your lawmakers' district offices and ask when they plan to hold their town hall meetings during the break. If you do not know the number for your lawmakers' district offices, you can use the "Write Your Representatives" tool at www.NRAILA.org, or call the NRA-ILA Grassroots Division at (800) 392-8683. If you get a chance to meet with your lawmakers, be sure to: Urge Your U.S. Representative To Support S. 397; And Urge Your U.S. Senators And Representative To Cosponsor And Support S. 1082/H.R. 1288. In addition to attending meetings and speaking out in support of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, please forward the dates, times, and locations of any town hall meetings to your family, friends, and fellow firearm owners, and to the NRA-ILA Grassroots Division, so we may compile this information and share it with the pro-gun community. Please forward this information to the Grassroots Division by calling (800) 392-8683, by faxing to (703) 267-3918, or by sending an e-mail to townhall@nrahq.org. We can and will achieve our mutual goal of finally enacting this common sense law, but only with your continued assistance. Please help us finish the job once and for all by contacting your U.S. Representative and urging him/her to support the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act," and send the bill to President Bush. NRA-ILA Speakers Bureau Help Spread The Truth and Promote Activism - Identify "Second Amendment Activist Centers" NRA-ILA Grassroots Workshop, Pittsburgh, PA April 17, 2004 __________________ F R E E E E E E D O O O M M M M!

08-15-2005, 10:29 PM	#10
pickenup Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Colorado Rocky Mountains Posts: 6,838	Re: Let's Remove ALL Gun Control from S. 397 HiPowerKid, I would have to agree. __________________ The gene pool needs chlorine

08-17-2005, 02:43 PM	#11
Deputy Dawg Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Central Texas Gulf Coast Posts: 2,229	Re: Let's Remove ALL Gun Control from S. 397 Count me in.Ithink any new gun control laws are bad news for law abiding gun owners