New "Armour Piercing Ammo" Ban Would Ban Most Centerfire Ammo

[traderdan]

I HOPE no one on this forum would advocate "assassinating" law enforcement officers! (I also hope that no LEO on this forum would attempt to enforce confiscation laws,were they ever enacted). The mood in this nation is increasingly angry toward the abuse of Constitutional rights.

 

[Mark 1911]

I don't agree with this new proposed legislation, but the last line of the article is completely unnecessary and won't garner many supporters from the LEO ranks.

Agreed. I think your statement would be a solid statement coming from any responsible person, LEO or non-LEO. The author would have been miles ahead by leaving that one stupid sentence out of the article. Irresponsible rhetoric is never going to win over the people we would want on our side anyway. Our case is better stated on its own merits, i.e. the constitution, independence, freedom from tyrannical governments, American tradition, etc.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

The majority of police killed by firearms in the line of duty are killed with pistols firing lead core FMJ ammo. Of course don't let facts stand in the way of gun grabbing.

The police aren't the ones that penned this legislation.

 

[Destro]

3 pages so far debating nonexistent bill text, impressive

 

[mrjarrell]

.

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.R. 2566 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2566

To modify the definition of armor piercing ammunition to better capture
its capabilities.


_______________________________________________________________________


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 27, 2013

Ms. Speier (for herself, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Ms.
Clarke, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Tierney, Ms. Shea-
Porter, Mr. Holt, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Moran, Ms. Bass,
Ms. Frankel of Florida, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Honda, Mr.
McGovern, and Mr. Farr) introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL



To modify the definition of armor piercing ammunition to better capture
its capabilities.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

(a) Expansion of Definition.--Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in clause (I), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) a projectile that--
``(I) may be used in a handgun; and
``(II) the Attorney General
determines, under section 926(d), to be
capable of penetrating body armor.''.
(b) Determination of Capability of Projectiles To Penetrate Body
Armor.--
(1) In general.--Section 926 of such title is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(d)(1) The Attorney General, in consultation with Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation of the Department of Defense, shall
promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against the
Body Armor Exemplar.
``(2) The standards promulgated under paragraph (1) shall take into
account, among other factors, variations in performance that are
related to the type of handgun used, the length of the barrel of the
handgun, the amount and kind of powder used to propel the projectile,
and the design of the projectile.
``(3) In paragraph (1), the term `Body Armor Exemplar' means body
armor that the Attorney General determines meets minimum standards for
the protection of law enforcement officers.''.
(2) Timing of promulgation of standards.--The Attorney
General shall promulgate the standards required by section
926(d) of title 18, United States Code, within 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this section.
(3) Assessment and modification of standards.--The Attorney
General shall assess the standards every 3 years, or more
frequently if the Attorney General finds that technological
advances warrant doing so, and shall modify the standards as
appropriate.

 

[brotherbill3]

For "easy" way to send a message ... hey less than 100 responses so far (07-16 4:23 pm) ... go get on it people.

more Sharing ... and thanks for the update mrjarrell.

https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hr2566

 

[Trigger Time]

The police aren't the ones that penned this legislation.

But they will be the ones to enforce it if its passed. You may not but plenty will so it won't matter to us regular citizens. We will be targets. Therefore I like the way the whole article is written and I believe in it.

 

[Sfrandolph]

Whether the last sentence in the article is over the top or not, the anti-gun group is pushing the limits and the day is coming when people (citizens and LEOs) will have to decide and choose sides. It is inevitable.

 

[Trigger Time]

"I, Trigger Time, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

My oath never expired.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me

Does that include orders that are legal but you don't happen to agree with?

 

[CarmelHP]

Does that include orders that are legal but you don't happen to agree with?

Define "legal," or, at least, your understanding of the term.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Define "legal," or, at least, your understanding of the term.

Orders that wouldn't have TT performing an illegal act. I'm still waiting for my answer.

 

[2A_Tom]

Love this, would not want to shoot it, but love it.

 

[2A_Tom]

[h=3]Bill text available as:[/h]

• TXT
• PDF
• HTML/XML

[h=3]Shown Here:
Introduced in House (06/27/2013)[/h]

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.R. 2566 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2566

To modify the definition of armor piercing ammunition to better capture
its capabilities.


_______________________________________________________________________


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 27, 2013

Ms. Speier (for herself, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Ms.
Clarke, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Tierney, Ms. Shea-
Porter, Mr. Holt, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Moran, Ms. Bass,
Ms. Frankel of Florida, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Honda, Mr.
McGovern, and Mr. Farr) introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL



To modify the definition of armor piercing ammunition to better capture
its capabilities.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

(a) Expansion of Definition.--Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in clause (I), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) a projectile that--
``(I) may be used in a handgun; and
``(II) the Attorney General
determines, under section 926(d), to be
capable of penetrating body armor.''.
(b) Determination of Capability of Projectiles To Penetrate Body
Armor.--
(1) In general.--Section 926 of such title is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(d)(1) The Attorney General, in consultation with Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation of the Department of Defense, shall
promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against the
Body Armor Exemplar.
``(2) The standards promulgated under paragraph (1) shall take into
account, among other factors, variations in performance that are
related to the type of handgun used, the length of the barrel of the
handgun, the amount and kind of powder used to propel the projectile,
and the design of the projectile.
``(3) In paragraph (1), the term `Body Armor Exemplar' means body
armor that the Attorney General determines meets minimum standards for
the protection of law enforcement officers.''.
(2) Timing of promulgation of standards.--The Attorney
General shall promulgate the standards required by section
926(d) of title 18, United States Code, within 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this section.
(3) Assessment and modification of standards.--The Attorney
General shall assess the standards every 3 years, or more
frequently if the Attorney General finds that technological
advances warrant doing so, and shall modify the standards as
appropriate.

 

[Trigger Time]

Does that include orders that are legal but you don't happen to agree with?

Maybe I shouldn't have quoted the whole oath as since my enlistment ended i no longer must obey orders from officers or the president.
the oath to obey the constitution comes before those orders too. However the oath to support ad defend the constitution never ends.
now as a citizen I have the right to obey or not obey any law as my conscience dictates. However I'm not a sovern citizen not do I believe in that extreme of a interpretation.

but maybe this will better answer your question Frank:
in Indianapolis it used to be ILLEGAL to carry a pistol in a city park even with your ltch. I did it every time I went to a city park. The law was wrong and unconstitutional and therefore it was my duty to disobey it. However I didn't OC nor did I tell anyone then.
unless we all stand together then we can never fix things. And it took the state of Indiana to force Indy to get rid of that law.

i didn't mean not to get back to you it's just hard to find and stay up with all the threads.

 

[Trigger Time]

Does that include orders that are legal but you don't happen to agree with?

In the military i was never given an order that conflicted with the constitution. However as an Leo you might. Just because a law is legal it doesn't mean it is right, just or constitutional.

What should cops in New York do who are told to confiscate guns and accessories? Should they refuse even if it means losing their jobs? My answer is yes. We all must live or die with our choices.

 

[Jack Burton]

In the military i was never given an order that conflicted with the constitution. However as an Leo you might. Just because a law is legal it doesn't mean it is right, just or constitutional.

What should cops in New York do who are told to confiscate guns and accessories? Should they refuse even if it means losing their jobs? My answer is yes. We all must live or die with our choices.

This is why states and municipalities keep passing new gun control laws. They know, or they believe in their heart, that the LEO community will enforce any law that is passed regardless of the Constitutionality of it. It just simply doesn't matter to them -- they have no reason to believe otherwise.

Why do they know this. Because the LEO community has never given them a reason to believe otherwise. While individual LEOs may be stand-up people and defend the 2nd Amendment on out-of-the-way places like INGO where they can hide behind avatars, the LEO community as a whole (or even a significant part) has never, once, stood up and said, "You've gone too far. We are not your running dog lackeys and if you pass this law we will not be your enforcers of it."

The closest we've seen to it is with the sheriffs in Colorado.

What does this mean in reality. Well, the guy who wrote the original article that is in question is one of the kindest, nicest, warm hearted and level headed guys you'll ever meet. And if he is feeling this frustrated with the LEO community for their lack of backbone just imagine how others who are ready to be pushed off the chair are feeling.

Several communities in Illinois have just passed "assault weapon" bans giving their residents 60 days to turn in or get rid of certain firearms. What's going to happen if one or more of these people stand up and vocally say, SCREW YOU --- come and get them.

Really... What. Is. Going.To. Happen.

Which police officers in these communities have told the town councils, "You're on your own on this one, baby." Which police officers will be standing at the door with a fully automatic rifle shooting the pet terrier and six year old kid.

We don't know, do we. So which view of ALL the officers do we take? Hmmmm.... since no police officers have been fired over the past two week... I KNOW.

 

[Trigger Time]

This is why states and municipalities keep passing new gun control laws. They know, or they believe in their heart, that the LEO community will enforce any law that is passed regardless of the Constitutionality of it. It just simply doesn't matter to them -- they have no reason to believe otherwise.

Why do they know this. Because the LEO community has never given them a reason to believe otherwise. While individual LEOs may be stand-up people and defend the 2nd Amendment on out-of-the-way places like INGO where they can hide behind avatars, the LEO community as a whole (or even a significant part) has never, once, stood up and said, "You've gone too far. We are not your running dog lackeys and if you pass this law we will not be your enforcers of it."

The closest we've seen to it is with the sheriffs in Colorado.

What does this mean in reality. Well, the guy who wrote the original article that is in question is one of the kindest, nicest, warm hearted and level headed guys you'll ever meet. And if he is feeling this frustrated with the LEO community for their lack of backbone just imagine how others who are ready to be pushed off the chair are feeling.

Several communities in Illinois have just passed "assault weapon" bans giving their residents 60 days to turn in or get rid of certain firearms. What's going to happen if one or more of these people stand up and vocally say, SCREW YOU --- come and get them.

Really... What. Is. Going.To. Happen.

Which police officers in these communities have told the town councils, "You're on your own on this one, baby." Which police officers will be standing at the door with a fully automatic rifle shooting the pet terrier and six year old kid.

We don't know, do we. So which view of ALL the officers do we take? Hmmmm.... since no police officers have been fired over the past two week... I KNOW.

And if (I mean when) the police in IL (or here if it comes to it) come to take those guns they are no better than a murderer trying to break in and kill you and your family. A badge and following orders doesn't make you right 100%. I hope more Leo's are seriously pissed about these laws than the few we have seen speaking out across the country. They are the ones put into unnecessary danger to enforce illegal laws and i don't feel an ounce of sorry for the ones confiscating them. The politicians are responsible to a point but your right Jack Burton, the police also share a level of responsibility for enforcing these wrong and unjust laws. We need to all stand together. Because if your coming in my door it's too late to be on the same side.

 

[Jerchap2]

For "easy" way to send a message ... hey less than 100 responses so far (07-16 4:23 pm) ... go get on it people.

more Sharing ... and thanks for the update mrjarrell.

https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hr2566

Just voted. Thanks for sharing the link.