Yes there do. Or more importantly you need to show me that the industry should be protected differently from other manufacturers. I’m in favor of increased disincentives for baseless lawsuits. I’m not in favor of doing it by blanket bans, which, negate the possibiity that anything covered by the ban might include behavior we view worthy of liability.
For example, I think the obesity lawsuits against Fast Food companies are baseless. However, banning such suits is a statement that it isn’t possible that Fast Food companies might take action in such a way that they could justifiably be found liable for increasing obesity. The tort system works. If someone files suit on a basis that does not pass Rule 11 muster, use the sanctions of that Rule against them. Hell, increase the sanctions. Just don’t legislate away our tort system to protect individual industries.
So in other words, no, you can’t tell me how the ban of that particular ammunition would affect me as a sport shooter. Thanks. See, the cite is stupid not because of where it is, but because the amendment does nothing even close to what you claim it does.
Airman Doors: of course most rifle ammunition is capable of penetrating body armor. Everyone knows that. This amendment would only ban rifle ammunition that is designed to penetrate body armor, AND is determined to be more successful at penetrating body armor than normal ammunition of that caliber. So, I ask again, how could that ban possibly affect anyone who is a sport shooter or hunter?
It’s that word “responsibly”, Lib. Clearly, that means that he intends to send squads of jack-booted liberal nannies to kick down doors and pry guns from cold. dead hands…
I don’t get it. Some of you guys don’t even take a minute to gloat and do a happy dance, you’re still in full paranoia mode. What more do you want? He’s wearing a flag pin, does he have to pack heat as well? What in the hell do you want?
I’m fairly pleased with the decision. It forbids a complete ban on handguns while allowing reasonable restrictions. I predict a plethora of cases attempting to define where the line is that marks reasonable. (And a plethora of GD threads.)
Isn’t it interesting how Obama is taking back terms like responsibility, accountability, and values from the people who have wounded them? His views on the second amendment, like his views on economics, are wonderfully libertarian in their conception. Only the severest right-wing nut would defend gun ownership by people incapable of giving meaningful consent — like children, the mentally ill, or people who waived their rights when they commited violent crimes. I believe I’m beginning to see Democrats come around now. It’s like the scales have fallen off their eyes, and they can do things now they couldn’t before, like proclaim their faith in God or their pride in country or their love of freedom. For this old classical liberal, it is a beautiful thing.
I’ve underlined what I believe to be the portions relevant to your question. Incidentally, what is “normal ammunition of that caliber”? That is not an idle question, because if the ammunition works as designed and is capable of penetrating armor it runs afoul of the law based strictly on the verbiage of the law.
It seems pretty clear from the text of the amendment that “normal ammunition” is ammunition that is not designed or marketed as body armor piercing. The only way the attorney general is going to be making a determination on rifle rounds is if the round is specifically designed and marketed as armor piercing. Your characterization of ammunition working as designed is incorrect, since only ammunition specifically designed to be armor piercing can even be considered for a ban. Rounds designed for hunting or target shooting aren’t even up for consideration by the AG.
This sort of thing amazes me. While you are of course free to vote for whomever you choose for any reason you choose the notion that it is due to the horror of infringing one of your rights rings a little hollow.
While you worry that Obama might ban firearms are you blind to the trampling of the constitution we have gotten under Bush and which McCain looks to continue?
Off the top of my head Bush has stomped on:
Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable search and seizures (FISA and listening to your phone calls)
Fifth Amendment: Suspend habeas corpus, and depriving people of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (Jose Padilla or any of the Guantanamo detainees if you want to go a bit further).
Sixth Amendment: Right to a speedy trial (Hamdi).
Eight Amendment: Cruel and unusual punishment (torture).
Tenth Amendment: Take power from the states specifically reserved to them (modifications to the Insurrection Act in 2006 which would allow the president to federalize National Guard troops over any objection from that state’s governor). This has been repealed I believe.
I bet there are more but those are the easy ones.
And you want to vote for the guy who is cool with all of the above?
Looking at that I guess you will need your guns to protect you from a government of proven “brutal infringement” of our constitution.
But he also felt that the D.C. handgun ban was constitutional, right? It makes me scratch my head until you look at the words “law abiding”. See, in Obama’s world, (and the 4 justices in dissent) a constitutional guarantee for an individual to keep and bear arms obviously means that you CAN IN FACT deny an individual the right to both keep AND bear arms (no handguns or loaded rifles or shotguns in D.C.) so one might search in vain for where they would draw the limits of the government on it’s power to pass laws.
So, when Obama says “law abiding gun owners” you may think that is you, but it’s not if your local city council wanted to ban guns (according to him).
It’s a battle won, but not the war. If Obama gets elected and wants to restrict firearms, I want him to be near my house at all times to protect me from bad guys. Since the liberals and Democrats think I’m not qualified to do it.
Well then, if that is your contention, what ammunition is designed to be “armor piercing” and is not incidentally “armor piercing”? That is, demonstrably so, not alleged to be like the Black Talon, which could never be “armor piercing” as it is a hollowpoint and designed to expand on impact, therefore reducing overall penetration.
I suspect you’ll see a lot of allegations of ammunition designed to be “armor piercing”, but few genuine examples. The only one I can think of is 5.7x28 SS190, and that is unavailable to civilians anyway.
Except for a brief and temporary period proposed by Chicago alderman Dick Mell very recently. A measure supported by Dick Daley. Read it and weep. Buncha dicks, they.
No. No, No, No. A thousand times, NO! Again, you are wrong.
There’s an “or” at the end of section iii, the (proposed) amendment to 921 (a)(17)(b).
Section iii states (once more, with feeling!): "a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor, or:
``(iv) a projectile for a center-fire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.’’.
The “or” at the end of sec. iii neans it can one, or the other.
The cincher:
The proposed 926(d) allows for the AG to set the “Body Armor Exemplar.”
So what if the AG decides Type 1 is to be the “Body Armor Exemplar?”
