Someone just added this sentence to the John Kerry article on wikipedia:
“[Kerry voted for] Ammunition bans that would have outlawed popular deer hunting rounds like the .30-30 and .30-06.”
I’m not interested on a debate on gun control, I’m just interested in finding out if Kerry did such a thing, because I find it hard to believe given Kerry is a hunter and all google turns up on the subject is NRA website rants. Anyone know the straight dope on this?
Well, there’s this topic at Free Republic that apparently quotes the relevant amendment. Normally I wouldn’t use that as a point of reference, but I haven’t been able to reproduce their source and it completely undercuts their point anyway, though they don’t seem to know it. The “controversy” seems to center around one amendment Sen. Ted Kennedy attempted to add to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Kerry voted for that amendment.
If you read the quoted amendment on FR it very obviously is an attempt to restrict armor-piercing ammo, not all deer hunting rounds. In fact, they’ve even quoted the part where Sen. Kennedy explicitly points out this amendment wouldn’t apply to hunting ammo at all:
I’m a hunter myself, but don’t ask me what mental gymnastics are required to go from “banning armor-piercing bullets” to “banning all deer hunting rounds”. Doesn’t say much for the reading comprehension level of Freepers, though.
I routinely hunt armor-plated deer. Those things are hard as hell to bring down.
Oh yeah. You need armor-piercing bullets when you’re hunting armadeero.
It’s not the armored deer that cause trouble. It is the deer that drive around in armored tracked vehicles. They have figured out that it is the only way they have a chance against SUVs. The best way to take out motorized deer is with a couple three round bursts of armor piercing right in the radiator. Rocket propelled grenades work too but that is not regarded as sporting, except on private game farms where you can use tube artillery not exceeding 75 mm. Once they abandon the APC it’s fairly easy to knock them down before they can find cover.
I’m not an expert at reading legalese, but the amendment seems pretty vaguely worded to me. For rifle ammunition, ammunition can be banned if it is found by the Attorney General to be “more likely” than the “standard” ammunition to penetrate body armor. —This seems like pretty broad discretionary power to grant to the Attorney General, but if you trust both Janet Reno and John Ashcroft, this will probably not bother you. (Sen. Kennedy’s statements about what the bill would and would not ban are not part of the bill, and hence should not be considered as legal findings.)
But what is “standard” ammunition? As far as I can tell this is not defined (though it may be defined elsewhere in the bill or the USC), and since this is the benchmark, it’s pretty important. Is “standard” ammunition the type of ammunition most frequently used at that caliber? That seems awfully reasonable, right? But that would probably end up being a relatively cheap, low-velocity target-shooting round, which is not at all comparable in performance (for, say, a deer hunter) to an actual hunting round. Without a reasonable standard defined, an Attorney General has pretty wide latitude to ban just about anything except low-power target-shooting wadcutters.
There are similar problems with the “more likely” criterion: how much more likely is “more likely”? Are high-velocity rounds immediately banned (because they are of course more likely to penetrate than low-velocity rounds, even for identical bullet design, and even when this is not specifically an “armor-piercing” design)? (The bill mentions that the standards should “take into account” velocity variations, but I can’t tell whether that’s supposed to allow or ban high-powered versions: again, it sounds awfully vague to me, possibly because IANAL.)
Finally, I’ve heard (correct me if I’m wrong) that most body armor is not considered sufficient protection against most rifle bullets. So I don’t see the point in banning only a few particular types of rifle ammunition; pretty much all types would have to be banned in order to allow only non-armor-piercing rifle ammunition.
I also wonder about the following statement in regards to establishing a standard for body armour.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r108:4:./temp/~r108qEW1xS:e0:
What is the minimum standard for protection and will standard 30-06 ammo penetrate said minimum standard body armour. If so, then the way this reads, standard 30-06 ammo would be banned.
This would not be an issue where I go deer hunting because it’s restricted to shotgun slugs only. But it would most definitely be an issue in area where rifle hunting is allowed.
Did a little more research into what constitutes minimum standard body armour and according to this description, there may be reason for concern.
http://www.nlectc.org/txtfiles/BodyArmorStd/NIJSTD010103.html#ballistictests
Seems like the minimum standard armour would be type I which will protect against 22 & 38 caliber rounds. Armour that would protect against high powered rifle is type III which is 5 armour grades higher than the minimum standard.
Seems to me that the hunters have every reason to be concerned about this amendment and who voted in favor of it.
Not by my reading. Under this amendment, a bullet must meet one of two tests in order to be banned:
Test I:
The projectile must:
Test II:
The projectile must:
If any bullet does not meet any one of those criteria in either test, it cannot be banned under that amendment. For example, by my reading, some kind of nasty armor penetrating bullet for a rimfire rifle could not be banned.
In contrast to flickster’s conclusion, “standard” ammunition, by the very terms of the proposed law, would not be banned, because the ammunition in question must penetrate more than standard ammunition.
Further, the AG must determine that the bullet in question is designed or marketed to penetrate armor. I can’t imagine that many bullets are actually designed to penetrate armor, rather than armor-piercing capability being an unavoidable consequence of a high power bullet.
All in all, it was a convoluted, difficult to understand amendment that would be bound to be wrapped up in litigation for god knows how long. Heh - convoluted and difficult to understand… no wonder Kerry voted for it. 
Someone’s already taken the cheap partisan shots back out of the entry.
Yeah, but what about that “or marketed” part? That seems to make that whole point as substantial and fact-filled as, well, advertising. It doesn’t say, for example, that it has to be marketed by the manufacturer as armor-piercing, and in fact the example Sen. Kennedy gives in his comments (Hi-Vel, Inc.) sells third-party rounds as “armor-piercing,” as far as I know without the agreement of the manufacturer.
As for the “centerfire” constraint: aren’t essentially all rimfires low-power .22 rifles (and thus the least likely to meet the other conditions, as well as the least useful for large game hunting)?
It all depends on what the meaning of the word “standard” is. I can come up with a plausible-sounding definition that will ban most useful rifle ammunition (see earlier post).
The problem is the vague language used in the amendment. It was either written by a complete idiot or was written vaguely on purpose in order to allow a judge the ability to interpret what it says for us at a later date (seeing how Sen Kennedy is not an idiot that leaves us with option #2). You can only imagine what type of judge the anti-hunting or gun control lobby would seek out for a ruling (IMHO).
That’s all well and good. My problem is with the minimum standard armour language. Looks to me like minimum standard armour = Type I armour. Type I armour will not stop standard high powered rifle ammo. It doesn’t have to be special designed or super high power. The Test II does not specify that it is being used with Type III armour. The only armour specified is the minimum standard.
“minimum standards for the protection of LE officers” would be IIA. Then comes II and then IIIA. Level III is hard plate armour.
NIJ Level I would not be suitable for LE officers. I think a knit sweater provides better ballistic protection.
And if you guys are hunting deer that require armour piercing rounds, then your deer are pussies!!
I am not debating the motives for the amendment, only trying to clarify a misperception of what the text of the amendment actually means.
Yes, I agree that the terms are left vague in the legislation. One could put together arguments that the term “standard” bullet is as restrictive or expansive as one likes, and also read the words “marketing” or “body armor examplar” in different ways. As I said, the amendment is an invitation to litigation to be decided by Federal judges, whether they’re appointed by Democrats or Republicans.
But the fact is that under this legislation, one would have to have the most broad and expansive reading of each of the elements of the tests laid out by the amendment in order to ban common bullets for deer hunting. In other words, a rogue AG would really have to go far out on a limb to reach a conclusion that this legislation was intended to ban ammunition for deer hunting. Plus it’s pure bunk to think that courts could read this language as intending to ban all sporting ammunition because the legislation clearly designs tests that try to avoid banning such ammunition. Courts do look at legislative intent, too, ya know.
Going back to the OPs question, the statement that Kerry voted for an amendment that “would have outlawed popular deer hunting rounds” is factually misleading, because the amendment that Kerry voted for was clearly intended to apply to so-called “cop killer” bullets, despite the ambiguities. That deer hunting bullets might fall under this bit of proposed law could be re-interpreted by clever lawyers to apply to deer hunting bullets is something that can be debated, but that clearly was not the intent of the legislation.
So the way this amendment was written, does it mean any ammo that would pierce IIA armour woud have been prohibited?
The language you are having a problem with, minimum standard armor test, would only be applied to handgun ammunition. I haven’t seen any .30-06 handguns, but some-one might have created one. They certainly aren’t normal hunting rifles.
Rifle rounds would not be tested by the minimum standard armor prong, but by the marketing and the “are more likely to penetrate armor” prong.
Not true.
Test I is for handguns
Test II is for rifles
(see Ravenman’s post above)
Not true? Are ye daft, man? What PBW wrote is exactly the difference between Test I and II.
Is the ammunition for handgun or long gun?
|
|
-----------------------------------------
| |
Handgun Long gun
| |
Capable of penetrating Designed or Marketed
"minimum standard" as "Armor Piercing?"
LE body armor? |
| |
---No-------Yes-- ---No-------Yes--
| | | |
No Ban Continue No Ban Continue
| |
---------- ---------
| |
| {u]More likely than other
| rifle ammunition to
| penetrate "minimum"
| standard" LE body armor?
| |
| ---No-------Yes--
| | |
| No Ban Continue
| |
| ----------
| |
Has Attrny Gen. Has Attrny Gen.
agreed w/ these agreed w/ these
determinations? determinations?
| |
---No-------Yes-- ---No-------Yes--
| | | |
No Ban Ban No Ban Ban