# Kerry and deer ammo **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 1, 2004, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-and-deer-ammo/253106 "2004-07-01T20:37:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-and-deer-ammo/253106/21 "2004-07-02T18:13:25Z")
Can’t they just ban the use of any ammunition, armor piercing or otherwise, against law enforcement individuals? I mean the verbiage on THAT one would be nice & clear. ---
**Author:** ![RandomLetters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8edcca/32.png) [@RandomLetters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandomLetters)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-and-deer-ammo/253106/22 "2004-07-02T18:39:34Z")
But what about a handgun that is chambered to use rifle ammunition? How would that ammo be regulated under this law? Handguns that can use .50 BMG do exist, and they would certainly go though any vest wearable by a human. ---
**Author:** ![paperbackwriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@paperbackwriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paperbackwriter)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-and-deer-ammo/253106/23 "2004-07-02T19:37:04Z")
But are those used for hunting? The assertion questioned by the OP was “…outlawed popular deer hunting rounds like the .30-30 and .30-06.” I don’t think there are handguns chambered for .30-06, but I could easily be wrong. OTOH, could it be a large loophole? Continue to manufacture your .50BMG rounds, but label them “for rifle use only” and you’ve side-stepped the handgun prong of the tests, right? ---
**Author:** ![Omphaloskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bcef8e/32.png) [@Omphaloskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omphaloskeptic)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-and-deer-ammo/253106/24 "2004-07-02T19:38:39Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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. Courts do look at legislative intent, but they pay a lot more attention to the actual text. In this case, the text is (as we all seem to agree) extremely vague. Kennedy’s remarks are also rather vague, so even this doesn’t provide much useful guidance in restricting the extent of the bill. It is unlikely that this is accidental —senators have plenty of staff and advisors who can help with drafting legislation— so it does not seem unreasonable to guess that it is left that way as an invitation to expansive interpretations. You also mention the courts as a way to rein in any “rogue AG” who interprets this text too broadly. I have a couple of problems with this. First, it’s not clear to me that this could actually happen. The text quite clearly states that the AG is given the power to find ammunition in violation, with no route for appeal listed, so I don’t see any route for declaring him in violation of the law; there’s simply no way for the courts to rule on this matter. The law itself would have to be struck down as unconstitutionally vague—this vagueness being the part we’re complaining about. Also, a “rogue AG” wouldn’t have reach very far to ban quite a lot of “ammunition for deer hunting.” If the ammunition is relatively high-velocity ammunition (useful for long-range shots), then it probably penetrates “more” than “standard” ammunition. All the AG would have to do would be to find a single instance in which the ammunition was “marketed” as “armor-piercing,” not a very restrictive test. I also have a problem with the whole idea of writing legislation broadly, the constitutionality to be sorted out by the courts later; it seems to me that if you don’t understand the problem enough well enough to write a law narrowly tailored to the problem you’re trying to solve, then you don’t have any business writing a law about it. But that’s not really a matter for GQ anymore. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-and-deer-ammo/253106.md?page=1)