When JPFO talks, gun owners should listen.
In this case their fears, that S. 397 could result in giving the AG power to ban all rifle ammo capable of penetrating BODY ARMOR, should be looked at very carefully--particularly since this opinion is being given serious credence by Len Savage.
I haven't had time to look into this, so am posting this in the hopes of soliciting informed opinions. Is there an alternative explanation? If JPFO's analysis is accurate, why haven't we heard about this from NRA?
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I disagree with the JPFO. Explanation on Gun Law News front page.
I wish more people would read. 18 USC 921(a)17 is the definition of 'armor peircing ammunition'.
No where is the Attorney General given the power to declare any ammunition as 'armor piercing'. He can't declare anything.
This definition would need to be updated by congressional action for him to be given any power. These are the bills, like Kennedy's that are to be fear. S.397 is not a problem.
Post a Comment