Handgun owners face new bullet ban bill

The Hill – by Tim Devaney

House Democrats will introduce legislation this week that would block handguns from firing any sort of ammunition that can penetrate body armor worn by police officers.

The Modernize Law Enforcement Protection Act is expected to be introduced later this week by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.).  

“The Second Amendment does not give anyone the right to use a bullet that is specifically designed to pierce the protective gear worn by police officers,” Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), who is co-sponsoring the bill, told The Hill.

“The Second Amendment, which I support, had well intended 18th century protections, but we live in a world with 21st century criminals and increasingly lethal weapons,” he added.

Democrats are offering the legislation after the Obama administration backed down last week from a controversial plan to prohibit certain types of armor-piercing ammunition amid pressure from Republicans and gun rights groups.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) had proposed to prohibit gun companies from manufacturing 5.56mm projectiles for M855 cartridges commonly used in AR-15 hunting rifles.

These bullets have traditionally been exempted from regulations that prohibit armor-piercing ammunition, because they are used primarily by hunters and sportsmen. But now that they can be used in high-powered handguns, critics say they are easier to conceal and pose a greater threat to police.

“An armor-piercing bullet in a concealable handgun is not for sport — unless the sport is shooting cops,” Israel said.

Republicans and gun rights groups suggested the ATF’s proposal was a “backdoor” ban on AR-15 hunting rifles that would open the door for more types of bullets to be banned.

“We’re not banning other bullets, we’re not banning guns, we’re not banning the Second Amendment,” Israel said.

This is the second piece of legislation Democrats have offered to revive the controversial bullet ban.

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) introduced the Armor Piercing Bullets Act last Friday.

But the Modernized Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act will ban even more forms of armor-piercing ammunition, said Israel, who held a press conference Monday in New York to tout the bill.

The bill would close loopholes in the current law, Democrats say.

Currently, the metals used to make a bullet are how regulators determine whether it is armor-piercing. But this bill would adjust the definition to any handgun bullet that can shoot through even the weakest body armor worn by police.

Therefore, the bullet ban legislation would encompass all forms of armor-piercing ammunition that can be used in handguns, even if the ammunition is also popular with hunters, Israel said.

“You don’t have to use an armor-piercing bullet in a hunting rifle,” Israel said. “That’s the point. There are other bullets you could use.”

The legislation was introduced in the previous Congress, but Israel said there is more “urgency” now that the ATF has backed down from its proposed bullet ban.

The immediate effect would be banning the same bullet the ATF was targeting.

http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/235815-handgun-owners-facing-another-bullet-ban-bill

10 thoughts on “Handgun owners face new bullet ban bill

  1. they must be afraid of what they started … law of unintended consequences sucks , dont it?

    still dont matter what they write “laws” about .. the paper its written on, cant stop a projectile

    outlaw outlaws , and there will still be outlaws..keep pushing more people into that corner , a pissed off wild cat that dont give 2 shits about your game rules will evolve out of that , have fun

  2. Pay very close attention to the following statement from the article:
    “The Second Amendment does not give anyone the right to use a bullet that is specifically designed to pierce the protective gear worn by police officers,” Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), who is co-sponsoring the bill, told The Hill.

    I agree; the 2nd Article of our Bill of Rights DOES NOT “give” us anything…..
    It is a statement of prohibition against usurpation of our God Given Rights. We have inherent rights from our Creator, which are “un-a-lien-able”. We pronounce the word as though it has the word “alien”, though if you pronounce it as though it has the word “lien” as in “lienholder”, you will get a better understanding of the meaning intended by the writers of the Declaration, and other founding documents; that our God given rights cannot be taken or given away. No amount of legislation or force can remove (take) your rights, nor can mind control or passivity or even a willingness of the right holder allow for the giving away of a right. The term inalienable means: Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, it is yours because there is only One who could rightfully take it from you; that being the One who gave it to you to begin with.
    So my answer to Mr. Israel (Oy!) is: YES, I do have the right to use any type of weapon at all against your policy enforcers, if they have become criminal and are committing unlawful threat against myself or my Republic. The fact that they have, as a group over a long period of time, proven themselves to be a lawless gang of thugs trained to violate the Rights of the People; and of late, proven themselves to be unrestrained killers of those they supposedly serve and protect, shows that We the People MUST have every weapon of war at our disposal to defend ourselves against them.

    Any encroachment on ANY of our God-given rights is an affront to the Giver of those rights, and is a crime against the People – it should be judged accordingly (and will certainly be judged both by Man and God – there is no escape, either now or in the hereafter).

    So any time you hear one of these traitors and criminals speak of how whatever Article of the Bill of Rights “doesn’t give you the right to …x,y,z.., remember: they are correct! Our Rights are GIVEN by a higher Authority than the Bill of Rights, and the only reason those 10 Articles are attached to the contract with the servants of the People is that it is a reminder to them of the RESTRICTIONS that are placed upon them, both by The Creator and by We The People.

    God Bless the Republic;
    No king but King Jesus.

  3. What’s important to note in this article is the propaganda angle they’re using to undermine the second amendment, because that’s what you’ll have to argue against. Here, and elsewhere, their usual argument is based on the “antiquated document” angle, and the “sporting purposes” angle.

    “The Second Amendment, which I support, had well intended 18th century protections, but we live in a world with 21st century criminals….”

    This sentence raises the “antiquated document” angle, but the second amendment is timeless, because it guarantees that Americans will always have access to the arms needed to free ourselves from a tyrannical government, which duty has nothing to do with “sporting” at all. There are countless examples from history of people losing their freedom, and their lives soon after losing their right to own weapons, and that’s WHY the second amendment exists. We’re SUPPOSED to have bullets capable of killing cops, and this latest ban is another infringement. (by definition)

    “An armor-piercing bullet in a concealable handgun is not for sport….”

    This sentence relies on the “sporting purposes” argument, but as previously stated, the second amendment has nothing to do with sports, traditions, or hunting. It exists to preserve your RIGHT to revolution. Absolutely NONE of my guns were bought for “sporting purposes”.

    1. Yet another jew trying to do to us what t.h.e.y. did to 60 million Russian Christians … but … t.h.e.y. have to disarm us first. Anyone else see jews all over disarming us? Why? Is it time for the 110th?
      T=the H=hebrews E=enslaving Y=you

  4. wait until this panty waste sees the business end of an Abrams Tank muzzle pointing at him..with the words” F your laws” written on it..

    every weapon and destructive device ever made by man and owned by governments are ours to use if we decide to do so .. either it be by the spoils of war or by decree .. we own those bastards in DC and its high time they wake up to it , go a head and start your war.. but dont come crying to us when your toys are pointed back at you

    write another illegitimate law .. so F-ing what you traitors

  5. This whole argument has become pointless and a waste of breath. It comes down to the fact that the statists will not stop trying to disarm us and we will not stop defying their attempts to do so. Eventually, there can be only one outcome. They must defeat us by force or we must defeat them by force. I, personally, will no longer take note of their rantings or illegal attempts to disarm me or mine. Molon labe.

  6. “House Democrats will introduce legislation this week that would block handguns from firing any sort of ammunition that can penetrate body armor worn by police officers.“

    Why are they so obsessed with ammunition bills all of a sudden? And who cares if they penetrate armor worn by police officers. How about blocking handguns from firing any sort of ammunition that can penetrate body armor worn by WE THE PEOPLE? Huh! How about that? What makes the police so much more goddamn important than We the People? They’re pathetic.

    “The Second Amendment does not give anyone the right to use a bullet that is specifically designed to pierce the protective gear worn by police officers,” Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), who is co-sponsoring the bill, told The Hill.”

    Steve, that’s just the most pathetic statement I’ve ever heard about a gun bill yet. How do you live with yourself, really”? Talk about trying to grasp at straws.

    By the way, Steve’s last name is “Israel”.

    Seriously? How do you get a last name called “Israel” unless you are Zionist who changed it? Probably has dual citizenship, too. Hang the son of a bitch for high treason!

  7. “You don’t have to use an armor-piercing bullet in a hunting rifle,” Israel said. “That’s the point. There are other bullets you could use.”

    We don’t have to, but if we choose to, it’s NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS, @SSWIPE!!!

    INFRINGEMENT!!!!!

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.


*