SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: Devil505 On: Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:44 pm

pvolcko wrote:And to be clear, I support a number of reasonable, sensible restrictions on gun ownership and gun use.


Then you & I share the same opinion & it is only the "What is Reasonable" question that will cause the unavoidable court cases. (plus I admit to some prejudices as a former law enforcement agent)

2 Examples: (Limitations I would favor that the NRA opposes)

1. I feel there is no legitimate reason to make armor piercing (body armor piercing) bullets available to the general public.
2. I see no legitimate need for very large capacity magazines for either self-defense or sport purposes. (where you draw the line is debatable but with the Columbine Killings & the like, the danger to the public far exceeds the legitimate need for these magazines, imo.......If forced to pick a number...I'll say 14 rounds)

Just threw those out for discussion sake.
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: pvolcko On: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:49 pm

My first reaction is that I have no major quarrel with a mag capacity limit. Your suggestion of 14 rounds would be about the most restrictive I'd "let slide" without starting to rail against the man. :) That said, I have no particular problem with 20 or 30 round mags either. :) And then I start thinking a bit more about it: School shootings and other mass killing incidents are not a good reason to impose limits as far as I'm concerned. In most cases the perps stole the weapons or purchased them illegally and they usually bring multiple guns and/or multiple mags/clips. The VT shooting, for instance, involved multiple guns and multiple low and mid cap mags. I don't remember the details of columbine, but I'd be surprised if there were high cap mag (15+) involved and if they were that they were a significant contributing factor given use of multiple weapons, reloading times as they roamed the school, and the presence of propane canister bombs (that thankfully failed). To me mag cap limits something of a non-issue. If one is intent on shooting a group of defenseless, trapped people one is going to bring enough stolen and illegally attained firepower to accomplish the task, whatever the mag cap limit is. Same goes for professional armed criminals taking a bank or an armored car or robbing a store or whatever. It doesn't matter what the restriction is, those intent on mass murder or serious violent crime will ignore the laws and do what it takes to get it done.

But, like I said, I can give a bit here. 14 is in the range I'd peg it. Much less and I start arguing. :) Maybe split the difference and say 12 round and under, available to all comers. 13 and up, purchasable with a background check?

Armor piercing round bans raises a red flag for me right off the bat. I need you to give some examples of what rounds you are talking about. Especially helpful would be defining a round or two you think are just on or barely over the line and which rounds are just under the line you'd like to set. This is an area, like the .50cal ban I mentioned before, where what on its face can seem reasonable often turns out to be a broad, unreasonable ban of common firearms and ammunition types. I have to admit some ignorance on what rounds are considered armor piercing. I could rattle off some tv and movie ammunition names that were armor piercing, but for all I know they made the names up or "embellished" the actual capabilities of some real world round. If you could name some examples it would help.

Would you consider FMJ .223/5.56 or some other .223 bullet variant to be an armor piercing round? Probably the most popular round out there besides 30-06. Among the cheapest centerfire rounds available. And as far as I know it can defeat some types of body armor (particularly older types). What's the AK round? 7.62 or something like that? Would that qualify? Is it only fully jacketed variants of the suspect calibers that you're concerned with?
pvolcko
 

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: Devil505 On: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:16 pm

pvolcko wrote:Would you consider FMJ .223/5.56 or some other .223 bullet variant to be an armor piercing round? Probably the most popular round out there besides 30-06. Among the cheapest centerfire rounds available. And as far as I know it can defeat some types of body armor (particularly older types). What's the AK round? 7.62 or something like that? Would that qualify? Is it only fully jacketed variants of the suspect calibers that you're concerned with?




I'm by no means an expert on munitions Paul & would not worry so much about the caliber of the round so much as it's construction & purpose. I found a nice little description of various rounds here .. http://counterstrikefox.freeservers.com/bullet.htm

& he describes what would concern me as:..."One bullet type that I did not put up there is Armor-Piercing. Armor Piercing is different from regular bullets in that it has a penetrator inside the bullet that is made of a metal denser than lead - steel and tungsten are common penetrator types. Armor Piercing bullets are generally illegal to import into the U.S., except for certain types, including the SS109 AP 5.56 bullet."....
I see no lawful purpose or need for such a bullet to be generally available for sale.
(I always used alternating FMJ & JHP rounds at work & still load my 9mm with that mix)
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000


Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: pvolcko On: Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:43 pm

I'd be concerned with the wording and ultimate potential scope of the law. In principle I have no objection. I do think there are some legitimate private uses for them, but I can see how the occasion of needing such a round in a home or land defense or hunting situation would be exceedingly low and outweighed by the uncontrolled distribution and sale of them and their being used by criminals against cops. So long as the law is written to be as narrowly confined as possible, worded so there is little to no room for interpretation such that common bullet types and calibers and loads are banned, I could agree to it. The devil would be in that wording and the details of the proposed law.
pvolcko
 

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: Richard S. On: Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:10 am

From my understanding a standard 30.06 is going to go through most body armor. There's different levels and only the higher ones provide protection against a round like that. I believe the standard protection starts at 9mm, .45 and other typical handgun rounds, the next one up will stop assault rifle rounds like a AK-47 and after that are the ones that will stop large hunting rifle calibers like a 30.06 . I'd imagine most of your law enforcement is not going to have that level of protection. I really don't know though.

A "armor piercing" round is typically made of hard metal so it keeps it shape providing maximum energy at the point of impact. A regular bullet is softer, ironically you're better off getting hit with a armor piercing round if you don't have a jacket on because it does less damage. It keeps it shape instead of fragmenting into pieces. It's more likely to go right through you, providing it doesn't hit anything vital you'll most likely survive with very little damage.

So take your choice, possible death with a armor piercing round with a vest on or certain death from a regular round without a vest on.

Personally I don't see the point of having them for personal defense unless the bad guys start wearing vests themselves. I want something that makes a little hole on entry and leaves a basketball size hole on the other side. ;) That's not to say I agree with a ban either , I'm just being practical. In any event any ban won't prevent these rounds from making there way into the general publics hands. It will just go underground and they'll be sold on the black market or made by people themselves.
Richard S.
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: Devil505 On: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:11 am

Richard S. wrote:There's different levels and only the higher ones provide protection against a round like that. I believe the standard protection starts at 9mm, .45 and other typical handgun rounds, the next one up will stop assault rifle rounds like a AK-47 and after that are the ones that will stop large hunting rifle calibers like a 30.06 . I'd imagine most of your law enforcement is not going to have that level of protection. I really don't know though.


I've been out of law enforcement for a while Richard so my info may be a little dated in re the increased level of violence on the streets today. That being said, most officer involved shootings involve handguns & handgun caliber ammunition, so that is what most police armor is designed for. (There are the rare instances....like the North Hollywood shootout where the bank Robbers had fully automatic AK-47's (loaded with armor piercing rounds) & body armor but thankfully that is very rare)I don't think it will ever be possible to design body armor that would be effective against rifle caliber ammunition that will also be light enough, cool enough & allow enough dexterity where most police officers would even want to wear them on a regular basis. (Don't forget, to be effective for uniformed street cops, body armor must be worn for their entire shift, often in very hot humid weather) Even law enforcement personnel that only need body armor occasionally (Detectives & most Federal Agents) would most likely prefer not to wear any, if it was hot and uncomfortable.( Body armor only provides a certain level of protection anyway, leaving some vital parts of the body totally exposed ie .....neck, face & head)
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: coaledsweat On: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:31 pm

I don't think there is any practical body armor that will stop a 30-06. It will go through about 1/2" of steel plate.
coaledsweat
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260M
Coal Size/Type: Pea

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: gambler On: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:19 pm

I don't think there is any practical body armor that will stop a 30-06. It will go through about 1/2" of steel plate.


You don't even need a 30-06 because a 50 gr 22 cal hunting bullet fired at 3900-4000 fps from a 22-250 or 220 swift will make a deeper hole in steel than a 30 cal hunting bullet traveling 2900 - 3000 fps.
I have shot completely through a 3/8 thick leaf spring with a 50gr sierra blitzking bullet. That is the same bullet that will not exit a ground hog at 75 yards. It just turns the insides of the ground hog to soup.
gambler
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Leisure Line
Stove/Furnace Model: Pioneer

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: pvolcko On: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:41 am

See, this is what I'm concerned about. Common bullets that have plenty of legal application being caught in the snare of a restriction on AP ammo. Particularly when it would have little to no effect on officer deaths or the general safety of the public. The Hollywood shootout guys would have gotten the armor piercing rounds no matter what, as would any "serious" criminal (drug dealers, bank robbers, car jackers, etc.).

If you're wanting to prevent "casual" violent criminals from getting access to them, I have to ask, "What is the point?" First, such a casual criminal is likely going to handgun and as far as I know most states (at least those likely to enact this kind of ban) already have laws where a permit needs to be presented in order to buy the handgun ammo legally. It's far more likely they will buy an illegal handgun with a small supply of ammo (possibly whatever was in the gun when it was stolen), have no permit, and only be able to get ammo on the blackmarket when AP rounds will be available regardless of the laws. Second, the (labeled, purpose specific) AP rounds are higher priced rounds. That deters and limits their purchase right off the bat to those that either have a justifiable use and can only use them, or to those few permit holders who have a premeditated criminal intent who are either well off idiots who don't know better or know they really need them and would have gotten them on the blackmarket anyway. Third, if a permit holder is going to commit a premeditated crime with a handgun, they too are likely to buy an unregistered, illegal handgun to commit the crime so as to avoid anything tracing back to them. Again, they're on the blackmarket at that point and will have access to the illegal rounds no matter what.

So we're only going to be significantly impacting 2 relatively rare types of criminal: 1) A permit holder, using his own gun in a premeditated crime, who is anticipating and preparing and willing to make the leap to cop killer. 2) A permit holder, who has a legitimate use for the AP round who engages in a spur of the moment crime of passion using his own weapon and ammunition supply who will encounter a cop and be willing to kill him.

For this vanishingly small group of troublesome criminals we will enact a ban on AP rounds, open the interpretive door to politicians, lawyers and judges willing to engage in some "evolving standards" logic to broaden the scope of the ban to include bullets not reasonably intended to be covered, enable the gun control advocates and politicians to use the ban as a stepping point for the next ban and the next ban, and deny the use of these rounds for those few legitimate civilian purposes that exist.

I'm sorry, I think I've just talked myself out of supporting your proposal, Devil. :)

Once you get past the first blush reasonableness of the proposal, I think you're left with two things underlying its proposal by gun control groups and politicans. First, it is a "feel good" measure designed to sound nice on TV sound bites which, because of the phraseology and ignorance of guns and ammunition in the general public (and even here among those who have some level of experience) will be very difficult to oppose politically. Second, when the ban has no measurable effect on the number of shooting deaths of cops it will be used as evidence of the need to widen the ban to other types of ammo and guns. Alternatively, when criminals still use the AP rounds in a crime after the ban is passed, it will be used to justify a new round of dealer and distributor regulation, a renewed attempt to hold ammo and gun makers civilly and/or criminally liable, and more ammo bans.

I wouldn't put it past the politicians to use a "success" as evidence for more bans. Imagine a cop shot with a standard hunting round after the ban goes into effect. They'll get on TV and say, "The bullet used in this crime was not an AP round when it might otherwise have been, however this tragic death has brought into sharp relief the increased the use of far deadlier rounds, designed for maximum wound size and killing capability. We have to redouble our efforts by expanding the ammunition ban to include some more bullet types that are just as dangerous or more so than the AP rounds. For example frangible bullets and so called hollow point bullets, designed to create massive wound cavities and inflict maximum carnage in the victim, must be at the top of the list. The fight is not over, we must make our cities and states safe by ridding ourselves of these miniature tools of death designed for maximum killing capability." It isn't a stretch. They already have laws in place in some locations to restrict the purchase of certain "dangerous" types of rounds (typically handgun ammunition) or have brow beaten retailers into dropping gun and ammo sales entirely. And the usual suspects have been trying for years to ban frangible ammo.

Devil, you proposed this idea. I hope you find this request reasonable: Can you make the case that it will make a significant difference, can be worded to not impact these common types of ammunition, can be worded to not fall prey to "evolving standards" judicial interpretations as an end around on the common ammo types concern, and not be a momentum building stepping stone for more, less reasonable bans of other ammunition and/or guns?
pvolcko
 

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: stoker-man On: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:54 am

In Lehigh County, PA, which encompasses the city of Allentown, and probably in most parts of the state, getting a concealed weapon permit is as easy as going to the courthouse. You must not have a criminal record, 3 references, about $35 and they're good for 5 years. The only reason needed is "self-protection" and if you carry different weapons for different occasions, you don't even have to list any specific type of pistol carried.
stoker-man
 
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: 1981 efm wcb-24 in use 365 days a year
Coal Size/Type: Anthracite/Chestnut
Other Heating: Hearthstone wood stove

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: Devil505 On: Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:14 am

pvolcko wrote:Devil, you proposed this idea. I hope you find this request reasonable: Can you make the case that it will make a significant difference, can be worded to not impact these common types of ammunition, can be worded to not fall prey to "evolving standards" judicial interpretations as an end around on the common ammo types concern, and not be a momentum building stepping stone for more, less reasonable bans of other ammunition and/or guns?


I'll try Paul:

I think we'll all agree that hard-core criminals, willing (sometimes Eager) to kill innocent bystanders & cops are always going to get what ever weaponry they desire are virtually impossible to deter with any kind of gun/ammunition ban. Luckily, as were the North Hollywood bad guys, they are a rarity.
My concern is with the kids & mentally ill who are usually suicidal & tend to steal weapons from friends/family & go on a revenge massacre out of the blue, at school, work or crowded shopping malls. If certain types of weapons, magazines & ammo were illegal, they would not be generally available to this type of individual & thus lives may be saved. I have never bought into the "stepping stone for more" laws argument for being against an otherwise good law anyway.
Just as society realizes that driving a car is inherently dangerous & therefore enacts laws to try to lessen that danger, firearms are a danger & require the same kind of reasonable restrictions. It's all a trade-off anyway:
The individual's right to enjoy/protect himself vs our collective right to defend ourselves & I just don't feel that the desire of a few people to possess particularly dangerous equipment, of questionable & limited legal use, offsets our collective right of self-defense in such a crowded society.
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: coalkirk On: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:50 pm

IMO, gun laws do not work. D.C and Chicago have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the counrty and are amoung the highest for gun violence. How much gun violence is there in Allentown where you can apparently walk into the court house and get a carry permit?
coalkirk
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Harman VF3000
Coal Size/Type: antrhcite/rice coal

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: Richard S. On: Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:08 pm

It's just as easy where I live, the shootings that do occur are either criminal on criminal violence that are usually transplants from the inner city or crimes of passion. A crime that involves a gun where the victim is truly innocent is very rare here, to tell you the truth off the top of my head I can't think of one in many years. Nor do I recall any shoot outs with police. Allentown is little bigger but I'd imagine the gun violence there is pretty similar.
Richard S.
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: Devil505 On: Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:14 pm

coalkirk wrote:MO, gun laws do not work. D.C and Chicago have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the counrty and are amoung the highest for gun violence. How much gun violence is there in Allentown where you can apparently walk into the court house and get a carry permit?


If you look at the big picture, I think gun laws do work by simply making many of the most dangerous types of weapons unavailable for the average juvenile or mentally ill person. Just take the scarcity of fully automatic weapons as an example: If such weapons were as readily available as a 12 gauge shotgun, & had gotten into the hands of the sicko kids at Columbine, how many more innocent kids would have been gunned down?
Are gun laws always a perfect deterrent? Of course not
Do they save some lives? Yes
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

PostBy: Devil505 On: Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:20 pm

Richard S. wrote:A crime that involves a gun where the victim is truly innocent is very rare here, to tell you the truth off the top of my head I can't think of one in many years.


You are very lucky Richard to live in a relatively peaceful area of the country. In most large cities, truly innocent (often children) people are regularly gunned down, almost on a daily basis in the summer.
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000