Do you think that ammo capable of being fired out of a handgun and piercing armor should be available to civilians?
Short answer - Yes.
Long answer - Much like recent advances in genetic science has blurred the lines between species, the line between a 'handgun' round and a 'rifle' round is a blurred one.
Just look at the .22LR round. The LR stands for "Long Rifle", but I'd guess half the ammo is used in handguns today. Why not? You get a light cheap plinker, and can have 8 or even more shots in a revolver that still fits your hand.
Moving up in power, take the .45ACP round. "Automatic Colt Pistol", so it's a handgun round, right? Except that last time I went deer hunting I did so with a gent who had a semi-automatic rifle chambered in that round. Called a "Carbine", it's a shorter rifle. While he wouldn't be able to make long range shots with it, the .45 ACP ammo does gain a substantial amount of velocity with the extra length of barrel, and becomes a substantial deer rifle in wooded, mountainous terrain where the shots are relatively close. The lower recoil allows him to make fast, accurate follow up shots.
Now let's look at the opposite end. The
.50BMG has had a handgun made that fires it. There are AR pistols chambered in .223/5.56. Lever action guns in .22, .357, and .44. Revolvers that chamber the .30-30. Etc...
This very fact has been used to ban ammunition normally chambered in rifles in other legislation, because the act has no wording to exempt the occasional wierd handgun.
Another problem is that it talks about ammunition capable of penetrating body armor without specifying the class of armor. As others have noted, Level 1 bodyarmor doesn't stop much as is.
Last, it says 'ammunition capable'. What happens if a future Attorney General that's markedly anti-gun, proceeds to load 9mm(plenty of handguns in this caliber!) into a carbine and shoot it at a level 1 vest? The extra 150 fps can make quite a difference. Ump, almost all 9mm is banned, much less all the rifle cartridges out there. Might even manage to get a penetration with a .22LR out of a rifle.
It was a very bad piece of legislation and I'm glad it died. Still, I look at whole records - and Obama has managed to get a reputation for having never seen a gun control bill he didn't like.
Finally - Do the Police really NEED this protection? At the cost of stomping on all of our rights? I'd tend to say no - a career as a police officer doesn't even make the top 10 list for most dangerous professions. Pilots, Loggers, Fishermen, all have a drastically higher chance of dying on the job than a police officer. More officers are killed with their own weapons than are killed through their body armor - whether that be by defective vest or facing a weapon that it's not rated to handle, such as a rifle.
