Explaining the .30-30 ban to laymen - Relevant to current election

[wacki]

What is the worst part of the .30-30 ban?   Here's the actual vote which shows Obama voting for this thing:


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217

And this seems to be the worst clause in my eyes:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:1:./temp/~r109d6NxTJ:e20749:

        (1) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.--Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
        (A) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;
        (B) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; or''; and
        (C) by adding at the end the following:
        ``(iii) a projectile that--
        ``(I) may be used in a handgun; and
        ``(II) the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor.''.

Given that the Thompson Contender can shoot just about any rifle round, just about all rifle rounds would  qualify under section C.  To the general and naive public this could seem like an honest mistake.  Is there  language in the .30-30 ban that is either more transparent or less gun friendly then this quote?

Thanks.

[mpthole]

This is old news.  We're currently in the 2nd session of the 110th Congress.  I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near active anymore.

[wacki]

This is old news.  We're currently in the 2nd session of the 110th Congress.  I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near active anymore.

Obama voted for this bill, this is not old news.  Obama claims that he respects and wants to protect the rights of hunters.  Many on this forum claim that Obama is about as anti-gun as you can get.  I'm simply sifting through the evidence as hearsay is worthless.

[Manedwolf]

This is old news.  We're currently in the 2nd session of the 110th Congress.  I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near active anymore.

Do you not understand who one of the candidates is? Do you not think he'd dig it up and reanimated it and send it shambling out once again?

Because CRIME...is a PROBLEM. And we ALL need to WORK to SOLVE it. These WEAPONS belong on foreign BATTLEFIELDS...not on our STREETS. *applause, fainting fans...*

[MechAg94]

To take your sarcasm seriously for a moment:  We ARE working to SOLVE crime.  That is why we are NOT in favor of further gun control as it has been shown to have nothing at all to do with reducing crime.  If Obama and others weren't ignorant of the subject and intellectually lazy, they would know that.  If solving crime were their goal, they would work on motivating and helping those big city prosecutors and police to do their jobs better, not conducting an exercise in scare tactics.   


A guy I know recently had a compressor stolen right out of his driveway when he was home.  All his neighbors had was a description of the car used.  Earlier this week, a local officer made a stop, recognized the car description, started asking questions, and was able to get the guy to admit that he was one of them that did it.  Now, how many of you think that sort of thing would have happened in a big city?  Would the police even have shown up to file a report?  Would other officers have even paid attention to it much less had the vehicle description in mind later? 

[Manedwolf]

That wasn't even sarcasm, just an impression of the sort of speech Obama would give. Can't you just hear that in his delivery?

Also, he's not ignorant. Tackling actual crime means some tough admissions about certain inner-city cultures, and also serious efffort. Soundbite solutions are easier. It's also always been easier to punish the law-abiding, since they won't bite back.

[longeyes]

Also, he's not ignorant. Tackling actual crime means some tough admissions about certain inner-city cultures, and also serious efffort.

+1

Obama and his ilk will talk about everything but what really needs to be talked about.  He'd rather blame the paranoia of his white grannie than face some ugly truths about toxic behavioral patterns.

[Ieyasu]

Wacki,

The Kennedy amendment would appear to exempt ammo that has a "sporting purpose." Ie., deer hunting ammo would probably be exempt, but FMJ ammo would probably be endangered. Here's a link to the relevant code: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000921----000-.html

See 17(C):
"The term armor piercing ammunition does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device."

[Manedwolf]

Wacki,

The Kennedy amendment would appear to exempt ammo that has a "sporting purpose." Ie., deer hunting ammo would probably be exempt, but FMJ ammo would probably be endangered. Here's a link to the relevant code: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000921----000-.html

See 17(C):
"The term armor piercing ammunition does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device."

FMJ and HP as well. I would expect they'd do what Mexico did, and ban all "military calibers". That means every AR would become a pretty paperweight unless you either reloaded old brass, or bought a new upper.

[Ieyasu]

HP's would be "okay" if they're commonly used for varmint hunting, however since I have no expertise or experience in that area, I couldn't say whether they are commonly used for that.

[wacki]

Wacki,

The Kennedy amendment would appear to exempt ammo that has a "sporting purpose." Ie., deer hunting ammo would probably be exempt, but FMJ ammo would probably be endangered. Here's a link to the relevant code: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000921----000-.html

I highly doubt any deer hunting round would pass the paragraph I quoted thanks to the Thompson Contender.  Given that Kennedy's introductory speech specifically named the .30-30 I suspect 17(C) was simply meant to disarm the uninitiated or as an out for those that received political fire at a later date.

[Manedwolf]

HP's would be "okay" if they're commonly used for varmint hunting, however since I have no expertise or experience in that area, I couldn't say whether they are commonly used for that.

These are people who actually published a bill that exempted "level-action" rifles, and that had a sponsor that called a "barrel shroud" "the thing that goes up".

You really think they care if their definitions are changed later to suit an all-bans purpose?

[Ieyasu]

I highly doubt any deer hunting round would pass the paragraph I quoted thanks to the Thompson Contender.  Given that Kennedy's introductory speech specifically named the .30-30 I suspect 17(C) was simply meant to disarm the uninitiated or as an out for those that received political fire at a later date.

You need to look at the code as it is written, in its entirety, in context. As written, 30-30 hunting ammo could not be outlawed.

Now, would that stop an AG from trying to ban them anyway? That is a different issue.

The point I made, is the law as written and proposed, specifically exempts ammo used for sporting purposes, whether it penetrates vests or not (and of course it does) and whether it can be fired from an existing handgun.

Therefore we would not be correct in claiming the Kennedy amendment would have banned the use of 30-30 calilber Winchester rifles. That is simply not true. More accurately, the amendment was an end-around attempt at enacting an "ASW" ban.

[mek42]

I take it that the CMP competitions wouldn't be considered a "sporting purpose"?  Isn't FMJ required for certain service rifle competitions?

[Ieyasu]

Good point. That sounds like a sporting purpose. (Until Obama forbids civilian participation [sarcasm, sorda] )

[Manedwolf]

Good point. That sounds like a sporting purpose. (Until Obama forbids civilian participation [sarcasm, sorda] )

The mayor of Toronto wants to close all shooting ranges "because the sport causes violence" in the streets. These are ranges for Olympic competitors, mind you.

Think it won't happen here?

[longeyes]

I would expect they'd do what Mexico did, and ban all "military calibers". That means every AR would become a pretty paperweight unless you either reloaded old brass, or bought a new upper.

I would think that would be exactly what couldn't be banned under the "barbarous relic" of the Second Amendment.  Of course, the 2A is a living, breathing thing--I tend to forget that sometimes.

After this last SCOTUS decision I am getting a bit tremulous about the upcoming Heller ruling.  Let's hope the Court doesn' t go for a June "two-fer."

[Ieyasu]

Think it won't happen here?

They don't have freedom of speech in Canada either.

As far as what I think will or won't happen here is irrelevant to the point I've been trying to make.

However, as an aside, 15 years ago I thought our gun rights would have been eroded far more than I expected.  I dare say, on the whole, we've made slight gains since then. Of course that doesn't mean things couldn't start getting worse again... real fast.

[Scout26]

To take your sarcasm seriously for a moment:  We ARE working to SOLVE crime.  That is why we are NOT in favor of further gun control as it has been shown to have nothing at all to do with reducing crime.  If Obama and others weren't ignorant of the subject and intellectually lazy, they would know that.  If solving crime were their goal, they would work on motivating and helping those big city prosecutors and police to do their jobs better, not conducting an exercise in scare tactics.   


A guy I know recently had a compressor stolen right out of his driveway when he was home.  All his neighbors had was a description of the car used.  Earlier this week, a local officer made a stop, recognized the car description, started asking questions, and was able to get the guy to admit that he was one of them that did it.  Now, how many of you think that sort of thing would have happened in a big city?  Would the police even have shown up to file a report?  Would other officers have even paid attention to it much less had the vehicle description in mind later? 

HERETIC !!!!   You'll be one of the first to one of the new Obamaducation Centers.

[Tallpine]

The Kennedy amendment would appear to exempt ammo that has a "sporting purpose." Ie., deer hunting ammo would probably be exempt, but FMJ ammo would probably be endangered.

Wow, so more deadly expanding ammo (banned in warfare) would be legal, while FMJ that a person might actually have a slight chance of surviving would be banned


I really think we need to publicize some sort of dreadful ammo-less gun that never needs loading, and see if the Idiot Antis will ban it 
(sorry about your toy gun, junior  )

[gunsmith]

Now, how many of you think that sort of thing would have happened in a big city?

Stop clinging to your guns and religion!

[Tallpine]

Guns are my religion 

Still waiting for the second coming of Sam Colt 

[Manedwolf]

Guns are my religion 

Still waiting for the second coming of Sam Colt 

I thought people were waiting for the plans for the Browning 2011 to be revealed in a ray of light and blast of trumpets on the 100-year anniversary?

[Gewehr98]

I thought people were waiting for the plans for the Browning 2011 to be revealed in a ray of light and blast of trumpets on the 100-year anniversary?

Damn straight, Skippy!

Just a couple more years to go...

[wacki]

The Kennedy amendment would appear to exempt ammo that has a "sporting purpose." Ie., deer hunting ammo would probably be exempt, but FMJ ammo would probably be endangered.

Wow, so more deadly expanding ammo (banned in warfare) would be legal, while FMJ that a person might actually have a slight chance of surviving would be banned

Heh, this is ironic.  Hague convention vs. Ted Kennedy

Gotta love it