Defensive Carry banner
1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
582 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A member from Wisconsin alerted us to a bill we somehow missed, AB221 introduced May 29, the bill essentially bans civilian use of hollow point ammunition stating:

'Whoever intentionally sells, transports, manufactures, or possesses any hollowpoint bullet, bullet that expands or flattens easily in the human body, or bullet with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions is guilty of a Class H felony'

Proposed Wisconsin Gun Law AB221 - American Gun Owners Alliance

Not sure the chances it has with only three sponsors though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,858 Posts
You gotta beat that bill down Wisconsin!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
This sure shows that people purposing this bill have no clue as to what they are talking about
 
  • Like
Reactions: Patti

·
Registered
Joined
·
314 Posts
Speechless. The "special" people who dreamed this up must prefer bullets to zip through their targets and hit innocents, among other things.
This was my first thought: Doesn't a hollow point expand, thereby reducing the possibility of over-penetration and hitting an innocent bystander? Wouldn't FMJ target loads actually penetrate, do less damage to the attacker, and have a greated chance of hitting a bystander upon exiting?

Heck, my PD ammo is 124 gr. hollow point while my target loads are as much as 147 gr. FMJ: I'm sure those would penetrate and strike whoever is behind the BG.

And I have a question after reading the text of the bill. The bill reads that penalties include a max of 6 years imprisonment, but IF you are guilty of this "crime" while committing another crime, the violation of this bill adds a max of 5 years to your prison sentence for the other crime. Am I reading that right? Why wouldn't it add six years? So if you use hollow points when robbing a liquor store, you get an additional five years, but if you're pulled over for speeding or whatever, and the cop asks to examine the bullets in your gun, you'll get six? I must not be reading that right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
597 Posts
I know two of the three who proposed it are definitely not gun fans.

Risser is 86 years old and has been in the Wisconsin govt as Assemblyman or State Senator since...get this...1957.

He is also one of the 14 State Senators that left Wisconsin during the tough budget negotiations in 2011 as to avoid a vote on Gov. Scott Walker's proposed reforms.

Sinicki is a former PTA President and former Milwaukee School Board member. Been in Assembly since 1998.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,329 Posts
Looks line I'll have to restart development of the .90 AMP (Automatic Maxwell Pistol) round.

Seriously, where do they get these idiots? Do they honestly think the best way to combat violent crime is to make sure victims get shot with FMJ instead of hollowpoints?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
This bill is going nowhere because Democrats do not control either chamber of the legislature. It already experienced some beat down when it was pointed out that gun deer hunting would essentially be banned since hunters could not use expanding rounds. A number of co-sponsoring Democrats from Milwaukee had to get hasty "We didn't mean to ban deer hunting. We never looked to see what was in he bill" excuses issued after winding up with egg on their face. Simply, it is the blind rage we hate guns self-pleasuring proposal for the base.

The biggest lesson is that all Democrats that get voted into office are going to be gun banners. Yes, all Democrats. Those like Petit, Begich, Heidkamp, and Baucus are endangered species headed for extinction. Bloomberg's efforts aside, the Democrat purity purge on guns has been going on for a while now. Banning guns is now only second to abortion in the liberal orthodoxy and nearly as sanctified. You cannot even trust ones like those named above because they can pull a Manchin once they ate safe for 5 more years having the "change of heart". If you vote for a Democrat,national, state, or local, you are voting for someone that wants to restrict the 2nd Amendment. Look at all the state proposal since Newtown, even those that went nowhere like this proposal, or the WA sheriff annual inspection, or MO confiscation proposal, etc.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,981 Posts
Idiocracy

(noun) : a state of having or accepting social norms that are very basic, naive, or unintelligent; a form of government in which a country or territory is run by fools
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
It's not idiotic at all. If you look at it from the perspective of a legislator who wants a complete ban on all firearms, a la the UK, Austrailia, and Canada, there is a clear motive. In there minds, ANY restriction is a good thing. Any rule against ammo, a type of weapon, or more hurdles to purchase or ownership of firearms is a step in the "right" direction. The only goal is to implement some sort of limit, regardless of it's actual impact. Truth is irrelevant. They can create a great emotional case that hollow points are "deadlier" and therefore should be restricted, after all they are even banned by the Geneva Convention for use in combat, right? Consequences are not important if a restriction can be imposed. The consequences can be dealt with later. Call it "common sense gun control" and millions will flock to the cause, no matter how stupid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
Yeah...appease them....tell them ok..you're right...hollow points are tooooooo dangerous ....we need to go back to lead bullets....thatall fix em.....heeheeheeheehee
That's certainly not what I'm saying. I'm saying these people are certainly not idiots. They have an agenda and will seek to use whatever means they can to implement it. Logic and consequences are irrelevant since it's all a step toward the greater good as they see it.

Writing them off as ill informed or stupid doesn't help defeat the agenda.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
It's not idiotic at all. If you look at it from the perspective of a legislator who wants a complete ban on all firearms, a la the UK, Austrailia, and Canada, there is a clear motive. In there minds, ANY restriction is a good thing. Any rule against ammo, a type of weapon, or more hurdles to purchase or ownership of firearms is a step in the "right" direction. The only goal is to implement some sort of limit, regardless of it's actual impact. Truth is irrelevant. They can create a great emotional case that hollow points are "deadlier" and therefore should be restricted, after all they are even banned by the Geneva Convention for use in combat, right? Consequences are not important if a restriction can be imposed. The consequences can be dealt with later. Call it "common sense gun control" and millions will flock to the cause, no matter how stupid.
Good point. If they were truly worried about the safety of ccw shootings in public they would attempt to ban fmj, though both are unconstitutional IMO.
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top