Writing over at Culpable Stew, Aaron Klemz read my piece earlier this week, and flew into a violent, petulant rage, throwing things and losing control of his bodily functions and making bystanders wonder if he had some serious medical condition.

(I figured I’d shut down the left’s “so and so had a cow…” “argument” once and for all).

Anyway, Klemz thinks he’s got me (and Gary Gross) on my “cop-killer bullet” story from earlier this week – the bill written by Ted Kennedy that would have given the Attorney General the power to determine which bullets were “cop-killer” bullets.   The bill got shredded, losing by about a 2:1 margin.

Klemz’ rationale?  The language protects us!

But here’s the thing, in both Gross’ piece and Berg’s attempt to pile on, they love to cite legislative language except for the section which mandates exactlyhow the Attorney General will determine which ammunition is armor piercing (that would be section 926(d)):

Enh. I saw it. It didn’t change anything.  But here it is, with emphasis added:

(b) DETERMINATION OF THE CAPABILITY OF PROJECTILES TO PENETRATE BODY ARMOR–Section 926 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:“(d)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against Body Armor Exemplar.

“(2) The standards promulgated under paragraph (1) shall take into account, among other factors, variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired and the amount and kind of powder used to propel the projectile.

“(3) As used in paragraph (1), the term `Body Armor Exemplar’ means body armor that the Attorney General determines meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.”

Back to Klemz:

Oh, you mean they’ll actually have to do objective tests? And that these standards, like all regulatory determinations, will be subject to oversight from the courts? And you mean that this determination is made in comparison to “standard ammunition?” Oh, and you mean that not only does the ammo have to be actually armor piercing according to objective tests, it has to be also “designed and marketed as having armor piercing capability?” That’s some “stroke of a pen.”

And this amendment failed nearly 2 to 1?

Yeah.  Proof that Congress isn’t always stupid.

There are two ways to look at any piece of legislative language; from the perspective of one who takes government language at face value and trusts government to act on the intent spun for legislators, and from that of someone who actually pays attention to history.

Liberal Attorneys General and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms (and now Explosives!) that report to them have a shameful record of manipulating gun control laws to maximize their control and the number of otherwise law-abiding gun owners they can prosecute under some grounds or another.

So if you are a liberal who looks at phrases like “shall promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles” and says “Look! Standards!  In writing!”, then you are ignorant of the BATFE’s history.  During the Clinton Administration, the BATFE took the “standards” for importing firearms set under the 1994 “Crime Bill” and perverted them into a byzantine maze that seemed to be designed to entrap people who tried to be law abiding gun owners, but didn’t make a hobby of reading federal non-legislative regulation.  The “standards” observed during the “assault weapon ban” were…well, non-standard.  They made no sense.  Full-powered battle rifles like the HK91 would be allowed if they had a “thumbhole” sporting stock, while the less-powerful SKS would be banned because…it had a folding bayonet?  The rules were kept intentionally vague, and changed often, largely (it was believed) to entrap more law-abiding citizens – because it was almost impossible to stay ahead of the BATFE and the Attorney General’s “standards”.

And the “armor-piercing bullet” “standard” is, if anything, even more prone to abuse; your 30.06 hardball that you take deer hunting might be armor-piercing (because it’ll definitely shred most body armor), or it might not (because it’s pretty conventional), or it might be above certain loadings and muzzle velocities, or it might be any of the above depending on the “standards” the AG sets and – most importantly – the way the BATFE interprets the “standards”.

The bill lost 2-1 not because Republicans hate cops (as Klemz slanderously hints), but because of the record of the BATFE and, by extension, the federal government and setting standards like this.

(Klemz, with typical sorosblogger subtlety, entitles his “article” “Defending Cop Killer bullets, because that’s what they do”.  Well, no.  Unlike the Dems, the GOP has always proposed the laws that actually protect cops, and the rest of us too.  Of course, while Dems like Dayton are at the moment running away from their gun-control history, once you get them into places where they have complete control, like Chicago, we see the real truth; Liberals really hate  cops or black children).

(Isn’t the “disagreeing with me is a symptom of hatred” thing just a hoot?)