Angie Craig: “If you just voted yes on the immediate past amendment that passed by a very large margin, 85 to 12, then you would vote…”

“If you just voted yes on the immediate past amendment that passed by a very large margin, 85 to 12, then you would vote no on Kennedy. It is quite simple why. He sets a new ballistic standard. He does not allow the professional to determine what is or is not armor piercing. I don't believe a Senator wants to ban from the marketplace potentially 30 percent of the kind of ammunition that is now used in legitimate hunting. That is fundamentally the issue that is at hand, to reach out into the marketplace and arbitrarily draw a line when we all know that hunting weapons, when misdirected, have the potential of penetrating soft armor and other types of armor. Are they armor piercing? No. But they have the capability of phenomenal penetration. That is why they are hunting ammunition. That is why our sportsmen use them. It is not the role of the Senate to draw that kind of line and determine what is hunting and what is not in respect to this amendment. I believe that is the underlying basis of the Kennedy amendment. I ask that the Senate oppose it and vote no.”