from the GFWs, take a look:
Therefore, a useful strategy for effective control may lie in civil litigation, a strategy that would be enhanced if states passed legislation clearly establishing strict liability for damages resulting from the use or misuse of such weapons. Such litigation could impose tort liability, including punitive damages, for manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, importers, retailers, and any others who participate in bringing to the civilian market any sniper rifle (in any caliber) or associated gear (such as ammunition or optics) that is used to kill or injure a human being or to damage property.
People with VPC and the Brady Group To Ban Firearms Ownership have been calling scoped hunting or target rifles 'sniper rifles' for years. So anything they figure they can link to 'military use' will be officially a 'sniper rifle'. And please note the 'any caliber' part; gee, doesn't that cover a lot of territory? And 'ammunition or optics'. Match ammo like the Federal Gold Medal that's been used by US snipers? Gone. Those match bullets that you can use to load your own? Bye-bye. And just what all could 'associated gear' be used to cover? Hmmmm?
The existing ban on armor-piercing ammunition should be updated and expanded to cover all AP and API ammunition. This would most effectively be accomplished through the promulgation of a performance standard in which ammunition is tested for its ability to penetrate bullet-resistant vests, ballistic glass, and armor, as opposed to the existing standard based on the bullet's content.
As the gentleman points out, most 'bullet-resistant' armor is designed to stop handgun bullets, not rifle: so just about every bullet used in medium- and high-power rifles for any purpose would be banned. Including, I'll bet, a lot of cast bullets.
Think about it next time Obama mentions 'not taking guns away from hunters'. Or any other of the GFWs says they don't want to take away 'hunting and sporting guns'.