General Categories > General Firearm Discussion

ATF to reclassify armor piercing ammo

<< < (8/25) > >>

FarmerRick:
Those in the BATFE can, and do, interpret anything they want in any way they care to. Letters from a few thousand pissed-off gun owners will not change that fact.

Our only hope at this point is to get a person in the White House who actually respects the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment and will appoint people to AG, etc. that will do the same and roll back a few of these ridiculous restrictions.

I'm not holding my breath.  :(

depserv:
I've seen it pointed out a few times that these bullets won't penetrate any body armor that can't be penetrated by other and still legal (so far) 5.56 bullets.  And the shorter barrel of (what is legally defined as) a pistol has to make them even less capable of penetrating armor.  Given that and other considerations, there is no doubt that ATF bureaucrats are using a law that never should have been written, to outlaw as much ammo as they can get away with outlawing.  This is just one more example of Obama and his team of traitors doing as much damage as they can to the Republic before he leaves office. 

To whatever extent sporting use language is used in any gun control law, that law is illegal, according to both the Miller and the Heller decisions, because those decisions both made clear that sporting use is not what the right is about.  So why is that language still being used?

I want to know if the Republicans who were given control of both houses of Congress are going to just sit back and let this crime be committed.  I know their power is limited, but they are not impotent.  Unless they choose to be.  It's up to us the voters to ask them, because otherwise they would much prefer to just bow down and kiss the hand of those who seek to be our masters.

Mudinyeri:
The specific wording of what defines "armor piercing" is in my article on Trek Tech Black: http://trektechblack.com/batfe-seeks-ban-m855-ball-ammunition/

For those who can't access TT Black, for whatever reason:


--- Quote ---the definition of a prohibited “armor piercing” projectile is a “projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely … from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, berylium copper or depleted uranium.”
--- End quote ---

Mali:
Good video with a clear discussion regarding the situation, how we go there and what to do next:

GreggL:
Here is a copy of an email I sent off to our congressional reps. except Ashford from dist. 2, his system wouldn't accept my email because I am out of his district!
This should be of interest to Sen. Fischer as it is contrary to her Sportsman's Act which in part is aimed at avoiding restricting sportsmen's choice in ammunition.
Dear,
I would like to encourage you to contact the ATF in regards to the ATF considering reclassifying M855 Ball ammo on the basis
that it is now possible to use this ammo in pistol configurations of the AR platform.
Firstly, although there are now pistols that can use this ammo I do not see that in itself changing the intended use at manufacture.
Secondly, that ammo fired from a pistol length barrel will have less muzzle velocity than when fired from a carbine or rifle length barrel
rendering it less effective as an AP round.
Furthermore, The Federal Government defines AP ammunition in 18 USC sec. 921(a)(17).
Definition
(17)(A) The term “ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.
(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means-
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.
Please note: the bullet (projectile) must have a core made entirely out of the metals listed above, or be a full jacketed bullet with a jacket weighing more than 25% of its overall weight. This means that the SS109/M855 bullets wouldn’t be covered, as their cores are partly steel, and partly lead. Lead isn’t listed in the metals above.

I see this as a direct violation of the 2nd ammendment as well as restricting sportsmen’s ammunition choices – such unnecessary constraints drive up hunting costs, impede participation in shooting sports, and consequently decrease conservation funding thus, it is counter productive to the Sportsman's Act recently introduced by Senator Fischer.
Thanks for your consideration,
Gregg L

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page